Thanks Michael for explaining that to us. I must say that the arrogance of the medical community is truly astonishing. You gotta read this.
Thank God for your tenacity, compassion, and brilliant mind. It seems the majority of the medical industry are disconnected from their hearts. They only have their feeble minds to rely on for their sense of humanity.
Steve. Have you been formally trained in critical appraisal of the medical literature? I didnt think so. Would you hire someone into your company with no training, credentials or experience in IT? Arrogance is thinking that because you are smart at what you do, it carries over to areas where you dont have the education. I just posted a critical appraisal of fluvoxamine current as of today 4/13/22. Did you pick up on the methodological confounders indentifed in the critical appraisal? Of course not. You missed that. And that is the point. There is a reason why it takes 4 years of medical school, three years of internal medicine residency and 2-3 years of infectious disease fellowship training to be an ID doc. You don't have the skill set to critically appraise medical literature and it shows.
If you dont know what UPTODATE is, you shouldn't be practicing medicine. From UPTODATE current as of today. "Fluvoxamine – Data suggest that the antidepressant fluvoxamine may reduce progression to severe disease in early, mild COVID-19, although trials indicating benefit are hampered by methodologic issues, reducing certainty about any effect. Although potentially promising, additional data are needed to inform the utility of fluvoxamine before recommending its widespread use outside of a clinical trial. In a randomized trial from Brazil that included 1497 outpatients who had COVID-19 onset or SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis within the past seven days (about 44 percent within the past three days) and had at least one risk factor for severe disease, fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) reduced the 28-day rate of hospitalization compared with placebo (11 versus 16 percent, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.88); however, the definition of hospitalization included stay in an emergency setting for at least six hours, and most of the reduction in hospitalization reflected a reduction in such emergency visits . A mortality reduction was not identified among the entire trial population. Although a mortality reduction was observed among those who reported at least 80 percent adherence to the study medication (<1 versus 2 percent with placebo, RR 0.09, 0.01-0.47), the validity of this finding is uncertain because more individuals in the fluvoxamine than placebo group were nonadherent, and the resulting mortality rate among those who were nonadherent was disproportionately high compared with the overall rate, suggesting potential confounders. A prior smaller trial had suggested that fluvoxamine (100 mg orally twice daily for two days, then three times daily for a total of 15 days of treatment) reduced clinical (respiratory) deterioration compared with placebo (0 versus 8.3 percent; adjusted RR 8.7, 95% CI 1.8-16.4) but was limited by loss to follow-up and short study duration . Observational data has also suggested that fluvoxamine is associated with lower hospitalization rates than observation alone [129)"
I recently came across an interview of Dr. Bryan Ardis at the following link.
Does this have validity in your opinion?
Placing some spam-swatting comments up here at the top in case nobody sees them if they are in a reply chain to the spam postings themselves.
First of all: If we interrupt the flow of the actual conversation too much due to spam, then the spam has won.
But if you're in a spam-swatting state of mind as I was today:
At least two things could be done:
-The substack admins could check the activity of the alleged humans who are posting these things, but are, no doubt bots. Bots with names like cokot and "Arika peter". If I am mistaken, cokot and Arika peter and the rest of you, so sorry. But even if you are humans, I'm 99% sure you are violating substack rules by advertising in substack comments. The substack admins could check whether *all* these "users" ever do is post these same canned spam "comments" and, if so, revoke their subscription to the substacks that receive nuthin' but their advertising/malware/spyware/etc. comments.
-To solicit us to go to a web site, they probably have web sites that are real, to a degree. I have checked the "domains" and they are real, and registered as domains that could have websites. They have registered for some of these sites with Godaddy and others of these sites with namecheap. The abuse-reporting site for namecheap is
or it at least spells out abuse-reporting procedures.
Similar for Godaddy:
See the comments under some of today's spam as to which web sites I've mapped to which of the two ISP's (Internet Service Providers).
Keep going Steve and ignore the trolls.
Bottom line is that 98% of 'certified doctors' are sufficiently ignorant not to be any more insightful than a well-educated, highly motivated PhD in another scientific discipline. The way pharma works is to 'target Key Opinion Leaders' who then herd the MD sheep into line the way big pharma wants them to. That's right, 98% of MDs are sheep who do what some big cheese tells them to.
Medicine is a very, very hierarchical, very autocratic, very risk-averse culture. It attracts a higher number of psychopaths than almost any other profession.
Not what most people would want to believe, but it's real world data from the world of psychology.
Priceless. Michael Patmas, what an a$$.
Don’t worry about it Steve, he’s just way too arrogant.
After reading his exchanges, I'm convinced he's nothing more than a big pharma trained monkey, and an arrogant bully, too.
Furthermore, his patent response for not debating is laughable.
Let's hope he's boostered up. Karma is a bitch.
That's why I say we have no hope for change except by force. This country has been taken over by corrupt politicians for over 45 years. Everyone one that in government from the past 45 years has baggage. They all need to be put on trial and investigated.i do home work ..... https://www.worksful.com
Sorry, but this is so pathetic on the part of the doctor, it's embarrassing to read. If he believes Steve is not qualified to be listened to because he is not a doctor, let alone an infectious disease specialist, then all the more reason to debate him.
The medical profession has taken an awful hit these last two years and we deserve it, says the medical doctor writing this comment.
Dr. Patmas is committing the cardinal sin of "Arguing From Authority". Never let yourself do that my friends. Always let the strength of your reasoning win arguments, not your position. I make it a habit to listen to the ideas of everyone, even the CNN and MSNBC hosts. It hones my reasonng abilities as I slice their claims to pieces. I also listen to the janitor, the garbage man, prostitutes I take care of for free in Phnom Penh, everyone. They all deserve a listen and there are plenty of things they know more about, than this MIT physics grad.
Which brings me to a point I want to make about why Dr. Patmas is so profoundly wrong in his attitude toward Steve. As someone who understands the medical side and the side at which Steve excells I can assure you that most of the errors that have been made during the last two years, have been errors of statistical logic, where I am certain Steve is more adept than 99% of medical doctors. Sure, he doesn't know every bit of knowledge necessary to understand the medical side of things that have taken place the last two years but why should he? He is an entrepreneur and an outstanding one. And I'll tell you something else. Dr. Patmas doesn't understand the medical side either. It's clear from his comments.
You would be aghast to learn the doctors who clearly do not understand the medical science behind the pandemic. Joining Dr. Patmas are Dr. Birx, D. Fauci, Dr. Leana Wen, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Jha, Dr. Peter Hotez, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Redfield (the CDC Director before Dr. Wallensky who said in testimony that masks protect him more than a vaccine (this was before we found out that these vaccines are almost worthless), and ALL of the CNN TV doct ors. They've been wrong on alomost every call.
A doctor on Youtube who I saw declare that the vaccine gets transmitted not by aerosols (as it does) but by coughing, sneezing and contact of infected surfaces. His video has 6.7 million views. I kid you not. You think maybe Youtube promotes this far Lefty who knows virtually nothing while Part 2 of my discussion with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration) where I recap my proof that the virus came from a lab in addition to covering everything about the virus and vaccines from the very start of the pandemic has gotten 385 views in a month?
Up has been down and down, up. We're in for a fight, people. Stay tough.
lol "i don't have time to debate your doctors", yet can write substack articles "debunking" claims made by steve, while also taking the time to read his articles. Looks like you got some time on your hands doctor.
That's the kind of argument that the Catholic church was using in the dark ages why people weren't allowed to read the Scriptures themselves.
When he said he was too busy treating unvaccinated in the hospital I knew he was corrupt. I think we’re still incredulous that doctors such as Fauci, this knucklehead and many others lie because depend on pharma for survival.
Recently, I meet with a friend of many years. He happens to be a Judge. We first met when he was a law student at university. I have an interest in law, but I’m not legally trained. So, we sometimes chat about the legal system. During this particular conversation the topic was juries. Basically, I was interested in how an individual from the general community was able to comprehend complex cases. Turns out it’s the job of a lawyer to turn complex into something simple and factual. I asked how many times he believed juries he’d provided over got it wrong in his fifteen years on the bench. After reflection he concluded, probably once. A member of a jury’s only credentials are rationale and logic. Patmas is wrong. A reasonable person, armed with ALL the facts, can make a proper and accurate determination.