We have just lived through a respiratory virus epidemic and many are wondering, Why did our government and the social media platforms block any intelligent discussion of the virus that was making its way around the globe?
In an ideal world, doctors would communicate freely about treatments for a new disease that they have tried, and how, and under what circumstances, those treatments have succeeded or failed. This is called the scientific method.
But the scientific method has not prevailed over the last few years. Instead, the public square has been dominated by government-dictated dogma that often turned out to be wrong. The result was that many people died needlessly, while a far larger number–young people, for the most part–had their lives blighted by irrational government action.
So what do the data actually show about the covid epidemic, and about the means that have been taken to combat it?
First, some have argued that anti-covid vaccines have caused serious health problems. Some have even claimed that the vaccines are part of a plan to reduce the Earth’s population to “sustainable” levels. But there is no evidence for this. The most current data on the vaccines’ safety is here. The linked study addresses people over 65, those most at risk. Kevin Roche comments:
Somewhat surprisingly, there were no safety signals in regard to the Moderna or J & J vax, surprising only because the Moderna vax is a higher dose than Pfizer and the J & J vax has had more reports of issues. The Pfizer vax initially had a signal, meaning there appeared to be more than the background rate of events, for pulmonary embolism, heart attack and two clotting issues, although the excess rate was small. On adjustment for the seasonal variation and other factors, only the pulmonary embolism event remained statistically significant, and at a low level. In addition, the Pfizer vax had a much greater use among nursing home residents and this was not adjusted for which may explain the pulmonary embolism finding. Other confounding factors also not were included. There was no time clustering of events in the windows immediately following the vax date. (Vax Article)
Here is the clear bottom line, for the elderly, this very, very large study shows only one potential safety signal, which likely would be eliminated on further analysis. So don’t pay any attention to the safety bullshit on the internet.
And then we have the question of how covid should be treated. A variety of treatments emerged while the covid virus was raging. They included Hydroxychloroquine and others, like Ivermectin. Liberals denounced Ivermectin as a “horse dewormer,” even though it had been approved by the FDA for human use. It turns out that “Ivermectin Is Safe and Effective.”
In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results. Studies were from all continents except Antarctica. Considered individually, 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone. Over the 63 studies in meta-analysis, pooled effects showed 69% improvement in early treatment, and prophylactic use showed 86% improvement. Of those studies in the meta-analysis that were peer-reviewed, overall improvement in early treatment was found to be 70% (64% in randomized controlled trials), and 86% of those in which ivermectin was used prophylactically showed improvement (84% in randomized controlled trials).
Mortality from COVID-19 over all time periods of delay in treatment was 76% improved over controls (69% in randomized controlled trials), whereas mortality was improved 84% in early treatment of COVID-19 (82% in randomized controlled trials). Forty studies were excluded from the meta-analysis for complicating factors or insufficient detail reported, and these also showed 100% positive results.
It is estimated that the likelihood of an ineffective treatment showing such positive results as the above results in the 63 studies in the meta-analysis to date is exceedingly small. That probability is estimated to be one in one trillion.
But the Biden administration, the FBI, and the liberal social media behemoths viciously suppressed online discussion of all of these issues. How threatening is the covid virus, actually? Do the vaccines work? Do the vaccines cause serious side effects? What treatments are available, and how effective are they? Does hydroxychloroquine work? Does Ivermectin work? What else might work?
Openly debating these issues and bringing forth new data to shed light on them is the essence of the scientific method. But science was suppressed by America’s Left, which effectively shut down debate on the most vital issues relating to the covid epidemic. This is a lesson that we never should forget. There is a reason why free speech is important: if you want to get the right answer to a question, the best approach is to open it wide and let competing views fight it out.
People have known this for thousands of years, and this ancient wisdom is enshrined in our Constitution. Yet entrenched interests are always opposed to free speech. The critical value of freedom needs to be rediscovered in each generation.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.