The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Just a disclaimer - this is about Covid vaccines and not vaccinations in general. Vaccinations against viral infections are absolutely great and have saved many lives the last half-century or so. And in addition to the conventional vaccination technology, the mRNA vaccination technology can make significant further progress against viral infections in that it might be possible in future to roll vaccines out very soon after a harmful virus is first detected. I personally am very excited about the potential benefits of mRNA technology.

There are exceptions though, and there are voices arguing that the Covid vaccines (all of them) could have serious potential long term health risks. Especially worrisome for girls and women planning to have kids in future because some of the risks are specifically associated with ovaries. In this post I present such a case.

Covid is a nasty virus, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope. After Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, the private partners responded well with the gift of billions of dollars to develop vaccines against Covid and they did what they are supposed to do - making money for their shareholders. Under Biden the initial roll-out of the vaccine was a bit wobbly, but after a while it got going and the US is now well under way to get vaccinated and just maybe Covid will, if not eradicated at least manageable. There were mixed experiences in other countries, for example it's understandable that with all their bureaucracy Europe initially fumbled a bit and under Boris Johnson the UK quickly got their act together and the vaccination roll-out happened relatively fast there. It hurts me to talk about South Africa.

So, it's a no-brainer that we should all just get vaccinated because that's the way to win this battle against Covid. But it seems like some humans are just plain upstream and difficult and there are many conspiracy theories with outlandish messages that the vaccines are for some or other reason evil. Fortunately governments of the world are working with Big Tech to sensor all these false narratives. If someone posts something on social media that is conducive to people not taking the vaccine, surely it's in society's interest to censor those messages? This is after all the natural way things are supposed to work, like the Catholic church who owned the truth acted against Galileo Galilei. It's just that in that case Galilei happened to get it right, but today's scientists obviously own the truth, it's science after all, so it's perfectly honourable to censor false narrative today. Right?

I, for one, don't buy it that the narratives that go against the scientific consensu should be censored. The problem with that is it creates a culture of groupthink; those voices that are against the narratives get to be silenced. We humans have evolved a trait where hormones are secreted when we think people like us, we then feel good, and vice versa ; so if you say something that you think people will  like, you tend to feel good. Welcome to the world of Dale Carnegie, How To Make Friends and Influence People. IMO we must recognize this human trait and support structures where the voices of contrarians are both welcomed and listened to. 

Okay, let's get back to Covid. I think there is a valid case to be made against vaccination and it should be given a fair hearing. I want now to first make a case for and then a case against Covid vaccinations.

The Case For Covid Vaccination

To make the case for Covid Vaccinations is really simple and I can't believe that there are people so stupid that they don't get it, just study the evidence. Where Covid vaccines have been rolled out, the new Covid cases and especially the Covid deaths have dropped significantly. Sure, there are rare cases of serious side effects, but in total the statistics on the results are very clear; Covid vaccines are very effective and the risks are very small. I really don't think it's required to give references, just google it for yourself and you'll find tons of published references. It's a slam dunk case.
Sure there are wankers distributing conspiracy theories against the vaccines, but they have been debunked so thoroughly that any reasonable person must reject them. 

We just have one potential problem, enough people must be vaccinated for Covid to be eradicated and it seems like there are just too many conspiracy theories going around. Fortunately the governments of the world seem to have their act together and are working with big tech to censor those conspiracy theories and it seems to work. Let's all work together on this one, if you find someone going against the narrative, just cancel him (surely it can't be a "her"). It's in society's best interest, not?

The Case Against Covid Vaccination

Einstein apparently said one must make everything as simple as possible but not too simple. Maybe the case for Covid vaccines are too simple and if you delve a bit deeper there might be a good case against vaccines? I think so and will present that case here. I will go deeper into it, but in summary it goes as follows:
* Covid is a nasty virus, but so is the Covid vaccine protein.
* There are nasty side effects to the Covid vaccine. Because the nasty spiked vaccine protein does not, like most other vaccines, stay in the upper arm area where it is applied, it goes to the rest of the body and especially alarming to the ovaries of woman and bone marrow, with potential serious long term risks involved  
* There are safe and drugs available that are as good in preventing Covid infections than vaccination, but important, without the long term health risks.  

* Humans are only human. When it's in the interest of a group of humans, they will, on average, be biased towards those actions that benefit themselves. With all the tax-payers money around and the possibility to get research grants working on expensive medical solutions, it benefits those in the medical research sectors to favor expensive solutions over cheap ones. For Big Pharma, it goes without saying, they will obviously move the world to get taxpayers money to develop expensive drugs. For politicians, they get to be the heroes in the minds of voters if they sponsored effective solutions and obviously to get financial (all above board of course) campaign and other support from big pharma does not hurt either. 

I'm not saying those involved in promoting expensive solutions are evil or crooked, they probably are all good people, but I think we must all recognize that the system is such that there are ample opportunities for the outcome not to be 100% aligned with the interest of the normal people.  

All this is dependent on two crucial questions:
Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?
Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
If any of these questions is false, the argument against Covid vaccinations fall flat.

Let me address these two questions
1 Are there long term health risks associated with Covid vaccines?
Please note this argument is only valid for Covid vaccines, not for vaccines against viral infections in general
In an interview in a podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY, from 2:22 to 2:28 ) dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology and a current vaccination consultant, there are reasons to be concerned about the long term risks to especially the ovaries of human and bone marrow of everyone.

Maybe you're not concerned, but if the inventor of mRNA technology ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ ) and whose current bread is to a reasonable amount buttered by consulting on vaccination technology warns against Covid vaccines, it certainly makes me worried. His current advice goes headlong against his financial and career interests. He recommends against Covid vaccination because of potential long term health benefits and because there are lower-risk alternatives with similar benefits available.

2  Are there cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
a) It is reported in https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html that "Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
b) The second argument that I present is indirect evidence.
The businessman Steve Kirsch has researched the space and is convinced that both NIH and WHO are wrong about not recommending cheap alternative remedies. Now, I hear you laugh, it's just ridiculous to take a lay person's word against science. The clincher is -  he is offering $2m of his own money to be proven wrong on this. Why is his $2m not claimed? Does this say something?  I quote from his website (https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m):

"This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.
In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.
Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories:
helpful,
neutral,
or harmful.
I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all.
To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are:
more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations FOR these drugs, or
more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs.
Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts or superior cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win each prize. What could be easier?"

Maybe for you it does not have much weight, but for me if a person feels so strongly about something that he offers two $1m prices to provide convincing evidence to prove him wrong, and the money is not claimed, it does say something very loud and clear. Especially in the light of humans being humans and it's in the relevant Covid vaccine role players' interest to ignore cheap remedies.

The end

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Marcus G. Daniels]

> Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?

To do these studies requires a lot of history and a lot of people.   We have a lot of people now that have had Pfizer and Moderna, but a lot of time has not passed.    So, no.  Since mass vaccination is a public health issue, not just an individual health issue, it is only appropriate to see if objective risks emerge at a population level.   FDA made a determination to go ahead.   They have qualified people to decide this.

Incidentally, I've looked at one of the largest EHR datasets out there, and I have seen more encouraging correlations between Hepatitis B vaccination and better outcomes for everything from hypertension to multiple sclerosis.   You can find focused studies on these in the literature.  Leaving trillions of nanorobots running around, of a kind which have the demonstrated ability to kill millions of people is a clear and present danger.   Theoretical dangers, or just fears, of mRNA technology just doesn't quite compare in my mind.

> Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?

Sure, the Never Leave Your House prophylactic.   That may pose a serious risk to ones' employability and mental health at some point.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:05 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Heh, this reads like one of those badly formed websites about aliens. (Have I plugged the Church lately? https://churchofrobotron.com/ Are you the mutant savior?!?!)

It's fair to say that we don't know the long-term effects of the vaccines, any more than we know the long-term effects of anything anymore. But there's no secret. No censorship. No conspiracy. The world is not out to get the contrarians. Here's a relatively good article covering many of the bases:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-vaccines-are-going-to-sterilize-our-womenfolk-take-2/
"No, the Japanese biodistribution study shows nothing of the sort. It only looked at where the lipid nanoparticles go."

It's curious when people wear Victimhood on their sleeves. I've been accused of having a chip on my shoulder. And so doing is a perfectly reasonable response to criticism. But the question, as always, is how/if one learns from the criticism while carrying that chip. Debunking is not censorship. But it is helpful to be skeptical of the skeptics. A great example is this other Science-Based Medicine article by an apparent transphobe:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-the-transgender-craze-seducing-our-daughters/

"The lady doth protest too much." The Martyr card is a dead giveaway ... a stark red flag for invoking the Five W's. If all the arguments were stripped of their pearl clutching victimhood, their messages would be clearer and taken more seriously. Oh! And I highly recommend this book:

Against the Web: A Cosmopolitan Answer to the New Right
https://bookshop.org/books/against-the-web-a-cosmopolitan-answer-to-the-new-right/9781789042306

On 6/16/21 3:15 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

> Just a disclaimer - this is about Covid vaccines and not vaccinations in general. Vaccinations against viral infections are absolutely great and have saved many lives the last half-century or so. And in addition to the conventional vaccination technology, the mRNA vaccination technology can make significant further progress against viral infections in that it might be possible in future to roll vaccines out very soon after a harmful virus is first detected. I personally am very excited about the potential benefits of mRNA technology.
>
> There are exceptions though, and there are voices arguing that the Covid vaccines (all of them) could have serious potential long term health risks. Especially worrisome for girls and women planning to have kids in future because some of the risks are specifically associated with ovaries. In this post I present such a case.
>
> Covid is a nasty virus, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope. After Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, the private partners responded well with the gift of billions of dollars to develop vaccines against Covid and they did what they are supposed to do - making money for their shareholders. Under Biden the initial roll-out of the vaccine was a bit wobbly, but after a while it got going and the US is now well under way to get vaccinated and just maybe Covid will, if not eradicated at least manageable. There were mixed experiences in other countries, for example it's understandable that with all their bureaucracy Europe initially fumbled a bit and under Boris Johnson the UK quickly got their act together and the vaccination roll-out happened relatively fast there. It hurts me to talk about South Africa.
>
> So, it's a no-brainer that we should all just get vaccinated because that's the way to win this battle against Covid. But it seems like some humans are just plain upstream and difficult and there are many conspiracy theories with outlandish messages that the vaccines are for some or other reason evil. Fortunately governments of the world are working with Big Tech to sensor all these false narratives. If someone posts something on social media that is conducive to people not taking the vaccine, surely it's in society's interest to censor those messages? This is after all the natural way things are supposed to work, like the Catholic church who owned the truth acted against Galileo Galilei. It's just that in that case Galilei happened to get it right, but today's scientists obviously own the truth, it's science after all, so it's perfectly honourable to censor false narrative today. Right?
>
> I, for one, don't buy it that the narratives that go against the
> scientific consensu should be censored. The problem with that is it creates a culture of groupthink; those voices that are against the narratives get to be silenced. We humans have evolved a trait where hormones are secreted when we think people like us, we then feel good, and vice versa ; so if you say something that you think people will  like, you tend to feel good. Welcome to the world of Dale Carnegie, How To Make Friends and Influence People. IMO we must recognize this human trait and support structures where the voices of contrarians are both welcomed and listened to.
>
> Okay, let's get back to Covid. I think there is a valid case to be made against vaccination and it should be given a fair hearing. I want now to first make a case for and then a case against Covid vaccinations.
>
> *The Case For Covid Vaccination*
>
> To make the case for Covid Vaccinations is really simple and I can't believe that there are people so stupid that they don't get it, just study the evidence. Where Covid vaccines have been rolled out, the new Covid cases and especially the Covid deaths have dropped significantly. Sure, there are rare cases of serious side effects, but in total the statistics on the results are very clear; Covid vaccines are very effective and the risks are very small. I really don't think it's required to give references, just google it for yourself and you'll find tons of published references. It's a slam dunk case.
> Sure there are wankers distributing conspiracy theories against the
> vaccines, but they have been debunked so thoroughly that any reasonable person must reject them.
>
> We just have one potential problem, enough people must be vaccinated for Covid to be eradicated and it seems like there are just too many conspiracy theories going around. Fortunately the governments of the world seem to have their act together and are working with big tech to censor those conspiracy theories and it seems to work. Let's all work together on this one, if you find someone going against the narrative, just cancel him (surely it can't be a "her"). It's in society's best interest, not?
>
> *The Case Against Covid Vaccination*
>
> Einstein apparently said one must make everything as simple as possible but not too simple. Maybe the case for Covid vaccines are too simple and if you delve a bit deeper there might be a good case against vaccines? I think so and will present that case here. I will go deeper into it, but in summary it goes as follows:
> * Covid is a nasty virus, but so is the Covid vaccine protein.
> * There are nasty side effects to the Covid vaccine. Because the nasty
> spiked vaccine protein does not, like most other vaccines, stay in the
> upper arm area where it is applied, it goes to the rest of the body
> and especially alarming to the ovaries of woman and bone marrow, with
> potential serious long term risks involved
> * There are safe and drugs available that are as good in preventing
> Covid infections than vaccination, but important, without the long term health risks.
> * Humans are only human. When it's in the interest of a group of
> humans, they will, on average, be biased towards those actions that benefit themselves. With all the tax-payers money around and the possibility to get research grants working on expensive medical solutions, it benefits those in the medical research sectors to favor expensive solutions over cheap ones. For Big Pharma, it goes without saying, they will obviously move the world to get taxpayers money to develop expensive drugs. For politicians, they get to be the heroes in the minds of voters if they sponsored effective solutions and obviously to get financial (all above board of course) campaign and other support from big pharma does not hurt either.
>
> I'm not saying those involved in promoting expensive solutions are
> evil or crooked, they probably are all good people, but I think we must all recognize that the system is such that there are ample opportunities for the outcome not to be 100% aligned with the interest of the normal people.
>
> All this is dependent on two crucial questions:
> Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?
> Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
> If any of these questions is false, the argument against Covid vaccinations fall flat.
>
> Let me address these two questions
> 1 Are there long term health risks associated with Covid vaccines?
> Please note this argument is only valid for Covid vaccines, not for
> vaccines against viral infections in general In an interview in a podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY>, from 2:22 to 2:28 ) dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology and a current vaccination consultant, there are reasons to be concerned about the long term risks to especially the ovaries of human and bone marrow of everyone.
>
> Maybe you're not concerned, but if the inventor of mRNA technology ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ <https://www.rwmalonemd.com/> ) and whose current bread is to a reasonable amount buttered by consulting on vaccination technology warns against Covid vaccines, it certainly makes me worried. His current advice goes headlong against his financial and career interests. He recommends against Covid vaccination because of potential long term health benefits and because there are lower-risk alternatives with similar benefits available.
>
> 2  Are there cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
> a) It is reported in https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html <https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html> that "Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
> b) The second argument that I present is indirect evidence.
> The businessman Steve Kirsch has researched the space and is convinced that both NIH and WHO are wrong about not recommending cheap alternative remedies. Now, I hear you laugh, it's just ridiculous to take a lay person's word against science. The clincher is -  he is offering $2m of his own money to be proven wrong on this. Why is his $2m not claimed? Does this say something?  I quote from his website (https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m <https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m>):
> */"This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
> /*
> */In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.
> In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.
> Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories:
> helpful,
> neutral,
> or harmful.
> I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all.
> To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are:
> more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations FOR these drugs,
> or more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs.
> Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts or superior
> cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win each
> prize. What could be easier?"/*
>
> Maybe for you it does not have much weight, but for me if a person feels so strongly about something that he offers two $1m prices to provide convincing evidence to prove him wrong, and the money is not claimed, it does say something very loud and clear. Especially in the light of humans being humans and it's in the relevant Covid vaccine role players' interest to ignore cheap remedies.
>
> The end

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Jochen Fromm-5]

From all I know the health risk of getting no Covid vaccination is far bigger than getting a Covid vaccination, especially for older people. And most of us are no longer 20, right? I feel I that I have aged 10 years in the last year alone.

The Internet tends to amplify rare side effects. If you search on social media for a rare side effect that occurs in 1 of 10 million cases then chances are high that you will find this one case where a person has in fact experienced that rare side effect. You will find it not because it is so frequent but because the search algorithms are so good that they find rare edge cases. 

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]>

Date: 6/16/21 12:17 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Just a disclaimer - this is about Covid vaccines and not vaccinations in general. Vaccinations against viral infections are absolutely great and have saved many lives the last half-century or so. And in addition to the conventional vaccination technology, the mRNA vaccination technology can make significant further progress against viral infections in that it might be possible in future to roll vaccines out very soon after a harmful virus is first detected. I personally am very excited about the potential benefits of mRNA technology.

There are exceptions though, and there are voices arguing that the Covid vaccines (all of them) could have serious potential long term health risks. Especially worrisome for girls and women planning to have kids in future because some of the risks are specifically associated with ovaries. In this post I present such a case.

Covid is a nasty virus, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope. After Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, the private partners responded well with the gift of billions of dollars to develop vaccines against Covid and they did what they are supposed to do - making money for their shareholders. Under Biden the initial roll-out of the vaccine was a bit wobbly, but after a while it got going and the US is now well under way to get vaccinated and just maybe Covid will, if not eradicated at least manageable. There were mixed experiences in other countries, for example it's understandable that with all their bureaucracy Europe initially fumbled a bit and under Boris Johnson the UK quickly got their act together and the vaccination roll-out happened relatively fast there. It hurts me to talk about South Africa.

So, it's a no-brainer that we should all just get vaccinated because that's the way to win this battle against Covid. But it seems like some humans are just plain upstream and difficult and there are many conspiracy theories with outlandish messages that the vaccines are for some or other reason evil. Fortunately governments of the world are working with Big Tech to sensor all these false narratives. If someone posts something on social media that is conducive to people not taking the vaccine, surely it's in society's interest to censor those messages? This is after all the natural way things are supposed to work, like the Catholic church who owned the truth acted against Galileo Galilei. It's just that in that case Galilei happened to get it right, but today's scientists obviously own the truth, it's science after all, so it's perfectly honourable to censor false narrative today. Right?

I, for one, don't buy it that the narratives that go against the scientific consensu should be censored. The problem with that is it creates a culture of groupthink; those voices that are against the narratives get to be silenced. We humans have evolved a trait where hormones are secreted when we think people like us, we then feel good, and vice versa ; so if you say something that you think people will  like, you tend to feel good. Welcome to the world of Dale Carnegie, How To Make Friends and Influence People. IMO we must recognize this human trait and support structures where the voices of contrarians are both welcomed and listened to. 

Okay, let's get back to Covid. I think there is a valid case to be made against vaccination and it should be given a fair hearing. I want now to first make a case for and then a case against Covid vaccinations.

The Case For Covid Vaccination

To make the case for Covid Vaccinations is really simple and I can't believe that there are people so stupid that they don't get it, just study the evidence. Where Covid vaccines have been rolled out, the new Covid cases and especially the Covid deaths have dropped significantly. Sure, there are rare cases of serious side effects, but in total the statistics on the results are very clear; Covid vaccines are very effective and the risks are very small. I really don't think it's required to give references, just google it for yourself and you'll find tons of published references. It's a slam dunk case.
Sure there are wankers distributing conspiracy theories against the vaccines, but they have been debunked so thoroughly that any reasonable person must reject them. 

We just have one potential problem, enough people must be vaccinated for Covid to be eradicated and it seems like there are just too many conspiracy theories going around. Fortunately the governments of the world seem to have their act together and are working with big tech to censor those conspiracy theories and it seems to work. Let's all work together on this one, if you find someone going against the narrative, just cancel him (surely it can't be a "her"). It's in society's best interest, not?

The Case Against Covid Vaccination

Einstein apparently said one must make everything as simple as possible but not too simple. Maybe the case for Covid vaccines are too simple and if you delve a bit deeper there might be a good case against vaccines? I think so and will present that case here. I will go deeper into it, but in summary it goes as follows:
* Covid is a nasty virus, but so is the Covid vaccine protein.
* There are nasty side effects to the Covid vaccine. Because the nasty spiked vaccine protein does not, like most other vaccines, stay in the upper arm area where it is applied, it goes to the rest of the body and especially alarming to the ovaries of woman and bone marrow, with potential serious long term risks involved  
* There are safe and drugs available that are as good in preventing Covid infections than vaccination, but important, without the long term health risks.  

* Humans are only human. When it's in the interest of a group of humans, they will, on average, be biased towards those actions that benefit themselves. With all the tax-payers money around and the possibility to get research grants working on expensive medical solutions, it benefits those in the medical research sectors to favor expensive solutions over cheap ones. For Big Pharma, it goes without saying, they will obviously move the world to get taxpayers money to develop expensive drugs. For politicians, they get to be the heroes in the minds of voters if they sponsored effective solutions and obviously to get financial (all above board of course) campaign and other support from big pharma does not hurt either. 

I'm not saying those involved in promoting expensive solutions are evil or crooked, they probably are all good people, but I think we must all recognize that the system is such that there are ample opportunities for the outcome not to be 100% aligned with the interest of the normal people.  

All this is dependent on two crucial questions:
Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?
Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
If any of these questions is false, the argument against Covid vaccinations fall flat.

Let me address these two questions
1 Are there long term health risks associated with Covid vaccines?
Please note this argument is only valid for Covid vaccines, not for vaccines against viral infections in general
In an interview in a podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY, from 2:22 to 2:28 ) dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology and a current vaccination consultant, there are reasons to be concerned about the long term risks to especially the ovaries of human and bone marrow of everyone.

Maybe you're not concerned, but if the inventor of mRNA technology ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ ) and whose current bread is to a reasonable amount buttered by consulting on vaccination technology warns against Covid vaccines, it certainly makes me worried. His current advice goes headlong against his financial and career interests. He recommends against Covid vaccination because of potential long term health benefits and because there are lower-risk alternatives with similar benefits available.

2  Are there cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
a) It is reported in https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html that "Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
b) The second argument that I present is indirect evidence.
The businessman Steve Kirsch has researched the space and is convinced that both NIH and WHO are wrong about not recommending cheap alternative remedies. Now, I hear you laugh, it's just ridiculous to take a lay person's word against science. The clincher is -  he is offering $2m of his own money to be proven wrong on this. Why is his $2m not claimed? Does this say something?  I quote from his website (https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m):

"This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.
In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.
Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories:
helpful,
neutral,
or harmful.
I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all.
To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are:
more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations FOR these drugs, or
more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs.
Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts or superior cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win each prize. What could be easier?"

Maybe for you it does not have much weight, but for me if a person feels so strongly about something that he offers two $1m prices to provide convincing evidence to prove him wrong, and the money is not claimed, it does say something very loud and clear. Especially in the light of humans being humans and it's in the relevant Covid vaccine role players' interest to ignore cheap remedies.

The end

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Thanks for the honest comments gentlemen. In general I am in full agreement with the gist of what you all say. You say there are conspiracy theories out there that can be debunked - you mentioned a couple - I fully agree with that. You also say that if all else are the same, it's probably better to take the vaccine compared to not taking it. I fully agree with that too.

After reading your comments I reread my wording carefully and I admit, the message I wanted to convey is not all that clear. Let me restate my main message in an effort to clarify it:

The main point I wish to make is that, based on the available evidence, with doing nothing else, it is better to take the vaccine compared to not taking it. But this does not imply that the vaccine is totally harmless. There are good arguments for the case that the actual harm of the vaccine, although it's much smaller than the harm of getting the virus infection, is not insignificant. The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated. I'm not repeating the motivations for reaching this conclusion, it's in the body of my original message and specifically explained well in the references I gave.   

Whilst I agree with the specific detailed points you made, I fail to see how any of your points address my main point as summarized above.

Pieter

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 23:17, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

From all I know the health risk of getting no Covid vaccination is far bigger than getting a Covid vaccination, especially for older people. And most of us are no longer 20, right? I feel I that I have aged 10 years in the last year alone.

The Internet tends to amplify rare side effects. If you search on social media for a rare side effect that occurs in 1 of 10 million cases then chances are high that you will find this one case where a person has in fact experienced that rare side effect. You will find it not because it is so frequent but because the search algorithms are so good that they find rare edge cases. 

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]>

Date: 6/16/21 12:17 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Just a disclaimer - this is about Covid vaccines and not vaccinations in general. Vaccinations against viral infections are absolutely great and have saved many lives the last half-century or so. And in addition to the conventional vaccination technology, the mRNA vaccination technology can make significant further progress against viral infections in that it might be possible in future to roll vaccines out very soon after a harmful virus is first detected. I personally am very excited about the potential benefits of mRNA technology.

There are exceptions though, and there are voices arguing that the Covid vaccines (all of them) could have serious potential long term health risks. Especially worrisome for girls and women planning to have kids in future because some of the risks are specifically associated with ovaries. In this post I present such a case.

Covid is a nasty virus, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope. After Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, the private partners responded well with the gift of billions of dollars to develop vaccines against Covid and they did what they are supposed to do - making money for their shareholders. Under Biden the initial roll-out of the vaccine was a bit wobbly, but after a while it got going and the US is now well under way to get vaccinated and just maybe Covid will, if not eradicated at least manageable. There were mixed experiences in other countries, for example it's understandable that with all their bureaucracy Europe initially fumbled a bit and under Boris Johnson the UK quickly got their act together and the vaccination roll-out happened relatively fast there. It hurts me to talk about South Africa.

So, it's a no-brainer that we should all just get vaccinated because that's the way to win this battle against Covid. But it seems like some humans are just plain upstream and difficult and there are many conspiracy theories with outlandish messages that the vaccines are for some or other reason evil. Fortunately governments of the world are working with Big Tech to sensor all these false narratives. If someone posts something on social media that is conducive to people not taking the vaccine, surely it's in society's interest to censor those messages? This is after all the natural way things are supposed to work, like the Catholic church who owned the truth acted against Galileo Galilei. It's just that in that case Galilei happened to get it right, but today's scientists obviously own the truth, it's science after all, so it's perfectly honourable to censor false narrative today. Right?

I, for one, don't buy it that the narratives that go against the scientific consensu should be censored. The problem with that is it creates a culture of groupthink; those voices that are against the narratives get to be silenced. We humans have evolved a trait where hormones are secreted when we think people like us, we then feel good, and vice versa ; so if you say something that you think people will  like, you tend to feel good. Welcome to the world of Dale Carnegie, How To Make Friends and Influence People. IMO we must recognize this human trait and support structures where the voices of contrarians are both welcomed and listened to. 

Okay, let's get back to Covid. I think there is a valid case to be made against vaccination and it should be given a fair hearing. I want now to first make a case for and then a case against Covid vaccinations.

The Case For Covid Vaccination

To make the case for Covid Vaccinations is really simple and I can't believe that there are people so stupid that they don't get it, just study the evidence. Where Covid vaccines have been rolled out, the new Covid cases and especially the Covid deaths have dropped significantly. Sure, there are rare cases of serious side effects, but in total the statistics on the results are very clear; Covid vaccines are very effective and the risks are very small. I really don't think it's required to give references, just google it for yourself and you'll find tons of published references. It's a slam dunk case.
Sure there are wankers distributing conspiracy theories against the vaccines, but they have been debunked so thoroughly that any reasonable person must reject them. 

We just have one potential problem, enough people must be vaccinated for Covid to be eradicated and it seems like there are just too many conspiracy theories going around. Fortunately the governments of the world seem to have their act together and are working with big tech to censor those conspiracy theories and it seems to work. Let's all work together on this one, if you find someone going against the narrative, just cancel him (surely it can't be a "her"). It's in society's best interest, not?

The Case Against Covid Vaccination

Einstein apparently said one must make everything as simple as possible but not too simple. Maybe the case for Covid vaccines are too simple and if you delve a bit deeper there might be a good case against vaccines? I think so and will present that case here. I will go deeper into it, but in summary it goes as follows:
* Covid is a nasty virus, but so is the Covid vaccine protein.
* There are nasty side effects to the Covid vaccine. Because the nasty spiked vaccine protein does not, like most other vaccines, stay in the upper arm area where it is applied, it goes to the rest of the body and especially alarming to the ovaries of woman and bone marrow, with potential serious long term risks involved  
* There are safe and drugs available that are as good in preventing Covid infections than vaccination, but important, without the long term health risks.  

* Humans are only human. When it's in the interest of a group of humans, they will, on average, be biased towards those actions that benefit themselves. With all the tax-payers money around and the possibility to get research grants working on expensive medical solutions, it benefits those in the medical research sectors to favor expensive solutions over cheap ones. For Big Pharma, it goes without saying, they will obviously move the world to get taxpayers money to develop expensive drugs. For politicians, they get to be the heroes in the minds of voters if they sponsored effective solutions and obviously to get financial (all above board of course) campaign and other support from big pharma does not hurt either. 

I'm not saying those involved in promoting expensive solutions are evil or crooked, they probably are all good people, but I think we must all recognize that the system is such that there are ample opportunities for the outcome not to be 100% aligned with the interest of the normal people.  

All this is dependent on two crucial questions:
Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?
Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
If any of these questions is false, the argument against Covid vaccinations fall flat.

Let me address these two questions
1 Are there long term health risks associated with Covid vaccines?
Please note this argument is only valid for Covid vaccines, not for vaccines against viral infections in general
In an interview in a podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY, from 2:22 to 2:28 ) dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology and a current vaccination consultant, there are reasons to be concerned about the long term risks to especially the ovaries of human and bone marrow of everyone.

Maybe you're not concerned, but if the inventor of mRNA technology ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ ) and whose current bread is to a reasonable amount buttered by consulting on vaccination technology warns against Covid vaccines, it certainly makes me worried. His current advice goes headlong against his financial and career interests. He recommends against Covid vaccination because of potential long term health benefits and because there are lower-risk alternatives with similar benefits available.

2  Are there cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
a) It is reported in https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html that "Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
b) The second argument that I present is indirect evidence.
The businessman Steve Kirsch has researched the space and is convinced that both NIH and WHO are wrong about not recommending cheap alternative remedies. Now, I hear you laugh, it's just ridiculous to take a lay person's word against science. The clincher is -  he is offering $2m of his own money to be proven wrong on this. Why is his $2m not claimed? Does this say something?  I quote from his website (https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m):

"This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.
In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.
Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories:
helpful,
neutral,
or harmful.
I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all.
To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are:
more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations FOR these drugs, or
more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs.
Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts or superior cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win each prize. What could be easier?"

Maybe for you it does not have much weight, but for me if a person feels so strongly about something that he offers two $1m prices to provide convincing evidence to prove him wrong, and the money is not claimed, it does say something very loud and clear. Especially in the light of humans being humans and it's in the relevant Covid vaccine role players' interest to ignore cheap remedies.

The end

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Jochen Fromm-5]

Alternative measures like Remdesivir or Hydroxychloroquine? To me this sounds a bit like (Russian) disinformation which was spread so often by Mr. Trump.

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]>

Date: 6/17/21 05:09 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Thanks for the honest comments gentlemen. In general I am in full agreement with the gist of what you all say. You say there are conspiracy theories out there that can be debunked - you mentioned a couple - I fully agree with that. You also say that if all else are the same, it's probably better to take the vaccine compared to not taking it. I fully agree with that too.

After reading your comments I reread my wording carefully and I admit, the message I wanted to convey is not all that clear. Let me restate my main message in an effort to clarify it:

The main point I wish to make is that, based on the available evidence, with doing nothing else, it is better to take the vaccine compared to not taking it. But this does not imply that the vaccine is totally harmless. There are good arguments for the case that the actual harm of the vaccine, although it's much smaller than the harm of getting the virus infection, is not insignificant. The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated. I'm not repeating the motivations for reaching this conclusion, it's in the body of my original message and specifically explained well in the references I gave.   

Whilst I agree with the specific detailed points you made, I fail to see how any of your points address my main point as summarized above.

Pieter

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 23:17, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

From all I know the health risk of getting no Covid vaccination is far bigger than getting a Covid vaccination, especially for older people. And most of us are no longer 20, right? I feel I that I have aged 10 years in the last year alone.

The Internet tends to amplify rare side effects. If you search on social media for a rare side effect that occurs in 1 of 10 million cases then chances are high that you will find this one case where a person has in fact experienced that rare side effect. You will find it not because it is so frequent but because the search algorithms are so good that they find rare edge cases. 

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]>

Date: 6/16/21 12:17 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Just a disclaimer - this is about Covid vaccines and not vaccinations in general. Vaccinations against viral infections are absolutely great and have saved many lives the last half-century or so. And in addition to the conventional vaccination technology, the mRNA vaccination technology can make significant further progress against viral infections in that it might be possible in future to roll vaccines out very soon after a harmful virus is first detected. I personally am very excited about the potential benefits of mRNA technology.

There are exceptions though, and there are voices arguing that the Covid vaccines (all of them) could have serious potential long term health risks. Especially worrisome for girls and women planning to have kids in future because some of the risks are specifically associated with ovaries. In this post I present such a case.

Covid is a nasty virus, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope. After Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, the private partners responded well with the gift of billions of dollars to develop vaccines against Covid and they did what they are supposed to do - making money for their shareholders. Under Biden the initial roll-out of the vaccine was a bit wobbly, but after a while it got going and the US is now well under way to get vaccinated and just maybe Covid will, if not eradicated at least manageable. There were mixed experiences in other countries, for example it's understandable that with all their bureaucracy Europe initially fumbled a bit and under Boris Johnson the UK quickly got their act together and the vaccination roll-out happened relatively fast there. It hurts me to talk about South Africa.

So, it's a no-brainer that we should all just get vaccinated because that's the way to win this battle against Covid. But it seems like some humans are just plain upstream and difficult and there are many conspiracy theories with outlandish messages that the vaccines are for some or other reason evil. Fortunately governments of the world are working with Big Tech to sensor all these false narratives. If someone posts something on social media that is conducive to people not taking the vaccine, surely it's in society's interest to censor those messages? This is after all the natural way things are supposed to work, like the Catholic church who owned the truth acted against Galileo Galilei. It's just that in that case Galilei happened to get it right, but today's scientists obviously own the truth, it's science after all, so it's perfectly honourable to censor false narrative today. Right?

I, for one, don't buy it that the narratives that go against the scientific consensu should be censored. The problem with that is it creates a culture of groupthink; those voices that are against the narratives get to be silenced. We humans have evolved a trait where hormones are secreted when we think people like us, we then feel good, and vice versa ; so if you say something that you think people will  like, you tend to feel good. Welcome to the world of Dale Carnegie, How To Make Friends and Influence People. IMO we must recognize this human trait and support structures where the voices of contrarians are both welcomed and listened to. 

Okay, let's get back to Covid. I think there is a valid case to be made against vaccination and it should be given a fair hearing. I want now to first make a case for and then a case against Covid vaccinations.

The Case For Covid Vaccination

To make the case for Covid Vaccinations is really simple and I can't believe that there are people so stupid that they don't get it, just study the evidence. Where Covid vaccines have been rolled out, the new Covid cases and especially the Covid deaths have dropped significantly. Sure, there are rare cases of serious side effects, but in total the statistics on the results are very clear; Covid vaccines are very effective and the risks are very small. I really don't think it's required to give references, just google it for yourself and you'll find tons of published references. It's a slam dunk case.
Sure there are wankers distributing conspiracy theories against the vaccines, but they have been debunked so thoroughly that any reasonable person must reject them. 

We just have one potential problem, enough people must be vaccinated for Covid to be eradicated and it seems like there are just too many conspiracy theories going around. Fortunately the governments of the world seem to have their act together and are working with big tech to censor those conspiracy theories and it seems to work. Let's all work together on this one, if you find someone going against the narrative, just cancel him (surely it can't be a "her"). It's in society's best interest, not?

The Case Against Covid Vaccination

Einstein apparently said one must make everything as simple as possible but not too simple. Maybe the case for Covid vaccines are too simple and if you delve a bit deeper there might be a good case against vaccines? I think so and will present that case here. I will go deeper into it, but in summary it goes as follows:
* Covid is a nasty virus, but so is the Covid vaccine protein.
* There are nasty side effects to the Covid vaccine. Because the nasty spiked vaccine protein does not, like most other vaccines, stay in the upper arm area where it is applied, it goes to the rest of the body and especially alarming to the ovaries of woman and bone marrow, with potential serious long term risks involved  
* There are safe and drugs available that are as good in preventing Covid infections than vaccination, but important, without the long term health risks.  

* Humans are only human. When it's in the interest of a group of humans, they will, on average, be biased towards those actions that benefit themselves. With all the tax-payers money around and the possibility to get research grants working on expensive medical solutions, it benefits those in the medical research sectors to favor expensive solutions over cheap ones. For Big Pharma, it goes without saying, they will obviously move the world to get taxpayers money to develop expensive drugs. For politicians, they get to be the heroes in the minds of voters if they sponsored effective solutions and obviously to get financial (all above board of course) campaign and other support from big pharma does not hurt either. 

I'm not saying those involved in promoting expensive solutions are evil or crooked, they probably are all good people, but I think we must all recognize that the system is such that there are ample opportunities for the outcome not to be 100% aligned with the interest of the normal people.  

All this is dependent on two crucial questions:
Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?
Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
If any of these questions is false, the argument against Covid vaccinations fall flat.

Let me address these two questions
1 Are there long term health risks associated with Covid vaccines?
Please note this argument is only valid for Covid vaccines, not for vaccines against viral infections in general
In an interview in a podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY, from 2:22 to 2:28 ) dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology and a current vaccination consultant, there are reasons to be concerned about the long term risks to especially the ovaries of human and bone marrow of everyone.

Maybe you're not concerned, but if the inventor of mRNA technology ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ ) and whose current bread is to a reasonable amount buttered by consulting on vaccination technology warns against Covid vaccines, it certainly makes me worried. His current advice goes headlong against his financial and career interests. He recommends against Covid vaccination because of potential long term health benefits and because there are lower-risk alternatives with similar benefits available.

2  Are there cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
a) It is reported in https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html that "Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
b) The second argument that I present is indirect evidence.
The businessman Steve Kirsch has researched the space and is convinced that both NIH and WHO are wrong about not recommending cheap alternative remedies. Now, I hear you laugh, it's just ridiculous to take a lay person's word against science. The clincher is -  he is offering $2m of his own money to be proven wrong on this. Why is his $2m not claimed? Does this say something?  I quote from his website (https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m):

"This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.
In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.
Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories:
helpful,
neutral,
or harmful.
I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all.
To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are:
more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations FOR these drugs, or
more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs.
Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts or superior cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win each prize. What could be easier?"

Maybe for you it does not have much weight, but for me if a person feels so strongly about something that he offers two $1m prices to provide convincing evidence to prove him wrong, and the money is not claimed, it does say something very loud and clear. Especially in the light of humans being humans and it's in the relevant Covid vaccine role players' interest to ignore cheap remedies.

The end

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Have you followed the case of the fraudulent Hydroxychloroquine study published in Lancet?  https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/

When the fraudulent study was published supporting the mainstream narrative, the message got through, but when it was exposed as fraud and retracted the silence was deafening and the original story still stuck.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 07:47, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

Alternative measures like Remdesivir or Hydroxychloroquine? To me this sounds a bit like (Russian) disinformation which was spread so often by Mr. Trump.

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]>

Date: 6/17/21 05:09 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Thanks for the honest comments gentlemen. In general I am in full agreement with the gist of what you all say. You say there are conspiracy theories out there that can be debunked - you mentioned a couple - I fully agree with that. You also say that if all else are the same, it's probably better to take the vaccine compared to not taking it. I fully agree with that too.

After reading your comments I reread my wording carefully and I admit, the message I wanted to convey is not all that clear. Let me restate my main message in an effort to clarify it:

The main point I wish to make is that, based on the available evidence, with doing nothing else, it is better to take the vaccine compared to not taking it. But this does not imply that the vaccine is totally harmless. There are good arguments for the case that the actual harm of the vaccine, although it's much smaller than the harm of getting the virus infection, is not insignificant. The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated. I'm not repeating the motivations for reaching this conclusion, it's in the body of my original message and specifically explained well in the references I gave.   

Whilst I agree with the specific detailed points you made, I fail to see how any of your points address my main point as summarized above.

Pieter

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 23:17, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

From all I know the health risk of getting no Covid vaccination is far bigger than getting a Covid vaccination, especially for older people. And most of us are no longer 20, right? I feel I that I have aged 10 years in the last year alone.

The Internet tends to amplify rare side effects. If you search on social media for a rare side effect that occurs in 1 of 10 million cases then chances are high that you will find this one case where a person has in fact experienced that rare side effect. You will find it not because it is so frequent but because the search algorithms are so good that they find rare edge cases. 

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]>

Date: 6/16/21 12:17 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Just a disclaimer - this is about Covid vaccines and not vaccinations in general. Vaccinations against viral infections are absolutely great and have saved many lives the last half-century or so. And in addition to the conventional vaccination technology, the mRNA vaccination technology can make significant further progress against viral infections in that it might be possible in future to roll vaccines out very soon after a harmful virus is first detected. I personally am very excited about the potential benefits of mRNA technology.

There are exceptions though, and there are voices arguing that the Covid vaccines (all of them) could have serious potential long term health risks. Especially worrisome for girls and women planning to have kids in future because some of the risks are specifically associated with ovaries. In this post I present such a case.

Covid is a nasty virus, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope. After Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, the private partners responded well with the gift of billions of dollars to develop vaccines against Covid and they did what they are supposed to do - making money for their shareholders. Under Biden the initial roll-out of the vaccine was a bit wobbly, but after a while it got going and the US is now well under way to get vaccinated and just maybe Covid will, if not eradicated at least manageable. There were mixed experiences in other countries, for example it's understandable that with all their bureaucracy Europe initially fumbled a bit and under Boris Johnson the UK quickly got their act together and the vaccination roll-out happened relatively fast there. It hurts me to talk about South Africa.

So, it's a no-brainer that we should all just get vaccinated because that's the way to win this battle against Covid. But it seems like some humans are just plain upstream and difficult and there are many conspiracy theories with outlandish messages that the vaccines are for some or other reason evil. Fortunately governments of the world are working with Big Tech to sensor all these false narratives. If someone posts something on social media that is conducive to people not taking the vaccine, surely it's in society's interest to censor those messages? This is after all the natural way things are supposed to work, like the Catholic church who owned the truth acted against Galileo Galilei. It's just that in that case Galilei happened to get it right, but today's scientists obviously own the truth, it's science after all, so it's perfectly honourable to censor false narrative today. Right?

I, for one, don't buy it that the narratives that go against the scientific consensu should be censored. The problem with that is it creates a culture of groupthink; those voices that are against the narratives get to be silenced. We humans have evolved a trait where hormones are secreted when we think people like us, we then feel good, and vice versa ; so if you say something that you think people will  like, you tend to feel good. Welcome to the world of Dale Carnegie, How To Make Friends and Influence People. IMO we must recognize this human trait and support structures where the voices of contrarians are both welcomed and listened to. 

Okay, let's get back to Covid. I think there is a valid case to be made against vaccination and it should be given a fair hearing. I want now to first make a case for and then a case against Covid vaccinations.

The Case For Covid Vaccination

To make the case for Covid Vaccinations is really simple and I can't believe that there are people so stupid that they don't get it, just study the evidence. Where Covid vaccines have been rolled out, the new Covid cases and especially the Covid deaths have dropped significantly. Sure, there are rare cases of serious side effects, but in total the statistics on the results are very clear; Covid vaccines are very effective and the risks are very small. I really don't think it's required to give references, just google it for yourself and you'll find tons of published references. It's a slam dunk case.
Sure there are wankers distributing conspiracy theories against the vaccines, but they have been debunked so thoroughly that any reasonable person must reject them. 

We just have one potential problem, enough people must be vaccinated for Covid to be eradicated and it seems like there are just too many conspiracy theories going around. Fortunately the governments of the world seem to have their act together and are working with big tech to censor those conspiracy theories and it seems to work. Let's all work together on this one, if you find someone going against the narrative, just cancel him (surely it can't be a "her"). It's in society's best interest, not?

The Case Against Covid Vaccination

Einstein apparently said one must make everything as simple as possible but not too simple. Maybe the case for Covid vaccines are too simple and if you delve a bit deeper there might be a good case against vaccines? I think so and will present that case here. I will go deeper into it, but in summary it goes as follows:
* Covid is a nasty virus, but so is the Covid vaccine protein.
* There are nasty side effects to the Covid vaccine. Because the nasty spiked vaccine protein does not, like most other vaccines, stay in the upper arm area where it is applied, it goes to the rest of the body and especially alarming to the ovaries of woman and bone marrow, with potential serious long term risks involved  
* There are safe and drugs available that are as good in preventing Covid infections than vaccination, but important, without the long term health risks.  

* Humans are only human. When it's in the interest of a group of humans, they will, on average, be biased towards those actions that benefit themselves. With all the tax-payers money around and the possibility to get research grants working on expensive medical solutions, it benefits those in the medical research sectors to favor expensive solutions over cheap ones. For Big Pharma, it goes without saying, they will obviously move the world to get taxpayers money to develop expensive drugs. For politicians, they get to be the heroes in the minds of voters if they sponsored effective solutions and obviously to get financial (all above board of course) campaign and other support from big pharma does not hurt either. 

I'm not saying those involved in promoting expensive solutions are evil or crooked, they probably are all good people, but I think we must all recognize that the system is such that there are ample opportunities for the outcome not to be 100% aligned with the interest of the normal people.  

All this is dependent on two crucial questions:
Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?
Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
If any of these questions is false, the argument against Covid vaccinations fall flat.

Let me address these two questions
1 Are there long term health risks associated with Covid vaccines?
Please note this argument is only valid for Covid vaccines, not for vaccines against viral infections in general
In an interview in a podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY, from 2:22 to 2:28 ) dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology and a current vaccination consultant, there are reasons to be concerned about the long term risks to especially the ovaries of human and bone marrow of everyone.

Maybe you're not concerned, but if the inventor of mRNA technology ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ ) and whose current bread is to a reasonable amount buttered by consulting on vaccination technology warns against Covid vaccines, it certainly makes me worried. His current advice goes headlong against his financial and career interests. He recommends against Covid vaccination because of potential long term health benefits and because there are lower-risk alternatives with similar benefits available.

2  Are there cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as vaccines without the risks?
a) It is reported in https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html that "Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from 28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop. Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to 5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
b) The second argument that I present is indirect evidence.
The businessman Steve Kirsch has researched the space and is convinced that both NIH and WHO are wrong about not recommending cheap alternative remedies. Now, I hear you laugh, it's just ridiculous to take a lay person's word against science. The clincher is -  he is offering $2m of his own money to be proven wrong on this. Why is his $2m not claimed? Does this say something?  I quote from his website (https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m):

"This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the data.
In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.
Any drug protocol used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three categories:
helpful,
neutral,
or harmful.
I claim that there has been abundant evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight, that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit the evidence at all.
To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide a convincing argument that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when I am making this offer) are:
more likely to fit the evidence than recommendations FOR these drugs, or
more likely to save more lives than recommending FOR these drugs.
Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts or superior cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win each prize. What could be easier?"

Maybe for you it does not have much weight, but for me if a person feels so strongly about something that he offers two $1m prices to provide convincing evidence to prove him wrong, and the money is not claimed, it does say something very loud and clear. Especially in the light of humans being humans and it's in the relevant Covid vaccine role players' interest to ignore cheap remedies.

The end

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Thanks a lot for the references Glen; this seems valuable information. I'll study it carefully and then comment on it.

Pieter

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:48, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ooops. I forgot to include this link:

Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1

On 6/17/21 7:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Excellent! Stripped of the kvetching about "censorship" and "darkhorse podcast" nonsense, you're getting closer to a testable hypothesis. I encourage you to take a look at some of the clinical trials for the alternatives you're talking about. E.g. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
>
> You'll notice that they (try to) list *several* outcomes. That you have some calculus that shows how those outcomes aggregate to be "in total better than getting vaccinated" is a *strong* claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. What is your calculus for comparing the regimens? You won't be able to provide that evidence UNTIL you're more specific and concrete about which outcomes you hold most prominent.
>
> You also need to be specific about the circumstances. E.g. in the ivermectin case, what *cocktail* of treatments did you include alongside ivermectin? In one study, they're using ivermectin, hydroxychloraquine, favipiravir, and azithromycin. Are the benefits and/or adverse effects linearly decomposable from the cocktail? Perhaps your doctor doesn't have access to 1 or more of the ingredients. How might that affect the outcomes?
>
> These are all excellent questions and I laud you for launching into the effort of justifying those regimens over the vaccine. I welcome that evidence.
>
> Obviously, where the vaccine is unavailable but one or more of the reasonably justified alternatives is available, it's a no-brainer. Do what your doctor tells you to do. But where the vaccine is free and easy, the alternative therapies have a high bar to jump. And I'm glad you're willing to tell us which of those therapies are "in total better". I'm anxious to hear about them.
>
>
> On 6/16/21 8:07 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>> The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated.
>

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

I don't know if this web site is reliable. How can I find out? 

https://c19ivermectin.com/

They claim :

85% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials RR 0.15 (0.09-0.25) when using Ivermectin for Covid-19

They link to a database of all ivermectin Covid-19 studies. They claim 60 trials, 549 scientists, 18931 patients, 31 randomised controlled trials.
It's going to take reasonable amount of time and effort to verify their results

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks a lot for the references Glen; this seems valuable information. I'll study it carefully and then comment on it.

Pieter

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:48, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ooops. I forgot to include this link:

Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1

On 6/17/21 7:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Excellent! Stripped of the kvetching about "censorship" and "darkhorse podcast" nonsense, you're getting closer to a testable hypothesis. I encourage you to take a look at some of the clinical trials for the alternatives you're talking about. E.g. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
>
> You'll notice that they (try to) list *several* outcomes. That you have some calculus that shows how those outcomes aggregate to be "in total better than getting vaccinated" is a *strong* claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. What is your calculus for comparing the regimens? You won't be able to provide that evidence UNTIL you're more specific and concrete about which outcomes you hold most prominent.
>
> You also need to be specific about the circumstances. E.g. in the ivermectin case, what *cocktail* of treatments did you include alongside ivermectin? In one study, they're using ivermectin, hydroxychloraquine, favipiravir, and azithromycin. Are the benefits and/or adverse effects linearly decomposable from the cocktail? Perhaps your doctor doesn't have access to 1 or more of the ingredients. How might that affect the outcomes?
>
> These are all excellent questions and I laud you for launching into the effort of justifying those regimens over the vaccine. I welcome that evidence.
>
> Obviously, where the vaccine is unavailable but one or more of the reasonably justified alternatives is available, it's a no-brainer. Do what your doctor tells you to do. But where the vaccine is free and easy, the alternative therapies have a high bar to jump. And I'm glad you're willing to tell us which of those therapies are "in total better". I'm anxious to hear about them.
>
>
> On 6/16/21 8:07 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>> The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated.
>

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Sorry people, the video I have referred to in the first post has been censored, so you can't see it. Big Brother has spoken.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY 

Pieter

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 07:18, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't know if this web site is reliable. How can I find out? 

https://c19ivermectin.com/

They claim :

85% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials RR 0.15 (0.09-0.25) when using Ivermectin for Covid-19

They link to a database of all ivermectin Covid-19 studies. They claim 60 trials, 549 scientists, 18931 patients, 31 randomised controlled trials.
It's going to take reasonable amount of time and effort to verify their results

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks a lot for the references Glen; this seems valuable information. I'll study it carefully and then comment on it.

Pieter

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:48, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ooops. I forgot to include this link:

Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1

On 6/17/21 7:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Excellent! Stripped of the kvetching about "censorship" and "darkhorse podcast" nonsense, you're getting closer to a testable hypothesis. I encourage you to take a look at some of the clinical trials for the alternatives you're talking about. E.g. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
>
> You'll notice that they (try to) list *several* outcomes. That you have some calculus that shows how those outcomes aggregate to be "in total better than getting vaccinated" is a *strong* claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. What is your calculus for comparing the regimens? You won't be able to provide that evidence UNTIL you're more specific and concrete about which outcomes you hold most prominent.
>
> You also need to be specific about the circumstances. E.g. in the ivermectin case, what *cocktail* of treatments did you include alongside ivermectin? In one study, they're using ivermectin, hydroxychloraquine, favipiravir, and azithromycin. Are the benefits and/or adverse effects linearly decomposable from the cocktail? Perhaps your doctor doesn't have access to 1 or more of the ingredients. How might that affect the outcomes?
>
> These are all excellent questions and I laud you for launching into the effort of justifying those regimens over the vaccine. I welcome that evidence.
>
> Obviously, where the vaccine is unavailable but one or more of the reasonably justified alternatives is available, it's a no-brainer. Do what your doctor tells you to do. But where the vaccine is free and easy, the alternative therapies have a high bar to jump. And I'm glad you're willing to tell us which of those therapies are "in total better". I'm anxious to hear about them.
>
>
> On 6/16/21 8:07 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>> The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated.
>

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Google is a company, not a government.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 5:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

 

Sorry people, the video I have referred to in the first post has been censored, so you can't see it. Big Brother has spoken.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY 

 

Pieter

 

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 07:18, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't know if this web site is reliable. How can I find out? 

https://c19ivermectin.com/

They claim :

85% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials RR 0.15 (0.09-0.25) when using Ivermectin for Covid-19

They link to a database of all ivermectin Covid-19 studies. They claim 60 trials, 549 scientists, 18931 patients, 31 randomised controlled trials.
It's going to take reasonable amount of time and effort to verify their results

 

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks a lot for the references Glen; this seems valuable information. I'll study it carefully and then comment on it.

 

Pieter

 

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:48, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ooops. I forgot to include this link:

Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1

On 6/17/21 7:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Excellent! Stripped of the kvetching about "censorship" and "darkhorse podcast" nonsense, you're getting closer to a testable hypothesis. I encourage you to take a look at some of the clinical trials for the alternatives you're talking about. E.g. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
>
> You'll notice that they (try to) list *several* outcomes. That you have some calculus that shows how those outcomes aggregate to be "in total better than getting vaccinated" is a *strong* claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. What is your calculus for comparing the regimens? You won't be able to provide that evidence UNTIL you're more specific and concrete about which outcomes you hold most prominent.
>
> You also need to be specific about the circumstances. E.g. in the ivermectin case, what *cocktail* of treatments did you include alongside ivermectin? In one study, they're using ivermectin, hydroxychloraquine, favipiravir, and azithromycin. Are the benefits and/or adverse effects linearly decomposable from the cocktail? Perhaps your doctor doesn't have access to 1 or more of the ingredients. How might that affect the outcomes?
>
> These are all excellent questions and I laud you for launching into the effort of justifying those regimens over the vaccine. I welcome that evidence.
>
> Obviously, where the vaccine is unavailable but one or more of the reasonably justified alternatives is available, it's a no-brainer. Do what your doctor tells you to do. But where the vaccine is free and easy, the alternative therapies have a high bar to jump. And I'm glad you're willing to tell us which of those therapies are "in total better". I'm anxious to hear about them.
>
>
> On 6/16/21 8:07 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>> The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated.
>

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Agreed, Google is a company, not a government and I support that they should have the legal right to censor you. 

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 17:00, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Google is a company, not a government.

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 5:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

 

Sorry people, the video I have referred to in the first post has been censored, so you can't see it. Big Brother has spoken.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY 

 

Pieter

 

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 07:18, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't know if this web site is reliable. How can I find out? 

https://c19ivermectin.com/

They claim :

85% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials RR 0.15 (0.09-0.25) when using Ivermectin for Covid-19

They link to a database of all ivermectin Covid-19 studies. They claim 60 trials, 549 scientists, 18931 patients, 31 randomised controlled trials.
It's going to take reasonable amount of time and effort to verify their results

 

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 17:18, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks a lot for the references Glen; this seems valuable information. I'll study it carefully and then comment on it.

 

Pieter

 

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:48, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ooops. I forgot to include this link:

Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1

On 6/17/21 7:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Excellent! Stripped of the kvetching about "censorship" and "darkhorse podcast" nonsense, you're getting closer to a testable hypothesis. I encourage you to take a look at some of the clinical trials for the alternatives you're talking about. E.g. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
>
> You'll notice that they (try to) list *several* outcomes. That you have some calculus that shows how those outcomes aggregate to be "in total better than getting vaccinated" is a *strong* claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. What is your calculus for comparing the regimens? You won't be able to provide that evidence UNTIL you're more specific and concrete about which outcomes you hold most prominent.
>
> You also need to be specific about the circumstances. E.g. in the ivermectin case, what *cocktail* of treatments did you include alongside ivermectin? In one study, they're using ivermectin, hydroxychloraquine, favipiravir, and azithromycin. Are the benefits and/or adverse effects linearly decomposable from the cocktail? Perhaps your doctor doesn't have access to 1 or more of the ingredients. How might that affect the outcomes?
>
> These are all excellent questions and I laud you for launching into the effort of justifying those regimens over the vaccine. I welcome that evidence.
>
> Obviously, where the vaccine is unavailable but one or more of the reasonably justified alternatives is available, it's a no-brainer. Do what your doctor tells you to do. But where the vaccine is free and easy, the alternative therapies have a high bar to jump. And I'm glad you're willing to tell us which of those therapies are "in total better". I'm anxious to hear about them.
>
>
> On 6/16/21 8:07 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>> The next point is that there is evidence of alternative measures against the virus that are in total better than getting vaccinated.
>

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Thanks for your opinion Glen.

I would love to talk about censorship, but prefer to do that in a separate thread. It's my bad, I started to talk about it and it's not central to my main point, so I'm not pointing fingers.

I am serious about whether to vaccinate or not and for now my ears are all open for comments on whether to vaccinate or not. Up to now I haven't had an argument that convinces me to change my mind from my original message. For information, let me repeat my position:
a) Covid is bad
b) The vaccinations are effective and relatively safe and if there is no other option then it's better to get vaccinated.
But tis is not the story, the whole story and nothing but the story, let me continue:
c) There are messages out there that convince me that there are safe, low cost alternative remedies to being vaccinated that are as effective as vaccination.
d) Although it's not as bad as the Covid infection itself, the Covid vaccination is also harmful, and especially scary is the potential long term serious harmful effects of the vaccination affecting the bone marrow and ovaries of women and girls. The original link I gave is the long discussion and was removed (not "censored", thanks Glen), but a clip where they discuss this specific issue is still, for now, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY .

For a slightly longer discussion with more details and references, please refer to the first email in this thread. If there are flaws in my reasoning I'd really like to hear about it.

Thank you
Pieter

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 17:54, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[hidden email]> wrote:

But that's a bit of a weasel move. By using the phrase "Big Brother", which is overwhelmingly often used to refer to government(s), you implied the typical USA denotation of "censor", which is limited to government(s). Under the USA (and maybe other places), only Big Brother can censor. And Google is not Big Brother, even metaphorically, because their "Do no evil" mantra is compromised. So Google cannot censor.

But if you hadn't used "Big Brother", then your argument would be connotatively reasonable in the USA and denotatively reasonable in other jurisdictions.


On 6/18/21 8:26 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> Agreed, Google is a company, not a government and I support that they should have the legal right to censor you. 
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 17:00, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Google is a company, not a government.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     *From:* Friam <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp
>     *Sent:* Friday, June 18, 2021 5:15 AM
>     *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Sorry people, the video I have referred to in the first post has been censored, so you can't see it. Big Brother has spoken.
>      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY> ____

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Thank you Glen,

I reread the article you posted

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-vaccines-are-going-to-sterilize-our-womenfolk-take-2/

and then I listened to where dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology discusses the potential harm of the Covid vaccines:
The long discussion has been removed, but the following two clips are still available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb_7E12VDE4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY

After reviewing this I came to the following conclusion:
a) I 100% agree with "your" article in that it debunks many of the wild conspiracy theories. Thanks for this
b) In "my" video clips, dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination technology, discusses carefully the potential harm of specifically the Covid vaccines. Refer to https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ for more about him. I don't find convincing arguments against these specific points in "your" article.

Let me repeat, I am a VERY BIG fan of vaccinations in general and specifically of the mRNA vaccination technology. I am really excited about the potential benefits to humanity of this technology in that it could, in future, have effective vaccines available against viruses very soon after a new virus has been identified. Vaccinations have saved many lives the last half-century or so and mRNA vaccination technology could take the fight against virus infections even further. 

We all are confronted with data and information and we have to use our own judgement about what makes sense for ourselves. If you believe "your" article debunked what dr. Robert Malone said, fine, I am definitely not going to argue with you or try to change your mind. 

In my judgement, on the other hand, I don't find convincing arguments in "your" article debunking what Dr Robert Malone said.

Again, I really appreciate your comments and I really do consider it, in general I value your judgement, but in this specific case I disagree with you. But at the end of the day we don't have to agree on how we interpret the information.

Just on the cost, I was not referring to what it costs me personally. I was referring to the billions of dollars in taxpayers money big pharma got to develop the vaccines and the killing they now make to sell it to governments. 

About stirring the pot, in general I like to do exactly that, yes, guilty as charged. But in this specific case I am serious about seeking help. But please don't crucify me if we come to different conclusions on being presented with the same information. We can agree to disagree in a very positive spirit. 

Thanks again,
Pieter

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 20:32, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you would be specific about your chosen alternative, we could have a specific discussion. For example, are you comparing:

1) Vaccination versus
2) Ivermectin?

If we ignore all the side effects of ivermectin (e.g. fever, pruritus, skin rash), we should at least consider cost. The tablets of ivermectin available to me are 20 tablets at 3mg for ~$30. Given that we won't reach herd immunity for quite some time, let's guess you'll have to take ivermectin for the next 6 months. And let's guess at a dosage of 12 mg. How many successive days do you have to take it? If we assume every day, we get $1092 for 6 months. If we assume 4 doses per week, we get $624 for 6 months.

As far as I know, the vaccines are free. But maybe you have to travel somewhere to get it. So, if your travel costs are less than the costs of the ivermectin, then the vaccination is the better choice.

Now, if you're not running the calculus for yourself, but for your daughter, then you have to estimate the risk to her ovaries. The article I posted DEBUNKED the evidence that the spike protein reaches the ovaries. But you won't talk about that. So, let's just assume that risk is non-zero and breeding is a high priority for her. Then, as long as she's not allergic to ivermectin, that regimen is a better choice than the mRNA vaccines. But what about the traditional (e.g. adenovirus-based) vaccines? Do you have any reason to believe the spike protein leaves the site of infection for traditional vaccines?

If not, the vaccination is still a better choice than the ivermectin prophylactic.

The above is an example of how you might start weighing one versus the other. You keep saying you haven't seen any argument that convinces you of anything. If the above is not what you're looking for, then

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

Help me help you. What evidence would you accept? What would convince you?  My guess is that NOTHING will change your mind and you're only posting here to "stir the pot". 8^D


On 6/18/21 10:29 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> I am serious about whether to vaccinate or not and for now my ears are all open for comments on whether to vaccinate or not. Up to now I haven't had an argument that convinces me to change my mind from my original message. For information, let me repeat my position:
> a) Covid is bad
> b) The vaccinations are effective and relatively safe and if there is no other option then it's better to get vaccinated.
> But tis is not the story, the whole story and nothing but the story, let me continue:
> c) There are messages out there that convince me that there are safe, low cost alternative remedies to being vaccinated that are as effective as vaccination.
> d) Although it's not as bad as the Covid infection itself, the Covid vaccination is also harmful, and especially scary is the potential long term serious harmful effects of the vaccination affecting the bone marrow and ovaries of women and girls. The original link I gave is the long discussion and was removed (not "censored", thanks Glen), but a clip where they discuss this specific issue is still, for now, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY> .
>
> For a slightly longer discussion with more details and references, please refer to the first email in this thread. If there are flaws in my reasoning I'd really like to hear about it.

--
☤>$ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Pieter Steenekamp]

dr Robert Malone explains how the Covid vaccine acts totally different than expected and different than all other vaccines. When a person gets vaccinated with other vaccines, there is a little bit of invection in the upper arm and the immune system kicks in, with "all the action" taking place in the area of the upper arm. On the other hand, with the Covid vaccine the vaccine particles, very unexpectedly, travels through the who;e body and "the action" is not limited to the upper arm area. Specifically a large concentration happens in the ovaries and that scares him very much.
"Your" article reads like an "activists" article. Dr Malone's explanation sounds to me like a serious scientists 

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 22:44, ⛧ glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK. What part of Malone's claims are not debunked? Again, I'm having trouble knowing what you're talking about because you won't be specific.

I'm fine with disagreeing. But I have no idea what we disagree about!


On June 18, 2021 12:36:28 PM PDT, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Thank you Glen,
>
>I reread the article you posted
>https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-vaccines-are-going-to-sterilize-our-womenfolk-take-2/
>and then I listened to where dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA
>vaccination technology discusses the potential harm of the Covid
>vaccines:
>The long discussion has been removed, but the following two clips are
>still
>available:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb_7E12VDE4 and
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY
>
>After reviewing this I came to the following conclusion:
>a) I 100% agree with "your" article in that it debunks many of the wild
>conspiracy theories. Thanks for this
>b) In "my" video clips, dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA
>vaccination
>technology, discusses carefully the potential harm of specifically the
>Covid vaccines. Refer to https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ for more about
>him. I
>don't find convincing arguments against these specific points in "your"
>article.
>
>Let me repeat, I am a VERY BIG fan of vaccinations in general and
>specifically of the mRNA vaccination technology. I am really excited
>about
>the potential benefits to humanity of this technology in that it could,
>in
>future, have effective vaccines available against viruses very soon
>after a
>new virus has been identified. Vaccinations have saved many lives the
>last
>half-century or so and mRNA vaccination technology could take the fight
>against virus infections even further.
>
>We all are confronted with data and information and we have to use our
>own
>judgement about what makes sense for ourselves. If you believe "your"
>article debunked what dr. Robert Malone said, fine, I am definitely not
>going to argue with you or try to change your mind.
>
>In my judgement, on the other hand, I don't find convincing arguments
>in
>"your" article debunking what Dr Robert Malone said.
>
>Again, I really appreciate your comments and I really do consider it,
>in
>general I value your judgement, but in this specific case I disagree
>with
>you. But at the end of the day we don't have to agree on how we
>interpret
>the information.
>
>Just on the cost, I was not referring to what it costs me personally. I
>was
>referring to the billions of dollars in taxpayers money big pharma got
>to
>develop the vaccines and the killing they now make to sell it to
>governments.
>
>About stirring the pot, in general I like to do exactly that, yes,
>guilty
>as charged. But in this specific case I am serious about seeking help.
>But
>please don't crucify me if we come to different conclusions on being
>presented with the same information. We can agree to disagree in a very
>positive spirit.
>

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/