“The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2:” this paper is explicitly critiqued, not least the sensational claim of a 1 in 23 trillion chance of the positive effect being random. (this isn’t how statistical analysis works, apparently...)
There’s also criticism of the Bryant and Lawrie paper.
The key paper that shows cytotoxicty from the spike protein is with regards to the spike protein found in sars-cov-2, according to Gorski and the papers he cites the s-protein created via the mrna vaccines is modified to attach to cells in the muscle rather than freely circulating. (Its since been found that there are circulating levels of spike protein post mrna vaccine but in extremely small quantities, far lower than you’d get via an infection, and that the clearance of the protein is as expected for the proper functioning of the vaccine. ( https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/15/the-novavax-vaccine-data-and-spike-proteins-in-general ) )
The Japanese biodistribution data is also debunked, the study is in rats, the percentage build up in the ovaries is exceptionally small and studies have been completed looking specifically at ovarian function post mrna vaccine with no issues found. The Japanese data is at the center of Byram Bridle’s claims, which is systematically debunked here https://byrambridle.com/ .
I’m also unware of any info on ADE.
I’ve been vaccinated with one dose of Pfizer with no side effects. I’m waiting on the imminent CDC emergency panel on myocarditis to gauge whether it makes any sense getting a second dose.
There’s a lot of talk about the molnupiravir being invested in (a Merck product I believe) and concerns about an Alzheimer’s drug that the FDA have recently approved despite apparently scant evidence and evidence of toxicity.
I may not have time to read through all of that, but thanks for the links. I quickly learned some new things by following a few links there + googling around.
Most notably, some key evidence presented by Steve K that took center stage in the video, both evidence of the dangers of “the vaccines” and evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin, comes from groups led by the same person, Theresa Lawrie.
Lawrie apparently founded a web site for ivermectin advocacy (registered March 7, 2021) after presenting evidence on Ivermectin’s efficacy on January 13 (to “13 clinicians” and 7 others)
Lawrie is the director of a group of 4 people calling itself “The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy” that called for “an immediate halt to the [Covid] vaccination programme” on June 9
Lawrie published the meta-analysis Steve was raving about (with 6 co-authors), which found “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin” (published June 17 but, obviously, completed earlier)
Now, is Lawrie just one of those productivity superheroes vying for a Nobel prize? Or is there something suspicious about too much evidence and advocacy coming from the same person?
What makes me the most suspicious is that
the anti-vaccine document performs no cost/benefit analysis before concluding that all three vaccines are too dangerous to use.
it includes no analysis of base rates (the number of adverse health events that would normally occur in a large population in the absence of any vaccines).
Edit 1: seriously, what are the chances that all three vaccines are both dangerous and equally so? Has that ever happened in history? I think not. (4 different vaccines are implicitly demonized by the video since it talks about US and UK data, but this document is UK-specific; the UK and US have used 3 vaccine brands each)
Edit 2: I don’t say this enough, but one must also consider the reaction of other experts. Large numbers of other experts think the vaccines are safe (safe enough to deploy widely, anyway) and that ivermectin is an interesting treatment but unproven. When experts in high places thought there was a risk of rare blood clots, they were often willing to halt the use of a vaccine even when doing so would lead to a larger number of overall Covid deaths. And of course, while regulatory agencies were understandably in a hurry, separate phase-3 trials were completed on each vaccine (in multiple countries) and showed adequate safety as usual. So the idea that these same experts and agencies are ignoring a wide variety of side-effects, including death, seems preposterous. The only argument I’ve seen against these numerous other visible experts comes from my father, who claimed the media is hiding information because they are controlled by George Soros, and from this video, which explains it as groupthink & social norms. As if scientists but not conservatives do groupthink & social norms.
I only skimmed the document, but I don’t see any lip service paid to any of these issues or objections. And these are obvious objections, aren’t they? So why wouldn’t they be considered?
In the absence of other information, I assume that the lack of care demonstrated in this document is typical for Lawrie.
Unfortunately, my post ended up doing something I disapprove of: it listens to a handful of outspoken scientists (one in particular, it turns out) while utterly ignoring the majority who disagree. I hoped other LessWrong users would tell me how other scientists/experts are arguing the other side, but I got less of that than I hoped.
seriously, what are the chances that all three vaccines are both dangerous and equally so?
Malone/Weinstein say they seem to have minor differences, at least in mechanism/effect. Their point being that if you get the S p circulating you’re in trouble. All the three seem to produce that effect.
One must also consider the reaction of other experts [...] When experts in high places thought there was a risk of rare blood clots, they were often willing to halt [...]
Well done, this is a very well put and good point.
I don’t know what drove the craze on blood clot (very few instances too?) against AZ and J&J.
It’s weirdly inconsistent with the reaction on myocarditis for mRNA vaccines, they only (reasonably?) halted on young population? It looks like a different standard than for AZ/J&J.
Well, Moderna and Pfizer’s are both mRNA-based, but presumably different in some ways because they were made by different teams (and I thought I saw Bret or Dr. Malone say he would have preferred Pfizer over Moderna, though it’s not in my summary). But AstraZeneca and J&J are “adenovirus vector vaccines”, using chimpanzee adenovirus ChAdOx1 and serotype 26 (HAdV-D26) respectively; the latter was “under investigation as [a] protective platform against HIV, Zika, RSV infections and are in Phase-III clinical trials for Ebola” in early 2019. Now, adenovirus vector technology is pretty new. Even so, it would be an impressive coincidence if the risks were both substantial and the same for a ChAdOx1-based vaccine, a HAdV-D26-based vaccine and both RNA vaccines. Sure, they all use the spike protein in some way — probably it’s necessary for the immune system to recognize the spike protein — but (i) eventually our bodies will encounter the spikes, either via SARS-Cov-2 or via vaccine, and I’ve seen no one make a case that a live, replicating virus is safer, and (ii) the evidence/argument for the protein itself being dangerous hasn’t been made clear in any of the stuff I’ve seen.
But my main point is the seeming lack of interest from Lawrie, Dowswell, Kirsch et al. in the question of relative safety, because this is a known failure mode of anti-vaxxers all the way back to the Wakefield study. That infamous paper apparently linked the MMR vaccine to autism, yet many anti-vaxxers acted like there was some fully general link between all vaccines and autism.
There’s also criticism of the Bryant and Lawrie paper.
What’s an actual criticism of that paper from that article?
That meta-studies are garbage-in-garbage-out? That’s weak at best, the author seems to have spent no time in spot checking any of the papers included to check whether this actually happened.
The Japanese data is at the center of Byram Bridle’s claims, which is systematically debunked …
… by a nameless “Concerned Scientist”. I don’t want to play ranking authorities, but it’s obvious someone is mad at Bridle enough to steal his name to put up that website.
It’s hard to read that website assuming good faith, at least Bridle seems courageous enough to argue his points in the open under his own name, like any “Scientist” should do, especially “Concerned” ones.
Regarding the spike protein toxicity, my understanding is that the claim is a bit more nuanced.
A recent tweet from Malone says:
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic. That is a fact. Who says so? Multiple peer reviewed references. The Salk Institute.
It is the responsibility of the vaccine developers to demonstrate that their expressed version is not toxic.
Show us.
And then links to this Salk article.
Basically claiming that we know SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic and unless proven otherwise it’s fair to assume the version expressed by vaccines is similarly cytotoxic.
All the “fact-checker” linked from that website are “we have no evidence that [...]”, and this is very much a case in which absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I’ve seen this paper used over, and over, and over by antivaxxers. But a coauthor of that paper, who was horrified about how it was being used, says:
Congrats to @OgataAlana on this important study. Many asked how much spike protein gets into circulation after vaccination. Turns out to average ~30-40 pg/mL for a few days then disappears. FYI: This is ~100,000x less than used in our paper (4 ug/mL). https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-ar
I challenge anyone to name any vaccine or protein (or whatever) that is safe at the normal dosage and ALSO safe at a dose 10,000x or 100,000x higher. An extreme dose being hazardous is not surprising. It logically follows that if an extreme dose is harmful, it doesn’t mean a dose 100,000x lower is harmful.
As I mentioned in my post, blog posts by David Gorski systematically address most of the issues you’ve highlighted ( https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/ )
Ivermectin:
“The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2:” this paper is explicitly critiqued, not least the sensational claim of a 1 in 23 trillion chance of the positive effect being random. (this isn’t how statistical analysis works, apparently...)
There’s also criticism of the Bryant and Lawrie paper.
On twitter recently Malone has acknowledged his mistake having been presented with evidence of dosing analysis by Pfizer ( https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1406555309200531458 )
The key paper that shows cytotoxicty from the spike protein is with regards to the spike protein found in sars-cov-2, according to Gorski and the papers he cites the s-protein created via the mrna vaccines is modified to attach to cells in the muscle rather than freely circulating. (Its since been found that there are circulating levels of spike protein post mrna vaccine but in extremely small quantities, far lower than you’d get via an infection, and that the clearance of the protein is as expected for the proper functioning of the vaccine. ( https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/15/the-novavax-vaccine-data-and-spike-proteins-in-general ) )
The Japanese biodistribution data is also debunked, the study is in rats, the percentage build up in the ovaries is exceptionally small and studies have been completed looking specifically at ovarian function post mrna vaccine with no issues found. The Japanese data is at the center of Byram Bridle’s claims, which is systematically debunked here https://byrambridle.com/ .
I’m also unware of any info on ADE.
I’ve been vaccinated with one dose of Pfizer with no side effects. I’m waiting on the imminent CDC emergency panel on myocarditis to gauge whether it makes any sense getting a second dose.
There’s a lot of talk about the molnupiravir being invested in (a Merck product I believe) and concerns about an Alzheimer’s drug that the FDA have recently approved despite apparently scant evidence and evidence of toxicity.
I may not have time to read through all of that, but thanks for the links. I quickly learned some new things by following a few links there + googling around.
Most notably, some key evidence presented by Steve K that took center stage in the video, both evidence of the dangers of “the vaccines” and evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin, comes from groups led by the same person, Theresa Lawrie.
Lawrie apparently founded a web site for ivermectin advocacy (registered March 7, 2021) after presenting evidence on Ivermectin’s efficacy on January 13 (to “13 clinicians” and 7 others)
Lawrie is the director of a group of 4 people calling itself “The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy” that called for “an immediate halt to the [Covid] vaccination programme” on June 9
Lawrie published the meta-analysis Steve was raving about (with 6 co-authors), which found “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin” (published June 17 but, obviously, completed earlier)
Now, is Lawrie just one of those productivity superheroes vying for a Nobel prize? Or is there something suspicious about too much evidence and advocacy coming from the same person?
What makes me the most suspicious is that
the anti-vaccine document performs no cost/benefit analysis before concluding that all three vaccines are too dangerous to use.
it includes no analysis of base rates (the number of adverse health events that would normally occur in a large population in the absence of any vaccines).
Edit 1: seriously, what are the chances that all three vaccines are both dangerous and equally so? Has that ever happened in history? I think not. (4 different vaccines are implicitly demonized by the video since it talks about US and UK data, but this document is UK-specific; the UK and US have used 3 vaccine brands each)
Edit 2: I don’t say this enough, but one must also consider the reaction of other experts. Large numbers of other experts think the vaccines are safe (safe enough to deploy widely, anyway) and that ivermectin is an interesting treatment but unproven. When experts in high places thought there was a risk of rare blood clots, they were often willing to halt the use of a vaccine even when doing so would lead to a larger number of overall Covid deaths. And of course, while regulatory agencies were understandably in a hurry, separate phase-3 trials were completed on each vaccine (in multiple countries) and showed adequate safety as usual. So the idea that these same experts and agencies are ignoring a wide variety of side-effects, including death, seems preposterous. The only argument I’ve seen against these numerous other visible experts comes from my father, who claimed the media is hiding information because they are controlled by George Soros, and from this video, which explains it as groupthink & social norms. As if scientists but not conservatives do groupthink & social norms.
I only skimmed the document, but I don’t see any lip service paid to any of these issues or objections. And these are obvious objections, aren’t they? So why wouldn’t they be considered?
In the absence of other information, I assume that the lack of care demonstrated in this document is typical for Lawrie.
Unfortunately, my post ended up doing something I disapprove of: it listens to a handful of outspoken scientists (one in particular, it turns out) while utterly ignoring the majority who disagree. I hoped other LessWrong users would tell me how other scientists/experts are arguing the other side, but I got less of that than I hoped.
Malone/Weinstein say they seem to have minor differences, at least in mechanism/effect. Their point being that if you get the S p circulating you’re in trouble. All the three seem to produce that effect.
Well done, this is a very well put and good point. I don’t know what drove the craze on blood clot (very few instances too?) against AZ and J&J. It’s weirdly inconsistent with the reaction on myocarditis for mRNA vaccines, they only (reasonably?) halted on young population? It looks like a different standard than for AZ/J&J.
Well, Moderna and Pfizer’s are both mRNA-based, but presumably different in some ways because they were made by different teams (and I thought I saw Bret or Dr. Malone say he would have preferred Pfizer over Moderna, though it’s not in my summary). But AstraZeneca and J&J are “adenovirus vector vaccines”, using chimpanzee adenovirus ChAdOx1 and serotype 26 (HAdV-D26) respectively; the latter was “under investigation as [a] protective platform against HIV, Zika, RSV infections and are in Phase-III clinical trials for Ebola” in early 2019. Now, adenovirus vector technology is pretty new. Even so, it would be an impressive coincidence if the risks were both substantial and the same for a ChAdOx1-based vaccine, a HAdV-D26-based vaccine and both RNA vaccines. Sure, they all use the spike protein in some way — probably it’s necessary for the immune system to recognize the spike protein — but (i) eventually our bodies will encounter the spikes, either via SARS-Cov-2 or via vaccine, and I’ve seen no one make a case that a live, replicating virus is safer, and (ii) the evidence/argument for the protein itself being dangerous hasn’t been made clear in any of the stuff I’ve seen.
But my main point is the seeming lack of interest from Lawrie, Dowswell, Kirsch et al. in the question of relative safety, because this is a known failure mode of anti-vaxxers all the way back to the Wakefield study. That infamous paper apparently linked the MMR vaccine to autism, yet many anti-vaxxers acted like there was some fully general link between all vaccines and autism.
What’s an actual criticism of that paper from that article? That meta-studies are garbage-in-garbage-out? That’s weak at best, the author seems to have spent no time in spot checking any of the papers included to check whether this actually happened.
… by a nameless “Concerned Scientist”. I don’t want to play ranking authorities, but it’s obvious someone is mad at Bridle enough to steal his name to put up that website. It’s hard to read that website assuming good faith, at least Bridle seems courageous enough to argue his points in the open under his own name, like any “Scientist” should do, especially “Concerned” ones.
Regarding the spike protein toxicity, my understanding is that the claim is a bit more nuanced. A recent tweet from Malone says:
And then links to this Salk article.
Basically claiming that we know SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic and unless proven otherwise it’s fair to assume the version expressed by vaccines is similarly cytotoxic.
All the “fact-checker” linked from that website are “we have no evidence that [...]”, and this is very much a case in which absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I’ve seen this paper used over, and over, and over by antivaxxers. But a coauthor of that paper, who was horrified about how it was being used, says:
I challenge anyone to name any vaccine or protein (or whatever) that is safe at the normal dosage and ALSO safe at a dose 10,000x or 100,000x higher. An extreme dose being hazardous is not surprising. It logically follows that if an extreme dose is harmful, it doesn’t mean a dose 100,000x lower is harmful.