Good Afternoon:
The weather is certainly nice -- thanks to a ridge of high pressure that will settle over our area. While there could be some clouds and even showers early next week, the weather will be on the mild side as the coming week moves from beginning to end.
Early the following week (or the second week of November), there is a 50% chance that the weather will turn sharply colder. Even so, no major rain storms are yet indicated.
In this interview, Dr. Harvey Hirsch and his interviewer (Mr. Avi Abelow) make a number of misleading statements, either directly or indirectly. While I didn't listen to all of the interviews, I did researched the claims I heard. Here is my rebuttal.
First, the conversation implies that it is better to rely on early treatment rather than the vaccine. However, Dr. Hirsch admits that the treatment is 75% effective. The implication is that a 25% death rate is acceptable, in lieu of the vaccine. There is a claim that the vaccine is dangerous, experimental -- even though it has been officially approved by the FDA. Moreover, considering the number of people who have received the vaccine, one should ask: where are all the injured, maimed, and dead? They should be overflowing our hospitals, but they are not. In fact, vaccinated people are less likely to die of any cause.
Regarding treatments. There are studies that claim a reduction in hospital stays and deaths when Ivermectin is used. Here, the results were uncertain.
The FDA claims, we're told, that Ivermectin is for horses. In fact, the FDA claimed that there are different forms of the medicine and that the form for animals could be very detrimental to human health.
Regarding Hydroxychloroquine, it was not found to be effective.
A recent study suggests that an antidepressant effectively reduces hospitalization.
Dr. Risch notes that these medicines should be given early to be effective. However. coronaviruses have evolved to evade immune responses. This means that the virus can proliferate in the body before there is any reason to suspect one is sick (rendering early treatment inapplicable).
The interviewer and interviewee claim that doctors and hospitals are not allowed to give inexpensive medicines because the hospitals make more money from expensive medicines. We are told of a brave few (hundreds, thousands?) who are rebelling against the tyranny of the system. However, hospital stays cost the hospitals and insurance companies money. Oh, but this is less expensive than end of life care. One can only add so many absurdities.
Another claim is that the death rate is just 1%. In fact, the death rate in the US is 2%. Moreover, the deathrate varies by age. For those over age 50, my previous blog showed that it ranges from about 2 to 20% (rising with age). Hence, to suggest that the virus is not dangerous is misleading. It's also misleading because typical flu mortality rates are just 1/4 of that.
Last, the claim is made that big pharmaceutical companies control government policy, and this is the reason that governments around the world are "scaring" people into being vaccinated. When I asked for evidence, none was provided. Also, when one accepts a conspiracy theory, one needs to ask yourself, would the governments of the United States, Europe, England, Canada, Australia all be under the influence of the Cabal of pharmaceutical companies. Yet, only one company, Pfizer, has been most widely used within. Are the others hoping for a slice of the pie? I know that lobbyists can influence policies, but there are many and they compete against each other. Might it be more believable if I told you that Spectre is the Cabal really controlling our lives?
I do not claim to refute all claims within, but these struck me as the most grievous.
Be well,
Barry Lynn
