4 ms·

> When I see doctors who have 5-7 more years of studies in the field than me lining up for the vaccine that is a useful signal. Let me share some similar signa

by forcry 5y ago

> When I see doctors who have 5-7 more years of studies in the field than me lining up for the vaccine that is a useful signal. Let me share some similar signals that I see. Let us talk about the VAERS database. I wonder why is it not made in such a way that it can collect high quality data? Like for example, make strict mandates to the healthcare people to document each and every AEFI that they notice. But right now, the covid vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines whos events are reportable under law [1]. And [2] where they choose not to enforce data collections in name of promoting vaccinations. So when the authorities opt not to collect data, it is a big red signal for me. >Well in that case COVID-19 should be eradicated in Cuba, Iran and Russia now as none of those suffers the same stranglehold from Big Pharma. Well I guess anywhere in the world, the authorities will be taking a big risk by going against W.H.O. Not sure, just something that could be the case..Can you show some citation to show Ivermectin was being used in these places and found to be of no use? [1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_... [2] https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#worker https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#worker

Nursie 5y ago
> I wonder why is it not made in such a way that it can collect high quality data? Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well. It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise, not be restrictive or definitive. > But right now, the covid vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines whos events are reportable under law That list seems to be things which are legally mandated reporting - "In addition, healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any clinically significant or unexpected events" That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported. > And [2] where they choose not to enforce data collections in name of promoting vaccinations. What part of that link says that? Hard to tell. > Well I guess anywhere in the world, the authorities will be taking a big risk by going against W.H.O. Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world? Ivermectin, like HCQ before it, appears to have been latched onto by the antivax crowd with no evidence to support it. We do have some effective treatments now, like tocilizumab and dexamethsone, supported with good clinical evidence.
- forcry 5y ago
  >Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well. Obviously, I know that, which is why I am asking the question. >It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise, How does it make sense to mix signal and noise together, and then trying to separate them on the other end? To me it it appears that it gives an opportunity to reject all the signal as noise. We can see that happening already, where news article that report on data showing up in VAERS calling it as unreliable because it is self reported. Also, I asked specifically about not strictly mandating reporting of all AEFI events, you seemed to have ignored that important part of the question. So basically instead of allowing any one to do the reporting, allow only the healthcare provider who administrated the vaccine to do it. Also, some studies have estimated that only 1% of events are reported. So one can only speculate the actual numbers? Why throwaway such an important body of data? Does not make any sense at all. >That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported. Basically the document makes a distinction between legally reportable and merely encouraged. I am not sure why that distinction is there in first place, but the concern is that covid vaccines, even though under EUA, fall under the latter and not in the former. >What part of that link says that? Hard to tell. Sorry, here. >OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. >Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world? Basically since W.H.O is considered an authority, if a local authority takes a measure that contradict W.H.O, and later it turn out to be sub-optimal, then the local body will find it hard to justify in front of the people, and any political opposition. It is a risk most local authorities will not take, as I see it.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > Why throwaway such an important body of data? Does not make any sense at all. Presumably it's not the only body of data, though, particularly when we're talking about worldwide, rather than just the USA. Side effects are detected in other countries too. > OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects So ... you're not required to report suspected covid-vaccine health problems your employees might be having. It seems a poor fit for something you'd want employers to do anyway? Much more suited to the healthcare system. > if a local authority takes a measure that contradict W.H.O, and later it turn out to be sub-optimal, then the local body will find it hard to justify in front of the people Good reason to stick to well-evidenced treatments then, regardless of the WHO, as if more reason was needed.

by forcry 5y ago

Nursie 5y ago

> I wonder why is it not made in such a way that it can collect high quality data? Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well. It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise, not be restrictive or definitive. > But right now, the covid vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines whos events are reportable under law That list seems to be things which are legally mandated reporting - "In addition, healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any clinically significant or unexpected events" That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported. > And [2] where they choose not to enforce data collections in name of promoting vaccinations. What part of that link says that? Hard to tell. > Well I guess anywhere in the world, the authorities will be taking a big risk by going against W.H.O. Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world? Ivermectin, like HCQ before it, appears to have been latched onto by the antivax crowd with no evidence to support it. We do have some effective treatments now, like tocilizumab and dexamethsone, supported with good clinical evidence.

forcry 5y ago
>Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well. Obviously, I know that, which is why I am asking the question. >It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise, How does it make sense to mix signal and noise together, and then trying to separate them on the other end? To me it it appears that it gives an opportunity to reject all the signal as noise. We can see that happening already, where news article that report on data showing up in VAERS calling it as unreliable because it is self reported. Also, I asked specifically about not strictly mandating reporting of all AEFI events, you seemed to have ignored that important part of the question. So basically instead of allowing any one to do the reporting, allow only the healthcare provider who administrated the vaccine to do it. Also, some studies have estimated that only 1% of events are reported. So one can only speculate the actual numbers? Why throwaway such an important body of data? Does not make any sense at all. >That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported. Basically the document makes a distinction between legally reportable and merely encouraged. I am not sure why that distinction is there in first place, but the concern is that covid vaccines, even though under EUA, fall under the latter and not in the former. >What part of that link says that? Hard to tell. Sorry, here. >OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. >Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world? Basically since W.H.O is considered an authority, if a local authority takes a measure that contradict W.H.O, and later it turn out to be sub-optimal, then the local body will find it hard to justify in front of the people, and any political opposition. It is a risk most local authorities will not take, as I see it.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > Why throwaway such an important body of data? Does not make any sense at all. Presumably it's not the only body of data, though, particularly when we're talking about worldwide, rather than just the USA. Side effects are detected in other countries too. > OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects So ... you're not required to report suspected covid-vaccine health problems your employees might be having. It seems a poor fit for something you'd want employers to do anyway? Much more suited to the healthcare system. > if a local authority takes a measure that contradict W.H.O, and later it turn out to be sub-optimal, then the local body will find it hard to justify in front of the people Good reason to stick to well-evidenced treatments then, regardless of the WHO, as if more reason was needed.