Fascinating conversation going on.
Watch Live: Sen. Johnson Holds Star-Studded COVID-19 ‘Second Opinion’ Hearing
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Star studded? Here is easily found info on the first three “stars” listed on the agenda.
Dr. McCullough likes to lie about his employment: “Dr. Peter A. McCullough is a medical doctor known for his appearances in media and in front of government panels expressing some skepticism regarding coronavirus treatment specifically vaccines. He’s claimed, whether it be online, in interviews, or in testimony before state legislatures, to be Baylor University Medical Center’s vice chair of internal medicine and/or a professor at Texas A&M University.
There’s one problem…he’s not.” Thanks to Taylor Millard at Hotair.com
Dr. Bret Weinstein is a proponent and purveyor of misinformation: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, Weinstein made several public appearances advocating the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin to prevent or treat the disease and downplaying the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. David Gorski, in Science-Based Medicine, described Weinstein as a prominent “COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation”, and “one of the foremost purveyors of COVID-19 disinformation”, citing his appearances on Joe Rogan and Bill Maher.[5][34] Sam Harris criticised Weinstein’s advocacy, stating that he “consider[s] it dangerous”.[34] Eric Topol, professor of molecular medicine, described Weinstein’s position on mRNA vaccines as “totally irresponsible. It’s reckless. It’s sick. It’s predatory. It’s really sad.”[34]
Weinstein has made erroneous claims that ivermectin can prevent or treat COVID-19,[5][49][50][51] claims for which there is no good evidence.[52][53][54] Weinstein hosted ivermectin advocate Pierre Kory on his DarkHorse podcast to discuss the drug,[55][6] and promoted ivermectin on other podcast and television news appearances.[56][57] Weinstein took ivermectin during a livestream video and said both he and his wife had not been vaccinated because of their fears concerning COVID-19 vaccines.[58] YouTube demonetized the couple’s channels in response to their claims about ivermectin. Afterward, Weinstein and Heying moved their subsequent broadcasts to the alternative/fringe video sharing platform Odysee.[55] In August of 2021, Weinstein said he had misstated that a study had shown a 100% effective ivermectin protocol for the prevention of COVID.[52][59] Weinstein considers himself a supporter of vaccines in general; he believes mRNA vaccines have promise despite what he claims are “some clear design flaws”.[41] Weinstein has falsely claimed that the spike protein produced by or contained within COVID-19 vaccines is “very dangerous” and “cytotoxic”.[60][61][62]” Thanks to wikipedia.
Jay Bhattacharya is one of teh Great Barrington authors and another misinformation star that several judges beleive him to be wrong: “In March 2021, Bhattacharya called the COVID-19 lockdowns the “biggest public health mistake we’ve ever made” and claimed that “The harm to people is catastrophic”.[15] In May 2021, Bhattacharya was called as an expert witness for ten applicants who filed a constitutional challenge against Manitoba’s COVID-19 public health orders.[16] The judge determined that the public health restrictions did not violate charter rights, noting that Bhattacharya’s views were not supported by most scientific and medical experts.[17]
In August 2021, Bhattacharya provided testimony in defense of Florida’s ban on mask mandates.[18] He publicly opposed COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandates, although he called the vaccines successful.[19][20] The judge ruled against the Florida ban and said that the state’s medical experts “are in a distinct minority among doctors and scientists”.[21]
In December 2021, Bhattacharya helped found the Academy for Science and Freedom with Kulldorff and Scott Atlas, a program of the private conservative liberal arts college Hillsdale College.[22]
In a 2021 case in Tennessee, the judge described Bhattacharya’s testimony as “troubling and problematic”, noting that he had oversimplified conclusions of a study, casting doubt on his interpretation of other studies. The judge concluded, “the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya.”[23]
In 2021, he was named a senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, a new think tank launched by Jeffrey Tucker that published articles opposing various measures against COVID-19; Kulldorff and Gupta, his co-authors on the Great Barrington Declaration, have also had roles there.[24]” Thanks again to wikipedia.
Misinformation stars getting a bigger platform is dangerous and a purely political move by the Gentleman from Wisconsin.
Thanks for the offer to view, but I will pass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Misinformation stars getting a bigger platform is dangerous and a purely political move by the Gentleman from Wisconsin.”
Well, if it’s dangerous and political, we should of course close our eyes, stop our ears and say nothing.
LikeLike
…”we should of course close our eyes, stop our ears and say nothing.”
If I had ignored your post, that is what I would have been doing. Calling out liars and misinformation professionals was worth the time (less than 10 minutes) to say SOMETHING.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also note there is no defense provided for the three individuals I mentioned. Is that because you think they are right or because there is no defense to be made. (Kind of like Bills-Chiefs yesterday.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why should a defense of an ad hominem attack be required. Such attacks are inherently weak,
Where are they wrong?
LikeLike
“Where are they wrong?”
Adam’s research is not to rebut anything they have said. It was to weigh whether the invitation to listen to them speak was worth taking up. For many very sound reasons, the answer was – not in the least.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Calling out liars and hucksters for being liars and hucksters is now ad hominem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two big takeaways from the event:
There was a brief but spirited discussion of the possibility that the Covid-19 vaccines cause cancer.
If there was a theme to the various discussions it concerned outright corruption at the CDC, FDA and NIH.
LikeLike
Discussions but ZERO proof. Let’s just throw it out there that corruption exists in those agencies. No proof, just SAY it is true. Dangerous territory.
LikeLike
The bases for the corruption charges were explained. You can watch the video and criticize them, if you wish.
LikeLike
If I want to watch science fiction, I’ll tune to the SYFY channel. At least it is entertaining.
LikeLike
92% of our military personnel have been vaccinated.
It stands to reason that hospitalizations would come from the vast majority, which are vaccinated.
Or, another way to look at it: if we had 100,000 personnel, 92,000 have been vaccinated and 8,000 have not.
A 10% rate among the vaccinated would exceed 100% of the unvaccinated. And since 100% of the unvaccinated are not hospitalized, the ratio would seem even higher.
The efficacy of vaccines has never been much more than 85%, plus or minus, and seemingly less so for Omicron.
Of course Ron Johnson wants to denigrate the need for vaccines. That is his schtick. Plus vaccination would help the Democrats, and we can’t have that even if lives are saved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “A 10% rate among the vaccinated would exceed 100% of the unvaccinated. And since 100% of the unvaccinated are not hospitalized, the ratio would seem even higher.”
You’re not thinking straight. The relevant population is Covid-19 patients who have been hospitalized. DoD data says 70% of that group are vaccinated. CDC says 10% are vaccinated. That’s a discrepancy which requires explanation.
LikeLike
“Three DOD whistle blowers. . .”
Oh my! 75% of the hospitalized had been vaccinated!
If the virus is able to sicken SOME of the vaccinated and everyone in the group has been vaccinated, then 100% of the sick will have been vaccinated. Right?
The military has a very high rate of vaccinations – 98%. Therefore, it is expected that most of the sick will have been vaccinated. This is NOT inconsistent with the CDC estimate you cited. It was based on a population with a much lower rate of vaccination. Do the math before accusing a trusted agency of falsifying important information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If the virus is able to sicken SOME of the vaccinated and everyone in the group has been vaccinated, then 100% of the sick will have been vaccinated. Right?”
Wrong. If 100% of the sick were vaccinated, then the vaccine was ineffective. The question to be answered is: Why do DoD and CDC have such disparate efficacy measurements?
LikeLike
“ If 100% of the sick were vaccinated, then the vaccine was ineffective.”
No, not at all. A vaccine is never 100% effective. So if everyone is vaccinated, then anyone who is infected is vaccinated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “then anyone who is infected is vaccinated.”
That’s not the point. The point is, Why should the DoD measurement be so different from the CDC’s?
You and Mr. Murphy assume you know the answer, but all you really have is one of many possibilities.
As I pointed out, too, the DoD numbers are consistent with similar surveillance reports in other countries. That makes the CDC an odd man out, so to speak. Hence, the need for resolution.
LikeLike
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-safety-outcomes/what-data-on-120-000-covid-hospitalizations-shows-about-breakthrough-cases.html
Some more data to crunch through.
Now, are you saying that the military is reporting 70% hospitalization with fully vaccinated personnel, but the CDC says 10% from the same group? That is, the military.
Or is the CDC 10% from the national stats of ALL residents in the US?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here is the comparison that came up in the discussion:
DoD: Of military personnel hospitalized for Covid-19, 70% were vaccinated.
CDC: Of national population hospitalized for Covid-19, 90% were unvaccinated.
LikeLike
So comparing one small group, the military, with 92%+ vaccination rate with a huge population that is only 1/2 vaccinated, less in some places.
I think the apples and oranges comparison is hard to equate for a case against vaccination.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No one said it was a case against vaccination. The question, again, is: Why are the DoD and CDC databases showing such dissimilar results?
LikeLike
Because they are comparing different populations.
LikeLike
DOD has 92% vaccination and the country has half that in some places.
I am wondering why that is hard to grasp.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Because they are comparing different populations.”
You don’t know that to be the case.
LikeLike
And you do?
LikeLike
RE: “I am wondering why that is hard to grasp.”
It is not hard to grasp, but it is not definitive.
As I said before, “all you really have is one of many possibilities.”
LikeLike
So, what is your point? What do you mean by not “definitive”?
If almost all people in a given population, like the military, are vaccinated, then hospitalized breakthroughs will be more common than the small number of unvaccinated, even if all the unvaccinated were admitted to hospitals.
That much is pretty obvious. To me, at least.
When dealing with a population of 330 million scattered over hundred or even thousands of medical jurisdictions and facilities and less than half are fully vaccinated and even a smaller percentage are boosted. The numbers will be different. Add in reporting lags, different rules in different states, masking controversies, etc.
The military can tell its personnel how to act and what to do and when.
Can’t do that in the general population.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “So, what is your point? What do you mean by not ‘definitive’?”
My point, as stated, is that the DoD data disagrees with the CDC data. Your explanation for the disagreement is not definitive because, as stated, there are other possible explanations. You are in no position to be able to say that your explanation is the correct one, no matter how much you believe it to be so.
Mr. Murphy makes the same mistake. He demands that his explanation for the discrepancy be taken seriously when in fact he is unable to show that it is the correct explanation.
Let me give you an example of the difficulty you are trying to gloss over. Do either of you actually know whether DoD and CDC define “vaccinated” in the same way?
LikeLike
What are the other possible explanations?
FYI both CDC and DoD consider fully vaccinated to be two shots of Moderna or Pfizer or one from J&J.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/cdc-definition-of-fully-vaccinated-is-not-changing.html
https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Coronavirus-DOD-Response/
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “What are the other possible explanations?”
Several that came up in the video concerned different ways CDC fudges its numbers; for example, by calling hospitalized patients Covid patients when they were admitted for something else and only tested positive for Covid.
But the problem still remains for you. You may know from secondary sources that DoD and CDC use the same definition of “vaccinated,” but you don’t know how that definition applies to their data sets. You are just assuming.
LikeLike
Well, if we are assuming that the numbers are “fudged”, then any discussion is kind of pointless.
This is entering the category of “they” and “them” without any clear definition of precisely who “they” and “them” are other than some vague, evil cabal controlling our lives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Two words come to mind: SPACE LASERS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You need to curb your eagerness to justify your refusal to help stop the pandemic, read, and think.
As I said earlier – DO THE MATH. I will try to help.
No one has ever said that any vaccine and especially Covid vaccine stops 100% of infections. Some vaccinated people do get sick and hospitalized. Here is a simplified model:
Assume: vaccine is 95% effective preventing people from being hospitalized.
Assume: Population 1 = 1,000 people that are 98% vaccinated. (Military)
Assume: Population 2 = 1,000 people that are 70% vaccinated. (General population)
Assume: Everyone in both populations is exposed.
Assume: Unvaccinated all are hospitalized.
Assume: 5% of the vaccinated are hospitalized.
Population 1: Hospitalized = (980×5%) + (20*100%) = (48 + 20) = 68 people hospitalized
Population 1: Percent of hospitalized who are vaccinated = 48/68 = 71%
Population 2: Hospitalized = (700×5%) + (300*100%) = (35 + 300) = 335 people hospitalized
Population 2: Percent of hospitalized who are vaccinated = 35/335 = 10%
Of course, this is oversimplified. But it does make clear that the vaccination rate has a profound impact on the percent of hospitalized people who have been vaccinated. And note the much smaller number of people hospitalized in the 98% vaccinated population.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand the math. I also understand that you don’t know whether it is relevant here, or not.
LikeLike
When YOU bring up percentages, you cannot say that the math is irrelevant.
LikeLike
“I also understand that you don’t know whether it is relevant here, or not.”
Uh, no.
Of course, this math is relevant. You compare your source saying that hospitalizations among the military are 70% vaccinated people with the CDC reporting that only 10% of hospitalizations are vaccinated people. You then take this wide difference to imply that the CDC is badly mistaken or worse.
The mathematics I outlined for you makes it clear that these very different numbers are NOT “absolutely inconsistent” as you claim but are what is to be expected when comparing groups with wildly different rates of vaccination.
This is not difficult to understand. So please try a little harder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You then take this wide difference to imply that the CDC is badly mistaken or worse.”
No. I said the difference needs to be explained. You are just guessing at an explanation and won’t admit that your knowledge is limited.
LikeLike
I am not “guessing” at an explanation. I am giving you THE explanation. This explanation is widely understood. I did not make it up. It is almost pure mathematics independent of definitions or reporting standards.
Those “experts” who ignore THE known and obvious explanation are trying to deceive you and they have succeeded. Because you really, really want to be deceived.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He don’t LIKE your explanation so it must be wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person