I was debating this with someone on Twitter who says they do meta analyses. I pointed to Tess' work, they naturally pointed to Dr. Hills'. I put up the transcript and they told me it was "likely decontextualized". Some people, you just can't... It was like arguing with my brother when he had psychosis.
They also referred me to Romani's and another meta analysis but I think Tess pointed out rightly that heterogeneous studies like those can hide efficacy. Easy enough to pick unfavorable studies, especially inpatient treatment and say you have quality concerns with the rest, voila! ivermectin looks ineffective... but understanding stats inside and out I'm sure you know this too well, Matthew.
My mistake, it was Roman. Cruciani was the other, I just fused the names.
Read the post, interesting to see how much deeper the problems go. I think clumsy, politically motivated and wouldn't be surprised if there's monetary motivation.
By the way, I know you're busy and sorry to go off-topic but any plans to compare rates between viral myocarditis and vaccine-induced? Yuri in the debate said it's more likely from COVID, don't know how he came up with this... might be referring to the CDC study that used PCR+ inpatients as the denominator (fluffing the rates) and the Mendel study which is awful and clear why it's not peer reviewed.
We now have new vaccine-induced studies, one from Hong Kong (peer reviewed), another from Canada (preprint) showing some shocking rates (you've probably seen already). Big topic at the moment with the cluster of soccer players having cardiac events.
You're better off asking Jessica Rose about myocarditis. I did not go deep on that topic at least partially because she did so. In two conversations with Yuri, I found that what he thinks he knows is nearly entirely made up of assumptions that fill in mental gaps. He often says he has read research, but makes claims that demonstrate the opposite or at least a low understanding of it.
Also, the CDC study claiming rates of myocarditis after COVID in young people had just 9 total cases in a subpopulation. It stinks of publication bias. If they have the vast databases implied by many of their other claims, we should take a skeptical position. There is no indication that rates of myocarditis were skyrocketing in 2020 like they are in 2021.
I mean logically, you have to actually get COVID to have a chance at myocarditis. That is nowhere near 100% chance. Meanwhile, you have a 100% of having a chance of getting myo/pericarditis every time you inject the vax.
Not to mention that the avenue of infection is vastly different from COVID vs vaccine, with one starting in the intramucosal (sp?) airways of the upper airways and the other being injected directly into the blood stream.
I don't know though, I am just putting together what I have heard.
That's right, it's also relative to your risk of infection. With the vaccine it's 100%, the risk is absolutely there and what not talked about enough is subclinical damage which may accumulate.
Then consider risk of reinfection vs boosters every 3-6 months. Unless you run into a wildly different variant then reinfection is either unlikely or mild because of antibodies and/or memory T and B cells at the ready and boosters will probably elevate risk with each shot.
Well described. This elevated risk due to re-exposure from boosters is also associated with each of the thousands(literally) of adverse events associated with the shots. Of particular concern is the the repeated chance of developing a serious allergic reaction(actually it's always serious) with each injection due to the repeated exposure to the PEG or other elements in the shot, and, of course, we are not priveledged to know the full list of ingredients contained in the shots.
Yes, the polyethylene glycol allergy... haven't looked closely at this but I've heard about increasing risks of anaphylaxis. What might make it worse is now with Pfizer recommending triple shots and the UK doing quarterly vaccinations is high zone tolerance. Eventually if I understand it right you'll have little responsiveness. Do booster cycles get shortened even more in that case?
Don’t take this as gospel but I heard that 50% of people who end up in ICU have slightly elevated levels of troponin( indicative of heart damage/inflammation). But we are talking about covid that leads to ICU
Healthy young people by and large will avoid ICU if they get covid. Thus they would not be susceptible to heart inflammation.
Vaccine myocarditis shows a meaningful increase in troponin levels. That’s something else. Something more serious.
But please double check. But this is how I understood it from McCullough.
Haven't heard about the 50% but someone did send me a paper comparing MIS-C myocarditis to vaccine-induced. Troponin levels were clearly higher in the vaccine group. I think this biomarker also stays elevated for a while, maybe weeks or months.
To be clear, troponin is a protein released by the cardiac muscle when damaged into the bloodstream. I'm still making my way through a medical physiology textbook to understand more and it has plenty on the heart but that continual damage doesn't sound good. Destroying cells, messing with electrical conductivity hampers adequate function, it can cause problems like arrythmia which is ridiculous at a young age.
Just a couple things to keep in mind, there was only 9 in the vaccine group so a very small sample size, 149 in MIS-C. Median age is different between groups, MIS-C was 7.5yrs and vaccine was 15.5yrs... so you'd have to wonder how vaccine-induced myocarditis would be in a younger age group.
They also didn't followup for sequelae and its not peer reviewed. Not a great comparison but all I know of.
Bill Gates has been building these NGO groups and staffing regulatory agencies around the globe for well over a decade that I've been tracking and the money has changed everything with respect to gmo foods that are as helpful as these jabs. This is shocking but hardly a surprise.
"Lawrie has been the result of numerous media hit pieces, including one that was until just recently entirely out of character for Scientific American."
Gotta disagree it is out of character for Scientific American. SA have been happy to put out smear pieces and baseless "science" for critics of the approved narrative since 9-11 where they defended free-fall collapse of WTC7 while attacking architects and engineers who cite physics.. same with gmo food the spin is the same as the HCQ hit jobs.... They are no better than NYTimes or the others.. sometimes you get the truth but when the big money is against reality they serve %$#@ with the best of them.
I have an old friend (99?) who (though he is very bright, a retired lawyer) simply can't get his mind around the fact, the enormity, of this lie. I do not try now to discuss the 'news cabal' and it's agregious agreement that was made (the TNI ugh). Beyond understanding.
even 98 yr old grandma in the rural west virginia "holler" sees through the lies - and she isn't a lawyer. she watches all the news channels because she doesn't get out of the house much. but she also thinks the "news" should be renamed to "opinion".
The Hill-Lawrie exchange is by some margin the most shocking thing i have ever read. That man has blood on his hands. Millions and millions of people. It’s unfathomable.
A good criminal would know not to record such a conversation. That Lawrie recognized that Hill is a sort of trapped nonclinical sociopath and pushed him this way on a recorded call is a testament to her savvy in handling the situation.
I like Dr Kory and Dr Zelenko. Call a spade a spade. Those who have sold out are war criminals and at this point, they know it. They are closing ranks and hoping they can get out of this alive.
To clear his name, would Andrew Hill publish the research funds he received or involved with during his career? University of Liverpool or Imperial College funding from third-parties should be public. It would be interesting to see how much $ they received for medical research and from where.
"Also present in that photo-op is (you're going to want to click this link—>) former INSERM CEO Ivey Levy, whose wife Agnes Buzyn took over Touraine's post as French Minister of Health and Solidarity (yes, that's what they're calling it now) shortly after the WIV broke ground."
produces a page that tells me
" You're logged in as <yours truly>, but this page is private. Try logging in with a different email, or letting the author know they've linked to a private page."
and I'm doing the latter, having only the one log-in, tried on Chrome and Firefox, Linux.
Fantastically content rich post. I was shocked when I read the original article; as Kory says, Unitaid and the scientists corrupted or compromised by the funding have deaths on their hands. I wonder how they sleep at night?
Hmmm. That’s a bummer. I don’t think it’s smart to take a written interaction as facts despite what one might believe about the situation. It will basically mean nothing to those who oppose the view anyway.
I'm halfway through RFK, Jr's book on Fauci, so the exchange between Lawrie and Hill was familiar to me.
Narrative proponents will pooh-pooh such evidence of widespread corruption, tying together government and corporate bureaucracies into a web of bribes and blackmail promoting not just "junk science" but baldfaced lies, saying this is just one example and that claims of widespread corruption are "conspiracy theories."
The following video of Dr. Aseem Malhotra is evidence that such corruption is in fact pervasive and dominating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I. I saw it some time ago and forgot to bookmark it, but was able to find it again because Neville Hodgkinson referenced it in the article on which this post is based.
Thanks for posting this, Matthew. I've no bookmarked both the aborted debate and the Malhotra clip.
Is this unfinished? The last section "Confession Through Projection?" just seems to end in a sentence that itself appears to be missing something (I'm unsure if the ellipses are for effect or a placecard for something: "that killed" whom?).
With all of these mini studies that form of the basis of the meta analysis, shouldn't we be concerned with publication bias? Investigators who don't find a meaningful signal are less likely to publish.
I was debating this with someone on Twitter who says they do meta analyses. I pointed to Tess' work, they naturally pointed to Dr. Hills'. I put up the transcript and they told me it was "likely decontextualized". Some people, you just can't... It was like arguing with my brother when he had psychosis.
They also referred me to Romani's and another meta analysis but I think Tess pointed out rightly that heterogeneous studies like those can hide efficacy. Easy enough to pick unfavorable studies, especially inpatient treatment and say you have quality concerns with the rest, voila! ivermectin looks ineffective... but understanding stats inside and out I'm sure you know this too well, Matthew.
The Roman meta-analysis was far worse than that.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/the-meta-analytical-fixers-an-ivermectin
My mistake, it was Roman. Cruciani was the other, I just fused the names.
Read the post, interesting to see how much deeper the problems go. I think clumsy, politically motivated and wouldn't be surprised if there's monetary motivation.
By the way, I know you're busy and sorry to go off-topic but any plans to compare rates between viral myocarditis and vaccine-induced? Yuri in the debate said it's more likely from COVID, don't know how he came up with this... might be referring to the CDC study that used PCR+ inpatients as the denominator (fluffing the rates) and the Mendel study which is awful and clear why it's not peer reviewed.
We now have new vaccine-induced studies, one from Hong Kong (peer reviewed), another from Canada (preprint) showing some shocking rates (you've probably seen already). Big topic at the moment with the cluster of soccer players having cardiac events.
You're better off asking Jessica Rose about myocarditis. I did not go deep on that topic at least partially because she did so. In two conversations with Yuri, I found that what he thinks he knows is nearly entirely made up of assumptions that fill in mental gaps. He often says he has read research, but makes claims that demonstrate the opposite or at least a low understanding of it.
Also, the CDC study claiming rates of myocarditis after COVID in young people had just 9 total cases in a subpopulation. It stinks of publication bias. If they have the vast databases implied by many of their other claims, we should take a skeptical position. There is no indication that rates of myocarditis were skyrocketing in 2020 like they are in 2021.
I mean logically, you have to actually get COVID to have a chance at myocarditis. That is nowhere near 100% chance. Meanwhile, you have a 100% of having a chance of getting myo/pericarditis every time you inject the vax.
Not to mention that the avenue of infection is vastly different from COVID vs vaccine, with one starting in the intramucosal (sp?) airways of the upper airways and the other being injected directly into the blood stream.
I don't know though, I am just putting together what I have heard.
That's right, it's also relative to your risk of infection. With the vaccine it's 100%, the risk is absolutely there and what not talked about enough is subclinical damage which may accumulate.
Then consider risk of reinfection vs boosters every 3-6 months. Unless you run into a wildly different variant then reinfection is either unlikely or mild because of antibodies and/or memory T and B cells at the ready and boosters will probably elevate risk with each shot.
Well described. This elevated risk due to re-exposure from boosters is also associated with each of the thousands(literally) of adverse events associated with the shots. Of particular concern is the the repeated chance of developing a serious allergic reaction(actually it's always serious) with each injection due to the repeated exposure to the PEG or other elements in the shot, and, of course, we are not priveledged to know the full list of ingredients contained in the shots.
Yes, the polyethylene glycol allergy... haven't looked closely at this but I've heard about increasing risks of anaphylaxis. What might make it worse is now with Pfizer recommending triple shots and the UK doing quarterly vaccinations is high zone tolerance. Eventually if I understand it right you'll have little responsiveness. Do booster cycles get shortened even more in that case?
The dose dose dose dose makes the poison. Clazy.
Don’t take this as gospel but I heard that 50% of people who end up in ICU have slightly elevated levels of troponin( indicative of heart damage/inflammation). But we are talking about covid that leads to ICU
Healthy young people by and large will avoid ICU if they get covid. Thus they would not be susceptible to heart inflammation.
Vaccine myocarditis shows a meaningful increase in troponin levels. That’s something else. Something more serious.
But please double check. But this is how I understood it from McCullough.
Haven't heard about the 50% but someone did send me a paper comparing MIS-C myocarditis to vaccine-induced. Troponin levels were clearly higher in the vaccine group. I think this biomarker also stays elevated for a while, maybe weeks or months.
To be clear, troponin is a protein released by the cardiac muscle when damaged into the bloodstream. I'm still making my way through a medical physiology textbook to understand more and it has plenty on the heart but that continual damage doesn't sound good. Destroying cells, messing with electrical conductivity hampers adequate function, it can cause problems like arrythmia which is ridiculous at a young age.
Do you have the link for the paper comparing MIS-C myocarditis to vaccine induced? I would be very interested in reading it.
Yeah, it was this one - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.05.21264581v1.full-text
Just a couple things to keep in mind, there was only 9 in the vaccine group so a very small sample size, 149 in MIS-C. Median age is different between groups, MIS-C was 7.5yrs and vaccine was 15.5yrs... so you'd have to wonder how vaccine-induced myocarditis would be in a younger age group.
They also didn't followup for sequelae and its not peer reviewed. Not a great comparison but all I know of.
Bill Gates has been building these NGO groups and staffing regulatory agencies around the globe for well over a decade that I've been tracking and the money has changed everything with respect to gmo foods that are as helpful as these jabs. This is shocking but hardly a surprise.
"Lawrie has been the result of numerous media hit pieces, including one that was until just recently entirely out of character for Scientific American."
Gotta disagree it is out of character for Scientific American. SA have been happy to put out smear pieces and baseless "science" for critics of the approved narrative since 9-11 where they defended free-fall collapse of WTC7 while attacking architects and engineers who cite physics.. same with gmo food the spin is the same as the HCQ hit jobs.... They are no better than NYTimes or the others.. sometimes you get the truth but when the big money is against reality they serve %$#@ with the best of them.
I have an old friend (99?) who (though he is very bright, a retired lawyer) simply can't get his mind around the fact, the enormity, of this lie. I do not try now to discuss the 'news cabal' and it's agregious agreement that was made (the TNI ugh). Beyond understanding.
What greed can do!!
even 98 yr old grandma in the rural west virginia "holler" sees through the lies - and she isn't a lawyer. she watches all the news channels because she doesn't get out of the house much. but she also thinks the "news" should be renamed to "opinion".
It is actually more than greed.
The Hill-Lawrie exchange is by some margin the most shocking thing i have ever read. That man has blood on his hands. Millions and millions of people. It’s unfathomable.
A good criminal would know not to record such a conversation. That Lawrie recognized that Hill is a sort of trapped nonclinical sociopath and pushed him this way on a recorded call is a testament to her savvy in handling the situation.
Agreed. I listened to Kennedy's book on Audible and it was absolutely chilling to listen to the transcript read.
I like Dr Kory and Dr Zelenko. Call a spade a spade. Those who have sold out are war criminals and at this point, they know it. They are closing ranks and hoping they can get out of this alive.
To clear his name, would Andrew Hill publish the research funds he received or involved with during his career? University of Liverpool or Imperial College funding from third-parties should be public. It would be interesting to see how much $ they received for medical research and from where.
Clear his name? How can a guilty man clears his man? Have you noticed all the various "studies" re real covid meds done in the UK were hit jobs?
We need to remember that "they" have almost every angle covered.
Quite an eye opener, among many, this is.
By the way, the link cited in the following text
"Also present in that photo-op is (you're going to want to click this link—>) former INSERM CEO Ivey Levy, whose wife Agnes Buzyn took over Touraine's post as French Minister of Health and Solidarity (yes, that's what they're calling it now) shortly after the WIV broke ground."
produces a page that tells me
" You're logged in as <yours truly>, but this page is private. Try logging in with a different email, or letting the author know they've linked to a private page."
and I'm doing the latter, having only the one log-in, tried on Chrome and Firefox, Linux.
Thanks for your work.
Thanks for the heads up. I think I know what happened and will hopefully fix that immediately.
Seconding that I have the same problem, and am a paid subscriber too, so you know I'm not riff-raff :)
Fantastically content rich post. I was shocked when I read the original article; as Kory says, Unitaid and the scientists corrupted or compromised by the funding have deaths on their hands. I wonder how they sleep at night?
"Lawrie has been the result of numerous media hit pieces" this should probably say "target", not "result."
Of 'seen' not 'been'.
Is there anywhere to watch/listen to their conversation? Kennedy mentions it was a zoom call that was recorded. So it must be somewhere no?
I haven't seen it yet, but I would like to as well.
Hmmm. That’s a bummer. I don’t think it’s smart to take a written interaction as facts despite what one might believe about the situation. It will basically mean nothing to those who oppose the view anyway.
I'm halfway through RFK, Jr's book on Fauci, so the exchange between Lawrie and Hill was familiar to me.
Narrative proponents will pooh-pooh such evidence of widespread corruption, tying together government and corporate bureaucracies into a web of bribes and blackmail promoting not just "junk science" but baldfaced lies, saying this is just one example and that claims of widespread corruption are "conspiracy theories."
The following video of Dr. Aseem Malhotra is evidence that such corruption is in fact pervasive and dominating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I. I saw it some time ago and forgot to bookmark it, but was able to find it again because Neville Hodgkinson referenced it in the article on which this post is based.
Thanks for posting this, Matthew. I've no bookmarked both the aborted debate and the Malhotra clip.
"no bookmarked" = "now bookmarked"
In France, Buzyn banned over-the-counter chloroquine Jan. 13, 2020. Similar thing happened in the UK.
It almost sounds as if the ". . . executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Is this unfinished? The last section "Confession Through Projection?" just seems to end in a sentence that itself appears to be missing something (I'm unsure if the ellipses are for effect or a placecard for something: "that killed" whom?).
Mathew, that link regarding Levy/Buzyn says it's private. (I'm a paying subscriber - is there something else I should be? 😉)
This is an excellent article, I am really confused on the initial part on cancer. Can you elaborate? What was the holistic treatment ?
With all of these mini studies that form of the basis of the meta analysis, shouldn't we be concerned with publication bias? Investigators who don't find a meaningful signal are less likely to publish.