Thanks for the comment. I was unable to access your reference link to The Australian May 10 2021 article and am interested to see it. The 3 lines that appear in the search results of The Australian refer to his non support of lockdowns and other matters. I can’t afford a subscription. Given his usual cautiousness, I would be interested t…
Thanks for the comment. I was unable to access your reference link to The Australian May 10 2021 article and am interested to see it. The 3 lines that appear in the search results of The Australian refer to his non support of lockdowns and other matters. I can’t afford a subscription. Given his usual cautiousness, I would be interested to see the context and verbatim frame. If he was actually urging the vax — not speaking theoretically about the dynamics of containment given certain assumptions— then I certainly take your point and recognize the passionate work you have done in any case. I note to you that a few articles come up on misrepresentation of Ioannidis (eg BuzzFeed) and I would like to see any confirmation of what’s said by him. I have met enough people in my life who were misquoted in the press and we all know the lies that were shoveled. Everything else the man said angered the mainstream and was brave so I don’t know what to make of this claim or what affected his judgment. I was always deeply suspicious of the vax/ bioweapon and followed Bhadi and Pelach and RFK etc — I lost track of Ioannidis after the Diamond Princess analysis and his first push back essays. I respected his work for many years prior to our current insanity because he challenged so much shoddy science. I loved him when he stood up to Cochrane to defend the Danish cofounder who was pilloried for criticism of a vaccine SR.
The article is behind the paywall, here’s the text:
Lockdowns ‘not reason for success’, says epidemiologist
By ADAM CREIGHTON
8:07PM MAY 10, 2021
One of the world’s top scientists has questioned the benefits of lockdowns, suggesting shutting the international border — and a lack of COVID-19 in the first place — were better explanations for Australia’s success than mandatory social distancing.
Stanford University professor John Ioannidis, among the world’s top epidemiologists, also said he couldn’t rule out SARS-Cov2 having escaped from the Chinese virology lab in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged.
“My default position is it arose naturally but it is possible some sort of an accident occurred in the lab or that researchers were infected while collecting samples from natural habitats,” he told The Australian.
His comments come soon after a third lockdown in Perth and confirmation by Scott Morrison that Australia’s border will remain shut “indefinitely” as the nation pursues what has become a highly popular “zero COVID” strategy.
Professor Ioannidis, whose 2005 research paper Why Most Published Research Findings are False is among the most-read academic articles in history, also urged Australia to “push for vaccination very fast (given) you have very few people infected”.
“Otherwise I don’t see another way out. You will get your wave sooner or later,” he added.
Just over 10 per cent of the population has received at least one COVID-19 vaccination shot, compared to 45 per cent in the US, more than 50 per cent in the UK and over 60 per cent in Israel.
“What’s common to Australia and New Zealand and Taiwan, for instance, isn’t lockdowns but probably a much lower seeding of the virus to begin with, and the ability to close international borders easily and promptly,” he said.
“Almost all the countries that did lockdown did very badly. Lockdown is not the common theme for the success stories.”
His latest research with Sydney University statistician Sally Cripps, looking at 11 European countries, found lockdowns had “little or no benefit” as they were typically introduced after the “r rate”, or the reproduction number, had already started declining.
Professor Cripps told The Australian that lockdowns were like a “sledgehammer” and, if they had been appropriate early in 2020, they were not a few months later.
“From then on we knew the age profile of this thing. All we had to do in Victoria was shut down all nursing homes and be very careful around other people, and we could have avoided the 800 deaths and the bad consequences of lockdowns,” she added.
Professor Ioannidis said: “It’s very likely these extra lockdowns (in Australia) are not helpful, but the problem is once something seems to have worked as a package, people don’t want to remove any of the components.”
Elizabeth- I have deleted a longer comment after finding this YouTube of Prof Ioannidis on camera saying a mild positive remark about the vaccine — it does lend credence in the direction you are asserting. But, I do not like the journalistic standards of The Australian article for reasons I mentioned in the deleted comment - yet after seeing this video, I have to wonder what brought Professor Ioannidis to be less skeptical than he ought regarding the risks and harms of the vaccine (bioweapon). I believe that he is a person who was brave and took a beating for questioning the main narrative early and to good effect in the early days of pushing back - idk if a mild positive comment in this YouTube amounts to an endorsement to push vaccination — I doubt he espoused a push especially in the ugly ruthless way the lawless governments have — but it does show a weakness for being used for any positive comment without decrying the harms and for reasons you have pointed out in your letters. I would still like to see whatever advocacy of policy remarks he made presented in full and in context for the sake of a fair record. Among the things the video shows is a gentle and humble man and not the self righteous characters we saw on media beating the desk and demanding force and militarism. It also shows JI engaging many aspects of the propaganda narrative in a skeptical questioning way and a cautious way which does not support boosters based on faulty data and faulty analysis. This is a truth seeking discussion and worth seeing in full — he’s not Dr Bhakdi or Dr Zelenko but he’s not an advocate of the propaganda either as I see it nor in the frame which the ugly political actors would have desired. In fact, the professor speaks against public health and political actors taking pride in making people’s life hard for not taking the vaccines— he is very clear about this and it is a point that does not fit with JI being an advocate as so many others were. Thank you for posting the article you cited. I respect your work and understand the ground of agony from which it rises. Here is
Re: "I have to wonder what brought Professor Ioannidis to be less skeptical than he ought regarding the risks and harms of the vaccine (bioweapon)."
It seems to me Ioannidis has always been less skeptical than he ought about vaccines...
In the scientific and medical establishment vaccines are a blessed thing, it is pure heresy to question them...and a career killer...ask Andrew Wakefield.
Consider an article by John Ioannidis, published in 2016: Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)/
In this article Ioannidis says: ‘‘I felt that I had to take sides in this evolution. This is
why I thought that prevention is a great idea, trying to find ways to make people to improve their health, wellness, and well-being at large [38]. After all clinical epidemiology was first defined as ‘‘the basic science of prevention’’ [39]. Yet, I am aware that prevention (e.g., unnecessary screening) can also sometimes harm more people than therapeutic medicine. ‘‘There are also so many quacks ranging from television presenters and movie stars turned into health trainers [40] and pure science denialists (e.g., climate, HIV, vaccine denialists, and religious fundamentalists) that one has to tread carefully. We should avoid a civil war on how to interpret
evidence within the health sciences when so many pseudoscientists and dogmatists are trying to exploit individuals and populations and attack science. However, too much medicine and too much health care is already causing harm."
See his reference there to "pure science denialists" - including 'vaccine denialists'...
There's just some 'science' that mustn't be questioned...e.g. The blessed Church of Vaccination.
Thanks for the comment. I was unable to access your reference link to The Australian May 10 2021 article and am interested to see it. The 3 lines that appear in the search results of The Australian refer to his non support of lockdowns and other matters. I can’t afford a subscription. Given his usual cautiousness, I would be interested to see the context and verbatim frame. If he was actually urging the vax — not speaking theoretically about the dynamics of containment given certain assumptions— then I certainly take your point and recognize the passionate work you have done in any case. I note to you that a few articles come up on misrepresentation of Ioannidis (eg BuzzFeed) and I would like to see any confirmation of what’s said by him. I have met enough people in my life who were misquoted in the press and we all know the lies that were shoveled. Everything else the man said angered the mainstream and was brave so I don’t know what to make of this claim or what affected his judgment. I was always deeply suspicious of the vax/ bioweapon and followed Bhadi and Pelach and RFK etc — I lost track of Ioannidis after the Diamond Princess analysis and his first push back essays. I respected his work for many years prior to our current insanity because he challenged so much shoddy science. I loved him when he stood up to Cochrane to defend the Danish cofounder who was pilloried for criticism of a vaccine SR.
The article is behind the paywall, here’s the text:
Lockdowns ‘not reason for success’, says epidemiologist
By ADAM CREIGHTON
8:07PM MAY 10, 2021
One of the world’s top scientists has questioned the benefits of lockdowns, suggesting shutting the international border — and a lack of COVID-19 in the first place — were better explanations for Australia’s success than mandatory social distancing.
Stanford University professor John Ioannidis, among the world’s top epidemiologists, also said he couldn’t rule out SARS-Cov2 having escaped from the Chinese virology lab in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged.
“My default position is it arose naturally but it is possible some sort of an accident occurred in the lab or that researchers were infected while collecting samples from natural habitats,” he told The Australian.
His comments come soon after a third lockdown in Perth and confirmation by Scott Morrison that Australia’s border will remain shut “indefinitely” as the nation pursues what has become a highly popular “zero COVID” strategy.
Professor Ioannidis, whose 2005 research paper Why Most Published Research Findings are False is among the most-read academic articles in history, also urged Australia to “push for vaccination very fast (given) you have very few people infected”.
“Otherwise I don’t see another way out. You will get your wave sooner or later,” he added.
Just over 10 per cent of the population has received at least one COVID-19 vaccination shot, compared to 45 per cent in the US, more than 50 per cent in the UK and over 60 per cent in Israel.
“What’s common to Australia and New Zealand and Taiwan, for instance, isn’t lockdowns but probably a much lower seeding of the virus to begin with, and the ability to close international borders easily and promptly,” he said.
“Almost all the countries that did lockdown did very badly. Lockdown is not the common theme for the success stories.”
His latest research with Sydney University statistician Sally Cripps, looking at 11 European countries, found lockdowns had “little or no benefit” as they were typically introduced after the “r rate”, or the reproduction number, had already started declining.
Professor Cripps told The Australian that lockdowns were like a “sledgehammer” and, if they had been appropriate early in 2020, they were not a few months later.
“From then on we knew the age profile of this thing. All we had to do in Victoria was shut down all nursing homes and be very careful around other people, and we could have avoided the 800 deaths and the bad consequences of lockdowns,” she added.
Professor Ioannidis said: “It’s very likely these extra lockdowns (in Australia) are not helpful, but the problem is once something seems to have worked as a package, people don’t want to remove any of the components.”
Elizabeth- I have deleted a longer comment after finding this YouTube of Prof Ioannidis on camera saying a mild positive remark about the vaccine — it does lend credence in the direction you are asserting. But, I do not like the journalistic standards of The Australian article for reasons I mentioned in the deleted comment - yet after seeing this video, I have to wonder what brought Professor Ioannidis to be less skeptical than he ought regarding the risks and harms of the vaccine (bioweapon). I believe that he is a person who was brave and took a beating for questioning the main narrative early and to good effect in the early days of pushing back - idk if a mild positive comment in this YouTube amounts to an endorsement to push vaccination — I doubt he espoused a push especially in the ugly ruthless way the lawless governments have — but it does show a weakness for being used for any positive comment without decrying the harms and for reasons you have pointed out in your letters. I would still like to see whatever advocacy of policy remarks he made presented in full and in context for the sake of a fair record. Among the things the video shows is a gentle and humble man and not the self righteous characters we saw on media beating the desk and demanding force and militarism. It also shows JI engaging many aspects of the propaganda narrative in a skeptical questioning way and a cautious way which does not support boosters based on faulty data and faulty analysis. This is a truth seeking discussion and worth seeing in full — he’s not Dr Bhakdi or Dr Zelenko but he’s not an advocate of the propaganda either as I see it nor in the frame which the ugly political actors would have desired. In fact, the professor speaks against public health and political actors taking pride in making people’s life hard for not taking the vaccines— he is very clear about this and it is a point that does not fit with JI being an advocate as so many others were. Thank you for posting the article you cited. I respect your work and understand the ground of agony from which it rises. Here is
YouTube from 2 years ago according to description (?) where Professor Ioannidis is on camera saying a number of things - . https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YvEOwKUyur0&pp=ygUPam9obiBpb2FubmlkaXMg
Re: "I have to wonder what brought Professor Ioannidis to be less skeptical than he ought regarding the risks and harms of the vaccine (bioweapon)."
It seems to me Ioannidis has always been less skeptical than he ought about vaccines...
In the scientific and medical establishment vaccines are a blessed thing, it is pure heresy to question them...and a career killer...ask Andrew Wakefield.
Consider an article by John Ioannidis, published in 2016: Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)/
In this article Ioannidis says: ‘‘I felt that I had to take sides in this evolution. This is
why I thought that prevention is a great idea, trying to find ways to make people to improve their health, wellness, and well-being at large [38]. After all clinical epidemiology was first defined as ‘‘the basic science of prevention’’ [39]. Yet, I am aware that prevention (e.g., unnecessary screening) can also sometimes harm more people than therapeutic medicine. ‘‘There are also so many quacks ranging from television presenters and movie stars turned into health trainers [40] and pure science denialists (e.g., climate, HIV, vaccine denialists, and religious fundamentalists) that one has to tread carefully. We should avoid a civil war on how to interpret
evidence within the health sciences when so many pseudoscientists and dogmatists are trying to exploit individuals and populations and attack science. However, too much medicine and too much health care is already causing harm."
See his reference there to "pure science denialists" - including 'vaccine denialists'...
There's just some 'science' that mustn't be questioned...e.g. The blessed Church of Vaccination.