A Facebook comrade (M.B.) pointed out that the NEW YORK TIMES TWITTER graphic is wrong. Either by a computer generated error or human error. What is not pointed out CLEARLY, which I see now, is that in the twelve days studied there was a benefit, and common sense would say there would be after that 12-days. But that is the only time span studied.
Some interpreted it thus:
Again, I agree with M.B., this is taken from it’s context.
The SEATTLE TIMES didn’t make this too clear either:
Wading into an acrimonious debate over booster doses, researchers in Israel reported Wednesday that a third dose of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine can prevent both infections and severe illness in adults older than 60 for at least 12 days.
I can see how that is misinterpreted, which I was a party to as well. Here is — for instance — the NYT’squote that seems to prove M.B.’s point:
….In the new study, the Israeli team collected data on the effect of booster shots, based on the health records of more than 1.1 million people over age 60. At least 12 days after the booster, rates of infection were elevenfold lower and of severe disease nearly twentyfold lower in those who received a booster compared with those who had received only two doses, the researchers found.
The researchers acknowledged that their results were preliminary. “We cannot tell at this point what will happen in the long run,” said Micha Mandel, a professor of statistics and data science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem…..
….The main finding was the older population [60+], when boosted, was 11 times less likely to get infected and 19.5 times less likely to get severely ill compared to similar people who had received two doses but not a booster shot.
[….]
In the Israeli study, the group that didn’t get boosters recorded 4,439 infections and 294 severe illnesses. The booster group had 934 infections and 29 severe cases. The risk reduction rates accounted for the fact that the two groups were not even in size, as far more people joined the booster group over time.
[….]
Additionally, the study has a very limited follow-up time, and doesn’t show how long protection from boosters may last. That’s an essential question in figuring our whether a booster campaign is worth launching.
The study’s limited duration may skew its findings. Researchers started counting cases for the booster group only when they are 12 days removed from the third dose.
It can take up to a month on average for a person to go from exposed to infected to seriously ill, Murray said. Therefore, the study may not include enough follow-up time to show the true effect of the boosters.
There aren’t any high-quality studies on booster shots “It’s not clear to me that there’s anywhere near enough follow-up time, even for the earliest boosters,” Murray said.
“All of these problems together make it really hard to know how much we can trust that number that comes out of the study,” Murray added…..
Do not let what Dr. Risch said get lost in the below. He said 70-to-100-thousand people could be alive today is we had treated our patients with the Hydroxychloroquine protocols other countries have followed. 70,000 to 100,000!
Dennis Prager has Dr. Harvey Risch (MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health) on his program to discuss the issue of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), its use, and the seemingly political fallout from the media and the Left (Democrats in Congress and Democrat governors). There is also discussion of how or why there is pressure or push-back against it’s use. I would say partly because of “TDS” (Trump Derangement Syndrome), but also BIG-PHARMA. Otherwise known as “Crony-Corporatism”. Previously Dennis discussed his earlier NEWSWEEK article.
Dennis also mentions in passing the French United Nations official, who has served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Special Adviser on Innovative Financing for Development in the UN and chairman of UNITAID — PHILIPPE DOUSTE-BLAZY. But shortly after discussing the issue Dennis asks the $64,000 question, “has the ban on HCQ led to deaths?” [adapted]… that shorter response is isolated here:
(WOW!)
While Dr. Risch did not want to impugn motives, Robert Kennedy Jr. was not so coy:
The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patent. He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that.
So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail. And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money. They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability. Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal. They have zero liability. And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.
….On July 23, 2020, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) provided the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration copious amounts of data showing, among other things, that countries using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are attaining far lower mortality rates than the United States. “The mortality rate from COVID-19 in countries that allow access to HCQ,” said the AAPS, “is only one-tenth the mortality rate of countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States.”
Did you catch that? One-tenth the mortality rate means that our country’s current death count of about 160,000 could be and perhaps should be, as low as 16,000.
Oh, but I assume you’ve been told that the AAPS is a “fringe group” of “conservative” doctors who should be discredited?
Well, aside from the fact that such a claim is a textbook example of the Socratic fallacy of an ad hominem attack, i.e., “shooting the messenger rather than attending to the message,” there’s more, lots more.
First, there’s the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan, which recently published a study involving thousands of patients where HCQ proved to be both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19. This study reports reducing mortality by 50%. Did you catch that? Fifty percent.
Then, there’s the Palmer Foundation report published last week highlighting the Indian slum of Dharavi. This is Asia’s biggest and densest slum, housing more than a million people. In the early days of the pandemic, Dharavi suffered a cluster outbreak. Doctors report containing it by using proactive measures, “including the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis (preventive) treatment.” As a result, Dharavi’s COVID-19 infection rate dropped drastically from April through June, and in July, new infections were very low, almost reaching zero on July 9.”
Yes, you read that correctly. “Almost reaching zero.”
Still the stuff of right-wing nut jobs, you smirk?
Well, there is Harvey, A. Risch, MD, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health (generally not known as a bastion of conservative political thought), who recently wrote in Newsweek magazine: “I am … flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily.” …..
AGAIN, besides the studies Dr. Risch mentions (12), the total worldwide that shows benefite to using Plaquinel are 68 studies (41 peer reviewed). One of the better posts on this topic comes from REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE — of which some of these graphs are from or updated from the MAIN SITE tallying all this:
Death Becomes the MSM
Okay, I just want to say that we have heard many media types and Democrat Lefties say that by the President touting Hydroxychloroquine he is killing people. My first example comes from Neil Cavuto:
Fox News host Neil Cavuto warned viewers that hydroxychloroquine “will kill you” after Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that he was taking the unproven drug to prevent Covid-19 infection.
Mr Cavuto, who appeared stunned at the US president’s decision, said he was not making a “political point, but a life-and-death point”.
“If you are in a risky population here, and you are taking this as a preventative treatment … it will kill you. I cannot stress enough. This will kill you,” said the Fox News host…..
But all this is based on a Lancent study published May 22nd (that media heads caught wind of a couple days early)… the only problem? The entire study was faked — here is a fair dealing with it via MEDCRAM. (A previous post where the known issues with “peer review” is noted: Peer-Review Issues | Sharyl Attkinsson). Here is the indomitable Press Secretary tearing shit up:
So the above and below “concern” about a drug many-many millions of people have taken for decades, safely, ALL OF A SUDDEN is a health emergency. I wonder why? (I refer you to the already posted Washington Times article title above.) The “blood on the hands” argument is really more apt in the 70-100-thousand lives that very possibly could have been saved had our country done what other countries had… save the MSM Derangement with Trump.
Here is some more examples of what I am saying:
Brianna Keilar spars with Trump campaign spokesman, says hydroxychloroquine ‘kills people’. Laura Ingraham gets reaction from Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, regarding CNN’s anchor who is accused of ‘ludicrous’ claim about hydroxychloroquine.
(Decent montage) The discredited and subsequently retracted hydroxychloroquine study had hardly appeared in Lancet magazine before CNN pounced on it with great eagerness to try to prove President Donald Trump wrong. This is yet another of their horribly WRONG reports on this treatment which on July 3 was contradicted by a Henry Ford Health System study which showed that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduced mortality among COVID-19 patients. Once again, CNN WRONG and Trump RIGHT!
CNN’s John Harwood went after President Donald Trump for “extending false hope” and “recklessly” touting unproven coronavirus treatment hydroxychloroquine, after a study published Friday revealed the drug is linked to “increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues.”
Medical journal The Lancet’s study found that there was a 34 percent increase in death and a 137 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias in those who received hydroxychloroquine alone. There was also a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias for those given the drug with and an additional antibiotic.
CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen explained that although other studies exposed the potential dangers linked to the drug, the Lancet’s is much larger.
“This new one looks at 671 hospitals over six continents. The one before was looking at 25 hospitals,” Cohen said. “This is a very, very large study. And what they found was increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues. Now, these were hospitalized patients, some quite ill.”
She reiterated Trump’s claim that these studies look at sick people taking the drug, while he is healthy and taking it as a preventative measure, but questioned that if hydroxychloroquine has any positive effect at all if does not help the infected.
They then played a clip of the president’s “reckless” promotion of the drug, during which he calls hydroxychloroquine “a gift from heaven” but admits he is not a doctor.
“Increasingly, this study gives the impression that this president was extending false hope to people and he has gotten negative judgment from the American people for his handling of coronavirus, this is not going to make that any better,” CNN White House correspondent John Harwood added after the clip aired…..
Metro Nashville At-Large Council Member Sharon Hurt said Wednesday during a virtual meeting of the Joint Public Safety and Health Committee that there should be stronger legislation for those not wearing masks and suggested they be charged with murder or attempted murder.
Hurt said that she works for an organization that, “If they pass the virus, then they are tried for murder or attempted murder.”
Hurt thinks the same standard should apply to the general public.
“This person who may very well pass this virus that’s out in the air because they’re not wearing a mask is basically doing the same thing to someone who contracts it and dies from it,” she said.
“Maybe there needs to be stronger legislation to say that if you do not wear a mask, and you subject exposure of this virus to someone else then there will be some stronger penalty as it is in other viruses that are exposed,” the council member added…..
Sharyl: What’s your view of how much we can trust the articles that appear in these prestigious medical journals?
Dr. Howard Pomeranz: One always has to be aware of the possibility that somebody who is an author or coauthor or someone who is consulted to help support the research was a paid consultant by the pharmaceutical industry and that’s not always apparent.
Dr. Howard Pomeranz is a neuro-ophthalmologist at the Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine. He’s authored dozens of journal articles and says many studies are written by academic researchers fraught with conflicts of interest.
Sharyl: In some cases, it sounds like it’s nothing more than advertising by an employee that works for a drug company.
Pomeranz: It is and I think that’s often the way you have to look at it.
Angell: I came to the New England Journal of Medicine in 1979. Starting about then was when you saw the drug companies assert more and more control until finally they over the next couple of decades, they began to treat the researchers as hired hands. They would design the research themselves. You know you can do a lot of mischief in how you design a trial. Or we’ll test this drug and we’ll tell you whether it can be published or not, and so if it’s a positive study, it’s published, if it’s a negative study, it’ll never see the light of day.
That happened in 2000. The makers of an experimental AIDS vaccine threatened to sue Dr. James Kahn, their lead researcher at the University of California San Francisco for $7 million, to keep him from publishing study results showing the vaccine didn’t work.
Angell: An official of the company said something to the effect of, ‘we have put $30 million into that study, we have our rights,’ or something like that.
Angell says as she applied due diligence to the many studies submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine, it started to feel like a losing battle.
Angell: I would call up and say, okay, you’ve shown that your drug is pretty good. But there’s not a single side effect. Any drug that does anything is going to have some side effects. And I had people say, ‘well the sponsor won’t let me’. And so, I became to be extremely distrustful of most of the research that was published. We did our very best, we often rejected things because it was clearly biased, but anything we rejected always ended up in another journal.
Angell left the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000, but kept her eye on the journal industry, which she says resisted meaningful efforts to rein in conflicts of interest. In 2009, she wrote an article that famously declared “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published.”
Sharyl: What would you say is the state of the journal landscape today and the New England Journal of Medicine, particularly?
Angell: I think that that role that the New England Journal used to fill, one was the role of being skeptical, the other was the role of caring about the ethics of the whole system. I think the journal has given that up, the New England Journal of Medicine has given that up.
The New England Journal of Medicine declined our interview requests, but told us “since 1984 we have requested author disclosures.” In 2009, the journal says it helped pioneer a universal form requesting “that authors report all relevant financial conflicts” during the most recent three years. And it posts the form and study sponsorship. Besides Dr. Angell, another powerful voice is also weighing in. The current Editor in Chief of the British journal Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton, wrote a scathing editorial saying: “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue; science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Annie Waldman: Be skeptical about everything. Be skeptical about every study that you read, whether it’s in the New England Journal of Medicine or some journal you’ve never heard of.
Annie Waldman writes for the nonprofit ProPublica.
Another article referencing issues with peer-review comes via THE BLAZE:
A peer-reviewed academic journal was recently duped in a hilarious way.
Two academics, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, recently used pen names to submit an academic paper to a peer-reviewed academic journal to expose the absurdity of modern gender studies by arguing that the male reproductive organ known as the penis is a “social construct.”
The 3,000-word paper was titled, “The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct,” and was submitted, and published, to the “Cogent Social Sciences” academic journal in its May edition. Lindsay and Boghossian cited 20 sources in their paper, many of which they said they made up or never read….
