But on the other hand I am pretty much sure that much of vaccines related info is now suppressed—not through a centralized censorship but via an emergent mechanism.
The clustering is pretty telling—anyone who claims that vaccines are dangerous also claims that ivermectin or HCQ treats covid, everyone who rejects ivermectin will also reject any claims about adverse effects of vaccines.
Yet another clustered subject is vaccine efficacy—it is pretty clear that injected vaccines don’t prevent getting ill and spreading the virus. Vaccination can limit the time of virus shedding—but actually the dangerous case is when we shed the virus when hot having other symptoms and for all we know vaccines might even increase the durability of that infection phase. This is something that is admitted by the ‘main stream’ - but the implication of that is that “vaccine passports” are silly, because vaccinated persons can still spread the virus and that will never be accepted by the ‘pro-vaccines’ side (which is now main stream).
It is also pretty clear now that the current vaccines are less effective against the new variants—the problem is that the ‘pro vaccine side’ does not want to admit that, and ‘the other side’ does not want to admit that the right conclusion is that we need new vaccines (maybe the nasal onese—that would provide sterilizing immunity): https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-covid-capitulation?s=w
I am surprised that nobody linked to Scott Alexander on ivermectin: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted (plus: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/higlights-from-the-comments-on-ivermectin?s=r). For me it more or less settles the subject—the most probable hypothesis is ivermectin de-warms people and it has a huge positive outcome on peoples health when people have warms (independently from covid—or maybe even dependently—because the warms decrease immune response fighting the virus) and unfortunately in many places on Earth worms are still prevalent enough that it shows in covid related trials.
But on the other hand I am pretty much sure that much of vaccines related info is now suppressed—not through a centralized censorship but via an emergent mechanism.
The clustering is pretty telling—anyone who claims that vaccines are dangerous also claims that ivermectin or HCQ treats covid, everyone who rejects ivermectin will also reject any claims about adverse effects of vaccines.
Yet another clustered subject is vaccine efficacy—it is pretty clear that injected vaccines don’t prevent getting ill and spreading the virus. Vaccination can limit the time of virus shedding—but actually the dangerous case is when we shed the virus when hot having other symptoms and for all we know vaccines might even increase the durability of that infection phase. This is something that is admitted by the ‘main stream’ - but the implication of that is that “vaccine passports” are silly, because vaccinated persons can still spread the virus and that will never be accepted by the ‘pro-vaccines’ side (which is now main stream).
It is also pretty clear now that the current vaccines are less effective against the new variants—the problem is that the ‘pro vaccine side’ does not want to admit that, and ‘the other side’ does not want to admit that the right conclusion is that we need new vaccines (maybe the nasal onese—that would provide sterilizing immunity): https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-covid-capitulation?s=w