Thanks for the show guys, love the back and forth as always.
During the show there was mention of American Frontline Doctor's (AFD), which had never really been explored personally other than in reference, video or from reading in posts. So thanks for that.
At the risk of adding a bit of a rant (okay more than a bit), and while looking for the AFD's website after it was mentioned, could not help notice that there was this McGill university hit piece (once a good school) brought up in the algorithm search directed to their
Office for Science and Society page, with an
attack on the AFD, and in particular, Lee Merritt. It was the usual type of attack; words to prime and words left out, leading off with such words as "Dr. Merritt may be a fine orthopedic surgeon, but when it comes to the science of COVID-19, she is a bumbling neophyte," and furthermore he adds comments directly to the AFD that they are "a handful of conspiracy-minded physicians"
with a few more chosen words to twist around their facility page and air dry.
Note: By the way, McGill did receive a
grant, December 2020 from Pfizer for $600,000, adding to the
2.5 million for covid infrastructure.
Now just to show that this erudite professor can box (he does chemistry), alternatives to these er, vaccines, must be demonized, with statements like "It is at this point that the snake in the grass, namely hydroxychloroquine, rears its head." Again
. This is followed up with "Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication used in animals is also championed by America’s Frontline Doctors. {
and then he throws the AFD a bone} While there are
theoretical possibilities for some benefit, so far clinical trials have been inconclusive, with some showing no effect, and others demonstrating a decrease in inflammatory markers as well as a shorter time for viral clearance.
Certainly, ivermectin is not a “magic bullet” that targets COVID-19 as claimed."
No trials are mentioned.
"Theoretical" like the covid vaccine benefits?
I'm guessing that by default, the vaccines are the "magic bullet" and he knows with great scientific 'rigour' this to be true.
And just to be sure that his/their message carried weight, added was that:
"This handful of physicians, who have no specific training in epidemiology, virology or infectious disease, claim to have better knowledge of COVID-19 than the thousands of academic and pharmaceutical researchers who have forged specialized careers in these areas."
Well, case closed, a handful against thousands (obviously not the thousands of doctors who have signed against), kind of like the C02 schtick (which this Joe writes about also - demonizing) with all that settled science stuff - emphasis on 97% of scientists say...
Yet this Joe needed to add more:
Dr. Merritt buys into all these conspiracy theories and the various pseudoscientific treatments. Masks are useless, she says, and meetings with friends should be encouraged. Along with her Frontline Doctor colleagues, she demonstrates an ignorance of science and the scientific method, and her rebuke of COVID vaccines puts people who follow her advice at risk. She does, however {another bone}, get one thing right. In the video, she mentions that a low blood level of vitamin D is a risk factor for COVID-19 and correctly suggests that supplements may be useful, especially in northern climates where sun exposure in the winter may be minimal. As for the rest of the garbled word salad in this painful thirty-minute long video, let’s be kind and just say “ummm, there is no evidence.”
Hmmm, ignorance of scientific methods, or so said this prof.
Thus, Dr. Joe Schwarcz PhD closes the book on the AFD for all within the uni-facility, along with the student body and anyone else who happens to peek in. And that is it, that's a wrap, there is nothing more to see and hear related to those "handful" of crazy AFD physicians. McGill has spoken through their representative - on behalf of science, scientists and possibly their donors.
Note though, this Joe (and selected peeps) have a 156 pages of other articles (from 2017), and to be fair some articles look rather interesting (like why do plastic finger nails pose a fire risk - so be carful around candles ladies), while many other articles (by himself or select colleagues) look to debunk anyone who stands out, such as
RFK Jr.,
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche (requiring a little help from
Dr. Offit in order to get the skinny on), and
Stephanie Seneff, and of course Lee Merritt, basically anyone who offers up what is deemed offensive information to the narratives du jour of our times. So, once this covid-fairytale took on its full line of force, the scientific enforcers came out to earn their keep, like this professor.
Speaking of masks, this prof recently captured an earlier study related to
Masks and Children, the former being toxic to them. Yet hold your horses, this professor says, this is '
What We Know About Kids and Masks' citing study flaws, such as:
The authors measured carbon dioxide levels on the inner surface of masks while being worn by 45 children aged six to 17. They found carbon dioxide levels to be what they claimed were dangerously high and possibly toxic. But there were some irredeemable problems with the study. First, the device they used to measure CO2 levels was designed to measure CO2 levels in incubators and had a large margin of error when used in an open setting.
What that margin of error exactly is the good professor omits to say, let alone just what an 'open' setting means (I guess as opposed to an incubator). So, let's be generous and say this error is half of 13,910 ppm's, which is still bloody toxic. Thus, this guy is picking peeper out of fly s&%$. This prof has also likely never once fit tested a respirator or used a C02 sensor (and if he has he would know), which when done, it is really not that hard to find high readings of > 2,000 ppm's (incubator or not).
Sadly, this prof neglects that the very underlining words of these children, who must have seemed to him as nothing more than imagined symptoms, otherwise he might have mentioned them (yet it is not scientific
TM to do so) - yet he could not not as they would not add weight for his piece (mentioning inconvenient things):
Some of the issues the kids encountered from wearing masks include irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%), and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).
So, nothing to see here as the article conveniently never mentions these kids.
A bit of a digressing rant, a McGill redirect, although somewhat interrelated to what was mentioned on the show.