Dr Judy Mikovits

[Firecarrier]

AIBU to find this interesting?

YABU: She doesn't know what she's talking about

YANBU: It is deeply concerning

And if you did some research..

I used to be an anti-vaxxer, so I know what statements like this mean. Means that every time you try to articulate the stuff you've read about vaccines for yourself, it comes out sounding/looking stupid.

That's because anti-vaxxer rhetoric doesn't rely on convincing arguments you can repeat. It relies on charisma, fear and emotions in a way that is very difficult for one poster to replicate in order to persuade a sceptical audience.

Potholes thank you for the perspective from the other side - that's brave and honest.

Thank you for the compliment, but no bravery required to admit to it nearly 20 years later. We've all done stupid things, especially during our teens. The only time bravery was required was when I took the constant aphorism to 'do your research' literally, and read about what the scientific method actually was!

At least there is very little photographic evidence of me posting 'do your research' in the standard insinuating way on nineties and noughties chatboards. Would that the same applied to the stuff I was wearing in those days...

@Jane67996

They don't know what causes autism, but you're positive vaccines don't? Because someone on the news and the scientific community told you?

OK, I posit that autism is caused by eating baked beans. There is is much evidence of this as there is that it is caused by vaccines, and there is zero evidence showing that there is no link.

Are you going to stop eating baked beans? And encourage everyone you know to stop eating baked beans?

That's really interesting Potholes

I do wonder what makes people believe one scientific middleman over another. Maybe the answer is its like a sort of showbiz, going straight for the emotions (even ego boost emotions) over logic. I do get that myself, I'm not particularly well versed in science and always need the simplified version. And in any business there is big money, and deals and politics. And clashes of who and no doubt, scandals.
I suppose it is easy construct a narrative, incorporating all that, for the non expert when you appeal to the emotions.

I think that it all comes down to whom you relate to more easily, especially in these days of youtube videos. It's harder to spot the logical leaps coming from a personable well-dressed spokesperson than it is in a badly photocopied leaflet or even in a glossy magazine.

The problem will, however, as I have said, always show itself when you try to repeat what you've 'learned' to someone else. If you weren't convinced of it rationally, you can't explain it. Salesmanship is an actual skill; you can't just sell on what you were missold!

It's like watching someone on QVC explain why you should buy this artisanal knife block with engraved carvings for the low, low price of £59.99, buying the knife block and then trying to explain to your best friend a week later that it was definitely worth £59.99. You were tempted into buying that knife block by a salesperson who built a rapport with you, and you can't just repeat what they said as justification, because it wasn't what they said, it was how they said it. So your best friend rolls her eyes at you, and never does agree that it was the deal of the century.

@potholeparadise

I'm amazed at just how suckered in people can be. Did you see the video that was everywhere a few weeks ago, by the guy claiming that viruses don't exist (essentially pushing Béchamp's terrain theory, but not by name)?

At the beginning of his video he gave his credentials:

"I was one of those kids who could read and write before I even started school, I knew my one to twelve times table before other kids even knew how to open a book...and when I did my last IQ and aptitude test, I was taken into a separate room and I was interrogated to see if I cheated."

How did so many people take this guy seriously?

Not seen that one. Good grief!

They don't know what causes autism, but you're positive vaccines don't? Because someone on the news and the scientific community told you?

Sorry. I know I’ve arrived late to this party, but I couldn’t pass I this one. Autism, by and large, is a genetic disorder. Science tells me so, and yes, I trust them and their many, many combined years of research and education over your YouTube video.

This is Dr Dan Erickson...

Discussing how vaccines can be helpful.
The benefits of herd immunity.
Whether lockdown is statistically helpful.

He graduated with honours as a Health Sciences major. (Studying biology, microbiology, biochemistry, organic chemistry and general chemistry)

He then spent 4 years at medical school and did his residency as an ER doctor.

He discusses how his original video which was also pulled by YouTube after reviewing millions of views was the result of an impromptu press conference he called as journalists kept loitering around his clinics to get the latest stats, he gave out his raw data as a way of comforting and encouraging Californians. The problem was that this data wasn't inline with what was being peddled on Mainstream outlets.

TLDR; WAY MORE PEOPLE HAVE COVID THAN WE THINK AND MOST ARE ASYMPTOMATIC THEREFORE IT IS NOT AS SERIOUS AS WE ARE BEING TOLD AND LOCKDOWN MAKES EVERYONE MORE VULNERABLE TO INFECTION WHEN WE RETURN TI NORMALITY.

"LOCKDOWN MAKES EVERYONE MORE VULNERABLE TO INFECTION WHEN WE RETURN TI NORMALITY" Initial reaction is to PMSL at this though before I do that, my scientific mindset would welcome any evidence or a reasonable proposed mechanism that being in lockdown makes someone more vulnerable to infection when lockdown ends for a novel virus so I can could consider changing my initial thoughts.

TheClaws, my understanding was also significantly genetic (as is most disease (the different outcomes of COVID show a strong genetic link [not that I'm saying Autism is a disease]). Twin studies initially indicated c90% heritability though I think more recent ones have reduced this degree of heritability though still to a significant amount. I'm not close tot his field though I expect there may be significant contestability in measurements.

@zilla1 makes sense to me. People need to build their immune system. It's based on the same theory of vaccines working. You're very vulberable to something you've not been exposed to.

FTMF30, I agree 'You're very vulberable to something you've not been exposed to', just not that 'LOCKDOWN MAKES EVERYONE MORE VULNERABLE TO INFECTION'.

In general, you are vulnerable to an infection if you've not had it before (and sometimes if you have - simplistically, there's some research that the same corona virus can be caught again/immunity only lasts for a couple of years).

Whether you've sat in lockdown for months or been in the wild like everyone was who caught COVID before lockdown then in general you'll have vulnerability to a novel infectious agent (depending on infectious dose and everything else). It's more complex as sometimes related bugs can give immunity (cowpox gave some immunity from small pox - Jenner [let's ignore Lady Montague]) and I suppose someone could try and argue a reduced immune system could be caused from being locked down, equally someone not doing night shifts or not having a massive commute due to lock down might be healthier. Complexity aside, if I've never had COVID then I'd have the same chance of catching COVID the first time I'm exposed to an infectious dose whether I've come out of lockdown or whether there never was a lockdown.

TLDR; WAY MORE PEOPLE HAVE COVID THAN WE THINK AND MOST ARE ASYMPTOMATIC THEREFORE IT IS NOT AS SERIOUS AS WE ARE BEING TOLD

Ah, shouting. The sure marker of a cool and rational scientific mind.

Your logic fail is spectacular.

Yes, many people have COVID and are asymptomatic, or have very mild symptoms.

However, if we allow unlimited spread, there will still be a very substantial number who are not asymptomatic and are very seriously ill, requiring hospitalisation and possibly sustaining long term lung damage. This could overwhelm the NHS. And in that scenario, there would be a great many more preventable deaths.
If you and your You Tube gurus are OK with that, you are not decent human beings.

Pointythings
By your rationale despite the fact that the death rate would then be very low, as with influenza, we should still have lockdown?
The hospitals are empty. Is the whole point not to use them at all?
Lockdown is destroying the economy and millions of lives, but by your emotional argument that a low percentage of the population is going to have it and die, we need to remain under lockdown?
Makes no sense. Lockdown needs to end NOW.

The hospitals are not empty. I work for the NHS. What makes you say that?

I think we can't end lockdown before we have started doing what Germany does:

• Test and trace. Properly. With actual trained people - Germany put 20,000 staff in place at very short notice to do this.
• Treat at home. Everyone reporting COVID symptoms to be seen by a GP (can be done virtually in many cases) and tested. Provide oxygen treatment at home - this will be enough for a very large proportion of cases.
• Local small scale lockdowns where new outbreaks occur, reviewed flexibly. Again, this is working in Germany.

Until this is in place, all ending lockdown will do is bring a second wave much bigger than the first. The likes of you may think it's OK if lots of people die, but most of us aren't. This government has utterly mishandled the pandemic and we are all now paying the price.

I know off the top of my head 6 people personally who would be at severe risk if they caught COVID. If lockdown ends and it is allowed to spread unchecked, they could be on the receiving end of a decision as to whether or not they get a ventilator. One definitely wouldn't - he's over 75.

Nobody likes lockdown. I don't like it. But the UK has a hell of a lot of work to do before we can start doing what other European nations are able to do. Because we got it wrong.

Also I missed your little comment about the death rate. The standard death rate for COVID is approximately 10 times higher than the standard death rate for flu. In at risk group, the COVID death rate is much, much higher than that. Facts, eh...

Dr Dan Erikson...

• is not an epidemiologist

• has had his videos deleted from internet platforms, including YouTube, for violating rules around posting misinformation

• called "reckless" by the American Academy of Emergency Medicine who said Erikson's "untested musings are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19." They also said he is "releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance [his] personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health". Erikson owns several urgent care centres.

• claims CV19 is just a seasonal flu and has only caused a "small" number of deaths

• claims doctors are being told to add CV19 to death certificates to artificially boost the death rate.

Twin studies initially indicated c90% heritability though I think more recent ones have reduced this degree of heritability though still to a significant amount

The stats related to autism are that anyone has a 1 in 100 chance of having an autistic child. If you already have one autistic child, which I do, then your chances of having another autistic child, which I also do, are 1 in 25.

Scientists have not yet identified all of the genes related to autism but they have identified some and if someone carries one of these known genetic markers then their chance of having an autistic child is approximately 1 in 4.

These figures were given to us around 3-4 years ago by DS neurologist so research may have moved on since but there is a very definite genetic factor in autism.

Agree KK that there is a definitive genetic factor in autism. I don't want to contradict your experience and advice from your neurologist but I think the figures we've both quoted differ because I was using heritability in a specific sense, broadly 'how much of the variation in a given trait can be attributed to genetic variation'. I hope your DS hasn't been too badly affected by the lockdown (trying and probably failing to express empathy without seeming patronising).

I think I misread your original post, history is more my field rather than science

DS is doing okay, currently running feral around a field with his siblings and DH while I have some much needed alone time.

That sounds good, very pastoral, KK.

I'm not sure you did misread it, just replied with different figures. I wanted to reply to avoid any misunderstanding by others.

www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral#

www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/generalinfectiousdisease/86461

retractionwatch.com/category/judy-mikovits/

www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientist-vaccine-jailed/

www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/08/plandemic-judy-mikovits-coronavirus/

She hasn't studied medicine, genetics, basic biology or epidemiology.

She is not a medical doctor, she holds a PhD in Biochemistry and has fallen foul of a number of employers.

Stop giving credence to this obsessive, who won't be told that her 'research' is a waste of time.