Covid-19

[ThunderHorse]

Ze Media dat attacked ze people who stood up for theys rights is nows witing artikls 'bout how ze maks was worfless.

Opinion | The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?

Dear blu anons, where I'm gonna need my pound of flesh and satisfaction from you. Thank you for causing greater strife amongst families and friends you pieces of shit.

 

[Devildoc]

Viruses in general can cause heart issues- the scale of these happenings, however, was a statistical anomaly until COVID. More succinctly- until COVID and the vaccine. Strange how we aren’t going to be able to separate those two cohorts very well and figure out exactly which is which.

As to your intent of the overall comment- this is exactly why people should be righteously furious. There were no long term studies on side effects. You’re in the study now, if you have the vaccine.

It would not be a hard study: Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after COVID? Did you have the vaccine? Yes? Leg A of study. Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after COVID? Did you have the vaccine? No? Leg B. Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after vaccine (no COVID)? Yes? Leg C. Etc.

If you are looking for nothing but numbers, this is an easy study. I would be surprised if they don't have this going on, somewhere, now.

 

[amlove21]

It would not be a hard study: Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after COVID? Did you have the vaccine? Yes? Leg A of study. Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after COVID? Did you have the vaccine? No? Leg B. Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after vaccine (no COVID)? Yes? Leg C. Etc.

If you are looking for nothing but numbers, this is an easy study. I would be surprised if they don't have this going on, somewhere, now.

I would agree with you if your study existed in a vacuum where people were honest, doctors and people conducting the study were honest, the people who were funding the study weren't financially incentivized to fund an outcome that they want/need.

It's taken 3 years and some counties are still recommending indoor masking due to people in the hospital for hip surgery WITH covid and not BECAUSE of COVID.

 

[RackMaster]

I would agree with you if your study existed in a vacuum where people were honest, doctors and people conducting the study were honest, the people who were funding the study weren't financially incentivized to fund an outcome that they want/need.

It's taken 3 years and some counties are still recommending indoor masking due to people in the hospital for hip surgery WITH covid and not BECAUSE of COVID.

We're still at mandatory indoor masking in all medical facilities. Had to take my 5 year old to see his pediatrician, in an area hospital and even he had to wear one. The cafeteria is still closed and every other table blocked off for "social distancing". Meanwhile as we walk around and look into offices, no one is wearing a mask. The pediatrician and his secretary (behind Plexiglas still), weren't wearing one until we entered the exam room.

 

[Muppet]

We're still at mandatory indoor masking in all medical facilities. Had to take my 5 year old to see his pediatrician, in an area hospital and even he had to wear one. The cafeteria is still closed and every other table blocked off for "social distancing". Meanwhile as we walk around and look into offices, no one is wearing a mask. The pediatrician and his secretary (behind Plexiglas still), weren't wearing one until we entered the exam room.

It's all fucking theater bro. Same thing here. It's why I don't wear em in hospital. I just had GI surgery last Monday, 0530 at hospital, wife and I. She wore one, I did not. 1 person asked me to put it on, I told them to go about their business.

When I'm working, I don't wear em in ERs.

 

[Devildoc]

My building is non-clinical, and about a quarter of people wear masks. I do wear one across the street at the hospital because I need my job. But when I am a patient over there, depending on where I am, I may not. I do in the cancer center where almost everyone has, like, one white blood cell circulating and are super-prone to infection; but then, I did that over there pre-COVID.

 

[Muppet]

My building is non-clinical, and about a quarter of people wear masks. I do wear one across the street at the hospital because I need my job. But when I am a patient over there, depending on where I am, I may not. I do in the cancer center where almost everyone has, like, one white blood cell circulating and are super-prone to infection; but then, I did that over there pre-COVID.

Agreed. I'm just over the false theatrics and will resist. It's principle for me.

 

[Devildoc]

Agreed. I'm just over the false theatrics and will resist. It's principle for me.

I respect that. Everyone needs to know when they can have their own Tiananmen Square moment.

When I am teaching, I don't wear one. Our rules are something like under 10 people no mask requires, 11 or more then a mask is required. I argue that it is arbitrarily set and since our building is non-clinical I won't do it. So far my boss hasn't said anything. I think if I was an asshole about it she'd say something.

 

[Muppet]

I respect that. Everyone needs to know when they can have their own Tiananmen Square moment.

When I am teaching, I don't wear one. Our rules are something like under 10 people no mask requires, 11 or more then a mask is required. I argue that it is arbitrarily set and since our building is non-clinical I won't do it. So far my boss hasn't said anything. I think if I was an asshole about it she'd say something.

See, that's my point as you know. Does rona not exist at 10 or under? Mysteriously, appears at 11 plus? Lol

It's same as plexiglass everywhere. Rona won't go above or around it, stops just at the glass.

Or, when walking into restaurants. You had to wear it walking to seat. Take it off, put it on to stand/walk. What a fucking joke.

A year in, I had a mask with the word, placebo. Wore it into a restaurant. Was asked to remove mask.

My response? Wait, it's a fucking mask. Now, you want me to remove it because you don't agree with the word? Fuck you.

Wife and I left. Wife was mad I caused a scene.

 

[Devildoc]

See, that's my point as you know. Does rona not exist at 10 or under? Mysteriously, appears at 11 plus? Lol

It's same as plexiglass everywhere. Rona won't go above or around it, stops just at the glass.

Or, when walking into restaurants. You had to wear it walking to seat. Take it off, put it on to stand/walk. What a fucking joke.

A year in, I had a mask with the word, placebo. Wore it into a restaurant. Was asked to remove mask.

My response? Wait, it's a fucking mask. Now, you want me to remove it because you don't agree with the word? Fuck you.

Wife and I left. Wife was mad I caused a scene.

Or > 6 feet vs < 6 feet in 'social distancing', or...or...or...

 

[Topkick]

My response? Wait, it's a fucking mask. Now, you want me to remove it because you don't agree with the word? Fuck you.

From the get-go our Sheriff and Police Chief said they would not respond to calls about masks. So back when Covid was a thing, went to a local box store. They had a worker stationed outside telling people to put on a mask before entering. I told them Nah, call the sheriff, and walked on in. In my corner, prolly 50% of people never wore masks.

 

[TLDR20]

It would not be a hard study: Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after COVID? Did you have the vaccine? Yes? Leg A of study. Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after COVID? Did you have the vaccine? No? Leg B. Do you have cardiac issues? Did they occur after vaccine (no COVID)? Yes? Leg C. Etc.

If you are looking for nothing but numbers, this is an easy study. I would be surprised if they don't have this going on, somewhere, now.

They have something similar.

Outcomes at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study

Notice the rates of myocarditis or pericarditis are still significantly lower in vaccinated people than random viral pericarditis.

 

[amlove21]

They have something similar.

Outcomes at least 90 days since onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study

Notice the rates of myocarditis or pericarditis are still significantly lower in vaccinated people than random viral pericarditis.

I would agree with you if your study existed in a vacuum where people were honest, doctors and people conducting the study were honest, the people who were funding the study weren't financially incentivized to fund an outcome that they want/need.

It's taken 3 years and some counties are still recommending indoor masking due to people in the hospital for hip surgery WITH covid and not BECAUSE of COVID.

"MEO reports a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). BC reports a Clinical and Translational Science grant from NIH and
participation on the data and safety advisory board for Astellas. EBW reports a grant from Moderna, Pfizer, Sequiris, and NIH, and participation on the data and safety advisory board for Vaxcyte and Iliad Biotechnologies."

"The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided financial support for the CDC authors’ salaries and project materials."

This is what's frustrating. the study, paid for by the CDC, makes the conclusion that COVID (and not the CDC approved vaccine, one that the organization misled the American public about over and over) is responsible for a higher rate of myocarditis than the vaccine.

 

[TLDR20]

"MEO reports a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). BC reports a Clinical and Translational Science grant from NIH and
participation on the data and safety advisory board for Astellas. EBW reports a grant from Moderna, Pfizer, Sequiris, and NIH, and participation on the data and safety advisory board for Vaxcyte and Iliad Biotechnologies."

"The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided financial support for the CDC authors’ salaries and project materials."

This is what's frustrating. the study, paid for by the CDC, makes the conclusion that COVID (and not the CDC approved vaccine, one that the organization misled the American public about over and over) is responsible for a higher rate of myocarditis than the vaccine.

Who is supposed to fund these things man?

The fact that they are investigating it should be an indicator that it is an issue worth investigating.

 

[amlove21]

Who is supposed to fund these things man?

The fact that they are investigating it should be an indicator that it is an issue worth investigating.

That's an interesting point, and I agree that we should be investigating it.

There are plenty of studies (meta data and the like) floating around on this board that have been mocked and shamed as "not good enough" for one reason or another- too few people, mask compliance, character assassinations about individual docs involved, the platform they were published on... the list goes on. The Florida myocarditis data. The mask studies. Vaccine efficacy. Whether or not the doc went on Rogan and said something someone did or didn't like. Weren't there studies that supported covid emerging from a wet market? Know who they were funded by?

Your question begs the question that I think anyone should fund these studies, at all. I don't think anyone should be able to fund them because it introduces obvious bias on behalf of entities who are actively lying to promote their own self interest. However, that's not the world we live in, so I will go for some reciprocity.

If we are going to live in a world where someone can take a 5 minute look at a huge set of data and just legitimately dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit their perceived world view, then I can look at who funds a study and decide if that product can be tainted due to their obvious bias.

 

[Devildoc]

That's an interesting point, and I agree that we should be investigating it.

There are plenty of studies (meta data and the like) floating around on this board that have been mocked and shamed as "not good enough" for one reason or another- too few people, mask compliance, character assassinations about individual docs involved, the platform they were published on... the list goes on. The Florida myocarditis data. The mask studies. Vaccine efficacy. Whether or not the doc went on Rogan and said something someone did or didn't like. Weren't there studies that supported covid emerging from a wet market? Know who they were funded by?

Your question begs the question that I think anyone should fund these studies, at all. I don't think anyone should be able to fund them because it introduces obvious bias on behalf of entities who are actively lying to promote their own self interest. However, that's not the world we live in, so I will go for some reciprocity.

If we are going to live in a world where someone can take a 5 minute look at a huge set of data and just legitimately dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit their perceived world view, then I can look at who funds a study and decide if that product can be tainted due to their obvious bias.

You absolutely should look at who funds it, and you should also look for the section near the end of the study with disclosures.

To be fair, it's perfectly legit for someone paid by a company to publish research and it be free of bias. That happens all the time too. But when I look at research I look at funding, disclosures, and sources. I follow that with conclusion, methodology, and sample size.

 

[amlove21]

You absolutely should look at who funds it, and you should also look for the section near the end of the study with disclosures.

To be fair, it's perfectly legit for someone paid by a company to publish research and it be free of bias. That happens all the time too. But when I look at research I look at funding, disclosures, and sources. I follow that with conclusion, methodology, and sample size.

I am having a hard time (me personally, this isn't some weird backhanded knock on anyone) getting over the fact that legit every one of these organizations has lied to everyone and cost lives. I don't know how many lives, I can't say that their behavior cost millions or anything like that: but I know it's not "zero".

To then just accept that fact as it stands and say, "Yeah, for sure- these people have a history of lying, cheating, stealing, misinforming, disinforming, malinforming- but I am just going to accept that and then really dig into this data" is madness to me. I am sure the rabbit will like this one- you can't even verify the study took place or connect real people and outcomes to this study, you just like the data.

The guy that invented mRNA technology is on a world tour of saying the exact opposite of what that study says, "big pharma" is throwing billions at making sure studies don't get published and "big tech" is helping all along the way to make sure the general public can't access the best information out there.

It's squarely in the "fool me once, shame on me" territory- and what time are we on now? So for all those reasons, I am taking all information with a grain of salt until we can actually get some transparency and truth in reporting. We don't have it.

ETA- cause I haz dum sometimes

 

[Devildoc]

I am having a hard time (me personally, this isn't some weird backhanded knock on anyone) getting over the fact that legit every one of these organizations has lied to everyone and cost lives. I don't know how many lives, I can't say that their behavior cost millions or anything like that: but I know it's not "zero".

To then just accept that fact as it stands and then go on to go, "Yeah, for sure- these people have a history of lying, cheating, stealing, misinforming, disinforming, malinforming- but I am just going to accept that and then really dig into this data" is madness to me. I am sure the rabbit will like this one- you can't even verify the study took place or connect real people and outcomes to this study, you just like the data.

The guy that invented mRNA technology is on a world tour of saying the exact opposite of what that study says, "big pharma" is throwing billions at making sure studies don't get published and "big tech" is helping all along the way to make sure the general public can't access the best information out there.

It's squarely in the "fool me once, shame on me" territory- and what time are we on now? So for all those reasons, I am taking all information with a grain of salt until we can actually get some transparency and truth in reporting. We don't have it.

There are two parallel issues. The first is your post. And I don't disagree with any of it.

The second is research. Out of all the articles that get printed there are probably 20 that never see the light of day; and of all journal articles (or research, whatever you choose to call it), COVID is a small fraction.

I have never told anyone to blindly believe conclusions of any research or journal article; legit articles, legit researchers, actually want people to dig into the data and numbers to either support or refute the conclusions. I tell people and students I train to do the same, especially on qualitative research. When I educate new clinicians or new educators we go to evidenced-based, peer-reviewed data, because that's what supports what we do. When we go to the archives we review articles in the way I described earlier.

One of the real tragedies that came out of the COVID debacle is that people pile research, data, and journals into the all-or-none category; they are all right, or they must all be met with the same degree of skepticism, and they all have some nefarious, underlying hidden agenda. believe it or not, most just are just seeking answers to a question, regardless of where the data lead. The shitty ones have made it bad for all of us.

 

[amlove21]

There are two parallel issues. The first is your post. And I don't disagree with any of it.

The second is research. Out of all the articles that get printed there are probably 20 that never see the light of day; and of all journal articles (or research, whatever you choose to call it), COVID is a small fraction.

I have never told anyone to blindly believe conclusions of any research or journal article; legit articles, legit researchers, actually want people to dig into the data and numbers to either support or refute the conclusions. I tell people and students I train to do the same, especially on qualitative research. When I educate new clinicians or new educators we go to evidenced-based, peer-reviewed data, because that's what supports what we do. When we go to the archives we review articles in the way I described earlier.

One of the real tragedies that came out of the COVID debacle is that people pile research, data, and journals into the all-or-none category; they are all right, or they must all be met with the same degree of skepticism, and they all have some nefarious, underlying hidden agenda. believe it or not, most just are just seeking answers to a question, regardless of where the data lead. The shitty ones have made it bad for all of us.

Totally agree. I think the only difference between you and I is hope for the institutions. I have none, it seems- but that's totally a "me problem".

 

[Devildoc]

Totally agree. I think the only difference between you and I is hope for the institutions. I have none, it seems- but that's totally a "me problem".

I DO have hope. I love it when these scam articles and junk science and fake data are outed; it will make us more critical of research in the future, better clinicians, researchers, and educators, and less accepting of the status quo.