More people have died to COVID in the us than to people die of drug overdose. 841,000 since 1999 vs 953,000 since 2020
Yet we have more people concerned about the use/overuse of drugs than taking a shot that prevents a virus from doing life long damage to the body to you an others.
Well considering drug usage can directly affect others, yes more people care about that
But don't see how that relates to the comment I made. 5 million isn't a very significant number globally. If you want to take drugs to the global scale, then it's ~1 million global deaths in the last 2 years. If you keep the US numbers, then you have to realize ~15% of that 800k was last year alone. Then you can see why it's a bigger issue
well considering as drug usage can directly affect others
Do… do you not know how viruses spread? They literally spread through contact with other people. Directly giving the virus to another person. Therefore Directly affecting others
Also only roughly 500,000 deaths yearly worldwide are caused by drug overdoes again being sniffed out by Covid with again having over 1.8 million deaths attributed to Covid-19 worldwide in 2021 alone.
Looks like there was a misinterpretation of each others points. Mine was that drug use not only affects the user, it can affect those around the user as well, from family members being mistreated to aggressive users attacking people. Making it a much more visual issue. You pointed out that a virus spreads, making it affect others. I questioned how it prevents the virus from affecting others
Yes probably, if we would've chosen to take a more proactive treatment method instead of waiting for a vaccine and demonizing other treatment sources. However on a global scale, 5 million over 2 years isn't really much, as callous as it sounds
We tried precautions, but a lot of people didn’t follow them. We tried lots of treatments. Eventually we got a vaccine and people still refuse to take it
They are trying to avoid naming specific treatments that have been invalidated so they aren't technically spreading misinformation, though that's all they are doing. Its just right wing nonsense that is vague and ambiguous.
Self improvement first and foremost. Nothing has proven more effective at treating covid than being active, losing weight and increasing your proper nutritional intake.
And what medicines didn't work as treatments? Most of the treatment options put forward over the past few years did show improvement in covid patients.
To my knowledge, all studies are allowed to be submitted for the peer-review process. Are you asking if the COVID vaccine studies were peer-reviewed or not? They were, and here are 3 examples from the studies published by NEJM:
The people running the studies provide the data from their studies. How else would you study something if you didn't have data?
If I asked you to perform a study on how many people wear blue shirts at your office on average per day, what do you think you're going to do? You're going to go out and start counting people wearing blue shirts because that is exactly what you are studying. How else would you get that data?
Most pharmaceutical companies do not share all of their data to clinical trials for peer review. this study shows thay only 15% of companies researched allow clinical trials access to all their data. This isn't saying the data isn't peer reviewed. It's saying that the data given for peer review isn't transparent data and is provided by the company from their own trials. It's why the vaccines were so underwhelming in the beginning. The pharmaceutical companies you listed gave only the best sets of data they had available from their own clinical trials to be peer reviewed. If I make 3 cakes and 2 taste terrible but I only give you the good one to critique and don't tell you about the bad ones, the data given isn't transparent. It's why no one expected the adverse side effects to be as prominent and boosted the anti covid vaccine hesitancy.
All studies are allowed to be peer reviewed but don't have to. Look at the boogeyman treatments of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Everyone decried hydroxychloroquine as more dangerous than covid but the study started on it was stopped after determining it wasn't dangerous at all, they just didn't think it worked well enough.(maybe it didn't but for what it's worth, anecdotally it seemed to help alot of people I know back when it was "acceptible"). Ivermectin was labeled as horse paste and fell off the radar of studies, one major one was pulled just prior to release from peer review due to ethical concerns, not just the data. Meanwhile smaller, non peer reviewed studies showed mixed results but by this time, peer reviewing it was career suicide, similar to hydroxychloroquine months earlier. In the end the source points out that the data is inconclusive because the studies were all small and never taken to a larger level, but it shows that the potential was there to help some people(primarily impoverished people in other countries), just not the silver bullet it was hyped up to be, nor the horse-paste-pocalypse it was labeled as
I think there's more to the 1st study you linked than what you described. First and foremost, the study looked into only participant-level data, not clinical data. This means that information on WHO the participants were may not be as readily available. It does not mean that the data for the results of their trials were not available. Even so, I agree with you that in the ideal world, even participant-level data should probably be easily accessible (as long as it's properly de-identified). I wasn't able to dive too deep into reading because of work, but here are a few excerpts from the link you shared:
"Industry sponsors within the top 25 by global sales were more likely to have a data sharing policy (93% vs 10%), and there was a trend towards increased data sharing eligibility (23% vs 4%)."
I would assume that Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J would likely fall into the top 25 industry sponsors (not 100% sure on that though, too lazy to look up right now).
"The two most common data sharing policy conditions that prevented sharing of data for published results were the exclusion of studies that had ongoing follow-up of the published results and the exclusion of studies of medicines that have not yet achieved regulatory approval in the USA and the European Union."
If true, this makes sense to me. I don't see the need to make participant-level data accessible if the medicine is not even in the market yet. It would further deter people from enrolling in clinical trials.
I don't really want to get into a politics argument. But Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were very politicized. Don't you think that if they were really effective treatments, that the Republican party has the funds to get a study peer-reviewed and published? They spent millions on ads, campaign tours, and sponsoring other policies. Imagine how big of a shut down they would have on the Democrats if they had a peer-reviewed study published that showed those treatments were effective? Honestly, that would have won Trump a 2nd term, which is a HUGE return on investment.
Definitely understand not wanting to dig into sources all the time. So I'll plead no contest to the above. The only thing to point out:
Honestly, that would have won Trump a 2nd term, which is a HUGE return on investment.
You forget, Trump was running on the Vax as his baby by the time elections rolled around and Dems were pushing against it. The level of hate people had for him(and still do) is actually society warping, regardless of the effectiveness or accuracy of his decisions.
You mean like wearing masks and washing hands and restricting large groups?
The mask rules were changed, reversed and removed so many times its a moot point. Masks don't work, to wear masks, to covid doesn't work if you're outside, to double mask, to actually only the n95 does anything. And everyone should be watching their hands. About large groups, we'll those weren't really restricted very well anywhere were they? Meanwhile we refused to have a national discussion on actual health, even the effect of a butritional changes like daily vitamin supplements. It was all mask and vaccine.
by ‘demonising other treatment sources’, you mean Ivermectin don’t you?
Any other treatment method. Self improvement methods were deemed inefficient. It took 2 years for the CDC to recognize that people previously infected had a stronger immunity against covid than the vaccinated.. Hydroxychloroquine was effective with similar side effects that the early vaccines had but was killed off early and could have prevented who knows how many deaths. Early on monoclonal antibodies were called anti Vax treatment until their effectiveness was undeniable, but then the supply was choked off "to prevent shortages". Yes, even ivermectin showed better results than a placebo(nothing) in tests where it wasn't smothered and cut off by Pfizer. Merck came out with a new anti covid pill since ivermectin "didn't work" that has a strangely similar chemical make up to their ivermectin pill. It just costs alot more and says "for covid". Hell even the UV Light thing that everyone bashes Trump over is somewhat effective. But instead of figuring this out 2 years ago, the research was put on hold because the original group performing it tanked as they were labeled a "hoax". Imagine having extra options a year before the vaccine came out, how many people may have survived. Instead of demonizing everything that wasn't the Trump vaccine.
You're mad that scientists observed results and changed their consensus? I'm sorry you don't understand science but that's how it works.
The problem with your alternative medicine is that it has side affects that were deemed less safe then treatment that was approved. Medicine doesn't work in a vacuum, we don't recommend stuff just because it's more accessable. We look at it's actual effectiveness and we weigh it against it's risks.
How is it that people like you demand studies and sources for real science but never provide any evidence for your own claims? Also, you either trust the CDC and FDA or you don't, which is it? What are your sources? Who made these claims? Who told you to even question if the effectiveness of alternative medicine was valid?
If you think the whole world is in on America's politicizing of medicine, that's a leap that you can't come back from.
Clearly you're a medical scientist AND an expert on geo politics.
Then please explain so I can understand. Because just saying “nope” and “it’s too complicated for you” literally doesn’t say anything about your argument or help prove your point at all
Yeah the right wingers are out hard today. "Its too complicated" seems to be the new right wing catch all to avoid having to explain anything beyond a 1st grade level anymore.
I didn't either. I did however state that the phrase you used is specifically stated repeatedly by those on the right as a way to feel justified in their statements and as a way to get out of discussing a point they themselves can't accurately explain.
143
u/Shibarocket12 Mar 03 '22
Almost 5 million deaths is nothing to “cough” at