[FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Sorry people, the video I have referred to in the first post has been
censored, so you can't see it. Big Brother has spoken.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

Pieter

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 07:18, Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za>
wrote:

> I don't know if this web site is reliable. How can I find out?
>
> https://c19ivermectin.com/
>
> They claim :
>
> 85% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials RR 0.15 (0.09-0.25) when using
> Ivermectin for Covid-19
>
> They link to a database of all ivermectin Covid-19 studies. They claim 60
> trials, 549 scientists, 18931 patients, 31 randomised controlled trials.
> It's going to take reasonable amount of time and effort to verify their
> results
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Pieter Steenekamp <
> pieters at randcontrols.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot for the references Glen; this seems valuable information.
>> I'll study it carefully and then comment on it.
>>
>> Pieter
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:48, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ooops. I forgot to include this link:
>>>
>>> Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline
>>> https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1
>>>
>>> On 6/17/21 7:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
>>> > Excellent! Stripped of the kvetching about "censorship" and "darkhorse
>>> podcast" nonsense, you're getting closer to a testable hypothesis. I
>>> encourage you to take a look at some of the clinical trials for the
>>> alternatives you're talking about. E.g.
>>> https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
>>> >
>>> > You'll notice that they (try to) list *several* outcomes. That you
>>> have some calculus that shows how those outcomes aggregate to be "in total
>>> better than getting vaccinated" is a *strong* claim. You've provided no
>>> evidence whatsoever. What is your calculus for comparing the regimens? You
>>> won't be able to provide that evidence UNTIL you're more specific and
>>> concrete about which outcomes you hold most prominent.
>>> >
>>> > You also need to be specific about the circumstances. E.g. in the
>>> ivermectin case, what *cocktail* of treatments did you include alongside
>>> ivermectin? In one study, they're using ivermectin, hydroxychloraquine,
>>> favipiravir, and azithromycin. Are the benefits and/or adverse effects
>>> linearly decomposable from the cocktail? Perhaps your doctor doesn't have
>>> access to 1 or more of the ingredients. How might that affect the outcomes?
>>> >
>>> > These are all excellent questions and I laud you for launching into
>>> the effort of justifying those regimens over the vaccine. I welcome that
>>> evidence.
>>> >
>>> > Obviously, where the vaccine is unavailable but one or more of the
>>> reasonably justified alternatives is available, it's a no-brainer. Do what
>>> your doctor tells you to do. But where the vaccine is free and easy, the
>>> alternative therapies have a high bar to jump. And I'm glad you're willing
>>> to tell us which of those therapies are "in total better". I'm anxious to
>>> hear about them.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6/16/21 8:07 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>>> >> The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures
>>> against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated.
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>>>
>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210618/8b5fa03b/attachment.html>