Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Breccia]

if you're attempting to slag someone off without giving them a fair deal

I'm not. He had his fair deal. He threw it away.

Also you claimed he could explain things in detail. This is false. He lied, he got caught, the article simply pointed it out. If he lied calmly and articulately, good for him, he still lied.

Also when you said the article was a hit piece, slanted and biased, cherry picking? Yeah, that's just flat-out false. He was caught trying to push COVID misinformation. That misinformation was put in the article. You don't arrest jurors for sending convicted criminals to jail, because there's a difference between incarceration and kidnapping. There is similarly a difference between "hit piece" and "article that accurately shows someone is lying".

By the way, you're defending COVID misinformation. And it's not me saying it, it's places like the New England Journal of Medicine saying it. I'm just pointing that out. If you have a problem with it, talk to them.

By the way, the COVID misinformation pusher you're defending? (Yes you are) He's free to defend his words by researching and publishing a paper that defends them. Until then, it's him giving the opinion and everyone else backing the facts and science.

Also the guy tried to use a vaccine as a stimpak. He caught COVID, COVID did permanent damage, he took the vaccine, the permanent damage didn't go away, he blamed the vaccine. I mean, even you know that's not how vaccines work, why are you so quick to take his side on this? Do you even know what medical school he got his PhD from?

- - - Updated - - -

Journalists rarely have expertise in the topics they cover, because they're journalists, not experts in the field.

That's why they're generally called investigative journalists and get sources who are experts.

Indeed, this is why I'm leaning on "banned from NEJM". Because they are experts, and they do have expertise in the field. And they banned his ass. And @Bigbazz conveniently forgot to comment on that. It wouldn't matter if he did, though, (a) I'm still believing them over him, and (b) by his own logic I cand handwave "Bigbazz has no medical expertise" and he's forced to accept that. One person's ignorance does not equal another's information.

[Forogil]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59848160

Damn not Antarctica.

As noted in the article they actually had outbreaks of Covid-19 before - at a Chilean research station about a year ago.

Thus it seems the place covid hasn't spread to so far is space.

- - - Updated - - -

Hospitalization and mortality per case for Omicron is much lower than Delta. However, the damn thing is so infectious that the sheer number of cases still lead to high rate of hospitalization. We are not seeing the mortality increasing YET.

Omicron is also stressing the hospitals in another way at the moment, as many in the staff are infected or in quarantine (due to Omicron) - and you need staff to run a hospital.

In the end, the vaccines are still the best bet against hospitalization and death.

Yes.

As previously stated it's like wearing seat-belts, they don't prevent the car from crashing - but they reduce the risk of serious consequences. (Except that vaccines are better.)

- - - Updated - - -

When you look at any information about MRNA vaccines you see his name come up.

Others have talked about all the important misinformation, so I thought it best to clarify the less important part:

Moderna's stock ticker is MRNA, they are the ones who makes the Spikevax covid vaccine looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine does not show the name of Dr. Malone.

The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech are based on messenger RNA, mRNA for short, that 'm' is lower case, since it is "just" an RNA molecule with a specific purpose.

Except that the mRNA vaccines don't actually use RNA - but have substituted one letter so it is technically modRNA, nucleoside-modified messenger RNA, I don't know if he contributed to that at all.

[Bigbazz]

Moderna's stock ticker is MRNA, they are the ones who makes the Spikevax covid vaccine looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine does not show the name of Dr. Malone.

The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech are based on messenger RNA, mRNA for short, that 'm' is lower case, since it is "just" an RNA molecule with a specific purpose.

Except that the mRNA vaccines don't actually use RNA - but have substituted one letter so it is technically modRNA, nucleoside-modified messenger RNA, I don't know if he contributed to that at all.

He had nothing to do with the COVID vaccines, he is credited with developing the MRNA technology in the 1980s. Ge got banned from twitter for retweeting some anti-vax medical website's analysis of Pfizers official data where their interpretation anc conclusion was based on deaths in each group during the trials. I haven't read it in detail, nor have I watched the video, but the headline was not favourable. I don't support that, because they have just found a way to present the data that fits their message, it's no better than the opposite side when they are lying. Either way, in the end it's just an opinion piece interpretation on official data.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I posted here only because of the ridiculous "ship off the anti-vaxxers and let them die" posts. I saw an article that danced around the truth at every turn to make him look like a lunatic. He has some ideas and theories that people are obsessed with ridiculing but when I heard him talk he was only basing his "statements" of facts on hard science. Articles mostly take his "ideas and theories" expressed as thoughts and opinions and then pull them out of context to make him look like a nutcase.

Same with the guys above, they are sensationalising parts of the story to make them sound more ridiculous, he didn't take the Vaccine expecting it to work like World of Warcraft healing potion. That's just a ridiculous take. His whole battleground is informed consent, and pushing back against companies not being transparent about risk factors.

[PhaelixWW]

he is credited with developing the MRNA technology in the 1980s.

No.

He's not credited with that.

I haven't read it in detail, nor have I watched the video

Then you really don't have a leg to stand on in a debate about his credibility, do you?

I saw an article that danced around the truth at every turn to make him look like a lunatic.

You still haven't posted how the article makes "him look like a lunatic", nor how the article "danced around the truth".

He has some ideas and theories that people are obsessed with ridiculing

Because they're factually inaccurate, as evidenced by many, many studies.

Articles mostly take his "ideas and theories" expressed as thoughts and opinions and then pull them out of context to make him look like a nutcase.

If only some of his theories make him look like a nutcase, then that's still more than there should be.

His whole battleground is informed consent, and pushing back against companies not being transparent about risk factors.

And yet his theories about this supposed risk factor have been debunked.

[Bigbazz]

Case study on pulling things out of context, misrepresenting and dancing around the truth and general denial just above.

[PhaelixWW]

Case study on pulling things out of context, misrepresenting and dancing around the truth and general denial just above.

Yeah, so you don't have a meaningful rebuttal. About what I expected.

[caractacus]

Case study on pulling things out of context, misrepresenting and dancing around the truth and general denial just above.

It's the same old strategy I'm afraid. Expert speaks out against the crisis narrative; throw epithets at them like "far right" and "anti-vaxxer", twist their words and change descriptions in order to discredit them then ban them from public platforms.

I'm not sure why people would want to foster an environment that promotes vaccine positivity but then also suppresses any voices warning of potential risks, it sounds like the opposite of scientific enquiry to me. As I said previously, it appears Japan are doing an excellent job on the vaccines rollout. They have warnings on the labels, are encouraging people to report any side effects then investigating thoroughly, trying to be as open as possible and they have a very high take up.

It's funny, a few pages back they were saying how there are no vaccines mandates or camps, yet when you speak out against them they jump on you.

[unfilteredJW]

It's the same old strategy I'm afraid. Expert speaks out against the crisis narrative; throw epithets at them like "far right" and "anti-vaxxer", twist their words and change descriptions in order to discredit them then ban them from public platforms.

I'm not sure why people would want to foster an environment that promotes vaccine positivity but then also suppresses any voices warning of potential risks, it sounds like the opposite of scientific enquiry to me. As I said previously, it appears Japan are doing an excellent job on the vaccines rollout. They have warnings on the labels, are encouraging people to report any side effects then investigating thoroughly, trying to be as open as possible and they have a very high take up.

It's funny, a few pages back they were saying how there are no vaccines mandates or camps, yet when you speak out against them they jump on you.

Playing victim for pushing falsehoods is lazy.

[Lenonis]

I'm not an anti-vaxxer,

No but you are an anti vaxxer apologist who is defending misinformation. That's just as bad. And as I said shoo.

- - - Updated - - -

Expert speaks out against the crisis narrative

you folks sure do love to ignore just how many people have died during this apparent non crisis.

suppresses any voices warning of potential risks,

taking about infertility and mutating dna isn't talking about potential risks. It's writing science fiction. And it's getting people killed.

They have warnings on the labels, are encouraging people to report any side effects then investigating thoroughly, trying to be as open as possible and they have a very high take up.

In the US you get a sheet when you get the vaccine that talks about the risks before you get it. It also includes a way to report adverse events.

Another fine concerned citizen white knighting for anti vaxxers. How lovely.

[Breccia]

some anti-vax medical website's analysis of Pfizers official data

Why, that sounds like a hit piece. By your own logic I therefore handwave it, and you have nothing left.

[Lenonis]

Nope its the travelers who are spreading the virus and getting people killed. Travelers are the one spreading the disease all around the world. Stop putting the blame on wrong people.

Uh. How about all of the above? Travelers, anti vaxxers, misinformation spreaders are all making this worse.

[Edge-]

Expert

It's interesting how y'all seem to hate experts and smart people until, usually, some lone, fringe source starts saying something you agree with and then suddenly it's everyone else "ignoring the experts". Even if every other expert in the field is agreement that the lone, fringe source is wrong.

[unfilteredJW]

It's interesting how y'all seem to hate experts and smart people until, usually, some lone, fringe source starts saying something you agree with and then suddenly it's everyone else "ignoring the experts". Even if every other expert in the field is agreement that the lone, fringe source is wrong.

This is by design.

[Forogil]

Same with the guys above, they are sensationalising parts of the story to make them sound more ridiculous, he didn't take the Vaccine expecting it to work like World of Warcraft healing potion.

I don't get him - he wants credit for developing the vaccines, while saying that the vaccines are bad for many, but he thinks vaccines would be good for him - except then they weren't, so therefore they are bad?

For the specifics: Taking the vaccine after you have had covid isn't totally bonkers - as there have been reports suggesting that it may help with long covid - https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief.../15/long-covid - it's just that that wasn't a double-blind study so it may just be the placebo effect. There might be more studies (such as https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3868856 - but that one seems even more problematic).

The advice so far seems to be that you might as well take the vaccine even if you suffer from long covid, at least you are less likely to get covid again.

[Breccia]

Taking the vaccine after you have had covid isn't totally bonkers - as there have been reports suggesting that it may help with long covid - https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief.../15/long-covid - it's just that that wasn't a double-blind study so it may just be the placebo effect. There might be more studies (such as https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3868856 - but that one seems even more problematic).

Oh, well I retract my "stimpak" statement from earlier since it's apparently an ongoing question.

[caractacus]

I don't get him - he wants credit for developing the vaccines, while saying that the vaccines are bad for many, but he thinks vaccines would be good for him - except then they weren't, so therefore they are bad?

For the specifics: Taking the vaccine after you have had covid isn't totally bonkers - as there have been reports suggesting that it may help with long covid - https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief.../15/long-covid - it's just that that wasn't a double-blind study so it may just be the placebo effect. There might be more studies (such as https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3868856 - but that one seems even more problematic).

The advice so far seems to be that you might as well take the vaccine even if you suffer from long covid, at least you are less likely to get covid again.

Have you listened to the Joe Rogan podcast? I believe that's what he says, that there were early reports that the vaccines could help with long covid so that's was one of two reasons why he took it (I can't remember the other). I also don't think he suggested that vaccines are bad for "many" I think he is just concerned about potential risks, especially those for children

I'm not sure it's a case of he wants credit, I think he is credited, at least his name is on several patents as I understand it and I don't think he is claiming to be the sole inventor. So if you were credited for something and then people suddenly said you weren't would you say "ok fair enough" or say "no actually I am"

[Breccia]

FDA approves boosters for 12- to 15-year-old children.

[Edge-]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=6af8d24d1d4c

Wait, was this the "hit piece" that started this nonsense?

With some kind of nonsense attempt to link current events to pre-Nazi Germany?

Edit: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/...o-claims-to-be

Huh, and apparently the guys dishonest as fuck and a repeat source of misinformation. Weird, innit?

Edit 2: Seems the Rogan fans recently found the blog post as one is in the comments talking about how nobody aspirates after vaccinating. Because we're not getting it shot into our asses because it's not juice, bros.

[Breccia]

With some kind of nonsense attempt to link current events to pre-Nazi Germany?

Yes.

Incidentally here is a list of countries with vaccine mandates.

[Bigbazz]

I don't get him - he wants credit for developing the vaccines, while saying that the vaccines are bad for many, but he thinks vaccines would be good for him - except then they weren't, so therefore they are bad?

For the specifics: Taking the vaccine after you have had covid isn't totally bonkers - as there have been reports suggesting that it may help with long covid - https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief.../15/long-covid - it's just that that wasn't a double-blind study so it may just be the placebo effect. There might be more studies (such as https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3868856 - but that one seems even more problematic).

The advice so far seems to be that you might as well take the vaccine even if you suffer from long covid, at least you are less likely to get covid again.

If I could have taken any treatment for it in early 2020 I would have, I felt off for months. And yeah I've seen a few things showing the vaccine can be worthwhile for recovery, that was part of the official advice given on mainstream news here for a while but I've not seen anything concrete to show that as truth either, it's not a point I'm gonna sit and argue either way.

He wants credit for inventing the MRNA tech, based on his research and papers from the late 1980s. If you look enough into it you can find plenty of supporting evidence to say "yes, no, maybe?" (like this guy's extensive dive into the topic Did Robert Malone invent mRNA vaccines?but in the end Nature (an actual science journal website) is giving him a fair chunk of credit, a site with far more credibility than "The Atlantic" of all places. Either way I don't think we need to die on a hill for this topic as in the end it's irrelevant, his history as a scientist in the medical field is extensive to consider him an expert without that claim.

He may have made some claims that he cannot prove and then he should not have shared them, but one retweet does not make a career. The reality is the whole frontpage of the net is setup to reject anything and everything that goes against the flow. This British Medical Journal for example is exactly why transparency is important, but talking about it is grounds for getting banned in many places, probably here too given I've already had 2 infractions.

Seems the Rogan fans recently found the blog post as one is in the comments talking about how nobody aspirates after vaccinating. Because we're not getting it shot into our asses because it's not juice, bros.

This isn't a Joe Rogan bro topic, there has been a lot of coverage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59418123 - science direct journal - platelet factor -4 - Some references here on UK gov site https://www.gov.uk/government/public...19-vaccination - Some more in this study from science.org snip

Here in the UK aspiration was always done until quite recently, it's even still in the guidelines for proper vaccine administration on the NHS website. That said, it seems to be a pretty rare occurance.