Daniel Darling Fired from NRB After Pro-Vaccine Remarks

Certainly “The Donald” had something to do with it, but let’s put Fauci and the Democrats on the spot, too. It wasn’t Trump who decided to shut down the rest of the economy while sending COVID patients into nursing homes, for example, and it wasn’t the Republicans that were (at least initially) saying that they would never trust a vaccine developed under Trump’s leadership. Both sides of the aisle (I’d argue more on the port side) were playing political games with peoples’ lives, really.

Read both of these articles this morning.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/the-great-ivermectin…

We have a media blackout on how India used cheap Ivermectin to obliterate the Delta variant while we struggle unsuccessfully to sell the public on problematic yet profitable vaccines.

https://aapsonline.org/aaps-letter-to-ama-re-ivermectin-and-covid/

The AMA is thus contradicting the professional judgment of a very large number of physicians, who are writing about 88,000 prescriptions per week. It also contradicts the Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, who recommended that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat COVID.

Yeah, but everyone knows these are just ignorant rubes using a horse dewormer in order to stick it to the American Left.

Lol

[JohnBrian]

Read both of these articles this morning.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/the-great-ivermectin-…

We have a media blackout on how India used cheap Ivermectin to obliterate the Delta variant while we struggle unsuccessfully to sell the public on problematic yet profitable vaccines.

https://aapsonline.org/aaps-letter-to-ama-re-ivermectin-and-covid/

The AMA is thus contradicting the professional judgment of a very large number of physicians, who are writing about 88,000 prescriptions per week. It also contradicts the Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, who recommended that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat COVID.

It’s always strange to me how quickly people latch on to narratives involving medical professionals suppressing helpful medical treatments. Why would they do that?

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but for the most part, these are people who’s careers are dedicated to advancing health as they see it. So, it’s way more likely that they’ll simply be incorrect about a health issue than that they want to suppress something helpful. But the former is also quite unlikely as far as baseline probability goes.

I think the idea of baseline probability is where much of the dialog goes awry. Seems like there are two starting points/two perceptions of how likely an explanation is before even getting to evidence.

• It’s probable that lots of medical professionals want people to be sick, so they’re acting against helpful treatments
• It’s probably that lots of medical professionals want to cure people of diseases, so they’re acting to promote helpful treatments

I’m in the second group. So I don’t need evidence that they’re right, generally. I would need evidence that they’re wrong—also factoring in that they’ve studied these things for years and years and I haven’t!

This just seems like common sense to me. But it’s inreasingly uncommon it seems.

Aaron, I also don’t want to believe that people are ignoring viable options, but the reality is that during this epidemic, certain options have been flat out ignored, and some of these options are ones where the mistakes arguably cost tens/hundreds of thousands of lives.One case of this is the failure to point out that sending COVID patients into nursing homes is pretty much homicide. Another is the case with ivermectin. Here’s some actual NIH data that suggests a hugely reduced risk of death when it’s used.

Another thing that may be huge is that it’s becoming clear that the NIH, through an intermediary, did in fact fund gain of function research at WIV using virii that are at least very similar to COVID-19.

If the errors all seem to go one way, perhaps there’s a reason for that.

Given I’m not a doctor, I found this article on the good, bad, and ugly of Ivermectin to be a pretty balanced take:

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/09/08/lessons_from_the_i…

[Bert Perry]

Aaron, I also don’t want to believe that people are ignoring viable options, but the reality is that during this epidemic, certain options have been flat out ignored, and some of these options are ones where the mistakes arguably cost tens/hundreds of thousands of lives.One case of this is the failure to point out that sending COVID patients into nursing homes is pretty much homicide. Another is the case with ivermectin. Here’s some actual NIH data that suggests a hugely reduced risk of death when it’s used.

Another thing that may be huge is that it’s becoming clear that the NIH, through an intermediary, did in fact fund gain of function research at WIV using virii that are at least very similar to COVID-19.

If the errors all seem to go one way, perhaps there’s a reason for that.

First, the errors do not all go one way.

Second, funding of gain of function research… Not relevant.

Third, if someone tells me they’re getting a 403 error on a website and as I’m trying to help them, they suggest rebooting their PC, I “ignore”the idea. “Ignoring” an idea, is often the result of already knowing better, or at least the result of knowing that an idea has such an extremely low probability of effectiveness it should go to the bottom of the list of things to try. It’s not like we have infinite resources for trying ideas in a rigorous way that accurately measures effectiveness.

For the most part on the covid-19 problem, the ignorers among medical professionals are on the right track.

But for those who are absolutely convinced that I’m wrong, please explain to me what would motivate that. I just can’t come up with realistic motives for truly ignoring a possible cure that actually has a reasonable chance of success.

I suspect that “ignoring” is hyperbole, because those who are decision makers in these roles gave the matter every bit as much thought and attention as it deserved, but those already in love with the idea didn’t see it as enough… Which equals “ignoring” in the sort of rhetoric that dominates the topic these days.

Joe, your rhetoric is ramping up beyond what is healthy. I, too, find it hard not to demonize those here who supported Biden in the last election.

But ya gotta calm down, man.

Dan, I don’t remember reading anyone who “supported Biden during the last election.” I know there were some, such as myself, who did not support Trump but I don’t remember anyone actually advocating for Biden.

I acknowledge that you see a distinction.