Omicron could well be excellent news. Even Delta is very manageable with early treatment. Omicron looks to be even more so. And that could allow us to exit the pandemic as a large fraction of the population acquires immunity with mild disease. But there are caveats.
1. We know little yet of Omicron. It might not match our initial assessment. 2. Our leaders are intent on continual (re)vaccination of every last person irrespective of risk, medical need or epidemiological value. No reason to think that’ll change. Early treatment is key, yet DOA
3. We’re pushing a novel—likely functionally enhanced—virus around evolutionarily. No one can predict the outcome with confidence. ADE and original antigenic sin are still on the table. Our recklessness could drive SARS2 toward those with innate immunity (e.g. the healthy/young)
4. The biggest danger is our leader’s monomaniacal obsession with spike-based vaccines. Whatever its meaning, they ignore all evidence and keep doubling down on a plan that is the inverse of the solution. Whether tyranny is the point, or just a side effect. We must #StandUp. Now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Even if this isn’t fully true, the fact that many of the world’s most insightful people appear to believe that it is true, and that many of them now act accordingly, will causes it to become effectively true. We let down our guard because maintaining it feels naive and wasteful.
This may be the biggest obstacle to rescuing the west. Whether we do or we don’t actually live in the panopticon, all sense making and change seeking is now done by geographically disbursed groups of people, each of which contain members who have given up on private communication
Humans are naturally persuaded by consensus. But this leaves us vulnerable to manipulation based on phony agreements established through corruption, coercion and the censorship of contrary voices. If you want to know what’s really going on, read the books they wish to burn.
This paper passed "peer review" and was then mysteriously removed from the web--without notice to the authors. What is clear is that someone or some thing doesn't want it read and discussed in public. We beat censorship by making it backfire: archive.is/mwcEG
The censoring publisher is Elsevier. That's the (family) name of Galileo's publishing house. The modern Elsevier (founded 1880) proclaims this heretical heritage proudly, along with its support of Jewish scholars being persecuted by the Nazis.
This has always been about life and death. I’ve been clear about that. Covid is a dangerous disease. I’ve said so often. But lethal as SARS-CoV2 is, the capture of public health, drug safety + academic medicine by an industry that’s fueled by disease makes it even more dangerous.
I take Mr. Lawrenson’s death seriously, but no more seriously than those of Jacob Clynick and Simone Scott.
I've repeatedly defended my critic’s good faith. I assumed they were trying to do the right thing, just as I am. I’m disgusted now by the selective weaponizing of tragedy.
.@EricRWeinstein has been telling me for months that I structured my point incorrectly, so that what I intend is not what is heard. He’s clearly right about that. He was also right that "snap-to-grid intellectualism" (his term) has taken over the public sense-making sphere.
Assume for the moment that Covid-vaccine hesitancy is unfounded: Now imagine there is a safe, cheap and effective alternative that actually could quickly reach and protect the world (including from breakthrough cases) but it is aggressively portrayed as dangerous and ineffective.
This isn’t a challenge @clairlemon. I’m hoping that she too will see the bigger picture.
Big Pharma plays dirty under normal circumstances. Given a crisis, immunity from liability and a major new (possibly permanent) market for novel products, we should anticipate deception.
Emergency Use Authorization requires no safe and effective alternative. And we are aggressively told none exists, and that the large body of evidence that suggests otherwise is all flawed.
Given the concentration of conflicts of interest on the Pharma side, proceed with caution.
The Oxford study looks designed to return weak, positive results allowing the ridiculous current narrative to move to higher ground while killing public interest in Ivermectin and preserving the EUAs on which Big Pharma’s Covid portfolio depends. Everyone wins, except the public.
Collecting more evidence is great. But current evidence is more than strong enough to administer this very safe drug to patients for whom no useful alternative exists. Awaiting more evidence is a delaying tactic. And testing on patients late in disease makes no sense. Obviously.
If you want to know how well the drug works to treat Covid, administer it on exposure or first symptoms.
Of course the elephant in the closet is the failure to use Ivermectin to PREVENT Covid. Want to save lives across the globe and drive SARS2 to extinction? #IvermectinWorks
Much of the anger in the replies to my tweet--some of it from friends and others I respect--is due to the sense that COVID-vaccination is a life and death issue. I don’t disagree. I too am motivated by that sense.
I don’t, however, think the matter is simple, though I’d agree that the vaccines appear to have saved many more lives than they have cost so far--by a lot. I’ve explored the question with nuance on my podcast and elsewhere, but on Thurs. my nuance gave way, to very bad effect.
Much of the problem surrounds my claim that my informal sample was disturbingly full of “scary” vaccine reactions. But ‘scary’ is a conclusion resting on a stack of priors that, without saying what they are, can’t help but sound alarmist. Here's the problem tweet: