Placebo effect is not getting stronger over time. We are getting better at controlling for all other factors: regression to the mean, self reporting related biases, the effect that people change their behaviour when they are being observed, etc.
Placebo effect is not "mind over matter" it just all the peoples behaviours, biases and life that is happening while they are getting treatment.
Claims that were classified as COVID misinformation include:
- surgical masks don't work against aerosol viruses
- lockdowns and curfews will not stop covid
- natural immunity due to prior infection is more effective
- mRNA shots don't stop transmission
- mRNA shots don't stop infection
- mRNA shots cause myocarditis
One by one these have been revealed as true, with naysayers looking like ass-covering idiots, or worse, paid shills for big pharma.
If at this point you still have any faith left in the biomedical establishment, the one who doesn't belong on Twitter is you, because you will hysterically fall for the next big thing just the same.
Claims (2, 4, 5, 6) are very weak because you are making them absolutes (e.g. "don't stop"). By themselves, these 4 claims don't tell us what our plan of action should be. They become misinformation when they are used as recommondations because they are missing so much context.
For example, claim (6) about myocarditis is usually used to say that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. This is a wrongheaded examination of the risks:
> Given that >90% of cases of myocarditis will completely recover, that means in young men the vaccines prevent six deaths per million doses while causing <4 cases of myocarditis that have less than complete recovery. In all other groups the results are much more dramatic, saving hundreds of lives for every case of myocarditis (including the mild cases).
> We also have to keep in mind that COVID-19 infection itself causes myocarditis. ... That’s 1,500 cases of myocarditis per million COVID-19 infections, vs 40 per million in the high-risk group of young men from mRNA vaccines, and 1-2 per million doses in lower risk groups. The risk is literally 1-2 orders of magnitude (10-100x) greater from getting infected than from the vaccine.
P.S. Claim (3) misses the entire point? The point of vaccines is to not get as sick and possibly avoid getting sick altogether. "Natural immunity" requires you to have a "prior infection" as you say.
Here's another absolute claim: there will be herd immunity at 70% vaccinated. There will be no fourth wave. 100% safe and effective. etc. etc. THAT is the language that was used to justify recommendations, and that was the real misinformation. Which you couldn't question at the time, until months later, when it turned out to be a lie.
An intramuscular shot cannot create a targeted immune response in the mucus membranes of the airways. This was known, and ignored, making the idea of getting a shot to protect grandma a complete lie.
The goal posts have moved so much that even the word vaccine was redefined, thus tainting the concept and creating a ton of justified skepticism. Like really, do you not realize how ridiculous you sound to ordinary people, trying to rule lawyer your way past this elephant in the room?
The point about myocarditis remains that informed consent should have been asked for, and that they shouldn't have authorized an emergency medicine when due diligence wasn't done. Quite frankly, I don't believe covid is more dangerous than the jab. I don't believe we live in an environment atm where the truth is being investigated objectively. And this is an entirely reasonable belief, given the undeniable corruption and lies.
Like, you know how it takes 2 weeks after your shot before you count as vaccinated? Guess which category vaccine injuries in the first two weeks were attributed to in many cases... that is the level intellectual honesty we're dealing with here. It's detestable.
As for natural immunity: the point here is that forcing people with prior exposure to get jabbed anyway was immoral and unnecessary. This is the _very important_ point you are missing. And you think you're making sense!
Human rights were violated, in the name of shoddy science, endorsed by people who are much more eager to dunk on the rubes and appear sophisticated, than actually establishing reasonable and objective standards.
Go sit in shame, and stfu. Nobody wants to hear it.
Thanks, these are much stronger claims, plus they include recommendations. This basically confirmed what I thought your larger goals were.
> I don't believe covid is more dangerous than the jab.
A million EU residents died of covid in 2 years. Even ignoring the cause of death, ~500k more EU residents died in 2020 than usual, predating the roll-out of the vaccines. (link will only plot individual countries, not the EU total).
The gay marriage side of this is a complete straw man. In a free society, a private group has every right to refuse service for any reason. It has nothing to do with discrimination and it's definitely a case the government should be siding with the bakers.
I support gay marriage, but I also support this couple's decision. To support otherwise is supporting the removal of individual freedoms.
The stance that "a private group has every right to refuse service for any reason." is the same thing that they said in the South with Jim Crow laws and racial covenants. So how can I say that what the couple is doing is within their rights but at the same time say that Jim Crow laws were not right? I can't quite square that circle.
After doing a lot of research into homeopathy we are now very confident that it does not work and cannot work.