Dr Peter McCullough
He might be a fraud. AlthoughI have been repeatedly surprised that ivermectin has not been recognised yet, below is the same bloke John Campbell who praises vaccines (above) giving praise and publicity to ivermectin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYF8bnmdQfY
I believe both ivermectin and jabs are valuable medicines in the struggle with covid19. The raw data records in VAERS or the Yellow Card system cannot be regarded as information, and you have been duped, I'm sorry to tell you. It may be the case the vaccines do produce a small number of serious side-effects but these have to be looked at in the context of how much serious illness and death has been prevented by the vaccines. Please refrain from exaggeration, it only greatly weakens you case.
Back in Sept 2020 we were doing about 200,000 tests per week. Now we're doing 4x more tests per week.
So maybe they're finding twice as many 'mild symptom' or even asymptomatic cases and this is confounding the data. Perhaps if we were testing like we were in Sept '20 we'd only be finding half the number of cases and the hospitalisation rate would be the same.
Now, I don't believe that this could account for all of the effect -- I do believe that the vaccines help protect the vulnerable and result in a significant reduction in hospitalisation (my problem is that mass vaccination with an imperfect vaccine against a highly mutable target is a recipe for vaccine escape).
But it just goes to show how difficult it is to make direct comparisons given that we're being fed crumbs of information and that the full dataset that might (or might not) help support different hypotheses isn't being made available.
The difference is even more stark with the newest data.
The protection against servere covid19/hospitalisation even against the indian/delta varient ois between 85% and 88%, as this plot shows:
Screenshot 2021-06-14 at 21.34.21.png
My advice, get jabbed, FFS!
There are, of course, the 1,296 jab-related deaths (1 in 31,000) plus unknown long-term effects, but I will put that to one side for the moment.
We would need the figures for hospitalisations due to some of the 922,596 adverse reactions from the jabs in the Yellow Card Reports to come to any conclusion on net hospitalisation. Boris said today that admissions had gone up but did not qualify them as covid. I smelled a rat there (well, two in total actually).
Then also, Dr Peter McCullough in an interview with Reiner Fuellmich estimates that 85% of the covid deaths in the USA could have been avoided if there had been nearly stage treatment with a variety of safe and cheap medicines such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. And one need only look at what happened in India since ivermectin was approved. Deaths and cases reduced drastically. Another advantage was that it kept the BBC away!
It is quite clear that big pharma is using its influence to block these treatments. There is money in the jabs - and possibly a lot more in terms of a power grab. So, whether one is pro or anti these jabs, there are cheaper, proven alternatives.
Countering with some actual information, instead of misinformation.
1. The implication that reported vaccine related deaths, is the same as actual vaccine cased deaths is obviously incorrect and misleading. If you think otherwise, show your justification for causation
2. hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are not supported by reliable data as effective treatment against covid. The maker of ivermectin specifically says so. Neither are approved by sensible medical regulatory bodies.
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
3. The conspiracy theory makes no sense and is just bizarre. Why would Merck conspire against itself?
The vaccines have done pretty much what was expected, shifted the spectrum of disease down to lower severity.
Serious illness is now moderate.
Moderate is now mild.
Mild is now asymptomatic.
More accurately, mRNAs are likely stopping almost all symptomatic disease whereas AZ is merely reducing it.
Ultimately if our end game was hospitalisations (remember protect the NHS...) its over - we've done. Finished.
However,if the goal either by deliberate policy or by accident is "zerocovid" we haven't won and never will as our vaccine choices mean we can never reduce infection by much.
I suspect whether it realises it or not, the government is following the second path.
I'll try to show what difference vaccine has made.
John Campbell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJrfPFTk3pU
claims it has lessened the link between cases and severe illness. To back his belief, he had shown this graph:
Screenshot 2021-06-12 at 15.19.27.png
The first row show the number of "cases" observed in a week in september 2020, while the third row shows the number of people admitted to hospital a week later. The figures are 2838 cases versus 243 admissions,i.e. equal to 9% of cases detected the week before.
To make the contrast Campbell, on the second row he gives the number of "cases" observed in recent a week in May 2021, while the last row shows the number of people admitted to hospital a week later. The figures are 2744 cases and 108 admissions. i.e. equal to 3.9% of cases detected the week before.
Hence, in the period after vaccination the number of cases is down a few percent while the number admitted (compared to cases detected) is down to only to 44.4% of what might have been expected before vaccination.
Thus it looks like vaccination greatly reduces pressure on the health service. And that is the difference vaccine has made.
There is a problem in the data as presented, as it presumes that the definition of 'cases' is the same for both time periods.
This sounds reasonable until you notice that there were 200,000 tests per week in September 2020 vs almost a million a week now. In addition, our approach of surge testing in breakout areas should also identify relatively more asymptomatic cases.
Thus it could be that their 'cases' includes more asymptomatic or very-mild cases in the graph for this wave. As a result, it could be that the hospitalisation rate is actually the same as it was, for a given 'infection severity'.
This just goes to show how careful you need to be with statistics.
All that said, I believe that the vaccines are still offering a reasonable level of protection.
The problem I have with them is that universal vaccination in allowing the virus to have much more exposure to the vaccines, leading to increased selection pressure to evolve to evade them. If we'd only vaccinated the vulnerable we'd have had had most of the benefits we currently see in terms of reduced hospitalisations and deaths, but we'd have had less risk of things getting materially worse for the vulnerable next winter.
