Docs and scientists of letsrun, please read this article and tell me if what he is writing about Covid-19 treatment is fake news

rojo wrote:

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

3) No one is "talking down to us". Is your ego so fragile that you won't listen to people who are experts in infectious diseases when you are not? If you get on an airplane and the lead mechanic tells the captain that everyone needs to deplane because a part is defective, do you feel talked down to? What makes you think that you have any intellectual say here about what is proper regarding this pandemic? You are not a scientist. You are not a doctor. You are not an immunologist. You are not an epidemiologist. Now, I am none of those things either which is why I respect the opinions of those who are, and I follow the majority advice which in this case is the overwhelming majority. There is no truth that you know that the medical experts (Fauci, etc.) don't know./quote]

I'm glad to hear that many people view Fauci as a brilliant scientist. I suggest he stick to the science then and stay the hell off tv , rather than seemingly appearing on every single tv show possible, often uttering statements he doesn't believe that ultimate erase faith in the CDC.

By talking down, I mean the following. Fauci says he told us not to get masks because he wanted to save them for the healthcare workers which implies we aren't smart enough to be told the truth and then restrain ourselves from buying up the supply With herd immunity, he said he knew the number of vaccinations needed for herd immunity was super high but didn't tell us that real number as we weren't able to handle it. These two things have totally undermined his credibility, permanently in many people's eyes.

We'd be A LOT better off if Fauci had done the following.

1) At the beginning said, "We don't think the public needs masks right now. There are no real robust studies showing cloth masks do much of anything and we want to save the medical-grade masks for the healthcare professionals."

2) When asked about her immunity said, "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent" instead of purposely lying about the number as described below.

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, "I can nudge this up a bit," so I went to 80, 85. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."

https://www.axios.com/fauci-goalposts-herd-immunity-c83c7500-d8f9-4960-a334-06cc03d9a220.html

rojo wrote:

414227 wrote:

Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

hoo boy, I completely agree. Which I think highlights just how poorly the messaging and influencing campaign has been. If Kory doesn't understand the basics of how to do a meta-analysis, then it should be easy for superior ideas and expertise to rise above and dominate Kory's inferior ones without any need for there to be a "smear campaign". Unfortunately, our thought "leaders" immature approach only bolstered the credibility in many people's eyes of these fringe doctors and groups and lowered their own - and I can see why.

Flagpole, your response is a fairly good example of why people have lost trust. I'm pretty much on the same side as you - I just think that the messaging has been piss poor, and how you can possibly argue that given the results of the massive numbers of "anti-vaxxers" (a term that has been used as an otherizing pejorative).

So, let me see if I can possibly help you understand... People, in general, like to be treated with dignity and respect. They want to be allowed to make their own decisions, even if it may result in the wrong decision. Do you have children? If so, what, in your experience, has worked better in achieving the outcome you desire - 1) Johnny, you dumb mother-effer, you must do this or we're all going to die (when clearly they can see that this is false), and if you don't, we're going to come after your livelihood, OR 2) Johnny, I can see how/why you might see it like that. I appreciate your perspective, but here's another way to look at it (and then explain very persuasively and patiently). See the difference? In my experience, the second is much more effective. The fact that our side can not seem to grasp this basic concept seems to weakens our entire position (because if we can't even understand that, how are we to be trusted with understanding complex things?).

Finally, you are flat out wrong about Ivrmctn. All of it was smeared. After Rogan said that he included it in his "throw the kitchen sink at it" approach, the collective response was "he took the horse de-wormer?!?!?" It could have been a great opportunity for the health professionals to provide an effective teaching moment, but no.

So, I apologize if you find my thoughts on the matter to be "a bunch of foolish crap", beneath you, and unworthy of consideration. You have not quite convinced me yet, however, that much of the fault for the hesitancy around the vaccines can't be directly attributed to the godawful way that our side has attempted (and continues to attempt) to persuade the unconvinced. The us vs them paradigm is unhelpful (duh!).

But, hey, you do you... If you're a car salesman go with the approach "if you don't buy this, you're a stupid moron that doesn't deserve a car!" and let's see how it goes! Or, if you're a clergy-person, try the tried and true "You MUST believe or else not only you are going to hell, but so are your family members, and all of us!!!", and let's witness the conversions skyrocket.

I wouldn't have thought this would have been difficult, yet here we are. It is SO WEIRD why people aren't embracing vaccines as they obviously should, right? Try to use a little introspection here. Admit that the vaccine acceptance rate hasn't been what we would hope for, and instead of just blaming the rubes and vying to make the divide worse (a lazy, relatively thoughtless, and unproductive approach), mull over how you / we could do better and be more effective.

Indeed DanM, when challenged in a pandemic, I can't believe that some doctors would actually try different treatments in order to help people. Turrible turrible doctors, those. I know if I were at the end of my rope, I certainly wouldn't want one of them on my side. Nosiree! (lol)

Amazing post. You (and I ) seem to be one of the few who really understand why people are skeptical about it all. I don't agree with their conclusions but understand why they don't trust what they are being told.

In the modern world, if an anti-vaxxer says, "There is no proof these vaccines won't have long term impacts" they are viewed as an idiot.

But if a govt official says, "There is no proof that a biologcial man has advantages in women's sports" they are viewed as a saint.

rojo wrote:

414227 wrote:

Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

hoo boy, I completely agree. Which I think highlights just how poorly the messaging and influencing campaign has been. If Kory doesn't understand the basics of how to do a meta-analysis, then it should be easy for superior ideas and expertise to rise above and dominate Kory's inferior ones without any need for there to be a "smear campaign". Unfortunately, our thought "leaders" immature approach only bolstered the credibility in many people's eyes of these fringe doctors and groups and lowered their own - and I can see why.

Flagpole, your response is a fairly good example of why people have lost trust. I'm pretty much on the same side as you - I just think that the messaging has been piss poor, and how you can possibly argue that given the results of the massive numbers of "anti-vaxxers" (a term that has been used as an otherizing pejorative).

So, let me see if I can possibly help you understand... People, in general, like to be treated with dignity and respect. They want to be allowed to make their own decisions, even if it may result in the wrong decision. Do you have children? If so, what, in your experience, has worked better in achieving the outcome you desire - 1) Johnny, you dumb mother-effer, you must do this or we're all going to die (when clearly they can see that this is false), and if you don't, we're going to come after your livelihood, OR 2) Johnny, I can see how/why you might see it like that. I appreciate your perspective, but here's another way to look at it (and then explain very persuasively and patiently). See the difference? In my experience, the second is much more effective. The fact that our side can not seem to grasp this basic concept seems to weakens our entire position (because if we can't even understand that, how are we to be trusted with understanding complex things?).

Finally, you are flat out wrong about Ivrmctn. All of it was smeared. After Rogan said that he included it in his "throw the kitchen sink at it" approach, the collective response was "he took the horse de-wormer?!?!?" It could have been a great opportunity for the health professionals to provide an effective teaching moment, but no.

So, I apologize if you find my thoughts on the matter to be "a bunch of foolish crap", beneath you, and unworthy of consideration. You have not quite convinced me yet, however, that much of the fault for the hesitancy around the vaccines can't be directly attributed to the godawful way that our side has attempted (and continues to attempt) to persuade the unconvinced. The us vs them paradigm is unhelpful (duh!).

But, hey, you do you... If you're a car salesman go with the approach "if you don't buy this, you're a stupid moron that doesn't deserve a car!" and let's see how it goes! Or, if you're a clergy-person, try the tried and true "You MUST believe or else not only you are going to hell, but so are your family members, and all of us!!!", and let's witness the conversions skyrocket.

I wouldn't have thought this would have been difficult, yet here we are. It is SO WEIRD why people aren't embracing vaccines as they obviously should, right? Try to use a little introspection here. Admit that the vaccine acceptance rate hasn't been what we would hope for, and instead of just blaming the rubes and vying to make the divide worse (a lazy, relatively thoughtless, and unproductive approach), mull over how you / we could do better and be more effective.

Indeed DanM, when challenged in a pandemic, I can't believe that some doctors would actually try different treatments in order to help people. Turrible turrible doctors, those. I know if I were at the end of my rope, I certainly wouldn't want one of them on my side. Nosiree! (lol)

Amazing post. You (and I ) seem to be one of the few who really understand why people are skeptical about it all. I don't agree with their conclusions but understand why they don't trust what they are being told.

In the modern world, if an anti-vaxxer says, "There is no proof these vaccines won't have long term impacts" they are viewed as an idiot.

But if a govt official says, "There is no proof that a biologcial man has advantages in women's sports" they are viewed as a saint.

seattle prattle wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Fauci was right though. The number was substantially higher than 70% and communicating communicating 85%, a number well within reasonable confidence intervals, was totally fine. "Aiming high" to ensure a safety margin at the bottom end is sound public policy.

I fear that is too subtle a point for him to understand. Honestly, that is what it comes down to. A bias of a few percentage points is sufficient, in his mind, to therefore start a thread with the subject line that the leading Covid health official in the United States is a "liar".

Rojo, it appears you may be getting hung up on some details and on points that may be not fully known yet or subject to change, and jumping to a conclusion that the integrity of these leaders trying to navigate a country through a health pandemic killing millions is compromised.

Is your focus in the right place?

Jefe in the CO wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I DO call them an idiot for refusing to get the vaccine, because even IF their fears about the vaccine were valid (they aren't) the risk of long-term negative effects is greater, than they falsely believe there might be from the vaccine, if you get COVID unvaccinated, AND there's the real possibility of death if you remain unvaccinated.

The constant drumbeat of how safe these vaccines are, both in the short term and long term, is disingenuous and leads to hesitancy. The truth of the matter is that we don't know if they're safe in the long term. Here's but one example of many coming out of Europe (none that I can find coming out of the US - which unsurprisingly, has one of the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy in the World):

Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination

BMJ 2021; 372 doi:

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n149

(Published 15 January 2021)

Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n149

Read our latest coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

Article

Related content

Article metrics

Rapid responses

Response

Rapid Response:

Gut Microbiome and Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine

Dear Editor

mRNA vaccine against Covid-19 has been designed to trigger an immune response to one of the surface spike proteins of the virus that enables its entry into human cells. The vaccine induces local inflammatory reactions. Recently, in Norway, 23 fragile vaccinated elders died due to common adverse reactions such as, fever, nausea and diarrhea.

Since human mucosal tissues of the gut are involved in immune response to Covid virus, adverse reactions could be due to dysbiosis of the gut commensals that change with age and personalized nutrition.

The gut microbe composition of individuals with a high intake of protein and animal fat, like the western diet, is generally dominated by a Bacteroides driven enterotype, which is the largest phylum of the gut microbiome community. Some genera of Bacteroidetes stimulate macrophages and monocytes to secrete a complex array of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IFNγ and TNFα, neurotoxins including surface lipopolysaccharides and toxic proteolytic peptides in the plasma. Secretion of these cytokines and toxins result in aberrant immune responses, involving elevated levels of circulating cytokines and immune-cell hyperactivation, thus contributing to abnormal inflammatory reactions due to cytokine storms.

Therefore, during vaccination, rectifying gut microbiome dysbiosis with prebiotic and probiotic oral supplementation might be a solution for the management of Covid-19 vaccine induced adverse reactions.

A better argument would be to state clearly, "Like with all vaccines, and based on information we have today, we believe that these Covid vaccines provide orders of magnitude better protection than the known/unknown adverse side effects of the vaccine. If you are in a high risk demographic and or just choose to remain unvaccinated, please avoid social interactions and take the following precautions listed below..." Full disclosure and consistent updates on observable science. Heavy government leadership pertaining only to at risk populations.

To support 414227's messaging premise, the childhood vaccination rate in the US was 90%. So our starting point for the vaccine hesitant was around 10% nationwide. Now that number has grown to over 50%? That's a piss poor messaging job. You goons have converted another 38% plus folks into vaccine hesitant camp. "Oh no, it's not us it's you..." Ok, whatever.

Wise Old Man wrote:

Jefe in the CO wrote:

The constant drumbeat of how safe these vaccines are, both in the short term and long term, is disingenuous and leads to hesitancy. The truth of the matter is that we don't know if they're safe in the long term. Here's but one example of many coming out of Europe (none that I can find coming out of the US - which unsurprisingly, has one of the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy in the World):

Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination

BMJ 2021; 372 doi:

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n149

(Published 15 January 2021)

Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n149

Read our latest coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

Article

Related content

Article metrics

Rapid responses

Response

Rapid Response:

Gut Microbiome and Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine

Dear Editor

mRNA vaccine against Covid-19 has been designed to trigger an immune response to one of the surface spike proteins of the virus that enables its entry into human cells. The vaccine induces local inflammatory reactions. Recently, in Norway, 23 fragile vaccinated elders died due to common adverse reactions such as, fever, nausea and diarrhea.

Since human mucosal tissues of the gut are involved in immune response to Covid virus, adverse reactions could be due to dysbiosis of the gut commensals that change with age and personalized nutrition.

The gut microbe composition of individuals with a high intake of protein and animal fat, like the western diet, is generally dominated by a Bacteroides driven enterotype, which is the largest phylum of the gut microbiome community. Some genera of Bacteroidetes stimulate macrophages and monocytes to secrete a complex array of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IFNγ and TNFα, neurotoxins including surface lipopolysaccharides and toxic proteolytic peptides in the plasma. Secretion of these cytokines and toxins result in aberrant immune responses, involving elevated levels of circulating cytokines and immune-cell hyperactivation, thus contributing to abnormal inflammatory reactions due to cytokine storms.

Therefore, during vaccination, rectifying gut microbiome dysbiosis with prebiotic and probiotic oral supplementation might be a solution for the management of Covid-19 vaccine induced adverse reactions.

A better argument would be to state clearly, "Like with all vaccines, and based on information we have today, we believe that these Covid vaccines provide orders of magnitude better protection than the known/unknown adverse side effects of the vaccine. If you are in a high risk demographic and or just choose to remain unvaccinated, please avoid social interactions and take the following precautions listed below..." Full disclosure and consistent updates on observable science. Heavy government leadership pertaining only to at risk populations.

To support 414227's messaging premise, the childhood vaccination rate in the US was 90%. So our starting point for the vaccine hesitant was around 10% nationwide. Now that number has grown to over 50%? That's a piss poor messaging job. You goons have converted another 38% plus folks into vaccine hesitant camp. "Oh no, it's not us it's you..." Ok, whatever.

Your blaming us goons who have strongly urged vaccination because the benefits outweigh the risks by many orders of magnitude, and not the goons who have argued that the vaccines don’t work and are dangerous? Seriously??

“I was inclined to be vaccinated, but then the govt failed to sufficiently message well on the extremely low risk of an adverse outcome with the vaccine. I was so offended to be condescended to like this, I’m now refusing to be vaccinated. If they had told me that it would reduce my risk of dying from Covid by 90%. BUT yes, there is a 1/many many thousands chance of a serious vaccine related complication, then of course I’d get vaccinated!!”

C’mon….that’s bs.