Thread by @MauritzPreller

It's maybe worth it to tell what is happening here. @Jay_Naidoo has waddled into quack territory but he didn't quite bargain on reality.

Antivaxxers don't want to think about these things. Of you visit their "lectures" you will see they have an interesting dilemma.

https://twitter.com/drnathimdladla/status/1634033562218377219

The whole narrative is based on some big pharma conspiracy, so they have the lunatic fringe hook-line-and-sinker. Problem is, not everyone agrees but you will never see anyone stepping out of line. So a guy will pitch up and rant about the 5G they want to mandate blah blah blah

A funny thing happens. No one says anything and anything goes. Each fanciful idea gets an uhm and an ah but no one would dare correct misinformation because they don't know which expert is punting that idea for their grift.

The end result is that all the ideas are thrown in a hat and gets equal measure. Anyone that disagrees hold their ideas to themselves until the idea they agree with surfaces. The first time I saw this was a video with Jerm & Nick Hudson which I will look for after this thread.

Imagine a room full of people and someone says, its the cellphone towers causing covid, and everyone nods. Same thing happens at every antivaxer meeting to some degree.

Their hero gives a speech, and they don't publicise it. Ask yourself why.

biznews.com/health/2023/02…

I've skipped the emotional bits and Aseem is making a lot of claims. This will be fun.

Before I start on that it's worth it to explain about the thread I'm linking on Ivermectin. It's one of those topics that most people with medical knowledge will just smile and wave about because from Zelensky to Jay Naidoo there is now evidence it works.

No amount of pretending it does will produce any evidence either. See in the linked thread how not one antivaxxer owns up to this and address their fellow antivaxers on the topic. From the doctor to the science journalist.

The reason. Their logic will unravel.

You can share a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial and they will defend vehemently with filibuster and share a bunch of sources signifying nothing. Do you think the trial that you share can be found on any one of the sites linking anecdotal evidence? #provemewrong

I will get the full transcript done for the video but Aseem is a very intelligent operator. What a serious web he weaves. His talk is about his paper talked about here.

https://twitter.com/_johnbye/status/1574498787309109290?s=20

He makes some wild claims. Here are some of them.

26:04
"In absolute terms, when you look at the COVID, the Pfizer vaccine, and you look at the benefits in absolute terms, this has evolved over time. The most recent evidence comes from, actually the UK Government, where..

they've looked at per million people vaccinated versus unvaccinated to try and estimate a benefit from the vaccine."
His crux:
"...if you're over 70? Two doses of Pfizer vaccine give you one in 2500 chance at preventing you being hospitalised with severe COVID."

2) If you're from 60 to 70, you're talking about 7000 plus.

3) When you're under 60, you have to vaccinate 10s of not hundreds of thousands of people to prevent one person being hospitalised. OK, and this is what we call non-randomised data, the reason why this is important.

4) ... The original trials that led to the rollout of the vaccine, did not show any statistically significant reduction in reduction in COVID deaths.

5) But the harms are consistent, and they are at least one in 800 serious adverse event hospitalisation disability life changing.

That's his argument. Fascinating. No wonder no one shares evidence. Do you think anyone understood what he was saying?

🤑🤑🤑🤑

Some other references linked here.

https://twitter.com/dr_jon_l/status/1615181361152942080?s=20