Discovering my Family are Conspiracy Theorists

Faith & Science Conversation
303

A recent number I have seen, even with the omicron, the booster has decreased hospitalization 11% compared with vaccination alone. The benefit has improved from 81% to 90% effectiveness at decreasing hospitalization…the vaccine is nearly 3 times as effective as statins (34%) with heart disease at decreasing severe disease in Covid.

4 Likes
304

@glipsnort and @Randy

I’ve been trying to highlight the overall “trust” problem. This article covers a lot of ground, and also contains some well documented criticism of Fauci (plus a Makary link, but most of Tiabbi’s links people here will not find questionable). The Folly of Pandemic Censorship - by Matt Taibbi - Racket

Regarding the subject we’ve been hashing out NI vs VI, here’s a study published a couple of days ago on the CDC site. COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis — California and New York, May–November 2021 | MMWR

In Table 1: Those vaccinated are about 3 times as likely to get a breakthrough infection compared to the unvaxxed previously infected getting re-infected.

So now the CDC has data showing NI is better than VI. Population studies everywhere agree. It’s a narrow point, but the CDC has not corrected government agencies requiring the vaccine in spite of previous infection status, and a lot of people find their silence deafening. Makary correctly points out that people with NI have lost their jobs because of this.

Honestly, I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I want people to understand why covid vax hesitant are hesitant. Comments welcome.

305

You don’t want to take the foolish risk of getting a first infection – you have no idea what it will do to you. What does ‘NI’ buy you for that? Nada.

2 Likes
306

The second link says that its data is not valid for omicron.

Similar data accounting for booster doses and as new variants, including Omicron, circulate will need to be assessed.

1 Like
307

No one, and I repeat, no one has ever recommended on this thread that anyone should get the infection just so they get NI. That’s a red herring.

That’s because it’s data, and they don’t have data for Omicron. So what’s the data show for the vax and omicron in this study? Oh wait, they don’t have that either.
So what’s your point? Just to cast doubt?

308

For one thing, we are talking about public policy recommendations on a large scale, and the need to be practical for individual employers, whatever size. Even if NI may be higher for some strains and varying levels of antibodies, depending on the individual and their severity of illness, vaccines and boosters give more predictable protection across the board. NI is a crap shoot.

309

COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination | Nebraska Medicine Omaha, NE.

Note that NI (if antibodies even develop at all!) wanes faster than VI.

1 Like
310

No one has disagreed with you that there is a trust problem, nor has anyone (that I can recall) suggested that we all shouldn’t listen respectfully to one another – that’s a good aim for a bunch of reasons, however difficult it is to do in practice. The reason you’re getting pushback is because of your starting claim: the reason there’s so much distrust is that there are two streams of propaganda spewing out BS. I push back on that because I think it’s a gross misreading of the situation.

I’ve been listening to the skeptics. For two years, I’ve been listening, on Twitter, here, and mostly on Christian Forums. Here’s what I’ve heard:

  • Covid is no worse than the flu
  • Masks don’t work
  • Masks cause dangerously low levels of oxygen
  • Hydroxychloroquine cures covid. No, HCQ plus azithromycin cures covid. No, it’s those two plus zinc.
  • Ivermectin cures covid
  • Vaccines are killing thousands of people
  • Vaccines provide no protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection
  • Vaccines don’t work at all
  • The FDA and CDC in bed with big pharma and only promoting vaccines for that reason
  • The powers that be are hiding the benefits of [insert non-working therapy] to gain power/money
  • Covid is overdiagnosed so hospitals can make more money
  • Covid deaths are being wildly overestimated so the authorities can seize more power
  • PCR tests give lots of false positives
  • Vaccination causes infertility
  • Previously infected people don’t need to be vaccinated

With the partial exception of ivermectin, every one of these wasn’t just wrong, it was clearly wrong or unfounded when the claim was being made. These weren’t because of confusion about a new and changing virus: I knew they were wrong at the time. And this is leaving aside the completely insane theories that many have also been promoting. Many of these false claims had a direct effect of causing behaviors that sickened and killed people.

So that’s one propaganda stream of BS – dangerous stuff that obviously wrong. The other stream is … the CDC using the word ‘myth’ to describe the questionable belief that infection-acquired immunity is better than vaccine-acquired immunity? The examples in Taibbi’s piece, most of which reflect changing knowledge and changing situations?

Bottom line: if you’ve been getting your information about this pandemic from Carl Zimmer in the NY Times, Helen Branswell in Stat News, and Ed Yong in The Atlantic, you’ve had a clear and up to date understanding the situation as it unfolded, including what scientists, doctors, and public health officials knew and what they were guessing. If you’ve been getting your information from Fox News and Facebook, you’ve believed a load of patent nonsense. There is no equivalence. I’ll listen (on my good days) to vaccine skeptics because they’re humans who deserve respect and to better communicate with them. I’m not going to listen to them to learn the truth about the pandemic – because they don’t have it.

Tell us that the CDC and the rest of the government should be more transparent, more open about things like mask usage, and better at communicating and I’ll happily agree. But that’s not what you’ve been arguing.

13 Likes
311

One limitation of the study is that the vaccine group was not stratified for time since vaccination. Therefore, the study is comparing immunity gained at different times which could be a very important factor in protective immunity. As mentioned by @glipsnort either here or in some other thread, NI acquired a couple months ago is probably going to be more effective than VI acquired 12 months ago, and the opposite is true.

I can also see how the CDC favors a system that perhaps vaccinates more people than needed rather than too few. With a blanket mandate for certain groups there won’t be those trying to cheat the system by claiming they had a previous infection when they in fact did not.

3 Likes
312

Like (the worst one I’ve seen cited, beating out MMS) “eating Datura fruit will cure CoViD”, which sent a dozen people to the hospital in India. Datura’s best-known members are the widespread invasive weed jimsonweed, and the cultivated moonflower. The fruits of this genus have the highest concentrations of alkaloids of any part of any solenacids. Symptoms include arrhythmias, fever, delirium, and [cosistently extremely unpleasant] hallucinations and psychosis.

2 Likes
313

I lost a close relative Friday night because of them. :cry:

1 Like
314

So sorry. It is tough to not get angry at the situation when people you know and love are hurt.

2 Likes
315

We’ll never know what the real numbers are of all the disease and death due to the whacko misinformation spread by those getting on their pet hobbyhorses and riding for all their worth. I was not really surprised in my relative’s situation – I more expected it than not. :cry:

1 Like
316

Marty, good to talk to you, as always.

I was just chatting with my 13 year old son about how real science is not perfect. He said, “The scientists look like it on TV!” He’d not be able to recognize Dr Fauci, so I think he was alluding to the scientists he sees in Marvel movies–but I get the point.

I really enjoyed the interview on CDC communication by Rochelle Walensky.

  • She said one of the biggest communication issues the agency has struggled with amidst the pandemic has been “not saying ‘for now’” when it shifts its guidance.
  • “We even have to act in times where we have imperfect information, because the situation is imperfect itself,” she said.

She outlines why they changed the recommendation on masks more than once–depending on the virus strain, etc.

She also admits that saying “for now,” based on the evidence, would have been better.

I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks.

2 Likes
317

Just joining Forum so apologize if what follows is repetitive. I also am attempting to facilitate a rational dialogue with certain family members who exhibit many aspects of conspiracy theorists but who also are relatively diligent researchers. In order to help, I have looked at a lot of junk, but have also seen well documented concerns about what appears (to them) as clear evidence of efforts by the critical experts to dismiss legitimate lines of inquiry. Having gone directly to the abstracts on the research involved I must admit the evidence for the efficacy of certain early therapies (ivermectin for example) has been building steadily and CDC, etc. have done a poor job of explaining their resistance or adjusting their guidance. Same can be said of the official commentary on the significance of natural immunity. I accept the good faith of the authorities, but wonder if they are feeding the conspiiracy narrative by not being more transparent about reasons for official policy (for example, was the hesitance on ivermectin to avoid a run on it by selfish, non-high risk.individuals?). The original guidance on masks indicates we have engaged in that kind of convoluted thinking, but doing something disingenuous for the right reason is never going to be an appropriate or effective strategy. I sent the following letter to John’s Hopkin epidemiologist several weeks ago in an effort to build my argument. Haven’t heard anything so welcome suggestions on other sources for taking on the better researched aspects of dissenters’ opinions. Thanks!

I’m writing to you because of my appreciation for your article, “COVID Natural Immunity: What You Need to Know” on the Johns Hopkins website, and with the hope that you might help me support elements of that article against other claims.

I am a fully vaccinated and boosted ordinary guy who believes in the systems and institutions we’ve developed around health care (while acknowledging and hoping that we can do more to broaden accessibility). At year end, I retired from a career in finance and strategy and have turned my attention to projects of personal urgency and passion. Among these, is an attempt to bridge the gap between siblings (I am the youngest of 6) torn apart by the political and social events of the past few years – hopefully learning some things that might be helpful to bridging that same gap in broader circles.

My entry point in this endeavor is trying to break through the noise and confusion of information, misinformation and disinformation around Covid-19 therapies and vaccines. The starting point is to understand whether there is any validity to the claims being made by the system skeptics around robustness of natural immunity, and efficacy of controversial early treatments for infected, at-risk patients not yet with serious symptoms.

To be clear, I support the fundamentals of our response and believe that the big decisions (vaccine approval, resistance to approving certain therapies) are based on real-time expert analysis of complex trade-offs. My hope is to help others see through the weaknesses of arguments based on selective information. Of course, I will also address pure fabrications, but the greater danger is use of substantive, real research in incomplete and misleading ways.

My early work to review the arguments that are being made by the loud skeptics has lead me to read a great deal of what I take to be the “primary sources” – the abstracts of the research projects themselves. Taken in the context I have (and I have looked unsuccessfully for mainstream refutations), the interpretations provided by the skeptics (of the clinical facts, not of the presumed motivations of decision makers) do not seem irrational or unreasonable. Though it is clearly not possible to refute every crazy argument being presented, the presence of uncontested, calmly presented, apparently reasonably-argued contrarian positions provides a powerful impetus for continuation and strengthening of the conspiracy theories.

I’ve attached an excerpt from my “research” to date should you want to get a feel for the kinds of studies that I’ve looked at, but the specific claims I am trying to contest and that do seem to be supported by calm, not-irrational interpretations are that (1) natural immunity is as strong and far more lasting than immunity generated by the vaccines, and (2) certain, unapproved therapies easily meet the risk/benefit hurdle for high-risk, early-stage infections. These arguments are further defended by challenging the logic of arguments that unvaccinated folks are making up a disproportionate level of hospitalized and dying patients at this stage in the pandemic (which I have not begun to dig into).

If you have read this far, I am deeply appreciative. If you have any suggested resources or counsel on how to respond to these interpretations, or ways to help others understand how the research being referenced does and does not enter into the equation for current guidance, I would be most grateful.

Thanks for your work in this essential arena.

318

Welcome, and I hope you find help here!
 

I don’t see what you are referring to, not that I am qualified to address it/them, anyway.

319

Actually, ivermectin efficacy is confusing with the withdrawal of many of the original studies due to apparent falsification of data. The meta-analysis that suggested it might be effective was stepped back, and without the falsified studies, shows no clear benefit. Hopefully good studies will be out soon giving a clear answer, but we can say with some certainty that if it helps, it doesn’t help much, and is certainly not a miracle drug like some propose. Good summary: Debunking Ivermectin: A Complete Guide — ICU One Pager

All of which is to say, junk in, junk out. If all you research is biased studies, then you will come to the wrong conclusions, even though you may be sincere and put in a lot of work.

4 Likes
320

Found this:

Also,

The concern is having people think these therapies actually work which then justifies their claim that they don’t need a vaccine. I would agree that certain therapies that have shown efficacy in the lab do warrant use in a well controlled clinical trial, and perhaps as emergency use, but they shouldn’t be a replacement for treatments that are proven to work, such as vaccinations.

4 Likes
321

That is also refuted by this, posted up thread a while ago:

 
Oops, sorry, T @T_aquaticus, we seem to be playing leapfrog. ; - ) I posted before reading down to your link.

322

Thanks for the responses! Really appreciate leveraging some others’ leg work. I am particularly interested in the critiques of the studies that were being referenced to support the assertions I listed. Below, I will copy what I sent in the attachment in my email referenced earlier. I will follow up on the links you provided, hoping they are referencing these studies and fully acknowledging that I am not qualified to discern the quality of all studies presented.

Natural Immunity

  • Reviewed abstracts of a long list of studies from a post - my notes
    • Korean study of reinfections
      https://www.kdca.go.kr/filepath/boardDownload.es?bid=0030&list_no=367267&seq=1
      • But this only speaks to immunity in first two months
    • T-cell study in Sweden (8/20)
      • Studied only moderate and severe cases (did not see definitions)
      • Many good indicators of likely long-term immunization with recognition that is not definitive
    • First proven reinfection August of 2020
      • Compare to speed of first infection post vaccination?
    • Italy study (10/20) with no reinfections within 2 months
      • Not sure this speaks to length of benefit
    • Small T cell study of 15 folks who’d had mild Covid Functional SARS-CoV-2-Specific Immune Memory Persists after Mild COVID-19 - ScienceDirect (11/20)
      • Very small sample, but 100% positive results of indicators of strong immunity
    • 12/20 study of 1,265 previously infected UK hospital staff (6 months of data) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545
      • Only two re-infections, no symptoms
      • Control group were staff who had not previously tested positive, of which 2% contracted during this period
      • Good evidence of immunity lasting 6 months
    • 1/21 U.S. study of 188 people with previous, primarily mild, cases (studied group was representative of total population, including asymptomatic and hospitalized patients) https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/01/06/science.abf4063
      • 5 to 8 months later, 95% had at least three components of long-term immunity to the disease, such as B cells and T cells (large variety within the subjects)
      • Highly suggestive of good immunity 5-8 months (with some aspects strengthening)
    • 2/21 Retrospective observational study (using public data) of all reported cases of C-19 in Austria during the first two waves of the pandemic. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13520
      • Re-infection directly in line with those who were immunized
    • 2/21 report interpreting research thus far https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7803150/
      • “Unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 mutations would escape T cell immunity” because the T cells produced by natural infection attack “a very broad array” of areas on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
    • 5/21 9-month study of 43,044 of previously infected people in Qatar from April through December 2020. SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy - eClinicalMedicine
      • Previous infection reduced the odds of contracting C-19 by 94% to 96% (similar to being vaccinated)
      • None of the reinfections “were critical or fatal.”
      • Strong evidence of retained immunity for at least 7 months
    • 5/21 study of 498 people in Switzerland who had Covid-19 during spring 2020 and monitored through January 2021. Risk of Reinfection After Seroconversion to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Population-based Propensity-score Matched Cohort Study | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic
      • “previous infection reduced the odds of contracting Covid-19 by 86% to 98% for the length of the study “lasting at least 8 months.”
    • 6/21 study of 63 vaccinated and unvaccinated people who recovered from Covid-19 and were monitored for a year thereafter Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection | Nature
      • Unvaccinated subjects developed B cells that remained “relatively stable” in number and actually developed “increasing potency and breadth” during “6 and 12 months after infection.”
      • “immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting” and provide protection “against a wide group of variants.”
      • “Vaccination boosts the neutralizing response by 1.5 orders of magnitude by inducing additional plasma cell differentiation from the memory B cell compartment5,7,35. Recruitment of evolved memory B cells producing antibodies with broad and potent neutralizing activity into the plasma cell compartment is likely to account for the high serologic activity of vaccinated convalescent individuals against variants of concern”
      • “Vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the number of RBD-binding memory cells by more than an order of magnitude by recruiting new B cell clones into memory and expanding persistent clones. The persistent clones expand without accumulating large numbers of additional mutations, indicating that clonal expansion of human memory B cells does not require re-entry into germinal centres and occurs in the activated B cell compartment.”
      • “The notable evolution of neutralizing breadth after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the robust enhancement of serologic responses and B cell memory achieved with mRNA vaccination suggests that convalescent individuals who are vaccinated should enjoy high levels of protection against emerging variants without a need to modify existing vaccines. If memory responses evolve in a similar manner in naive individuals who receive vaccines, additional appropriately timed boosting with available vaccines should lead to protective immunity against circulating variants.”
    • 7/21 “in-depth longitudinal study” of 254 Covid-19 patients monitored for up to eight months after infection Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells: Cell Reports Medicine
      • “most convalescent COVID-19 patients mount durable antibodies, B cells, and T cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 up to 250 days, and the kinetics of these responses provide an early indication for a favorable course ahead to achieve long-lived immunity.”
      • including those with mild illness
    • 7/21 study mapped all 45 mutations found in Alpha, Beta, and Gamma and compared to map of 52 areas of the virus attacked by immune CD8+ T-cells found in 30 people who caught and recovered from Covid-19 before the emergence of these variants.
      • “only 1 mutation” was located in the areas attacked by the T cells, “suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.” An appendix to the study provides the entire map, a typical section of which is shown below with the areas attacked by the T cells in green highlighting and the mutations in orange:
    • 10/21 CDC commentary on the question is very conservative in applying outcomes of these small studies to public recommendations Science Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Infection-induced and Vaccine-induced Immunity | CDC
      • Belt and suspenders approach effectively – OK if you aren’t worried about vaccine safety

Separately (and I’ve lost the source), came across the following logical thread

  • Covid is slow to mutate because it has a genetic “proof-reading” function (references to early research at beginning of pandemic)
  • Something that mutates slowly is a candidate for long-term natural immunity (and highly effective traditional(?) vaccines)

Early Interventions

COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study - ScienceDirect December 2020

Study on outcomes of 141 risk-stratified treated outpatients (treated with “triple” therapy – zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin) vs 377 untreated outpatients. Retrospective case series study in the general practice setting. Treated patients received the therapy for 5 days, starting, on average with the 4th day after the onset of symptoms:

Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients

One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group

No cardiac side effects were observed.

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial - ScienceDirect 2020

Open-label non-randomized clinical trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in hospitalized patients

Multiple studies on benefits of Zinc and Vitamin D, Ascorbic Acid

https://ivmmeta.com/ January 7, 2022

Meta analysis of studies on use of Ivermectin – very positive outcomes, well in excess of therapy risks