irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I don't usually encourage burner accounts but I gotta give props... esp the slight of purple font so it's a 2fer poke.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...role_of_G-quadruplexes_exosomes_and_microRNAsThese disturbances are shown to have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell?s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage
Always remember akula gonna be akulaakula1488 said:Science, more science. In plain English, the mRNA vaccine may weaken your immune system against cancer and other diseases. So much science let's see what the ignorant fool IHO can say
morekaos said:More from the Ivory Towers at Johns Hopkins...
Has Anyone Else Looked at Whether ?Lockdowns? Reduced Mortality From COVID-19?
Science and medicine fact-checking site Health Feedback addressed the topic in May 2021, thanks to a misleading New York Post item making the same claims as the paper?s authors.
They reviewed the claims, concluding:
Scientific evidence shows that lockdowns reduce the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, so the claim made by the New York Post that lockdowns ?don?t appear to have saved lives? is false.
Lockdowns can have varying consequences on the economy, depending on how strictly they are applied and how a country manages its reopening. Although lockdowns have also contributed to economic recession and high unemployment rates, they can pay off in the long run, as [an International Monetary Fund (IMF)] analysis suggests. If lockdowns are strictly applied and the spread of the virus is brought under control, this would likewise limit the cases of illness and death in a population. These have an overall net positive effect on the economy, enabling a more rapid return to economic activity, thereby speeding up economic recovery.
That analysis noted that a false binary of either choosing ?mitigation? or ?the economy? was often presented, noting that unchecked spread of the virus had detrimental economic effects, too:
However, not locking down and letting the virus spread without restrictions would also harm the economy, the IMF found. Even when no lockdown is imposed, people may choose to practice physical distancing to avoid being infected, which also harms the economy.
In a section titled ?Scientists? Feedback,? Health Feedback obtained comment from a none-too-pleased author of the New York Post?s source material. Unsurprisingly, it had been misrepresented, likely to gin up agenda-driven pageviews:
Vivian Ho, Professor, Rice University, Baylor College of Medicine:
I am disappointed that the results of my study have been misinterpreted. You?ll see from the title of the press release for this report that the conclusions are the opposite of the New York Post[?s] claims:
http://news.rice.edu/2020/12/17/ear...-covid-19-spread-baker-institute-paper-finds/
The report finds that the benefits of lockdowns in reducing deaths don?t occur immediately. Instead, they occur several months down the road. To quote directly from the report: ??the increasingly strong relationship between high levels of openness and high DDPM [daily deaths per million] suggests that lockdowns have been effective in both reducing DDPM in highly infected states and in preventing new spikes in deaths. Additionally, this trend implies that states that are more open are susceptible to higher COVID-19 death rates.?
Finally, a note was added to the review:
NOTE (12 May 2021):
After our review was published, the New York Post corrected their article by removing the inaccurate claim that lockdowns did not save lives (see archive of corrected article).
Summary
The Daily Wire continued acting as a disinformation superspreader with its February 1 2022 item, ?Johns Hopkins Study: Lockdowns Had ?Little To No Effect On COVID-19 Mortality? But Had ?Devastating? Effects On Society.? The referenced ?study? was demoted to a ?working paper? in the piece?s text, and its content was further cherry-picked to appeal to confirmation bias (successfully, as we first found it on Trendolizer.com). Health Feedback, a science and medicine focused fact checking site, debunked previous claims that ?lockdowns? did not reduce mortality. As for the paper, its authors primarily dealt in the field of economics ? not medicine nor public health. It would be remiss not to note that one of the paper?s authors regularly criticized shelter-in-place directives on social media, repeatedly describing requirements for vaccines in public places as ?fascist.?
irvinehomeowner said:morekaos said:More from the Ivory Towers at Johns Hopkins...
Do you even bother to check these tabloid posts you regurgitate?
All 3 authors are economists, one from John Hopkins... so this isn't a medical science based "study". That's why it's called a literature review and an analysis. Basically an OpEd with a skewed conclusion.
Try reading this, which discusses the fallacies in your "study":
https://www.truthorfiction.com/lock...ality-but-had-devastating-effects-on-society/
Has Anyone Else Looked at Whether ?Lockdowns? Reduced Mortality From COVID-19?
Science and medicine fact-checking site Health Feedback addressed the topic in May 2021, thanks to a misleading New York Post item making the same claims as the paper?s authors.
They reviewed the claims, concluding:
Scientific evidence shows that lockdowns reduce the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, so the claim made by the New York Post that lockdowns ?don?t appear to have saved lives? is false.
Lockdowns can have varying consequences on the economy, depending on how strictly they are applied and how a country manages its reopening. Although lockdowns have also contributed to economic recession and high unemployment rates, they can pay off in the long run, as [an International Monetary Fund (IMF)] analysis suggests. If lockdowns are strictly applied and the spread of the virus is brought under control, this would likewise limit the cases of illness and death in a population. These have an overall net positive effect on the economy, enabling a more rapid return to economic activity, thereby speeding up economic recovery.
That analysis noted that a false binary of either choosing ?mitigation? or ?the economy? was often presented, noting that unchecked spread of the virus had detrimental economic effects, too:
However, not locking down and letting the virus spread without restrictions would also harm the economy, the IMF found. Even when no lockdown is imposed, people may choose to practice physical distancing to avoid being infected, which also harms the economy.
In a section titled ?Scientists? Feedback,? Health Feedback obtained comment from a none-too-pleased author of the New York Post?s source material. Unsurprisingly, it had been misrepresented, likely to gin up agenda-driven pageviews:
Vivian Ho, Professor, Rice University, Baylor College of Medicine:
I am disappointed that the results of my study have been misinterpreted. You?ll see from the title of the press release for this report that the conclusions are the opposite of the New York Post[?s] claims:
http://news.rice.edu/2020/12/17/ear...-covid-19-spread-baker-institute-paper-finds/
The report finds that the benefits of lockdowns in reducing deaths don?t occur immediately. Instead, they occur several months down the road. To quote directly from the report: ??the increasingly strong relationship between high levels of openness and high DDPM [daily deaths per million] suggests that lockdowns have been effective in both reducing DDPM in highly infected states and in preventing new spikes in deaths. Additionally, this trend implies that states that are more open are susceptible to higher COVID-19 death rates.?
Finally, a note was added to the review:
NOTE (12 May 2021):
After our review was published, the New York Post corrected their article by removing the inaccurate claim that lockdowns did not save lives (see archive of corrected article).
Summary
The Daily Wire continued acting as a disinformation superspreader with its February 1 2022 item, ?Johns Hopkins Study: Lockdowns Had ?Little To No Effect On COVID-19 Mortality? But Had ?Devastating? Effects On Society.? The referenced ?study? was demoted to a ?working paper? in the piece?s text, and its content was further cherry-picked to appeal to confirmation bias (successfully, as we first found it on Trendolizer.com). Health Feedback, a science and medicine focused fact checking site, debunked previous claims that ?lockdowns? did not reduce mortality. As for the paper, its authors primarily dealt in the field of economics ? not medicine nor public health. It would be remiss not to note that one of the paper?s authors regularly criticized shelter-in-place directives on social media, repeatedly describing requirements for vaccines in public places as ?fascist.?
Disinformation is gonna disinformation.
Sad.
morekaos said:OK...how about Lancet throwing in the towel?...
COVID-19 will continue but the end of the pandemic is near
For example, the death toll from omicron seems to be similar in most countries to the level of a bad influenza season in northern hemisphere countries. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the worse influenza season during the past decade in 2017?18 caused about 52?000 influenza deaths with a likely peak of more than 1500 deaths per day.
The era of extraordinary measures by government and societies to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission will be over. After the omicron wave, COVID-19 will return but the pandemic will not.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00100-3/fulltext
morekaos said:OK...how about Lancet throwing in the towel?...
COVID-19 will continue but the end of the pandemic is near
For example, the death toll from omicron seems to be similar in most countries to the level of a bad influenza season in northern hemisphere countries. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the worse influenza season during the past decade in 2017?18 caused about 52?000 influenza deaths with a likely peak of more than 1500 deaths per day.
The era of extraordinary measures by government and societies to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission will be over. After the omicron wave, COVID-19 will return but the pandemic will not.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00100-3/fulltext
morekaos said:You are citing an article written in 2020?...The science has "changed"...right?
Early lockdowns were key in reducing ultimate COVID-19 spread, Baker Institute paper finds
JEFF FALK ? DECEMBER 17, 2020
POSTED IN: NEWS RELEASES
akula1488 said:Still cricket from the ignorant fool IHO.
News around the world:
Japan biotech company is looking at anti viral properties of IVM.
Science:
Rapid cancer progression due to vaccine.
Weakened immunity against cancer and other diseases due to mRNA vaccine
Data:
US has much higher COVID death to vaccination ratio than India, Africa.
irvinehomeowner said:I've decided to stop engaging in providing sustenance to poorly researched opinions.
akula1488 said:Translation:
Ignore any information that goes against the narrative being fed to me and that I believe, regardless of sources (including John Hopkings,
As I said I am moderate so I look at both ends but for what I share here I want to use neutral and reputable sources.
As I alluded before, sheeple gonna sheeple.
akula1488 said:Data point of the day.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
If you add Israel, it has the highest COVID deaths per capita TODAY. But it has the highest vaccination rate among its population and they are on 4th shot already.
India is way lower despite low vaccination rate.