Wait a minute. Could it be that the Carvallo study was initially sponsored by this Austrian company selling carrageenan spray? Their investor pitch deck references the Carvallo study and some other studies of their branded carrageenan spray in Argentina.
They also seem to have ran an RCT on just their carrageenan (without IVM) in Argentina. Maybe they ran it and it showed no efficacy and *that* is why Carvallo then said carageenan is irrelevant?
This is their clinicaltrials.gov entry:

It is also a trial in hospital workers.

clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Yuri Deigin

Yuri Deigin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ydeigin

28 Jul
“Why would you vaccinate <15yr old?”

Reason #1 — to prevent them from dying from Covid.

Reason #2 — to prevent them from killing grandma from Covid. Kids are the biggest spreaders.

Let me unpack #1:
The infection mortality rate in kids is about 0.001%. Yes, that’s quite low but it’s still way higher than 0. Why risk your child’s life? Why risk them getting long Covid symptoms or yet unknown long term symptoms?

Death rate in kids from vaccines? ZERO. No kids have died — ImageImage
— and in the US they’ve already administered 10.2M doses in kids 5-18 and 14.6 doses in people aged 18-24. How many deaths reported for those age categories? Zero.

Is it obvious yet why we should vaccinate all ages? ImageImageImage
Read 4 tweets
26 Jul
@BetterSkeptics #gtcentry Unsupported claim:
[02:21:25] And then the other place that we have a signal, which I think suggests something we need to worry farther down the road. You tell me, Robert, if I'm on the right track here or not. But the fact that it shows up concentrating
in bone marrow.

[02:21:39] Steve: Bad news.

[02:21:40] Bret: Actually that suggests that you could end up with-- And I'm not saying this is gonna happen, but I'm saying we need to look for something like leukemias showing up here, because of their creation in the bone marrow."
As I outlined in detail in another submission, mRNA vaccines carry no oncorisk:

Read 4 tweets
26 Jul
@BetterSkeptics #gtcentry Unsupported claim:

[02:21:40] Bret: I know from other work, that it also seems to show up preferentially in-in, uh, lymph nodes, which raises the question of whether or not, uh, lymphomas might be created.
Lymphomas are a group of blood cancers caused by an oncotransformation of lymphocytes, a subclass of immune system cells which includes T- and B-cells.

For cells to turn cancerous, driver mutations are necessary. Such mutations are usually endogenous
but could also be caused by external factors: radiation or chronic exposure to external carcinogens, e.g. asbestos or cigarette smoke.

Mutations must happen in the DNA of such cells, which is located in the nucleus.
Read 6 tweets
26 Jul
@BetterSkeptics #gtcentry Falsification:

[00:39:34] Heather: the authors of the Quillette article don't seem to know what prophylaxis means.
...
[00:40:48] Bret: Yeah, so they absolutely screw up. And somehow it got through the editing process.
"They screw up that, that fundamental distinction.
...
the issue that we are going to argue is absolutely central that they have completely botched and having botched it, when you see how the logic correctly works, you'll understand why their entire argument must be wrong"
This is a resubmission of a clearly false claim that was not assessed by all of the refs on its merits.

This claim by B&H is important as they open with it their critique of our arguments in their podcast and use it to erroneously undermine our credibility (see attached). Image
Read 4 tweets
25 Jul
Headline from Israel: “Pfizer Shot Just 39% Effective Against Delta Infection, But Largely Prevents Severe Illness, Israel Study Suggests”

Knee-jerk reaction: OMG, vaccines suck. Then I look at the actual data. Resulting reaction: OMG, these vaccines are amazing!!!
Look at the right side of this graph. Even if you were fully vaccinated as far back as in January, the vaccine decreases your risk of severe Covid by almost 10x.

And the left hand side provides a very clear picture: vaccine effectiveness against Delta wanes in a predictable way:
March and April jabs still provide good protection. And a third booster shot should still provide GREAT protection against Delta.
Read 5 tweets
24 Jul
OMG @HeatherEHeying if you don’t think we have evidence that Covid vaccines prevent transmission, you are disqualified from speaking about vaccines or biology ever again.

And @BretWeinstein just because you think you were “right” about the lab leak hypothesis in no way
means that you could be right about conspiracy to suppress true vaccine dangers or that ivermectin works. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

And yes, you *have* lost your minds here. It is good to see you trying to backtrack your positions but nothing short of
a full retraction of misguided vaccine fears and unsupported claims of IVM prophylactic efficacy will exonerate you.

Until then, if you keep spreading this deadly misinformation, you indeed ARE KILLING PEOPLE.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(