Interview with Vinay Prasad, MD MPH
Call it out for what it is , a leeky vaccine
and there is no COVID https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/there-is-no-covid
You know John PA's famous paper about everything we read in journals being wrong. Well everything we read about viruses, SARS, transmission and causes of 'covid' is complete rubbish https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
"The rapid development of vaccines that were apparently very effective for decreasing the risk of serious disease"
...and those same vaccines actually increase the risk of severe outcomes (the total of SAE's + hospitalization due to covid) and death from all causes...vaccine arm of original Pfizer trial had 4 SAEs and 1 hospitalization due to covid, while the placebo arm had no SAEs and 4 hospitalizations due to covid...21 all-cause deaths in the vaccine arm v. 17 in the placebo arm
Focussing on just beneficial impacts on disease once fully-vaccinated ignores the group with high risk who have been injected--and are within two weeks of injection--is totally blinkered. Injection increases risk in some fraction of high risk individuals who, as a result of injection, become severely deficient in vitamin D, which compromises their immune system and increases the risk of severe disease. Because of the way statistics are gathered, this group in the Twilight Zone will be counted as unvaccinated and the adverse events won't be attributed to injection even if it was a contributing cause.
Doctors need to do a better job of parsing the data.
ioannidis was initially a voice of caution- almost of reason, but he has either been got at or vaxxed to the point of losing his marbles. he did not present one balanced credible fact- but constantly wittered on about how we should mandate masks- because they sound like a good idea even if they do not work- how we should inject everyone- & may or may not be pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised/ time will tell- meantime lets enjoy the science...
what utter corrupt non-science from someone who could not more blatantly be hedging their bets to protect their income & scientific standing.
if he is prepared to murder children so flippantly on the altar of bogus science with a dangerous genetic experiment "vaccination" he is not just a fraud but deservedly up there with certain WW2 "doctors" & i will happily put the name ioannidis forward to the new nuremberg trials for crimes against humanity.
people's lives & health are not a game john, find some morality & grow up
I’m more thankful to John Ioannidis than anyone else in this situation, I refuse to call it a pandemic. I was awake to pharmaceutical influence on the dietary recommendations. The second John was silenced, one of, if not the most highly respected epidemiologist in the world I knew this wasn’t about the disease. Thank you, from me and more importantly my family.
I followed Ioannidis early on during the initial stages of the pandemic and an obviously failed Covid policy. He appeared humble, honest, curious, and knowledgeable. All of these traits resulted in my trusting his view on Covid and Covid policy. He was prepared to be wrong, and understood that he likely may be wrong, but the evidence and scientific method would ultimately win out. Compare that to the hubris of what we can now call a biomedical industrial complex that censors, mandates, violates, marginalized, demonizes and promotes policies that have little basis in science let alone medical ethics and basic human morality. Every day I am astonished how we have allowed those in positions of authority to remain in these positions over the last two years. Once the vaxxines (don’t call them vaccines) failed…and they have failed by the very metric those in power advanced as a success…every decision maker needed to be pulled from office and replaced. Unfortunately there still remains a critical mass of people who have so wholly succumbed to Covid madness that they would applaud Hitler had he shouted west your masks and get boosted.
I suspect we all know why Professor Ioannidis, a true hero of the early days, and likely the most qualified individual in the world to speak on this issue, is holding back.
“As a researcher of bias, I am biased to believe that some of the reported high rates may be bias[ed].” --JPAI 👍 Great quote from a great discussion. Why is there not more of this type of discussion with a similar tenor and acknowledgment that no one has all of the correct answers? I think we could advance medicine faster if we could have more discussions like this that force our colleagues to think critically while retaining humility in the face of so many unknowns. This Substack concept is fantastic. Keep it up!
Much as I like what John writes and his even-handed and moderate positions, it's hard to take seriously a researcher who has authored over 1000 articles - even if he never sleeps, it seems physically impossible to be deeply involved with so many publications.
The bigger problem, however, is that John's positions rely too heavily on models, whose predictive power will always be subject to suspicion unless sensitivity to each and every parameter can be properly assessed.
Thanks for the balance and calm of this article. We are a long way from being able to factor in all the variables; some huge and so potentially pivotal. In the absence of all main variables virtually or absolutely all studies are merely correlations or associations-based theories. A theory is a theory. Ultimately subjective. Sleep, diet, personality, resilience, genetic and environmental propensity to addictions and other mental/bodily and spiritual dynamics inflammation and consciousness (individual, family, and collective, culturally, etc) are all significant unknown variables. Fear of death and other fearful concerns are huge factors in responses to illnesses and treatments, and there seems strong evidence for the power of the mind to help or weaken health. Diet and exercise are massively significant in this, and which remain outside of medical considerations and theorising. IMHO the priority responsibility, given what was known very early in the pandemic, should have been children and young people. It remains shameful and perhaps negligent to the point of criminality that children and young people have been treated so much worse than adults in the past two and a half years, and actually in the several generations prior too. Money and economic/political power are the prizes that governments and billionaires play for. People and children are collateral damage, and we delude ourselves in believing there's any other attitude among the 'leaders' of our political and institutional systems. Nick Duffell's profound work ('Wounded Leaders' etc) explained and predicted much of what is happening now, as does that of Professor Tim Noakes and Nina Teicholz, experts on diet, nutrition and our evolved ways to be healthy and have naturally strong immune systems. Pharma and modern medicine is very clever at fixing acute health problems (although not Covid-19). Pharma and modern medicine is terribly bad and counter-productive in curing chronic illnesses of the mind and body. LowcarbFreshwell.co.uk is an easy introduction to the points I'm making. Sadly we've not educated people, especially medical doctors, about health properly for 70 years, and the truths about addictions, traumas and microbiome, and connectedness to nature, are only now being rediscovered, after centuries of forgetting.
Dear Tom, no, the risk gradient I was stating is for people who've not had covid. You are reading the statistics wrong. You are confounding too many age groups. So you're behaving just as badly as mainstream media who misrepresent data. If you're 35 and average healthy, you don't need help. I'm 55 and above average health, I don't need help.
ALL coronavirus exposure procures short iG antibody life (waning immunity). However T cell memory remains longer and provides moderate general immunity. We knew this before SCV2 and it's the reason we've never bothered with vaccinating against colds (frequently coronaviruses), because:
-short iG antibody life
-high mutation rate
-vast animal reservoir
There's not much point in vaccinating if you're healthy, no matter your age. BUT that doesn't change the fact that for a frail person, even a moderate reduction in severity risk can be appealing.
So don't bother getting vxd, as I have not. But don't misrepresent the data for the frail. .45 improvement for 3 months is not much, but it's not nothing.
I don't believe in chasing eternal life at all costs. I disagree with coercing 80 year olds to get vxd every 6 months.
But heck, that's capitalism for you. Profit drives everything, fear-mongering is the most powerful profit driver and our Medical Industrial Complex has been made even more uber wealthy that it already was. I would say if I were 80 and unhealthy, I'd take the vx, but I plan on kicking the bucket at 69, so I'll never need "help".
As humans, we should value autonomy rather than medicalisation. But that's not what our society values.
Nevertheless, you are misrepresenting the elderly/frail benefit of vx. Yes it wanes. That's neither here nor there, we always knew this.
no mention of the war on repurposed drugs, not allowing doctors to be doctors, not offerings people alternative treatments - because people don't want vaccines, as a doctor you need to still tell them the alternatives available , early treatment , the importance of supporting the immune system , ignoring and not treating the vaccine injured , the tyrrany , following the money etc
Just a question for my understanding: is „zero prevalence“ a spelling mistake and was „seroprevalence“ meant? Because there is a substantial difference between these.
„ VP: A number of municipalities continue to threaten mask mandates for children. How do you judge the evidence for masking children? Given that zero prevalence is likely 90% or higher, does it make sense? What will be the stopping rules?“
I'm confused as to why Ioannidis clings to the foolishness of masking against aerosols. You didn't ask him to back up his faith in masking with facts. There are no facts that back up any use for community veiling. (Let's not call them "masks").
Thank you for doing this interview.
"VP: ...for masking children? Given that zero prevalence is likely 90%"
This should be "seroprevalence is likely 90%."