Categories
Cancer Medicine Quackery

FLCCC co-founder Paul Marik has gone full cancer quack

FLCCC co-founder Dr. Paul Marik has gone full cancer quack, deceptively disparaging chemotherapy to promote his grift of “repurposed drugs.” Everything old is new again.

I realize that I say it perhaps far too often, but, truly, since COVID-19 hit four years ago everything old is new again. It started out with everything old being new again in the world of antivaccine misinformation, complete with false claims of infertility, death, cancer, and the same old, same old “vaccine injuries” due to COVID-19 vaccines. Then, as predictably as night follows day follows night, “new school” antivaxxers started to embrace “old school” antivax tropes and became just antivax. Then, given the affinity between quackery and antivax, “new school” antivaxxers started embracing more general quackery, including cancer quackery, as they quickly “repurposed” drugs that they claimed as effective against COVID-19 (e.g., ivermectin) to treat cancer and then embraced other more general quackery, including even homeopathy. So it should come as no surprise that co-founder of that group of COVID-19 cranks known as the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance), Dr. Paul Marik, is now promoting a very old narrative long promoted by cancer quacks that chemotherapy doesn’t work.

It’s so obviously the old narrative in that the claim goes further than that, to say that chemotherapy “only cures” 5% of all cancers. Sound familiar? It should. I’ve written about it before, although back in the day it was claimed that “only 2%” of cancers were curable with chemotherapy. That’s why, seeing this old trope again all these years later, I felt that I should see what new form it’s taken and what new, if any, evidence Marik cherry picks to try to promote this misleading impression, while being surprised that quacks have now admitted more than double the efficacy of chemotherapy compared to what they used to admit.

I had seen mentions of Marik’s earlier in the week, but what really tweaked me to write about this yesterday, as I was perusing my usual sources, was seeing former Trump administration HHS science advisor Dr. Paul “We Want Them Infected” Alexander promoting this claim in a Substack post with one of his characteristically annoying and lengthy headlines that read BOOM! 2nd Smartest Guy in the World (support this stack) again delivers a seminal piece with a hero of mine, Dr. Paul Marik on the fraud of cancer chemotherapy; never worked!

As an aside, what is it with the “BOOM!” in so many right wing articles and social media posts? Whenever I see that “BOOM!” I can’t help but be reminded of Marvin the Martian, because there usually is no “BOOM!” in these “exposés,” except in the deluded head of someone like Alexander:

Marvin the Martian vs. Paul Marik
“BOOM!” right back at ya, Dr. Alexander!

But I digress.

It was the blurb for Alexander’s Substack entry that got my attention:

Just like the Malone Bourla Bancel COVID mRNA vaccine, it never worked, it worked in your head! Marik: “only “about 5% of all cancers are actually curable with chemotherapy.” not for 95%

And there you go. Sure, it’s not 2%, but it is only 5%. I was also amused, mainly because it very quickly became clear to me that Marik is not up-to-date with respect to cancer chemotherapy, given the claims that he spews. I am more than happy to slap him in the face with some actual data. Alexander, Marik, and the self-proclaimed “2nd Smartest Guy in the World” (2ndSGitW) also willfully misunderstand that most cancers these days are treated with multimodality therapy that can include a combination of any or all of modalities including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapies, the exact combination and identities of which depend on the tumor type, stage, and overall health of the cancer patient. Few cancers, mainly hematologic malignancies, are treated with just chemotherapy anymore.

The article being referred to by Alexander and 2SGitW was published early last week by the disinformation spreader The Vigilant Fox under the title, Dr. Paul Marik Exposes the Truth About Chemotherapy, with the tagline, “You won‘t hear this from your typical oncologist.” Of course, there’s a reason you “won’t hear this from your typical oncologist,” mainly because it’s, to put it mildly, bullshit. Also, one can’t help but note that Marik isn’t even an oncologist or any specialist related to oncology. I mean, holy hell, as much as I can’t stand Dr. William “turbo cancer” Makis, at least as a nuclear medicine radiologist he did image cancer patients and use some targeted radiotherapies to treat some cancer patients back in the day before he lost his medical license. Marik doesn’t even have that tenuous link to oncology. I also note that there is what I would call a paucity of actual citations to the literature—or any sources other than Marik—in this article. There is, however, a link to the FLCCC page on The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer, where I hoped to find the “rationale” (such as it is) for Marik’s claims.

Paul Marik echoes cancer quacks going back at least 50 years

Let’s start the discussion of the “meat” of Marik’s claim (if you can call it that) by seeing what Marik says, at least in his interview with The Vigilant Fox:

Dr. Paul Marik, a renowned critical care physician, has shed light on the harsh realities of chemotherapy’s ineffectiveness in treating cancer. He revealed that only “about 5% of all cancers are actually curable with chemotherapy.”

This small fraction of cancers that are chemo-responsive includes testicular cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, acute lymphatic leukemia, and a short list of others. (See image below)

The image is this:

Paul Marik is either clueless or lying about chemotherapy, take your pick.
Note that this screenshot comes from the video podcast of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s antivax group Children’s Health Defense, which I quickly found and saw that—everything old is new again!—the person interviewing Marik was Andrew Wakefield’s old buddy and coconspirator Polly Tommey. I also note that this is all in the context of selling “repurposed” drugs like ivermectin and dubious “metabolic interventions” to treat cancer, because of course it is. That’s always been the purpose of cancer quacks’ attacking chemotherapy.

I tried to find a source to back up Marik’s claim, both in his e-book and slideset, and was unable to locate one. Quelle surprise. Marik also says:

But for the remaining 95% of cancer cases, the prognosis is far less optimistic. Dr. Marik stated, “Chemotherapy is palliative at best,” highlighting that while chemotherapy might prolong survival by one or two months, it comes with a significant cost to the patient’s quality of life.

And:

The truly sobering detail that Dr. Marik mentioned was that despite advancements in chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and surgical treatments over the past 30 years, the overall life expectancy of a cancer patient has been extended by a measly 3.9 months.

Again, this is highly deceptive, and Marik provides no citations. He also conflates the minority of cancers that are diagnosed when metastatic, for most of which chemotherapy is palliative and likely only to provide a survival improvement on the order of months, with the earlier stage, operable, treatable cancers that make up what most cancer patients are diagnosed with. Marik’s conflation of the two is highly deceptive.

As I’m sure that any actual oncologist reading this post will immediately recognize, this is an example of the misrepresentation and outright omission. First of all, it’s deceptive to include a column of metastatic disease in a slide about chemotherapy “curable” cancer, because, with rare exceptions (e.g., testicular cancer, for which even stage IV disease is still potentially curable with chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation—just ask Lance Armstrong), chemotherapy for stage IV disease is almost always palliative. Moreover, Marik’s antivax “thinking” is at play here, in that, just as antivaxxers seem to think that any endpoint other than death (e.g., severe illness) is not important with respect to COVID-19 interventions, he seems to think that palliation of advanced cancer is worthless. While palliative chemotherapy might not prolong survival by long for many of these cancers, contrary to this stereotype, it can prevent cancer-related complications and improve quality of remaining life.

There are also curious—and glaring—omissions and inclusions in the “prolongs survival” part of this chart. For example, chemotherapy most definitely does prolong survival when used as adjuvant therapy after surgery for colorectal cancer, which makes its omission from the “improves survival” group basically a lie by omission. For colon cancer that is stage III (or high risk stage II), chemotherapy is recommended and does decrease the risk of recurrence and prolong survival, even as scientists are further personalizing treatment. Also, multiple myeloma should be in the “potentially curable” column, as chemotherapy can result in long term survival. It is true, of course, that these days monoclonal antibodies (e.g., against CD38 or SLAMF7) play an important role in multiple myeloma treatment, but high dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue (bone marrow transplant, BMT) can be curative for more advanced disease. (I have a childhood friend who underwent BMT for multiple myeloma and has been disease-free for years. I even recently bumped into her at my cancer center as she came in for a followup visit with her oncologist.) I was also puzzled by the inclusion of thyroid cancer in the “improves survival” column. Most thyroid cancer is treated with surgery alone, sometimes with radioactive iodine to ablate remaining microscopic disease. Chemotherapy is rarely used for thyroid cancer and, when it is, is usually palliative for a particularly nasty—and, fortunately, rare—subtype, anaplastic thyroid cancer.

Finally, let’s look at the cancer that I treat routinely, breast cancer, the second most common cause of cancer death in the US in women. Approximately one-third of all breast cancers are either triple-negative (they do not make estrogen or progesterone receptor proteins) or HER2(+) (they have amplified HER2 oncogene). For these cancers, as I like to say, the oncologists might be putting us surgeons out of business. Here’s what I mean. Using the KEYNOTE-522 regimen (neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus immunotherapy) before surgery for triple-negative breast cancer, we see a greater than 60% pathologic complete response rate; i.e., there is no viable cancer seen by pathologists in the resection specimens. Results are so good that there are now clinical trials being carried out to determine whether surgery is even necessary after a clinical complete response (tumor no longer detectable on imaging studies) and how to determine whether a clinical complete response equates to a pathologic complete response. Similar results are being achieved for HER2-positive cancers after treatment with chemotherapy plus the HER2-targeting drugs trastuzumab and pertuzumab, which produce pathologic complete response rates almost as high as KEYNOTE-522 does for triple-negative breast cancer. As I said, five or ten years from now surgery might not even be necessary for up to one-third of breast cancers. (Good thing I plan on retiring within a decade.)

I could go on, but will for now leave finding additional errors, omissions, and dubious choices for this chart as an exercise for the reader, particularly my oncologist colleagues. Think of it this way. There are already so many errors, dubious placements, and questionable categorizations in the chart that it should make you doubt everything else that Marik says, given that he can’t even get this chart right. As for the chart itself, it didn’t take me long to see that it came from a Webinar slideset on the FLCCC website that so flagrantly mixes nonsense with facts that I could (and maybe should) do a series picking it apart, or perhaps picking apart, chapter by chapter, Marik’s cancer quackery e-book on the website, shown below with its cover and Table of Contents:

Does Marik’s claim have any validity? I suspect you know the answer: It’s a grain of truth distorted.

Paul Marik vs cancer science

Looking at all of this, I wondered where Marik got his figure of “only 5%” of cancers being cured with chemotherapy; so I subjected myself to the CHD podcast in which Polley interviewed him. It was less than three minutes in that Marik was repeating the straw man about cancer beloved of quacks, one that I’ve discussed so many times that Marik’s repetition of it probably caused injury to my extraocular muscles, so hard did I roll my eyes. In brief, Marik claimed that oncologists would say that cancer is caused by mutations and chromosomal abnormalities, when in reality it’s a “metabolic disease.” (And, yes, he did invoke Otto Warburg, who first proposed this idea in 1928.) Only a person who hasn’t been to a cancer conference or read the scientific literature on cancer seriously over the last 10-20 years could say something so out of touch with the reality of what oncologists and cancer scientists actually say about the causes of cancer. Seriously, just do a PubMed search for “cancer” and “metabolism.” It’s so well-accepted that metabolism contributes to cancer formation and progression that there are numerous review articles about it going back a decade. (If Marik really wants to have his mind blown, he should do a PubMed search for “cancer” and “metabolic reprogramming.”) Oh, sure, he concedes that we know that some people have genetic susceptibilities to cancer—who can deny that?—but blithely goes on to say that those genetic susceptibilities probably all cause metabolic changes that cause cancer.

To provide some perspective, I can’t help but interject here that Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg even updated their classic “hallmarks of cancer” article from 2000 to include cancer metabolism (“deregulating cellular energetics”)… in 2011. As time has gone on, I’ve come to suspect that the reason quacks love to invoke “metabolism über alles” as the cause of cancer (and most other disease) is because that makes it much easier for them to argue for dietary interventions as the cure for all disease. Indeed, Marik even cites BRCA1 and BRCA2. Many of you might be aware that certain mutations in these genes can result in a lifetime risk of breast or ovarian cancer approaching 80% (for breast cancer). Moreover, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes that code for proteins whose function is DNA damage repair. When they don’t work due to a mutation, cancer becomes much more likely because DNA mutations accumulate without being repaired, something that would seem to belie Marik’s claims that cancer is metabolic derangement über alles.

In a mind-bogglingly stupid statement, Marik does not state the function of the proteins produced by BRCA1 and BRCA2 (likely because doing so would undermine his entire claim that cancer is mainly a metabolic disease), treats the two as though they were a single gene “the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene” (which they most definitely are not), and then cites a claim that the risk of cancer in mutation carriers used to be “only” 50% 20-30 years ago, but now is 70%, which left me scratching my head. He also neglects to note that the risk is different depending on which gene has a mutation, with oncogenic BRCA1 mutations portending a much higher lifetime risk of breast cancer than oncogenic BRCA2 mutations. Seriously, Marik has no idea what he’s talking about here, but that doesn’t stop him from claiming that “something” else must be going on. OK, so what? Let’s say Marik is correct here. Even in that case, then a gene mutation can cause cancer 50% of the time, and “other factors” at most increase that risk by an additional 20%. He undermines his own argument that cancer is always a “metabolic disease” through his own misunderstanding. Moreover, I couldn’t find any citation or reference in Marik’s cancer e-book to support his misleading factoid. Also, it never seems to occur to him that newer and more intensive testing for BRCA mutations and better epidemiological studies might play a role in changes in estimates of lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer in mutation carriers. (These days, a lot more women undergo genetic testing than in the 1990s.)

Unsurprisingly, to support his claim that cancer is a “metabolic disease,” Marik cites Thomas Seyfried, one of the main proponents of the overblown claim that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease. I’ve written about Seyfried a few times now, specifically his risibly overblown claim that ketogenic diets “beat” chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer and his citing a dubious case report as evidence for that claim. As I said at the time, a few years prior to my writing that post, the hypothesis that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease was all the rage in oncology, and I remembered attending several sessions and lectures on the Warburg effect and cancer at the AACR meetings. I also noted that, by 2014, interest in the hypothesis had been waning somewhat, most likely because it had thus far failed to deliver much in the way of therapeutic targets and strategies. I also noted that Seyfried had expressed pride at having been interviewed by Joe Mercola. Here’s a hint: If you’re science-based, you avoid Mercola like the plague. It was true ten years ago, and it’s even more true now, given that Mercola has recently fallen under the spell of a psychic medium grifter claiming to channel an ancient powerful entity even to the point of taking his advice on how to run his business and firing longtime associates, including even his sister, and ghosting friends. So far, not a great source.

Of course, the question of whether the metabolic changes cause the mutations and chromosomal changes seen in cancer or vice-versa is a longstanding debate that Marik glides by as though it were totally settled. As is the case with cancer quacks, he vastly oversimplifies cancer science in favor of one hypothesis and ignores the likelihood that multiple changes contribute to the development, growth, and progression of cancer cells, likely in different combinations at different times, depending upon the step in carcinogenesis that the cancer has reached. I like to cite my previous primary area of research, tumor angiogenesis, the ability of cancer cells to stimulate the ingrowth of new blood vessels to support their growth. You might recall that without that ability cancer cells can only form tumors the size of a small lump of cells, because diffusion of oxygen and nutrients limits their growth to that. Until a new cancer somehow flips the “angiogenic switch,” that’s all it can be, a lump of cells. However, once it starts stimulating the ingrowth of new blood vessels, it can grow almost unchecked. I also recall that back in the 1990s targeting tumor angiogenesis was viewed as a potential cure for cancer, or at least as a strategy that could turn cancer into a chronic, manageable disease like hypertension or diabetes through prolonged use of angiogenesis inhibitors. Unfortunately, it didn’t turn out that way, although angiogenesis inhibitors have taken their place in the multimodality pharmacological treatment of cancer as an incremental advancement—just like most new cancer therapies.

In fact, let’s take a look at a couple of classic figures from Hanahan and Weinberg’s 2011 “hallmarks of cancer” review, compared to the original “hallmarks of cancer” figure from their 2000 review:

The upper left hand corner shows the original classic diagram from Hannahan and Weinberg’s 2000 review on the hallmarks of cancer. The other images come from their 2011 update to that review.

As I like to say, liberally paraphrasing what Douglas Adams said about space, cancer is complicated. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly complicated it is. I mean, you may think rocket science is complicated, but that’s just peanuts to cancer. That’s why it should be a huge red flag any time you see someone like Marik proclaiming just One True Cause of Cancer.

But what about the “5%” figure? I rather suspect that Marik pulled it out of his nether regions, or—shall we say?—”repurposed” the old “2% gambit” by making it less pessimistic. Given that I can’t find any new sources that I haven’t addressed before I will therefore refer you to my previous posts refuting the old and deceptive claim that chemotherapy “cures only 2%” of cancers and explaining how chemotherapy actually does work, after all.

Chemotherapy vs. “repurposed drugs”?

One claim by cancer quacks like Marik that’s always irked me is that they are somehow the only people who have ever thought of “repurposing” drugs approved for other purposes to treat cancer. Seriously, I published a number of papers investigating the possibility of repurposing a drug for Alzheimer’s disease to treat cancer. My annoyance became very acute when I saw Marik flash this slide in his interview:

This is yet another of Marik’s deceptive tables. For example, the claim that repurposed drugs can affect “all malignant cells” is just nonsense. Different repurposed drugs can target different tumor cells, as such drugs work against certain cancers mainly because they target certain signaling or metabolic pathways that the disease for which they were approved has in common with those specific cancers. Similarly, there’s no good evidence that repurposed drugs in general—cough, cough, ivermectin—enhance adaptive immunity. And WTF does “improves/enhances” tumor microenvironment even mean? While it is true that tumor microenvironment (the cellular milieu, including immune cells, surrounding the tumor) can have a huge effect on tumor growth and progression, no evidence is presented that any of the “repurposed drugs”—cough, cough, ivermectin—has any effect on the tumor microenvironment.

Seriously, I laughed out loud at the claim that tumor cell resistance doesn’t develop against “repurposed drugs.” Here’s a hint for Marik: Tumor cell resistance can develop against pretty much any drug, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immune therapy, or whatever. I remember in the 1990s how it was widely speculated that cancers would not develop resistance to antiangiogenic therapy because the therapy targeted normal vascular cells. Guess what? Just like in Jurassic Park, life (in this case, cancer, which is a particularly tenacious form of life) was not contained and did find a way. There are now known to exist multiple mechanisms by which tumors achieve resistance to angiogenesis inhibitors. The same will almost certainly be true for any repurposed drugs that, unlike most of what Marik lists, are shown to actually be efficacious as cancer treatments. Cancer finds a way, and resistance eventually develops. It’s a huge red flag for quackery when anyone claims otherwise, Marik’s claimed “deep dive into the literature” in which he supposedly personally reviewed “over 900 peer-reviewed” papers in one of his videos notwithstanding.

“New school” COVID-19 antivaxxers and quacks have now become just run-of-the-mill grifting antivaxxers and quacks, complete with the same claims of having “done their own research” in which they cherry pick the studies that they like, ignore the longstanding history of cancer research, and portray themselves as someone who has discovered something about cancer that “they” don’t want you to know about. The claim that chemotherapy “only cures 5%” ignores the difference between adjuvant chemotherapy and primary chemotherapy as treatment and that most cancers are now seldom treated with just one modality anymore. It is, in essence, a marketing tool in which the cancer quack disparages the competition in order to sell you something. In the case of Paul Marik, he’s selling ivermectin and other “repurposed” drugs for cancer, while in the case of The Vigilant Fox and 2ndSGitW, it’s the Joe Tippens protocol, which both include at the end of their articles featuring Marik.

The more things change, the more they stay the same in quackery world, and, of course, everything old is new again. Marik is just peddling the same old snake oil that cancer quacks have been peddling ever since chemotherapy started to enter the treatment regimens for various cancers, even as he portrays himself as promoting “integrative oncology.”

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

35 replies on “FLCCC co-founder Paul Marik has gone full cancer quack”

There goes another irony-meter.
Logic and Science?
Those people wouldn’t recognise logic and science if it bit them in their…

Do all supervillains think they are superheroes? Certainly most, but who knows what Pol Pot thought of himself.

Do all supervillians think of themselves as superheroes ? Most certainly, but who knows what Pol Pot thought of himself?

I read a book about leaders who were monsters, Pol Pot being one of them.
As I understood it, when he was in power, he was convinced he was doing the right thing. After he was deposed? Maybe he realised he wasn’t the good person he believed himself to be.

At least Trump’s fans know the truth, even if they don’t admit to themselves – they portray Trump as Thanos, at the moment when Thanos impotently attempts to kill everyone in the universe: in other words, at the moment when his permanent defeat is seconds away.

Adolf also thought he was doing the world a favor. The idea that villains are a Doctor Evil intentionally being mean is rarely real. Our ability to rationalize seems endless.

The antivaxxers think they’re helping people by discouraging immunizations. One I knew until this May was totally convinced of her goodness and accuracy … but didn’t live long after contracting Covid. Sometimes bad choices have bad results.

I’m glad to see the cancer is complicated charts again- which are good references for alties who promote simplistic ideas about cancer aetiology/ treatment revealing the depths of their ignorance.
However, information like this doesn’t function easily as the basis of internet video rants and BS articles/books.

One of the problems for sceptics is that reality isn’t simple and I doubt that many alties will spend the prerequisite time/ effort to understand what Orac discusses. Saying “science is corrupt” is much easier.

They obviously don’t want to do the hard work of testing one of these drugs to see if it really works to treat any kind of cancer. In true sCAM fashion, they just make hand-waving claims and go to market.

But is there even a plausible reason why an anti-parasite drug like ivermectin might even work for that?

At least we are finding out that osteltamivir (which is an anti-viral and tested against the flu virus) works pretty well to treat conjunctivitis in dairy workers who catch avian influenza from infected cattle. But if that hadn’t worked, we might have tried a different anti-viral.

Well Ivermectin improves the symptoms of COVID, if you happen to also have worms that is.

I have seen one or two well-written papers from, I believe, Bangladesh where Ivermectin did seem to help. Someone then pointed out that intestinal parasites are more common in Indian subcontinent than they would be in North America or Europe.

I’ve read about virus deniers who imbibe bleach and poop out parts of their intestines and then think they’ve excreted a tapeworm. We definitely need to improve our educational systems. The delusion that parasites cause all diseases is part of the ivermectin qult.

We definitely need to improve our educational systems.

No doubt governments need to be funding education at all levels at much higher rates and the influence of business and sports removed from higher ed. But remember: Reagan and the right began attacking not only the function of education but planting the seeds of dismissing the views of experts back in the 80s. That’s only ramped up since, and we’re seeing the results of their work now.

Also worth noting Project 2025 calls for abolishing the Department of Education.

If there was evidence that it did work, explanations could come later.

But as you say, the people promoting those “repurposed” drugs aren’t bothering to investigate whether they work, much less how, because that sort of research takes time and money. Worse (for them) it might produce headlines about patients and their families being sadly disappointed that it didn’t help.

Something interesting happened two weeks ago.

All Covid-vaccinated members of my family were sick with Covid (3 persons), strep (1 persons), or undetermined illness (1). All unvaccinated members (3) were not sick with anything.

Something interesting happened to me two weeks ago as well.

Several unvaccinated individuals I know met with truly strange demises. Three spontaneously combusted, one won the lottery and then got hit by a meteorite that knocked them into an open manhole where they were eaten by a giant, albino sewer alligator, and one stepped into a circle of mushrooms in their backyard and was spirited away by fairies.

None of the vaccinated people I know met with such calamities, but who knows what tomorrow will bring? I’m holding out for the covid vaccine not to turn people into zombies, but into horrific bug monsters because I’ve always wanted to have an extra set of arms.

Three is a very small sample. This has never happened people I know. I wonder why.

This has never happened people I know. I wonder why.

Igor has no concept of variation: in his mind something will always work or never work, there are no other options.

That’s assuming he’s telling the truth, and that assumption is always dangerous to make when it comes to his stories.

Maybe it’s just me but wouldn’t someone who has a mathematics website/ educational service? know that you can’t extrapolate about general effects from really small numbers?
I tossed a coin 6 times and got all heads so it must mean that it’s always going to turn out that way. I surveyed 12 people about their political choices so my results mean something. My mutual fund gained 2% last Tuesday so I should buy more before Tuesday.. A vaccine study had 117 subjects so it’s important. SRSLY..

@Denice:

Igor claims he only does support for the math website, whatever that means. I will say that if you haven’t looked at it — he posted a link at one time — it’s effing awful: nobody should ever recommend it to someone who wants to learn math.

As for thinking his anecdote, if true, means anything beyond the situation for the people he referenced: we know it doesn’t. It’s pretty safe to say Igor doesn’t and can’t understand why it doesn’t.

Heh heh. Maybe no-one wants to associate with the unvaccinated people, which would prove isolation as an effective method of infection control. Maybe the vaccinated people all have jobs that put them more at risk than the unvaccinated people. Who knows? I certainly wouldn’t expect Igor to present an unbiased set of data. It’s not in his interest.

Since you are deliberately vague on how/when vaccinated your so-called family members are, your post is garbage

At any given time you can find an antivaxer posting on Twitter about how they have a dozen or more vaccinated relatives, friends and cow-orkers who’ve developed blood clots, heart attacks, turbo cancers and all sorts of other maladies up to and including sudden death.

The common denominator is of course the antivaxer, whose presence results in health calamities.

Igor’s family members would be healthier if they could convince him not to visit. Maybe they’re only pretending to be sick so he’ll stay away.

May I suggest occasionally doing a story about positive developments in the medical field, perhaps annually as a Thanksgiving gift? I was unaware of the strides being made in breast cancer research you touched on in this article. Nonsurgical cures for breast cancer, even as a possibility, should be a front page news story. There was a brief flurry of stories a couple months ago about a vaccine based treatment for glioblastoma, which would be a nice kick in the nuts for a certain Texas based quack you have followed for years. But I haven’t heard any mentions since that first couple of news stories. So hearing about the good stuff once in a while would lift my spirits personally. Maybe for others too.
PS. I just had a good friend engage in a discussion about how fluoride toothpaste calcifies the pineal gland cutting off our mystical connection to the universe. She is an intelligent, accomplished person. Where does that depth of bullshit come from?

FLCCC ( Wikipedia) has been associated with right wing groups and events…
which got me thinking that aren’t most of Orac’s targets the same?
PRN employs RT reporters; NN happily discusses the demise of western currencies and societies; Wolf and her spouse decry the loss of freedom, Steve Bannon’s imprisonment and the takeover by immigrant ‘criminals’; RFK Jr and Del Bigtree espouse similar talking points.They oppose the CDC, vaccine mandates and common sense governmental actions as well as agencies.

Following the results of recent elections in the UK and France, as a US election approaches, I don’t hear support for progressive forces whilst Putin, Trump and their advocates are applauded loudly. Over the years, I’ve seen these outlets become more political and aggressively conservative even venturing into religious authoritarian positions.
That should tell you something about who they are.

“venturing into religious authoritarian positions.”

I’m waiting for the point where the libertarians start to fight the right wing over restrictions to their freedom. Will the sound of bursting cognitive dissonance safety valves be a nice counterpoint to the exploding irony meters?

Actually, I’ve seen a few of these creatures simultaneously lobby for increased freedoms** as they also seek to extremely limit reproductive rights, voting access, LGBTQ+ rights, access to books they don’t like, protests they disapprove of. etc.

But what would you expect from them? US Republican Convention coming soon to right wing internet sites near you; Project 2025

** less tax, no gun restrictions, no laws on alt med providers, freedom to sell untested meds, anri- workers rights,anti-vaccine/ no PH rules, no restrictions on social media

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading