Definitely worth the listen

It's worth a listen but so too is it worth it to listen to the refutations of McCullough's (McC) claims:

- McC is wrong to claim the immunity acquired by natural contraction of Covid is safer than that acquired by vaccines. When you acquire Covid naturally you're also exposed to the full effect of the virus and all it's associated risks

- McC is wrong to claim people contracting Covid naturally cannot reinfected. They can be. They have been.
- McC is wrong to claim 4,000 deaths due to vaccines. He is deliberately misreading the National database on vaccine side effects. It's deliberate because no competent doctor would fail to understand that the database reports deaths in total post events, and you must then drill down to specific causes of death. If you vaccinate 150+ million as the US has, you still get deaths in the population from all sources. So for instance if you get vaccinated and then ran over by a bus, that death gets tagged in the national database of post-vaccination results. Thus, suggesting 4000 deaths due to vaccines is clearly deliberately misleading.
- McC suggests the spike protein produced by rhe vaccine is dangerous, but he misquotes the study he cites. The study was on hamsters, where the spike protein caused lung inflammation. But the study's authors noted the result cannot be extrapolated to humans because the spike protein in humans is much less. Moreover, the study McC cites further showed that the vaccine antibody inhibits damage to the cells lining the inner walls of blood vessels, straight contradicting McC's claim that the spike protein damages blood vessels. McC is thus either selectively misquoting the study or he does not understand it? I think the former. The metaphor of "spike" doing damage is intuitive enough that people who don't know medicine will be duped? That's my guess at present, on McC's while protein spike = damage idea

- orherwise, McC also trots out debunked conspiracy theories: no trial data for the vaccines but there were multiple Phase 3 trials independent of each other; that the vaccines "mark" you for surveillance or something (how dumb do you have to be to buy that?))

So, yes, worth a listen. But also worth listening to the refutations.

PS: in case anyone wonders, one of my current grants (350k over 3yrs) is for disinformation research and we have tracked Covid disinformation. McC's claims are part of a notorious "Front Line Physicians" group in the US that has pivoted to misinformation about vaccines after starting with misinformation about Covid treatments. So I just happen to be familiar with McCullough's claims as we tracked them through various websites in the US especially. You don't have to believe anything I'm saying but I'm advising his views are full of false and misleading claims.

I haven't watched it but I got my first dose of the Pfizer covid vaccine Tuesday just gone. Got to get the second dose in 3 weeks. I'm still alive and kicking.

Thumbs up, Adam. I got my AstraZeneca, was tired for one day, and am still around to annoy the shit out of people.

My shoulder had a bit of a bump and was a bit sore where they stuck the needle in. Only lasted one day and that was it.

I didn’t get vaccinated because I was concerned with catching the virus. I just didnt want to pass it on to someone else. Also both my parents and my wife’s parents are both aging and in the not too distant future be in either hospital or aged care. I reckon you’ll have to be vaccinated to enter either of those facilities.

But you can still pass it on Adam. That's why you still get locked down even if you have been vaccinated.

As you said, people can make up their own minds what they want to do. I made up my mind and got vaccinated and stated the reasons for it. I’m no expert on the matter, so you can argue with me until you’re blue in the face. I can’t offer you any answers or tell you what you should do. It’s your body and your life, make whatever decision you think is best for you.

I think you misunderstood me Adam. I'm not arguing with you, you just stated why you got it and I made a comment re the passing it on.

tts been stated that the vaccines don't prevent you from getting it or passing it on. It would be wrong if I didn't tell you that and you thought you couldn't infect your parents.

that's what I mean about having all the information.

I never said prevented, that is absolute. Nothing in life is certain.

Is the likelihood of being infected with the virus or transmitting it to someone else reduced when a person is vaccinated? Yes or no?

You are probably better off having this discussion with someone who hasn’t been vaccinated. My course is already set.

Rider, this is not "all the information". Prevention of transmission is important but has to be put in context of rates of reduced transmission and the percentage at an individual level of the reduction in severity of effect. It's a misrepresentation of what vaccines do at the population level to think a point about prevention at the individual level cuts the mustard.

Did you know that stopping smoking does not prevent you from getting cancer? Should we not bother with reducing smoking? Did you know that a well funded police force does not prevent crime? Should we not bother with police? Oh I know a good one. Did you know that a strong border force does not prevent illegal immigration? Should we not bother with border patrols?

Replies

RIDER June 12, 2021 at 10:13am

https://vimeo.com/553518199
Prof. Daz June 12, 2021 at 2:16pm

It's worth a listen but so too is it worth it to listen to the refutations of McCullough's (McC) claims:

- McC is wrong to claim the immunity acquired by natural contraction of Covid is safer than that acquired by vaccines. When you acquire Covid naturally you're also exposed to the full effect of the virus and all it's associated risks

- McC is wrong to claim people contracting Covid naturally cannot reinfected. They can be. They have been.
- McC is wrong to claim 4,000 deaths due to vaccines. He is deliberately misreading the National database on vaccine side effects. It's deliberate because no competent doctor would fail to understand that the database reports deaths in total post events, and you must then drill down to specific causes of death. If you vaccinate 150+ million as the US has, you still get deaths in the population from all sources. So for instance if you get vaccinated and then ran over by a bus, that death gets tagged in the national database of post-vaccination results. Thus, suggesting 4000 deaths due to vaccines is clearly deliberately misleading.
- McC suggests the spike protein produced by rhe vaccine is dangerous, but he misquotes the study he cites. The study was on hamsters, where the spike protein caused lung inflammation. But the study's authors noted the result cannot be extrapolated to humans because the spike protein in humans is much less. Moreover, the study McC cites further showed that the vaccine antibody inhibits damage to the cells lining the inner walls of blood vessels, straight contradicting McC's claim that the spike protein damages blood vessels. McC is thus either selectively misquoting the study or he does not understand it? I think the former. The metaphor of "spike" doing damage is intuitive enough that people who don't know medicine will be duped? That's my guess at present, on McC's while protein spike = damage idea

- orherwise, McC also trots out debunked conspiracy theories: no trial data for the vaccines but there were multiple Phase 3 trials independent of each other; that the vaccines "mark" you for surveillance or something (how dumb do you have to be to buy that?))

So, yes, worth a listen. But also worth listening to the refutations.

PS: in case anyone wonders, one of my current grants (350k over 3yrs) is for disinformation research and we have tracked Covid disinformation. McC's claims are part of a notorious "Front Line Physicians" group in the US that has pivoted to misinformation about vaccines after starting with misinformation about Covid treatments. So I just happen to be familiar with McCullough's claims as we tracked them through various websites in the US especially. You don't have to believe anything I'm saying but I'm advising his views are full of false and misleading claims.
- Adam Magrath > Prof. Daz June 12, 2021 at 2:22pm
  
  I haven't watched it but I got my first dose of the Pfizer covid vaccine Tuesday just gone. Got to get the second dose in 3 weeks. I'm still alive and kicking.
  - Prof. Daz > Adam Magrath June 12, 2021 at 2:30pm
    
    Thumbs up, Adam. I got my AstraZeneca, was tired for one day, and am still around to annoy the shit out of people.
    - Adam Magrath > Prof. Daz June 12, 2021 at 3:48pm
      
      My shoulder had a bit of a bump and was a bit sore where they stuck the needle in. Only lasted one day and that was it.
      
      I didn’t get vaccinated because I was concerned with catching the virus. I just didnt want to pass it on to someone else. Also both my parents and my wife’s parents are both aging and in the not too distant future be in either hospital or aged care. I reckon you’ll have to be vaccinated to enter either of those facilities.
      - RIDER > Adam Magrath June 12, 2021 at 3:53pm
        
        But you can still pass it on Adam. That's why you still get locked down even if you have been vaccinated.
        
        Adam Magrath > RIDER June 12, 2021 at 4:06pm
        
        As you said, people can make up their own minds what they want to do. I made up my mind and got vaccinated and stated the reasons for it. I’m no expert on the matter, so you can argue with me until you’re blue in the face. I can’t offer you any answers or tell you what you should do. It’s your body and your life, make whatever decision you think is best for you.
        
        RIDER > Adam Magrath June 12, 2021 at 4:12pm
        
        I think you misunderstood me Adam. I'm not arguing with you, you just stated why you got it and I made a comment re the passing it on.
        
        tts been stated that the vaccines don't prevent you from getting it or passing it on. It would be wrong if I didn't tell you that and you thought you couldn't infect your parents.
        
        that's what I mean about having all the information.
        
        Adam Magrath > RIDER June 12, 2021 at 4:29pm
        
        I never said prevented, that is absolute. Nothing in life is certain.
        
        Is the likelihood of being infected with the virus or transmitting it to someone else reduced when a person is vaccinated? Yes or no?
        
        You are probably better off having this discussion with someone who hasn’t been vaccinated. My course is already set.
        
        Prof. Daz > RIDER June 12, 2021 at 4:59pm
        
        Rider, this is not "all the information". Prevention of transmission is important but has to be put in context of rates of reduced transmission and the percentage at an individual level of the reduction in severity of effect. It's a misrepresentation of what vaccines do at the population level to think a point about prevention at the individual level cuts the mustard.
        
        Did you know that stopping smoking does not prevent you from getting cancer? Should we not bother with reducing smoking? Did you know that a well funded police force does not prevent crime? Should we not bother with police? Oh I know a good one. Did you know that a strong border force does not prevent illegal immigration? Should we not bother with border patrols?

of 15

This reply was deleted.

Definitely worth the listen

Replies

Latest comments

Social Blogs

LUKE METCALF

NSW Origin Squad 2025

I say if we lose this week against Newcastle we will come last

Jim Sarantinos on SEN: Moses an outside chance before R9

Note: this page contains paid content.

Eels Blogs

Shane Flanagan given a month to turn the dragons around.

Canterbury hooker Reed Mahoney to join Cowboys on long-term deal

Thank you GUSSY! The Galvin effect.

Jake Averillo & Josh Kerr

Note: this page contains paid content.