CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
I don’t think it’s healthy to try and debate across two different threads..
If Chromegrill is interested in discussing issues around COVID, which they really should be if they really were involved in the response at a ‘senior level’, then they should post here. The other thread is not, in my opinion, a place for any reasoned discussion.
As I have already said, despite the current presentation, I don’t believe this person is someone arguing from a neutral, authoritative position. They are as biased and emotionally driven as anyone else:
Isaldiri is absolutely right that COVID risk is massively correlated with age. It’s true that some younger people were badly impacted, but I think it’s also quite likely that this was made worse by our early treatment protocols. A lot of the deaths and serious illness in this group are of people placed into medically induced comas and intubated for weeks on end. This has a terrible toll on the body, which is why I understand it is far less likely to have been used on the elderly. The deaths of a very small number of young people were used as justification for the lockdowns through our Govts fear based propaganda. No one should be trying to use these arguments now without reflecting on the reality that changing treatments meant these deaths reduced later in the pandemic. The stories of doctors dying early were the most emotive and we should be asking why this happened. Not falling back on these obviously flawed arguments.
Chromegrills presentation of doubling rates of cases is wrong and it ignores all of the efforts that went into creating the Nightingales and the simple fact they were never used. They are trapped in the false dichotomy that the choices were lockdown or do nothing. They clearly still believe Sweden never existed.
As I have argued many times, the vaccines have clearly provided benefits for vulnerable who had a meaningful risk of dying and had yet to be exposed to this disease. For them, this obviously justifies taking an as yet uncertain risk of adverse reactions. For the young who were at minimal risk, this is far less clear. At a population scale it might make sense to argue that vaccination is the best way to avoid myocarditis. At an individual level this is obviously wrong and bordering on sociopathic. The young people who were coerced into vaccination and suffered entirely unnecessary adverse reactions were not necessarily the same ones that would have also experienced severe COVID illness. JCVI and the chief medical officers of the UK all agreed that the justifications for allowing vaccination of children were societal, not medical. Any vaccine induced harms did not replace COVID induced harms in this age group. They are additional to them.
There is no doubt that this was politicised. Vaccine passports and mandates were a political response, not a medically necessary one. I have a dim view of any medical professional that continues to argue coercion was necessary and that informed consent should have been abandoned. It was wrong and if they are any good at their job they should know that.
If Chromegrill is interested in discussing issues around COVID, which they really should be if they really were involved in the response at a ‘senior level’, then they should post here. The other thread is not, in my opinion, a place for any reasoned discussion.
As I have already said, despite the current presentation, I don’t believe this person is someone arguing from a neutral, authoritative position. They are as biased and emotionally driven as anyone else:
Isaldiri is absolutely right that COVID risk is massively correlated with age. It’s true that some younger people were badly impacted, but I think it’s also quite likely that this was made worse by our early treatment protocols. A lot of the deaths and serious illness in this group are of people placed into medically induced comas and intubated for weeks on end. This has a terrible toll on the body, which is why I understand it is far less likely to have been used on the elderly. The deaths of a very small number of young people were used as justification for the lockdowns through our Govts fear based propaganda. No one should be trying to use these arguments now without reflecting on the reality that changing treatments meant these deaths reduced later in the pandemic. The stories of doctors dying early were the most emotive and we should be asking why this happened. Not falling back on these obviously flawed arguments.
Chromegrills presentation of doubling rates of cases is wrong and it ignores all of the efforts that went into creating the Nightingales and the simple fact they were never used. They are trapped in the false dichotomy that the choices were lockdown or do nothing. They clearly still believe Sweden never existed.
As I have argued many times, the vaccines have clearly provided benefits for vulnerable who had a meaningful risk of dying and had yet to be exposed to this disease. For them, this obviously justifies taking an as yet uncertain risk of adverse reactions. For the young who were at minimal risk, this is far less clear. At a population scale it might make sense to argue that vaccination is the best way to avoid myocarditis. At an individual level this is obviously wrong and bordering on sociopathic. The young people who were coerced into vaccination and suffered entirely unnecessary adverse reactions were not necessarily the same ones that would have also experienced severe COVID illness. JCVI and the chief medical officers of the UK all agreed that the justifications for allowing vaccination of children were societal, not medical. Any vaccine induced harms did not replace COVID induced harms in this age group. They are additional to them.
There is no doubt that this was politicised. Vaccine passports and mandates were a political response, not a medically necessary one. I have a dim view of any medical professional that continues to argue coercion was necessary and that informed consent should have been abandoned. It was wrong and if they are any good at their job they should know that.
Boringvolvodriver said:
Slagathore said:
The true sign of an idiot. Presented with a factual and easily verifiable post and doesn't have the knowledge or intellect to discuss - brand the opposition as a conspiracy theorist.
It's been the whole MO of the mental types over the pandemic. Anyone that is plainly not a conspiracy theorist that raises reasonable points and asks for accountability from governments, big pharma and 'the science' is smeared as a conspiracy theorist. Largely because no one wants to own up to the damage done or take responsibility for their actions.
It is, unfortunately, the world we live in and it won't change any time soon.
Indeed - so common on social media sadly. When there is no argument, then just throw abuse and swearing seems to be the MO.It's been the whole MO of the mental types over the pandemic. Anyone that is plainly not a conspiracy theorist that raises reasonable points and asks for accountability from governments, big pharma and 'the science' is smeared as a conspiracy theorist. Largely because no one wants to own up to the damage done or take responsibility for their actions.
It is, unfortunately, the world we live in and it won't change any time soon.
Thing is the media also were guilty with a very liberal use of “anti vaxxer”, “covid denier” and “lock down deniers”
We are living in a world where debate and counter views are not permitted - hell, there was an implication on the CT thread that by using The phrase MSM meant you were a CT ist!
Elysium said:
As I have already said, despite the current presentation, I don’t believe this person is someone arguing from a neutral, authoritative position. They are as biased and emotionally driven as anyone else
.......
There is no doubt that this was politicised. Vaccine passports and mandates were a political response, not a medically necessary one. I have a dim view of any medical professional that continues to argue coercion was necessary and that informed consent should have been abandoned. It was wrong and if they are any good at their job they should know that.
i think the issue is one making the assumption that as someone being involved in the public health response, one would tend to assume that being in that position they are neutral and not biased and emotionally driven as everyone else. Clearly that's not the case........
There is no doubt that this was politicised. Vaccine passports and mandates were a political response, not a medically necessary one. I have a dim view of any medical professional that continues to argue coercion was necessary and that informed consent should have been abandoned. It was wrong and if they are any good at their job they should know that.
Being a public health professional doesn't mean you aren't also human with all the associated foibles as well even if they liked to give the impression of being totally neutral and open to discussion. They are no more so than any other group, particularly a highly specialised one and tbh that means they are very quick to close ranks to any criticism.. Add that to a more generalised (imo) medical/public health view that the public are problems rather than their effective end customer and a generally very paternalistic view of the world, it is no surprise that the prevalent view in that group was very much for all manner of things 'for the greater good' and I don't think it's ever going to change either.
I don't really have a problem with someone insisting that the right thing to have done was to have tried to reduce infections by whatever means as long as they are happy to acknowledge the impact of doing so. It's a social/political decision after all so people should be free to disagree reasonably.
Where I do have more of an issue is he claims stuff as 'fact' which is intentionally misleading or just plain wrong - in that thread specifically wrt to the insistence of the benefit of vaccination for younger groups. His earlier quote of Bell wrt to myocarditis/vaccination was plainly wrong for that younger group and the exact same thing was used wrt to the AZN/ ViTT issue previously.
Edited by isaldiri on Wednesday 24th April 08:55
Who_Goes_Blue said:
That was against me - and when that failed they resorted to labelling me a troll - as you say no talking to them, they dont want to listen.
I find it interesting that generally speaking those from that thread who do venture across here tend just to post one liners - James6112 aka Gadgemac for one- rather than debate and with some exceptions, will respond likewise to a sensible discussion on “their” thread.I will leave them to it - I was tempted to reply to James6112 to ask him which of the various theories as to the origin of the covid virus he thinks is right but decided not to waste my fingers!
r3g said:
Chromegrill said:
4. In seven out of eight months between March and December 2021 the majority of patients getting admitted to ICU were unvaccinated (the exception being October). In every age group of people admitted to ICU, age-specific rates of unvaccinated people were at least ten times higher than vaccinated.
Yeah ok dude. 
I don't know of a single unvaccinated person within my circles who's had to go to hospital or had any health whatsoever beyond the usual seasonal sniffles.
And what happened to the Pandemic of the Unvaccinated which we were assured would definitely happen not long after the roll-out of the magic juice? Funny how that one went quiet all of a sudden. I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with all the unvaccinated being completely unaffected, continuing on with the their life as normal, wondering what all the fuss and drama was about. No definitely not. Just another coincidence.
Edited by r3g on Wednesday 24th April 00:47
Amazing correlation, as it transpired, between those who became sick and seriously ill, and close temporal proximity of jabs within those 14 days. Therefore 'unvaccinated'. Amazing statistical coincidence. But as we all know, folks, correlation /= causation, unless it proves what you want it to by creative moving of goalposts and tweaking of definitions. But yeah, us CT loons would say that. I wonder why Government stopped recording or distributing this information when the figures started going the other direction?
Cold said:
I remember my little boy was really keen on skateboarding at the time. York council had locked up all the skate parks ‘cos covid’ so we drove a 1 hour round trip to another jurisdiction where the skate park had no fencing or barriers so the council couldnt chain it shut. I wouldnt be surprised if the risk from a RTA doing the journey was higher than the risk of dying from covid caught on a skate park, certainly for my son it was.And all the while garden centres remained open…
On a similar note:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/22/co...
Glad we kept off licenses open whilst shutting gyms/tennis courts/golf clubs.....
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/22/co...
Glad we kept off licenses open whilst shutting gyms/tennis courts/golf clubs.....
Boringvolvodriver said:
Who_Goes_Blue said:
That was against me - and when that failed they resorted to labelling me a troll - as you say no talking to them, they dont want to listen.
I find it interesting that generally speaking those from that thread who do venture across here tend just to post one liners - James6112 aka Gadgemac for one- rather than debate and with some exceptions, will respond likewise to a sensible discussion on “their” thread.I will leave them to it - I was tempted to reply to James6112 to ask him which of the various theories as to the origin of the covid virus he thinks is right but decided not to waste my fingers!
I seem to recall both James6112 and Gadgetmac putting exactly the same personal stories about what their wife did in a GP surgery and how had some (the same) medical issue that was sorted easily and how he works from home.
The details were far too similar to be a coincidence imo - I have I called him out for it on a couple of occasions which he never came back on to deny..........
The details were far too similar to be a coincidence imo - I have I called him out for it on a couple of occasions which he never came back on to deny..........
Everyone's favourite doctor 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM
Wheels are falling off. Another CT comes true with Midazolam found to have bumped off all the old duffers and not the covaids nothingburger at all. Even peer reviewed too so that should keep the rabble-rousers quiet for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM
Wheels are falling off. Another CT comes true with Midazolam found to have bumped off all the old duffers and not the covaids nothingburger at all. Even peer reviewed too so that should keep the rabble-rousers quiet for a while.
Well, given the number of articles and platforms available, one can truly find anything on covid that one might want to be looking for and even get it published. That was obvious with all manner of claptrap being published earlier and I suppose it remains entirely true today, just perhaps in the other direction in some cases.
r3g said:
Everyone's favourite doctor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM
Wheels are falling off. Another CT comes true with Midazolam found to have bumped off all the old duffers and not the covaids nothingburger at all. Even peer reviewed too so that should keep the rabble-rousers quiet for a while.
Known for ages, will be brushed under the carpet like everything else. Look squirrel!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM
Wheels are falling off. Another CT comes true with Midazolam found to have bumped off all the old duffers and not the covaids nothingburger at all. Even peer reviewed too so that should keep the rabble-rousers quiet for a while.
So in summary the paper states - "The COVID-19 pandemic in UK was iatrogenic, as it did not originate from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but originated from Midazolam use in euthanasia and then likely later from mass vaccination. " Lots of other unsupported statements in there as well.
I wonder if it got rejected from other reputable medical journals? At a guess the author isn't an intensivist - neither is the u-tuber that posted it.
Not to say that what happened during the pandemic wasn't a catastrophe though.
I wonder if it got rejected from other reputable medical journals? At a guess the author isn't an intensivist - neither is the u-tuber that posted it.
Not to say that what happened during the pandemic wasn't a catastrophe though.
jameswills said:
r3g said:
Everyone's favourite doctor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM
Wheels are falling off. Another CT comes true with Midazolam found to have bumped off all the old duffers and not the covaids nothingburger at all. Even peer reviewed too so that should keep the rabble-rousers quiet for a while.
Known for ages, will be brushed under the carpet like everything else. Look squirrel!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM
Wheels are falling off. Another CT comes true with Midazolam found to have bumped off all the old duffers and not the covaids nothingburger at all. Even peer reviewed too so that should keep the rabble-rousers quiet for a while.
Why believe him over anyone else?
Yahonza said:
So in summary the paper states - "The COVID-19 pandemic in UK was iatrogenic, as it did not originate from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but originated from Midazolam use in euthanasia and then likely later from mass vaccination. " Lots of other unsupported statements in there as well.
I wonder if it got rejected from other reputable medical journals? At a guess the author isn't an intensivist - neither is the u-tuber that posted it.
Not to say that what happened during the pandemic wasn't a catastrophe though.
It's amusingly open about looking for data to fit a conclusion. The author, to be fair has admitted the uk data couldn't support his contention that vaccination caused excess deaths despite trying very hard to find a link.......but then later it didn't stop him from still concluding it must still have been so anyway.... I wonder if it got rejected from other reputable medical journals? At a guess the author isn't an intensivist - neither is the u-tuber that posted it.
Not to say that what happened during the pandemic wasn't a catastrophe though.
A bad paper is a bad paper tbh, irrespective of 'peer review' and publication in some 'named' journal. One saw that repeatedly over the pandemic that either or both was absolutely no barrier to some tosh being published and much the same thing applies here even if it is one that concludes something that some people here clearly believe in....
Challo said:
Is this not propaganda? I mean he has a financial benefit to sell these opinions?
Why believe him over anyone else?
Undoubtedly! I’ve not read the report and I didn’t listen to all of Mr Campbell, but the Midazolam over prescribing has been common knowledge, and proven, for a while. But what you got to ask yourself, is the propaganda here actually what Campbell is reporting, or that for some weird reason YouTube are allowing him to say it without having the video removed?Why believe him over anyone else?
I think there should be a review of the use of Midazolam.
It is clear that it was intended to encourage a comfortable death for elderly people affected by COVID in the event they could not be treated due to healthcare being overwhelmed.
When you consider this alongside the large scale discharges to care homes to clear hospital beds in the early stages of the pandemic, it should raise concern about the risk it was given to people who might have otherwise survived.
That said, the idea that the IFR was different at the beginning of the pandemic vs the end is simply wrong. The issue is the case ascertainment rate which confounds the data.
In the beginning we captured only a small number of cases, which were the most serious. The only testing was taking place in hospitals.
Later, we were carrying out vast numbers of tests every day. So we captured many more cases, including mild ones where people were not even ill.
This provides a simple and obvious explanation for the changing fatality rate that is completely unrelated to Midazolam. The fact that this has been missed brings the entire paper into question.
It is clear that it was intended to encourage a comfortable death for elderly people affected by COVID in the event they could not be treated due to healthcare being overwhelmed.
When you consider this alongside the large scale discharges to care homes to clear hospital beds in the early stages of the pandemic, it should raise concern about the risk it was given to people who might have otherwise survived.
That said, the idea that the IFR was different at the beginning of the pandemic vs the end is simply wrong. The issue is the case ascertainment rate which confounds the data.
In the beginning we captured only a small number of cases, which were the most serious. The only testing was taking place in hospitals.
Later, we were carrying out vast numbers of tests every day. So we captured many more cases, including mild ones where people were not even ill.
This provides a simple and obvious explanation for the changing fatality rate that is completely unrelated to Midazolam. The fact that this has been missed brings the entire paper into question.
The use of drugs such as Midazolam or morphine to provide comfort to end of life patients is nothing new, and as Elysium points out there's always a risk of misuse. Locally we had a major scandal at Gosport War Memorial hospital where, it is alleged, many elderly patients were helped on their way via morphine syringe drivers.
However, that article by Wilson Sy makes the classic error of confusing correlation with causation. Of course there were lots of Midazolam prescriptions in April 2020, because there was a large spike in frail elderly patients needing palliative comfort due to their Covid infection. An infection that Sy claims didn't even exist
! There is no reliable evidence of a "systemic euthanasia" policy as asserted by Wilson Sy.
Frankly, the notion that right across the UK, in hospitals and care homes, a mass programme of "systemic euthanasia" was in place is a ludicrous assertion and an insult to the medical staff who tried their very best to treat patients.
Further, Sy states that the Covid virus was, in April 2020 "largely absent". He also states that deaths in 2021 were "likely" linked to the Covid vaccines, despite admitting that there's no correlation between the two.
This is proper conspiracy theory stuff and is, I think, unhinged. No wonder r3g was attracted to it.
However, that article by Wilson Sy makes the classic error of confusing correlation with causation. Of course there were lots of Midazolam prescriptions in April 2020, because there was a large spike in frail elderly patients needing palliative comfort due to their Covid infection. An infection that Sy claims didn't even exist
! There is no reliable evidence of a "systemic euthanasia" policy as asserted by Wilson Sy.Frankly, the notion that right across the UK, in hospitals and care homes, a mass programme of "systemic euthanasia" was in place is a ludicrous assertion and an insult to the medical staff who tried their very best to treat patients.
Further, Sy states that the Covid virus was, in April 2020 "largely absent". He also states that deaths in 2021 were "likely" linked to the Covid vaccines, despite admitting that there's no correlation between the two.
This is proper conspiracy theory stuff and is, I think, unhinged. No wonder r3g was attracted to it.
Hants PHer said:
The use of drugs such as Midazolam or morphine to provide comfort to end of life patients is nothing new, and as Elysium points out there's always a risk of misuse. Locally we had a major scandal at Gosport War Memorial hospital where, it is alleged, many elderly patients were helped on their way via morphine syringe drivers.
However, that article by Wilson Sy makes the classic error of confusing correlation with causation. Of course there were lots of Midazolam prescriptions in April 2020, because there was a large spike in frail elderly patients needing palliative comfort due to their Covid infection. An infection that Sy claims didn't even exist ! There is no reliable evidence of a "systemic euthanasia" policy as asserted by Wilson Sy.
Frankly, the notion that right across the UK, in hospitals and care homes, a mass programme of "systemic euthanasia" was in place is a ludicrous assertion and an insult to the medical staff who tried their very best to treat patients.
Further, Sy states that the Covid virus was, in April 2020 "largely absent". He also states that deaths in 2021 were "likely" linked to the Covid vaccines, despite admitting that there's no correlation between the two.
This is proper conspiracy theory stuff and is, I think, unhinged. No wonder r3g was attracted to it.
I agree, I have read this paper now and it is nonsense:However, that article by Wilson Sy makes the classic error of confusing correlation with causation. Of course there were lots of Midazolam prescriptions in April 2020, because there was a large spike in frail elderly patients needing palliative comfort due to their Covid infection. An infection that Sy claims didn't even exist
! There is no reliable evidence of a "systemic euthanasia" policy as asserted by Wilson Sy.Frankly, the notion that right across the UK, in hospitals and care homes, a mass programme of "systemic euthanasia" was in place is a ludicrous assertion and an insult to the medical staff who tried their very best to treat patients.
Further, Sy states that the Covid virus was, in April 2020 "largely absent". He also states that deaths in 2021 were "likely" linked to the Covid vaccines, despite admitting that there's no correlation between the two.
This is proper conspiracy theory stuff and is, I think, unhinged. No wonder r3g was attracted to it.
https://www.medclinrese.org/open-access/excess-dea...
The author uses IFR and CFR as if they are interchangeable. They have no understanding of case ascertainment bias. That leads to two related false assumptions, that COVID was not prevalent in spring 2020 and that the excess deaths at that time must have a different cause.
Everything that follows is founded on this mistake, with theories expressed as ‘likely’ based entirely on the authors beliefs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff