The Well-Deserved Death of "Expert" Authority: Only 2% of the Public Has Gotten the Next Expert-Endorsed Covid Booster —Disinformation Expert Ace As Iowahawk described the process, the radical, tyrannical left
1, takes over a respected institution, eating it up from within, and
2, then wears the skin-suit of the now-devoured institution, demanding respect.
People are no longer giving respect to skin-suited "expert" institutions.
As if we needed more proof that COVID destroyed the public health profession, the public response to this year's booster doses is as good as you're going to get. Last year, the CDC, FDA, Dr. Fauci and other health "experts" spent months excoriating the public to get an updated, bivalent booster. They were adamant that those boosters, despite little testing and overhyped results, were necessary to prevent a significant winter surge and increased transmission. Talk about an illusion of control.
Almost no one listened.
Despite immediately authorizing the boosters for virtually all ages, with little justification, just 17% of the population got their latest COVID shot. Whether through skepticism of the "experts," immunity from prior infection, or the realization that the vaccines are ineffective at preventing infection, the public overwhelmingly ignored public health advice.
...
Now, more than a month after they were authorized based on testing on eight mice, we have an update on what percentage have gotten the new doses, after relentless excoriation from the CDC.
And it's low. Really low.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, roughly 7 million Americans have received the latest COVID booster dose.
The population of the United States is estimated to be roughly 336 million, meaning that just 2% of the country's gotten the new vaccine. 2%. It's hard to imagine a more direct repudiation of the "experts" than that.
Very good discussion about covid injuries and constant vaccine misinformation being spread by skin-suited "news" companies, featuring Dr. Drew Pinksy, below. Skip to 9:30 for the discussion of excess deaths being up. He points out that after an epidemic, excess deaths usually go down, because the epidemic already killed so many of the less-healthy people.
And yet excess deaths are up.
Pinsky doesn't know why this is. What he does know is that this should be sparking a frenzied scramble to find out why excess deaths are up -- but the medical establishment is just pretending it isn't happening. https://youtu.be/FXycdmE61xQ He notes that some have suggested that mental health problems may account for this increase in deaths. Maybe so, but that would also be due to the draconian lockdowns the "experts" forced on us. So the "experts" are just refusing to acknowledge the problem.
They know that in one way or another, they caused the excess deaths.
There’s no reason to rely on “experts”. The wealth of the entirety of civilization’s information is available on a phone.
Even with dissenting opinions or opposing perspectives, it’s simply a matter of spending some time to get a sense of who is expert and who is full of shit.
There’s no reason to rely on “experts”. The wealth of the entirety of civilization’s information is available on a phone.
Even with dissenting opinions or opposing perspectives, it’s simply a matter of spending some time to get a sense of who is expert and who is full of shit.
That's what is still amazing to me. The chicom crud lies were all out there in the spring of 2020 and had been debunked by real experts. And yet, at the supposed highest level of the medical bureaucracy, our blue state governors, the MSM, our Tug star leftards didn't care to spend anytime, effort or intellectual thought about the lies. Leftards lie and love to be lied to was on full display. Sheep displayed more independent thought than Newsom, Kate Brown and Chinslee, the dazzler and mello. When your belief system was built around the lies that St. Fow Chee told them that was the extent of any intellectual attempt to understand what was really happening. St. Fow Chee said masks work, lockdowns work, two weeks to stop the thread became two years, get the vaxx and you can't get the crud or give it to others was unvaxxed Americans were wanton killers trying to kill off the vaxxed. Geezus. At least we are involved in the Ukraine because we support democracy.
It would be fitting he dies from the side effects but I doubt he took anything with MRNA. I'm sure he got the "elite WEF/NWO shot. Unless they are done with the useful idiot.
The US medical bureaucracy response to the chicom crud. Take some Tylenol and when you are really sick then go to the emergency room and we will put you on a ventilator and kill you. For god's sake, don't take any hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin with zinc and an antibiotic with a steroid because that works and we don't make any money off it.
The dishonesty of the studies that don't show any effectiveness were generally cooked. Administered late, lacking the recommended support drugs (zinc, antibiotic and steroid). What is the motive for a doctor prescribing hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin? All that big pharma money? What is the downside for recommending safe medicines which had been safely prescribed to billions for decades versus rushing out a new vaccine with no extensive blind studies and which was prescribed with no warning labels and no liability for the experimental vaccines?
People who received hydroxychloroquine were less likely to die than those who did not, according to a new study.
Just 0.8 percent of patients at a facility in France who received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and an antibiotic died, compared to 4.8 percent of patients who did not receive the drug combination, French researchers reported on Nov. 1.
"This study represents the largest single-center study evaluating HCQ-AZ in the treatment of COVID-19. Similarly, to other large observational studies, it concludes that HCQ would have saved lives," Dr. Didier Raoult, with Aix-Marseille Universite in Marseille, and his co-authors wrote.
The paper was published in the journal New Microbes and New Infections. It was released as a preprint earlier this year, but withdrawn because authors said they have changed their "analytic strategies."
Researchers examined records from 30,423 patients with COVID-19 who were treated at another institution in Marseille, IHU Méditerranée Infection. They included all adults who tested positive for COVID-19 and who were treated in the hospital as an inpatient or an outpatient between March 2, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The study set ended up with 30,202 patients because treatment information was not available for the 221 others.
Most of the patients received off-label prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (AZ), a common antibiotic.
Of the set, 23,172 patients received the drug combination. The other 7,030 did not.
Among those who received the drugs, 191, or 0.8 percent, died. Among those who did not, 344, or 4.8 percent, passed away.
Those who received HCQ and AZ were more likely to survive regardless of whether they were inpatients or outpatients.
The biggest effect was recorded in outpatients aged 50 to 89.
Limitations of the study included drawing from records from a single center. Funding came in part from the French government.
HCQ has been cleared in both France and the United States for decades but not for treating COVID-19.
Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease doctor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said that clinical trial data do not support using HCQ against the illness.
"Hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to have any benefit in randomized clinical trials," Dr. Boulware, who was not involved in the new study, told The Epoch Times in an email.
"There is zero antiviral effect in humans, and zero reduction in hospitalization among 11 randomized clinical trials pooled together," he added, referring to a metanalysis he co-authored that was published in January. Dr. Boulware also helped carry out a randomized trial examining HCQ as a prophylaxis in people who were exposed to COVID-19, and found it did not prevent illness or confirmed infection.
Mixed Evidence Dr. Raoult and his co-authors acknowledged that several large randomized trials have found no benefits for HCQ against COVID-19, including a World Health Organization trial. But they said that the largest, funded by the World Health Organization and and United Kingdom government, suffered from "significant methodological problems," including high dosing during the first 24 hours.
The group also criticized smaller trials with similar findings as underpowered, including a trial in France that was stopped due to enrollment issues.
"In contrast, several large observational retrospective studies published in the literature, including a total of 47,516 patients report a benefit of using HCQ on the mortality of COVID-19 patients," the authors said, pointing to studies from France, Iran, and Spain.
They said the number of patients in the observational studies outweighs the number of patients in the randomized trials and support using HCQ as an early treatment.
Dr. Boulware said that observational data can suffer from serious problems, pointing to a response in 2020 to an observational U.S. paper that reported an association between HCQ with AZ and lower mortality among hospitalized patients.
Dr. Raoult and his co-authors acknowledged the limitations of observational data but lamented what they see as a dearth of clinical trials that use proper dosing.
"Unfortunately, few if any of the RCTs that have attempted to demonstrate the efficacy of HCQ on COVID-19 patients were run with an appropriate methodology," they wrote.
"Inadequate target (late treatment), excessive dosage of the drug, or inappropriate study power were the main troubles. While observational studies have also confounding factors, as discussed above, significant effect estimate differences between RCTs and observational studies are more likely to be linked to the quality of the study than to its design," they added, referencing a Cochrane Review that there was little difference between observational studies and clinical trials.
Comments
Fall campaign by Pfizer not going well. Same rate of success as celebrity endorsements of Crypto.
https://ace.mu.nu/
The Well-Deserved Death of "Expert" Authority: Only 2% of the Public Has Gotten the Next Expert-Endorsed Covid Booster
—Disinformation Expert Ace
As Iowahawk described the process, the radical, tyrannical left
1, takes over a respected institution, eating it up from within, and
2, then wears the skin-suit of the now-devoured institution, demanding respect.
People are no longer giving respect to skin-suited "expert" institutions.
As if we needed more proof that COVID destroyed the public health profession, the public response to this year's booster doses is as good as you're going to get.
Last year, the CDC, FDA, Dr. Fauci and other health "experts" spent months excoriating the public to get an updated, bivalent booster. They were adamant that those boosters, despite little testing and overhyped results, were necessary to prevent a significant winter surge and increased transmission. Talk about an illusion of control.
Almost no one listened.
Despite immediately authorizing the boosters for virtually all ages, with little justification, just 17% of the population got their latest COVID shot. Whether through skepticism of the "experts," immunity from prior infection, or the realization that the vaccines are ineffective at preventing infection, the public overwhelmingly ignored public health advice.
...
Now, more than a month after they were authorized based on testing on eight mice, we have an update on what percentage have gotten the new doses, after relentless excoriation from the CDC.
And it's low. Really low.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, roughly 7 million Americans have received the latest COVID booster dose.
The population of the United States is estimated to be roughly 336 million, meaning that just 2% of the country's gotten the new vaccine. 2%. It's hard to imagine a more direct repudiation of the "experts" than that.
Very good discussion about covid injuries and constant vaccine misinformation being spread by skin-suited "news" companies, featuring Dr. Drew Pinksy, below. Skip to 9:30 for the discussion of excess deaths being up. He points out that after an epidemic, excess deaths usually go down, because the epidemic already killed so many of the less-healthy people.
And yet excess deaths are up.
Pinsky doesn't know why this is. What he does know is that this should be sparking a frenzied scramble to find out why excess deaths are up -- but the medical establishment is just pretending it isn't happening.
He notes that some have suggested that mental health problems may account for this increase in deaths. Maybe so, but that would also be due to the draconian lockdowns the "experts" forced on us. So the "experts" are just refusing to acknowledge the problem.
They know that in one way or another, they caused the excess deaths.
Even with dissenting opinions or opposing perspectives, it’s simply a matter of spending some time to get a sense of who is expert and who is full of shit.
https://ace.mu.nu/
Also, no calls for murder.
https://ace.mu.nu/
I cannot BELIEVE how long the majority of the world bought the bat soup story….
I was right all along. They need to be executed. Slowly.
People who received hydroxychloroquine were less likely to die than those who did not, according to a new study.
Just 0.8 percent of patients at a facility in France who received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and an antibiotic died, compared to 4.8 percent of patients who did not receive the drug combination, French researchers reported on Nov. 1.
"This study represents the largest single-center study evaluating HCQ-AZ in the treatment of COVID-19. Similarly, to other large observational studies, it concludes that HCQ would have saved lives," Dr. Didier Raoult, with Aix-Marseille Universite in Marseille, and his co-authors wrote.
The paper was published in the journal New Microbes and New Infections. It was released as a preprint earlier this year, but withdrawn because authors said they have changed their "analytic strategies."
Researchers examined records from 30,423 patients with COVID-19 who were treated at another institution in Marseille, IHU Méditerranée Infection. They included all adults who tested positive for COVID-19 and who were treated in the hospital as an inpatient or an outpatient between March 2, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The study set ended up with 30,202 patients because treatment information was not available for the 221 others.
Most of the patients received off-label prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (AZ), a common antibiotic.
Of the set, 23,172 patients received the drug combination. The other 7,030 did not.
Among those who received the drugs, 191, or 0.8 percent, died. Among those who did not, 344, or 4.8 percent, passed away.
Those who received HCQ and AZ were more likely to survive regardless of whether they were inpatients or outpatients.
The biggest effect was recorded in outpatients aged 50 to 89.
Limitations of the study included drawing from records from a single center. Funding came in part from the French government.
HCQ has been cleared in both France and the United States for decades but not for treating COVID-19.
Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease doctor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said that clinical trial data do not support using HCQ against the illness.
"Hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to have any benefit in randomized clinical trials," Dr. Boulware, who was not involved in the new study, told The Epoch Times in an email.
"There is zero antiviral effect in humans, and zero reduction in hospitalization among 11 randomized clinical trials pooled together," he added, referring to a metanalysis he co-authored that was published in January. Dr. Boulware also helped carry out a randomized trial examining HCQ as a prophylaxis in people who were exposed to COVID-19, and found it did not prevent illness or confirmed infection.
Mixed Evidence
Dr. Raoult and his co-authors acknowledged that several large randomized trials have found no benefits for HCQ against COVID-19, including a World Health Organization trial. But they said that the largest, funded by the World Health Organization and and United Kingdom government, suffered from "significant methodological problems," including high dosing during the first 24 hours.
The group also criticized smaller trials with similar findings as underpowered, including a trial in France that was stopped due to enrollment issues.
"In contrast, several large observational retrospective studies published in the literature, including a total of 47,516 patients report a benefit of using HCQ on the mortality of COVID-19 patients," the authors said, pointing to studies from France, Iran, and Spain.
They said the number of patients in the observational studies outweighs the number of patients in the randomized trials and support using HCQ as an early treatment.
Dr. Boulware said that observational data can suffer from serious problems, pointing to a response in 2020 to an observational U.S. paper that reported an association between HCQ with AZ and lower mortality among hospitalized patients.
Dr. Raoult and his co-authors acknowledged the limitations of observational data but lamented what they see as a dearth of clinical trials that use proper dosing.
"Unfortunately, few if any of the RCTs that have attempted to demonstrate the efficacy of HCQ on COVID-19 patients were run with an appropriate methodology," they wrote.
"Inadequate target (late treatment), excessive dosage of the drug, or inappropriate study power were the main troubles. While observational studies have also confounding factors, as discussed above, significant effect estimate differences between RCTs and observational studies are more likely to be linked to the quality of the study than to its design," they added, referencing a Cochrane Review that there was little difference between observational studies and clinical trials.