Friday, October 8, 2021

To Vax or Not to Vax? That is definitely a question ...

I get it, it's complicated.

Remember, I was a non-vaxxing mother before all this started!

On one hand, people have good reason to be leery of forced consumption of monopoly product in a capitalist system marked by greed and corruption.

On the other hand, deliberately deployed disinformation mass delusion campaigns via troll farms and AI algorithms have completely muddied the issues and polarized people.

I have written HERE about conspiracy theories and disinformation during other pandemics.

 


 

HERE is the story of the swarming tactics I saw in an on-line anti-vax group.

So what to do?

Jab or no jab?

Honestly ... even though I deplore politicization and disinformation , can I just admit to being a little ... *reluctant* myself?

On the other hand ... my Mum, brother and two daughters have had the jab so far, with no negative effects.

My default setting is to go natural and avoid medical intervention unless truly warranted. That is how I approached childbirth, and most things to do with my health.

But - having been through SARS previously, while we lived in Hong Kong, I know Covid is real and that even the most robust immune system doesn't always deal well with a novel virus. I got the 'Russian' Flu when I was 12 and was so sick, I would not have known or cared if I died, I was so out of it.

And there is a time and a place to accept medical intervention. There is a risk:benefit equation to consider with *any* intervention, and there is with this also.

Friends in USA who've had Covid and recovered have shared how awful the air hunger was and how they truly thought they were *going* to die (but thank heavens, they recovered). 

I do personally know of one person who had a negative reaction, affecting her sight. OK so that's concerning.

But I also know of three people personally, right here in Melbourne - two who very nearly died, and one who sadly did. The first two - are the parents of someone who went to a protest and brought home Covid to her parents. She was fine. She watched both of her parents very nearly die. The third person was strongly religious and into all the ideology and vert anti-vax. He's now dead, his pregnant wife is on a ventilator, and their four children all have Covid (I don't know if they are unwell or not).

Right here in Melbourne. So that's concerning too.

Update: my husband and I are now double vaxxed. We experienced no adverse effects.

But anecdotal perspectives aside, to really make a reasonable decision, we have to look beyond the subjectives of anectodes and personal experience and look at the bigger picture:

GLOBALLY:

5 million Covid deaths 
250 million cases
7 billion Covid vaccine doses administered
 
USA:  

700,000 Covid deaths in USA so far - higher than the Spanish Flu death toll
386 million vaccine doses administered in USA
7899 deaths suspected to be vaccine related in USA (only 3 definitely confirmed as vaccine related)
Percentage of people hospitalized with Covid in USA who are unvaccinated: 95 - 98%
 
AUSTRALIA: 

2200 Covid deaths
19 million vaccine doses administered
495 adverse reactions following Covid vaccination reported to date
9 deaths suspected to be vaccine related so far
Percentage of people hospitalized with Covid who are unvaccinated in Australia: 95%

Now for some resources that I have found reliable and helpful, in making these complex and sometimes fraught decisions:

Sarah Stogryn of Canada - doula and herbalist like myself:

100+ sources I've found helpful when learning about the COVID-19 vaccines

Well known Melbourne doctor who has been covering Covid information (and disinformation) assiduously:

Dr Sara Marzouk's Facebook page

This not-for-profit has done a lot of work on COVID disinformation, including identifying the key players at the top of that entire MLM, how COVID vaccine disinformation benefits them financiall etc, and the key "master narratives" that almost all COVID and vaccine misinformation reflect:

The Anti-Vaxx Playbook

- Exposing anti-vaxxers' deadly plan to disrupt Covid vaccines, and how we can stop them

Unbiased Science Podcast

Sincere Christians should also examine and be aware that the same Russian troll farm disinformation campaigns that deliberately targeted the Christian faith community have likewise targeted the Muslim, Jewish, New Age, Spanish-speaking and other minority communities.

Russia’s Anti-Vaccine Propaganda is Tantamount to a Declaration of War

"Moreover, the source of much of the misinformation about vaccines comes from an unobvious source: the Russian government’s propaganda apparatus, which cultivates and exploits foreign anti-vaccine “useful idiots,” causing palpable harm to Americans and citizens of other Western countries.

This is part of a much broader and long-standing pattern of attacks by Russia."

‘It’s almost like grooming’: how anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and the far-right came together over COVID

6 month safety and efficacy data of the Pfizer vaccine confirm that it remains both safe and effective.
Protection against severe disease is maintained at very high levels (despite some waning and a decrease in antibody levels noted in some studies).

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months

IIVVEERRMMEECCTTIINN!

You'll be seeing a fair bit of mention about a common drug called Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid about the place.
 
So just some basics:
 
1. Not livestock doses. Use human doses, properly prescribed, don't self-medicate. This stuff is great for parasites, lice and scabies.
 
2. Avoid drawing conclusions based on cherry-picking a few smaller studies out of context. Look further up the hierarchy of evidence:
 
 
Authors' conclusions
Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.
 

3. At the very least, wait for the Principle trial.

 
The most robust summary of the evidence for ivermectin in COVID-19, published in June, goes one step further. It found available evidence showed ivermectin didn’t work.
This review carefully examined 10 higher-quality (randomised-controlled) clinical trials, which involved more than 1100 patients with COVID-19 being treated with ivermectin.
...
Researchers at the University of Oxford announced in June they would be starting another ivermectin trial, called PRINCIPLE.
This high-quality trial will involve investigating treatments for people at more risk of serious COVID-19. So far, the trial has recruited more than 5000 volunteers from across the UK. Another part of the trial (into another potential COVID-19 therapy) has already reported results.
This new Ivermectin trial is just starting and will compare a three-day treatment of ivermectin in people within the first 14 days of COVID-19 symptoms, or having a positive test, with those having usual care. The trial is expected to report its results in the coming months.
 
More on ivermection:
 
Here is an extremely comprehensive overview of Ivermection.

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted To Know

You could say it "opens a can of worms". Because as you'll know, Ivermection has been used for decades to treat lice, scabies, and intestinal parasites.

Check out this snippet:

"As several doctors and researchers have pointed out (h/t especially Avi Bitterman and David Boulware), the most impressive studies come from places that are teeming with worms. Mahmud from Bangladesh, Ravakirti from East India, Lopez-Medina from Colombia, etc."

and:

"Here’s the prevalence of roundworm infections by country (source). But alongside roundworms, there are threadworms, hookworms, blood flukes, liver flukes, nematodes, trematodes, all sorts of worms. Add them all up and somewhere between half and a quarter of people in the developing world have at least one parasitic worm in their body."

Being full of worms may impact your ability to fight coronavirus ..."
 
In natural health circles, it's been long held that the gut is the seat of the immune system and that improving gut health is  useful in promoting optimal immunity.
 
The author continues:
 
"Treatment of worm infections might reduce the negative effect of COVID-19! And ivermectin is a deworming drug! You can see where this is going…"
 
In the end, he says in summary:
 
 

  • Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of co-morbid parasites

  • Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some Ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound.

Interesting eh?

The only thing it doesn't mention is the Principle Trial, because results haven't been published yet - but it's good to know about it and keep an eye out.

Debunking Ivermectin: A Complete Guide

by Nick Mark, 30 September 2021

And this from Dr Sara Marzouk:

Below are the abstracts from two published meta-analyses looking at randomised controlled trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In the first abstract, the authors conclude that ivermectin treatment results in a 56% reduction in mortality, with favourable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalisation. They also conclude faster viral clearance in the ivermectin group.
In the second abstract, the authors conclude that there is NO significant effect on mortality. There is no significant effect on clinical recovery time or hospitalisation. They also conclude inconsistent conclusions regarding viral clearance in the ivermectin group, with more favourable outcomes only seen in studies at high risk of bias.
Two abstracts, two completely opposite findings.
Now look closer.
Same authors.
Same title.
SAME PAPER.
How can this be?
It’s quite simple, really.
In the first abstract, the authors had included two discredited studies that have since been retracted due to falsified data or unethical methodology. The authors retracted this version due to this.
In the second abstract, the authors revised their findings without the two discredited studies, and were more stringent in their analysis. They then updated their findings.
Ivermectin quickly goes from hero to zero when fake, false, fabricated data is taken out of the equation.
This is why peer-review matters.
This is why meta-analyses and systematic reviews are only as good as the data that goes into them.
This is why scientific integrity matters.
But the antivaxxers who misinform the vulnerable by sharing the former version have, not surprisingly, remained silent about the current version.
Just in case anyone reading this thought that ivermectin was a good substitute for vaccination.
 
 

 No photo description available.

 This Systematic Review of Ivermection (June 2021) led by Andrew Bryant looked promising ... but was dogged by dodgy data and corruption involving one of the studies they included:

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

as explained here:

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

"The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say. 
Reliable data needed

The paper’s withdrawal is not the first scandal to dog studies of ivermectin and COVID-19. Hill thinks many of the other ivermectin trial papers that he has scanned are likely to be flawed or statistically biased. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not randomized or well controlled, he says. And in 2020, an observational study of the drug was withdrawn after scientists raised concerns about it and a few other papers using data by the company Surgisphere that investigated a range of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. “We’ve seen a pattern of people releasing information that’s not reliable,” says Hill. “It’s hard enough to do work on COVID and treatment without people distorting databases.”

And here:

Data detectives dig into ivermectin studies

How do we protect COVID science from fishy data? 

"One ivermectin meta-analysis, by British statistician Andrew Bryant at Newcastle University and colleagues, has already been weaponised this way. The problem is that this meta-analysis included questionable studies, spotted by the data detectives."

Moving away from the ongoing Ivermectin dispute, what about other Covid info - and other Covid therapeutics?

I recommend the work of Denise Murphy Plichta as a reliable source of accurate information:

Covid-19: The Delta Variant

As well as vaccines, there are positive developments with certain therapeutics. Watch this space:

Have Australian researchers developed an effective COVID-19 treatment? Potentially, but we need to wait for human trials 

and this:

COVID: 90% of patients treated with new Israeli drug discharged in 5 days

Q: How does the risk of blood clots after covid vaccinations compare with the risk of blood clots after getting covid? 
 
A: You’re MUCH more likely to have a clotting event with Covid than you are after a vaccine.
And your risk of getting a clot goes on for much longer with Covid than after a vaccine.
The choice is not between “risk vs no risk”. The choice is between “high risk and low risk”. Vaccines carry the lower risk.
 
This data is the result of an analysis of 29 million people in the UK, and includes all sorts of different clots, and the AZ and Pfizer vaccines.
 
Original paper is here
 
Plain English summary from the Guardian here
 
 

To vaxx or not to vaxx? Is this really the question?

August 2021

An open letter to all the agnostic fence sitters out there.

I am sure a lot of people could relate to this bit:

But Big Pharma are greedy and out to get us

I can understand and completely empathise with your skepticism of big pharma, big profits  and the shortcomings of capitalism. Totally get that. Having worked in the world's largest pharmaceutical company in oncology, I experienced first hand how greedy and manipulative they can be - yet I also witnessed the rigor and pedantry of the drug approval process and how these medications save lives. I ask you this, is a pandemic the right time to tear down the system, to fundamentally rewrite the governance of the free market and world economics? Is this the right way forward, now? Or should we maybe all get vaccinated first and make sure our elderly, sick and compromised friends and family are okay and then work out how to tackle greed and the inequities of free market capitalism and this twisted system?

Because I agree with you, the system sucks and needs to be overhauled - yet timing is also everything.

For Christians who have been led to believe that governments/health agencies/ the vaccines are evil/have a bad agenda/are the mark of the beast, this is a vital read:

"Whatever your opinion is of COVID and the vaccine, you’re totally entitled to it. I’m not bashing anyone who doesn’t want the vaccine. What I am bashing is being controlled by fear and buying into fake news and garbage conversations that do nothing but produce anger toward people who differ with you on this topic.Make your decision by educating yourself with credible sources and stand by it. No matter your choice, we can still love Jesus together. But don’t spread fear. Don’t spread anger. Don’t forget that Christ is still King."

at

No comments:

Post a Comment