Thursday, August 26, 2021

"I'd Rather Die Horribly Than Get Vaccinated!"

The other day, someone asked online if anyone regrets getting the vaccine, and why. Most people answered that they didn't regret it at all; some said that they did regret it. But I didn't like the question, because it was skewing the picture with a selection bias. So I pointed out that there are around four million people who deeply regret not getting the vaccine, but since they died horribly from Covid, they are unable to voice their opinion.

I thought that this was pretty self-evident. But amazingly, some people disagreed! 

One person asked how I can possibly communicate with the dead. Well, obviously I can't, but it's also obvious to me that nobody wants to die horribly!

Then someone said that since the vaccination can have nasty side effects, maybe people who contracted Covid would indeed rather be dead than suffer those problems?

Er, no, that's also silly. The vast majority of people would certainly rather live with a minuscule chance of suffering in the long term than to actually die horribly! Furthermore, Covid itself most certainly has far, far greater long-term health problems than the vaccine! 

With regard to the latter point, a particularly interesting enormous study was just published. It shows that aside from the long-term harm of Covid such as lung damage, the particular adverse effects that some fear from the vaccine are actually much more likely to occur as a result of getting Covid and not having the vaccine!

Alas, the dead cannot speak. And most of those who die from Covid can't even speak in the days preceding their death, as it's too difficult for them to even breath. You would think that it's blindingly obvious that they wish more than anything that they would have been vaccinated. How can people not recognize that? The power of some people's minds to exercise suicidal stupidity is truly extraordinary.

You may well not catch Covid, though this is increasingly less likely. You may well not get very seriously sick even if you catch it, though this is also increasingly less likely. But if you do, you are very likely to wish that you had gotten vaccinated - and all the more so if you find yourself dying!

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 


  1. This post negates a basic tenet of Judaism. Namely, no dies before their appointed time.

    Whether someone passes on from covid or anything else, it really makes no difference.

    Additionally, one who is vaccinated, will depart from this world at their predetermined time. The vaccine will be of mo avail once a person's time has expired.

    1. Your comment negates a basic tenet of Judaism. Namely, Don't be an idiot.

    2. Ah, that must be why the Torah prohibits going to a doctor (and working for a living, and looking before crossing the street).

    3. So I guess we can stop being sad about the million and a half children murdered in the Holocaust (not to mention the four and a half million adults). After all, it was their appointed time, no?

      And I suppose you think there's nothing wrong with murder, or suicide. Just moving along God's will, no? Why, it's practically a mitzvah!

      No, that's not Judaism, that's Calvinism, and maybe some pure forms of some Eastern religions. In other words, avoda zara. Congratulations, you're a pagan!

    4. That's not a basic tenet of Judaism.

    5. "אין אדם נוקף אצבעו מלמטה אלא אם כן מכריזין עליו מלמעלה, אף על פי כן צריך האדם לשמר עצמו מן המקרים הנהוגים בעולם"
      ספר המצות , מעקה

      Read the rest of the מצוה for more details. Nature is Hashem's creation & follows His laws faithfully without rest. A boulder drops on your head- you will die. You fall off a tall building- you will die. Why should nature cease observing Hashem's laws because you're a moron?
      And who's to say your "appointed time" hasn't been hastened because you've sinned by not being careful?

      הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים is unfortunately misinterpreted as a kind of fatalism that Nachum has decried as paganism. What falls under the category of יראת שמים? No doubt מצוה observance! מצות are not compelled by Heaven. And as shown by the ספר המצות, taking care of yourself is a מצוה. As such it's in your hands- and not Heaven.

    6. Gandhi infamously counseled the Jews of Europe to commit mass suicide in the face of Nazi persecution. (The same for the Jews of Palestine in response to Arab attacks.) He felt it would be a great moral message.

      Granted, Gandhi was a bit crazy and seems to have had...issues with Jews. But you know what he- and his philosophy- wasn't? Jewish.

    7. Then I guess the same could be said for the supposed "side effects" of the vaccine. Even if these imaginary longterm effects magically appear long after the vaccine components have been cleared from the body, they will be of no avail.

    8. The article is polemic, dearth of statistics, fear peddling, and possibly true. Where the truth lies is not in the information being hawked by the CDC and others that are responsible for the creation of the virus. For those who are vulnerable to fear, have preconditions and are feeble with age, the vaccine is a reasonable risk, but to those who may have natural immunities which is according to some virologists, 50% of the population who are unvaccinated, the risk is worth it. For a person who claims to be a scientist, Slifkin appears to be peddling the propaganda, rather than the empirics. Tragically, the unvaccinated are the contemporary lepers according to politics.

    9. The brother of a college classmate was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist.

      As it was his time to die, and we should not interfere with that, the IDF should not interfere with Arab terrorist activity.

      Do you not realize how unbelievably stupid this is?

    10. Yanked
      Your second sentence negates the role of בחירה. See for example the אור החיים הקדוש on בראשית ל״ז פסוק כ׳, ד״ה ונראה מה יהיו וכו׳.
      See also בעל התניא in numerous places on the concept of a human being’s ability to be משנה his מזל, both לטוב and ח״ו לרע

    11. There is a very interesting agaddah in Masechet Chagiga 4b-5a about how some people die when it is not their appointed time. Yankel-- you might want to look into it.

    12. "This post negates a basic tenet of Judaism. Namely, no dies before their appointed time."

      You have already been subject to a lot of critcism here, but let me do something more basic.

      Care to cite a source for this "basic tenet of Judaism?" Here is a hint -- it is not one of the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam. In fact it is not anywhere in the Rambam.

      So care to cite a source?

  2. Most people who died were elderly or those with serious chronic conditions. There is no evidence the vaccine would save them let alone would prevent their infection (otherwise, why would booster shot be offered even to young healthy ones?). What the 4 millions would regret (or actually be angry) is safe and inexpensive treatments (like HCQ and ivermectin) were suppressed by government bureaucratic bodies.

    1. "There is no evidence the vaccine would save them "

      ...And you think that they would rather be definitely dead than only probably or possibly dead?

      You've surpassed yourself!

    2. Everybody would like to live just a little longer. Everybody. It's human nature.

    3. You keep mention "safe and inexpensive treatments (like HCQ and ivermectin)"
      How do you know whether they are safe, where and when have they been tested?

      Given that Hospitals are now turning people away as they have run out of beds and money, why would a hospital which is trying to make a profit and save as many lives as possible not use a safe and effective procedure is such a thing existed?

      Do you think that all the doctors and hospital administrators in the world got together and said that they would rather watch people die a horrible death and work crazy hours for months on end, because the only alternative is a safe and inexpensive medication which they don't want to use

    4. Actually there is overwhelming evidence that the vaccine would have saved most of them -- the vaccine has been proven to have overwhelming efficacy to save lives in all age groups.

    5. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the numbers of covid deaths started dropping as soon as the vaccine started being administered.

      And btw numerous studies into HCQ has shown it to be ineffective

    6. @Michael Sedley

      Here you go:

      - Meta analysis by Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PHD, who consults for the WHO, concludes with moderate certainty that Ivermectin prevents and treats COVID-19. She has also expressed serious concerns about the use of COVID vaccines in humans, based on the UK version of VAERS: - Meta Analysis of HCQ.

      Ivermectin and HCQ have more safety data than the COVID vaccines, which you are happy to support. By far.

    7. Oh look, another "Our fake snakeoil 'cure' medications were suppressed in undefinable ways by the powers that be" victim routine from people whose favorite generic meds failed to do anything for Covid patients.
      They are placebo's for covid19.

      These are approved drugs for other uses. Any doctor can prescribe off label for anything he wants, for any patient. You are being lied to and the people lying about it have a financial stake in the use of these meds, despite the fact that they are generic. You were duped.

  3. Here's the irrefutable proof that all these so called "experts" regarding the vaccine are agenda driven and hence cannot be trusted.

    Statistically, the morbidity rate for covid patients is 90% or more in people over the age of 60 and the immunocompromised.

    Yet, all these experts insist that everyone regardless of age or medical condition, should receive the vaccine.

    This is despite that this exposes hundreds of millions of not at risk people, to unknown long-term side effects.

    You might argue that any covid related risks far outweigh any side effects.

    Here I would counter, that these same exact standards are not applied in regard to the flu shot in which thousands die each year from.

    We were never told that everyone be vaccinated from the flu.

    It has only become an issue with covid.

    This is the big lie exposed.....

    1. " the morbidity rate for covid patients is 90% or more in people over the age of 60 and the immunocompromised."

      No it isn't.

    2. "This is despite that this exposes hundreds of millions of not at risk people, to unknown long-term side effects."

      Please be specific what these unknown long-term side effects are.

      " these same exact standards are not applied in regard to the flu "
      Covid has killed 650k Americans in less than two years. That's about 10 times the amount of flu deaths. Why should the same standards apply? Especially since the efficacy of flu vaccines is rather low.

      "We were never told that everyone be vaccinated from the flu."
      The CDC: "Everyone 6 months of age and older should get a flu vaccine every season with rare exception."
      The UK is less fervent but does encourage children, over 50s and the to get the flu shot. Also included are those vulnerable including with conditions such as asthma, diabetes and obesity. Add those all up- and you get more than half the population. Not everybody- but most people. No recommendations against getting the shot- except in rare cases. (It could be sensible triage necessary for socialized medicine.)

      "This is the big lie exposed....."
      It isn't big.
      It isn't a lie.
      It isn't exposed.
      And even your ellipsis is wrong....

    3. It should read; 90% of all morbidity, is in those 60 or older and the immunocompromised.

    4. That was a fake The Hat. Naughty naughty Reb K!

    5. Your argument would make sense if COVID were not an infectious disease. But it is an infectious disease, and can spread from people who are not at risk to those who are at risk.

      (And we can't always be sure who is at risk -- where I live, there are plenty of people in their 30s and 40s currently hospitalized with COVID -- about as many as there are people in their 60s and 70s.)

    6. "We were never told that everyone be vaccinated from the flu."

    7. Mr, Hat, even if anything else you say were correct, your shtus neglects the fact that the more people who get infected, the more opportunities the virus has to mutate into more dangerous variants.

      That's how we got to our current situation, just as we thought things were improving, with the Delta variant running wild. In the US states where people agree with you, some hospitals and their staffs are at the breaking point. Once again refrigerator trucks are being pressed into service because the morgues are full and the undertakers can't keep up.

      Meanwhile, a friend of mine in a western state had a heart attack yesterday and couldn’t get a hospital room because the place is filled with sick, unvaccinated fools. With Yom Kippur approaching, people like you need to do some serious teshuvah.

    8. uNkNoWn LoNgTeRm EfFeCtS
      Hat, how is it possible that you're on the wrong side of every possible issue?
      I guess I should expect no different from a gaza supporter and a Palestinian Nationalism activist. You clearly have bad judgement.

    9. Hat, if you don't like people using your name, use your real one.

      Moshe, I love your profile pic.

      Student: Bingo.

    10. You completely ignore the fact that even if you don't die from covid you can develop long term side effects known as long covid. As it is, all the people dying from covid now are younger people because they haven't been vaccinated.

      The flu is far less contagious, far less deadly, and the flu shot is far less effective.

      AS for long term side effects from the covid vaccine, there has never been a vaccine tested which caused side effects past 2 months. The mRNA technology that the covid vaccine uses has been studied by doctors for decades and has even been used in clinical trials in vaccines for HIV, Influenza, Zika, and several cancers.

    11. "Here's the irrefutable proof that all these so called "experts" regarding the vaccine are agenda driven..."

      Um, what is the agenda? That everyone be healthy and not get sick and not die?

      OK, guilty.

  4. One of my oldest friends is an anti-vaxxer. So is his father and at least some of his siblings. His mother used to be. Then she committed suicide by contracting COVID-19.

  5. Oh, its so now its FOUR million people who have died from Covid??!! THREE million wasn't good enough for you? Why not go even higher? TEN Million have died!!!

    These Covid believers have gone absolutely nuts.

    1. Schreiber you moron of the highest order!!
      People are dying you crass fool.
      How can you be so obtuse in the face of a global disaster in which millions of people are dying.
      Go educate yourself here:

    2. Over 4.4 million confirmed deaths according to Worldometers as of today. And that is certainly an underestimate as total death rates have increased by much more than that.

      You don't have to believe in COVID just like you don't have to believe in gravity. But your beliefs are irrelevant when you jump off a tall building.

    3. There we go! Charles H answers the call on behalf of the left. I knew it wouldn't be long. Now its 4.4 million deaths from Covid, another 400,000 of the "perfectly healthy" apparently biting the dust since yesterday, when no one was looking. Why stop there? Doesn't claiming 5 million sound even scarier? Go for it!

    4. You sound exactly like the people who deny that 6 million Jews died in the holocaust.

    5. If anyone needed proof that something is rotten in the state of Orthodox Judaism, there here it is folks.

      The response of Orthodox Judaism to Corona has been atrocious.
      Scientists save lives. Orthodox Jews endanger them.
      Secular people strive to find solutions to a global crisis.
      Orthodox Jews take moronic stances against those efforts. The contribution of Orthodox Jewry to saving humanity has been net negative.
      You need look no further.

      Schreiber, and the thousands like him, of Orthodox Jews who are skeptical of the efforts of brilliant scientists to save lives, and who go out of their way to spread lies and deceits about the benefits of the vaccine, make clear the issue.

      Orthodox Judaism pumps out these fools from their yeshivot. There is something fundamentally broken when it becomes part of your identity to take a stance against well established science.

      Schreiber isn't alone.
      There are thousands like him.
      If you need an easy guide as to how to spot Orthodox Idiots, then the men are probably wearing black hats and jackets with white shirts.

  6. I will never, ever, be able to believe anything else I ever read in this blog. That's sad.

    1. There are other blogs you can read and believe. That's even sadder.

    2. I am also sad to see the diatribes that our blog host has uploaded recently. Some very skillful language yesterday demonstrating the science is on his side doesn't really cover up the fact that he is being irrational about Covid by refusing to have honest scientific discussion as would befit him. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that vaccines are worthwhile but it is not reasonable to write one-sidedly in what feels to be quite a smug tone.
      Reiner Fuellmich might be silly but Sunetra Gupta and Clare Craig are not and it is farcical to pretend that no recognised scientifically or medically qualified have raised concerns.
      As for comments about the dead being unable to tell you their regret, these are deliberately emotive and unbefitting of a rationalist blog.

    3. I used to work for one of the co-initiators of Gupta's notorious Great Barrington declaration. He told me that it was wrong to have fought the Nazis, that non-violent civil disobedience would have stopped them.

      That is the school of thought that she is representing.

      You can indeed find "recognized" scientists who are vaccine skeptics. If you look hard enough you can also find people with semicha who tell you that it is okay to use electric devices or drive on Shabbat. That is the level of nonsense you are endorsing.

      Chazal say that there are people who value their money more than their life. We are seeing similar that with the COVID pandemic. Irrationality.

    4. "Irrationality"

      It is difficult to find a sentence in your comment that isn't a logical fallacy.

      By the way, Chazal also say "Tov Sheba'Rofim L'Gehinnom." Many of the comments of Rishonim explaining what this means, are easily applicable to the supposed health measures mandated for this pandemic.

    5. "Chazal also say "Tov Sheba'Rofim L'Gehinnom." Many of the comments of Rishonim explaining what this means, are easily applicable to the supposed health measures mandated for this pandemic."

      Which rishonim? Most explain it in two ways:
      1) Reckless doctors who are careless. Mavericks who go it alone & don't confer with colleagues. And they kill patients.
      2) Not to be taken literally. Rather it means that the best (literally) doctors are aware of their responsibility- as if a vision of Gehinom were in front them- always conscious of the punishment for negligence they do they jobs faithfully.

      I'm not sure how the above two explanations apply to health mandates, whether they are effective or not.

    6. @Michael Sedley

      Here you go:

    7. 1. Meiri - "..they do not know the etiology of the disease and how it should be treated, and yet pretend as if they do."

      a) Lockdowns and mask mandates b) Shutting down schools/school mask mandates c) Fauci has flip-flopped on about every single issue.

      2. Shlomo ibn Virga: "The physician should act as if hell itself is in front of him if his treatments kill the patient. In this way, he will act with caution and diligence."

      Doctors telling entire populations, including pregnant women and children, to take an EUA vaccine, promoting COVID vaccine passports, without regard for individual risk-benefit analyses, is not indicative of one who is concerned about the individual patient. It is more indicative of some concern either about global health, playing politics, or simply parroting government health agencies.

      3. Ramban: "Medical interventions are nothing but a danger. What heals one person kills another."

      a) Ramban recognized that medical interventions can heal one person, but they can kill someone else. See point 2. b) Even if one would argue that lockdowns benefitted some, it almost certainly resulted in deaths of its own doing. This can also be applied to R' Shlomo Ibn Virga.

    8. MK,
      It's "The best doctors", NOT "most doctors".
      Here's the מהרש"א:
      ", דהיינו שמחזיק את עצמו לטוב ולמומחה שברופאים, שאין כמוהו, וסומך ביותר על המחאתו מתוך גאוותו ולפעמים הוא טועה בטבע זה החולה וממית את החולה ברפואותיו, אבל יש לו לישא וליתן עם שאר הרופאים כיון שהוא סכנת נפשות"."
      The מהרש"א is referring to a maverick who thinks he knows better than everyone and who doesn't consult with his colleagues. He is given more to hysterically browbeatin science illiterate politicians than sober peer-review consultation with other medical experts.

      ".. disease and how it should be treated...Lockdowns and mask mandates..." Who claims that covid is treated by lockdowns and masks?

      "Fauci has flip-flopped on about every single issue"
      Prove it.

      " if his treatments kill the patient...Doctors...promoting COVID vaccine passports". Vaccine passports kill patients?

      " is not indicative of one who is concerned about the individual patient. It is more indicative of some concern... about global health"
      You're oozing compassion.

      " Ramban recognized that medical interventions can heal one person, but they can kill someone else."
      Which is why drugs are tested for safety first. It's also why (at least here in Israel) those who have received their shot, must wait in the clinic for fifteen minutes to ensure they don't get a bad reaction.

  7. Several people have died because they rejected as intolerable CPAP ventilation, which can cause a terrible sense of strangulation, in full cognisance that the alternative was slow death due to low oxygen. Never assume.

  8. Source for the prior post but I've read of those with Covid who rejected CPAP as well.

  9. "Reiner Fuellmich might be silly but Sunetra Gupta and Clare Craig are not"

    Gupta is very silly. Her scheme to induce herd immunity by (indirectly &) unethically forcing infection of the broad population and isolating the vulnerable is very silly.

    The plausibility of the GBD is predicated on the equation
    H + V < 100%, where H = % needed to achieve herd immunity &
    V = % vulnerable population that need to be isolated. Prudence
    requires that the sum be significantly less than 100.

    The problem is that H was (before delta) between 60 & 70%, and V may have been as much as 40% according to some estimates.
    Keep in mind that Gupta's GBD was issued before vaccinations.
    The GBD was signed by less than 1% of the world's doctors, and so in no way can be considered mainstream. There are other problems with the GBD, but that it fails in math easily grasped by a ten year old makes it very silly.
    Verdict: Gupta is a very silly person.

  10. If they didn't have Covid,they wouldn't need CPAP!

  11. Re the heading of this post - "I'd rather never have my museum operate at full capacity again, than admit I was wrong about Covid."

    1. Says the guy who believes in conspiracy theories.

  12. Several months ago, Rabbi Dr. Aaron Glatt and Mount Sinai Hospital of South Nassau (where he is the chair of department of medicine), blocked a prescription for Ivermectin for a dying COVID patient (Deborah Bucko), who became progressively ill under their care, that was prescribed by an infectious disease doctor there as an emergency measure. The husband of the patient, Scott Mantel, had to sue 3 times to force Glatt and the hospital to allow it. The court forced them the first two times, in which Glatt and the hospital only allowed the treatment for 5 days each, even though Dr. Pierre Kory demonstrated that her prognosis was improving while on the treatment. Deborah Bucko died while her husband was trying for a third time.

    Scott Mantel's original affidavit pleading with the court to force them to not block the emergency prescription:

    Dr. Pierre Kory's response to Dr. Glatt explaining why they won't give it (Glatt's explanation can't be seen, as the hospital requested restricted status):

    2 articles discussing this:

    Rabbi Dr. Glatt is arguably the most influential epidemiologist for the Orthodox Jewish community in the US. You can hardly escape his opinions in newspapers, and he has assisted in the creation of (draconian) shul COVID policies/school reopening policies. Yet he denied a safe emergency treatment to a critically ill patient, despite evidence provided of effectiveness. As Scott Mantel showed in his exhibits, several other hospitals were sued for the same thing, and those critical patients improved under continuing ivermectin treatment. Gee, I wonder why people don't trust the medical establishment.

    I'll stay tuned for Part II to this series: "I'd Rather Die Horribly Than Get Ivermectin"

    1. Anecdotal. Show me real evidence.
      Where are the high quality studies?
      I searched for double blind studies. Here are the first four I found:
      1) Mazandaran, Iran study: 69 patients. This is very small. Not really a useful study. Another flaw: they did not randomized properly to ensure no confounding. Results: 7.1 days hospitalization for ivermectin, 8.4 for control. A little over a day's difference. That's no wonder drug.

      2) Vallejos study: 501 patients. No effect found for ivermection

      3) Chaccour, Lancet. Positive results. Only 24 accepted into study.

      4) Lopez-Medina: 476 patients. "not significantly different "

      See a pattern here? Negative results in large studies & positive in small studies.

      Maybe ivermectin is useful. But where's the strong evidence?

      Kory vs Glatt? One is an expert in infectious diseases & the other in critical care. Who would you trust more to know about effective treatments for infectious diseases?


    3. (Part 1)

      Ephraim -

      Your response is disingenuous, misses the point, and highlights the precise problem we are facing. One needn't be a doctor or even a medical professional to understand that when someone is dying, responsible doctors will use experimental drugs and treatments which can even be dangerous at times, in order to give their patient the best possibility to survive. Even if one grants the possibility that there is conflicting evidence with regard to the efficacy of Ivermectin, why in the world would a doctor fight both next of kin, other doctors and the courts just to remove a drug that causes no reported harm, and may just help this patient survive? One can only take such a position if they are working with an overly simplistic premise of good vs. bad, and works vs doesn't work. In addition, they must feel that they have a personal stake in the matter and that other people's lives are worth sacrificing in order to prove their political point.

      By setting this up as the "either/or" false choice that you do, you seem to buy into these mistaken premises as well. If you or a loved one was dying and the only chance at survival was trying an unproven or experimental treatment, would you deny them or yourself that treatment? Would you want a doctor caring for you who sees things in such black and white terms, and is ready to sacrifice your life as they stand on principle?

      Medicine and science aren't just about discovering rigid rules and notions. They are about appreciating and refining the parameters of what works for whom and when. COVID is a novel virus. Treatment of COVID is similarly novel. As the science is in the process of being refined and clarified, there will be conflicting and contradictory evidence until there is time to sort it out. The attitude of unilateral dismissiveness of one side taken by people like you or Dr. Glatt is an anti-scientific one, in that it seeks to subvert this process by prematurely and cynically dismissing and discounting evidence that runs counter to their pre-determined position; an attitude that bespeaks an over-personalized investment and perhaps a cow towing to popular notions. A scientific and open-minded approach, by contrast, is able to allow for seeming conflicts in data. A humane and caring person is able to put their concern for human life above their own personal or political leanings. Dr. Glatt has demonstrated that he will do neither.

    4. (Part 2)

      It should also be noted that Glatt supports far-less proven methods of treatments and health measures both in safety and effectiveness, including universal masks, the use of ventilators for COVID patients, COVID vaccines in the elderly, pregnant, and children, vaccine passports, (Glatt has compared them to Bigdei Avodah that will allow you to serve Hashem properly, earn a living, and live a normal life again), Etc. Etc. Glad to see the bar is dramatically raised when the husband of someone dying under your care wants ivermectin as an emergency measure.

      Furthermore, it's apparent from Cory's response, and his quoting of Glatt, that a lack of "double-blind" studies was not even the issue raised by Glatt. Incidentally, here are some double-blind (and 1 single blind) randomized trials that demonstrate effectiveness of ivermectin:

      Niaee - 180 hospitalized patients - 3.3% mortality on ivermectin vs. 18.3% without ivermectin
      Ravikirti - 115 patients - secondary outcome of 0% mortality rate in treated patients, vs. 6.9% in untreated.
      Mahmud - 400 patients - 61% of treated group had 7 day or less recovery, vs 44% of untreated group. Clinical deterioration was 8.7% in treated group vs 17.8% in untreated. Two deaths were observed, both in the control group.
      Chowdhury - 115 patients - 5.9 day recovery ivermectin vs 9.3 non-ivermectin (near statistical significance)
      Bablaloa - 62 patients - found a significant difference in viral clearance between high and low dose ivermectin patients.
      Ahmed Dhaka - 72 hospitalized patients - 9.7 days recovery treated vs. 12.7 days untreated
      Hashim - Single Blind Randomized - 140 patients - 6.3 days recovery vs 13.6 days in untreated. 0% mortality in treated, vs. 27.3% in untreated.

    5. "Your response is disingenuous, misses the point"
      No, I didn't miss that point- I didn't address that point. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. But the ivermectin controversy mostly boils on the claims for ivermectin per se, not the argument for using a questionable treatment in an emergency. I'm not going to address the latter.
      Just to clarify: I understand that you consider the debate over doctor's rights/responsibility to use questionable treatments in an emergency more important than the debate over efficacy of said treatment. Again, I'm not going to debate you on that. I just mentioned this to acknowledge your opinion.

      Niaee - This preprint looks promising. Let's see if it passes peer-review. See the comments which question whether randomization succeeded.
      Ravikirti - Not so impressive. Negative findings in primary outcome. A bunch of secondary outcomes were reviewed too- that's where the positive findings were.
      Chowdhury- pre-print. Not properly controlled. Not blinded.
      Bablaloa - small study. You failed to fully cite the results. They were 9.7 vs. 12.7. They were 9.7 vs 11.5 vs 12.7. The middle group you left out was Ivermectin+doxycycline which is a difference of just 1.2 days.

      All this indicates that more studies need to be done. I'm still waiting for clear unambiguous evidence.

    6. What does it say when you avoid dealing with serious questions of both ethics and trustworthiness regarding modern-orthodoxy's main "expert" in this area that are sitting squarely in front of you? How astoundingly disingenuous of you.

      Again I ask you, why should I trust anything that comes out of the mouth of someone who purposely withdraws potentially life saving treatment seemingly for the sake of politics? Only the willfully blind and ignorant could trust such a person.


  14. "What does it say when you avoid dealing with serious questions.."
    It says I don't know the answers to those questions.
    "How astoundingly disingenuous of you."
    What does "disingenuous" mean?

    "someone who purposely withdraws potentially life saving treatment"
    He doesn't see it as potentially life saving.
    "seemingly for the sake of politics"
    Seemingly? So maybe there's a possibility that it's not politics, and it's about science?

    "and ignorant"
    Please present the clear unambiguous evidence that we're ignorant of.

    Clarification: I conflated the Bablaboa & Dhaka in my comments. The comments starting "You failed to fully cite the results.." refers to Dhaka, not Bablaboa.


Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

A Different Kind of Chocolate

With Covid having prevented my wife and I from celebrating a significant anniversary milestone, we finally took a long-overdue vacation - to...