Quote:But once we have established facts or at least strong evidence we don´t need to rely on them any longer (see HCQ). That seems to be the point where we disagree. I already mentioned this in one of my first posts in this thread. If we cannot accept certain things as facts. Everything is just an opinion. The sky is yellow. The earth is flat.
The disagreement has to do with what I see as the limited way in which you, and many others evidently rely on almost exclusively to vet and validate your information. I had a similar discussion including with @"Jannemann2" back in the infamous Luka Tattoo thread on evolution etc. I love real science. I do hold a BS (CS) that includes minors in Physics and Math but I don't compare my credentials in a context like this as being particularly relevant. I just make the point that I don't dismiss science. Its clear to me that there is a form of scientific practice today that crosses over into belief and trust in people to the point where it is more like religion than it is really science.
The way in which you decide that something is factual for example involves some methods which I also agree upon and use to test information such as various forms of publicly reported scientific researching and peer reviewed studies etc. yada.
I just posted an example of relevant professionals against forced vaccinations based on their own scientific and medical research and conclusions at this point in time.
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-resea...nd-quoted/
Quote:Moreover, existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable, and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable.
The Brownstone Institute previously documented 30 studies on natural immunity as it relates to Covid-19.
This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 81 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
I’ve benefited from the input of many to put this together, especially my co-authors:
- Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Yale School of Public Health)
- Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, PhD ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)
- Dr. Ramin Oskoui, MD (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)
- Dr. Peter McCullough, MD (Truth for Health Foundation (TFH)), Texas
- Dr. Parvez Dara, MD (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)
Where we differ is I do not rely exclusively on those methods or even almost exclusively.
You said for example that the Democratic representative from Detroit who reported anecdotally that HCQ treatment saved her life in a battle in a COVID-19 should now be dismissed in terms of reference because WE know better now.
Last year, very much during the pandemic outbreak frenzy I had several discussions with our local family doctor. As I've shared before in this threat this has been very active and outspoken in regards to covid-19. Last we talked maybe a few months ago now as I've said he is also very supportive of voluntary covid-19 vaccinations which I take into high consideration on my own evaluations since I respect his opinions as a working professional in the field.
I wish you would consider these types of statements I've made earlier when you throw out your accusations like fake objectivity etc. etc. Just because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you do @"dirkfansince1998" and @"Jannemann2" doesn't mean my objectivity is fake.
In my view you fall into a large segment of modern western society etc. that has subscribed to a more limited view of what is valid science and what the valid ways are of testing your conclusions.
Let me return to my anecdotal discussions with our local physician from last year before the existence of the vaccinations. He shared something back then in our discussions which I find relevant here as it relates to anecdotal evidence vs. scientific lab studies.
Let me summarize if you will this way:
1) He says that as a practicing Doctor in the field he sees literally hundreds of patients a week in his office.
2) He compared the experience of professionals in the field fighting disease to some scientific studied where he would easily see more Covid-19 patients in a month than most of the studies which he also reads and vets for himself through the lens of his own hands on experience as well as his education.
Again, he also reads and respects studies himself, but does not rely exclusively on this as "The Gospel" so to speak.
3) At the time, pre-vaccination he used specific treatments to treat his Covid-19 patients including several of the well known ones mentioned here such as HCQ and a couple of others.
4) According to him, last year as many were getting severely ill and dying, NONE of his hundreds of patients over months of care had either died or been hospitalized except for one patient who had other illnesses and did not die but was hospitalized briefly.
5) He said the key was 1) early detection and treatment at 1st sign of symptoms. 2) The drugs and treatments he applied including HCQ which he said definitely worked for many patients, mind you he used different treatments in different cases at the time as I recall he had 3 favorites one of which was HCQ.
6) We talked again later still pre-vaccination but after the politically driven narrative surfaced regarding Trump and the remarks he made about HCQ. Mind you our early discussions were pre-Trump remarks. He said he now had to have lawyers draft a special disclaimer.
If he treated patients with HCQ at times, which he did, he had the disclaimer signed he could continue to use HCQ in his practice because of the scrutiny that came on that drug which he and many other doctors had already reported they were using successfully, was already abundantly available and also very affordable for the every day citizen.
In the links I have you there are other practicing doctors that reported very similar stories, anecdotally if you will from their work in the field. They report about treatments and methods that they know actually worked and worked very well including methods to strengthen natural immunity.
So later when studies come down from people that thankfully are paid to do those studies, those studies and their interpretations also get vetted by live in the field peer-reviews so to speak. Many of those doctors in the field get suppressed and attacked if they reach different conclusions than the studies.
This is just part of the problem that can does occur when political and financial influences are applied to official scientific inquiry. So yes when you say something like WE now know that HCQ or other treatments have no value in contrast to this very public report from one of many people who say that a drug like this did help them, even saved their life, I apply my own vetting process to my research.
I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence quite as easily in the face of officially released studies. I do value dissenting views and studies when it is clear to me that certain narratives are being politically influenced.
Finally you both alluded to my point about immigration which I think you both missed entirely.
The point I made was that it is an example of how political influences are affecting the decisions about vaccinations. It appears that we the public are being told we should be very worried about our unvaccinated fellow citizens like Kyrie Irving but at the same time we should not be worried at all about the possibility that thousands of unvaccinated and even untested non-citizens may be literally getting transported into our communities every day?
If we hear reports of increased covid-19 spread among our border agents and in communities that those immigrants are shipped into we should just ignore it since it probably comes from the evil anti-vaxxer people.
What is the science driving this sort of policy?
I said I didn't want to get heavily into the politics, meaning I don't intend to get into the larger political discussion about immigration policy, that was my point. I intended only to make the point about political influence on the vaccinations movement.