Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

102,733 Views | 2333 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by calbear93
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

AunBear89 said:

That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.


Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.


Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?


It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.

The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.

I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.

There was no solid evidence that the virus was transmitted naturally from Wuhan bats to humans either but interestingly, no one got censored or banned for promoting that theory. Bringing up the most plausible theory was previously considered taboo and any discussion was widely suppressed Why do you think?

To be fair, the transmission of disease from wild animals to humans (sometimes through domesticated animals as intermediaries) is a very common occurrence throughout human history.

If some government or health agency were to conclude that "the usual suspects" were again guilty for causing the spread of one particular disease. That conclusion might be, and usually would be, the correct one.

If however AFTER A THOROUGH SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION that conclusion is proven to be wrong, that error would not be proof of a gigantic coverup without more persuasive evidence of such a
coverup. .

FYI 60 Minutes had a segment several months ago on health expert who has been studying the transmission of disease from wild animals to humans. That expert's conclusion was that we can expect an increase of such transmissions and therefore an increase in potential opportunities for epidemics and pandemics because of increasing human intrusion into the habitats of wild animals ( both directly and indirectly). One very obvious example of such new contact was shown: trips into for foreign tourists to a huge bat cave in the jungles of South East Asia. (No Bat-mobile was found. But hundreds, possibly thousands of bats were put into direct contact with human tourists.)
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

BearForce2 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

AunBear89 said:

That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.


Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.


Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?


It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.

The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.

I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.

There was no solid evidence that the virus was transmitted naturally from Wuhan bats to humans either but interestingly, no one got censored or banned for promoting that theory. Bringing up the most plausible theory was previously considered taboo and any discussion was widely suppressed Why do you think?

To be fair, the transmission of disease from wild animals to humans (sometimes through domesticated animals as intermediaries) is a very common occurrence throughout human history.

If some government or health agency were to conclude that "the usual suspects" were again guilty for causing the spread of one particular disease. That conclusion might be, and usually would be, the correct one.

If however AFTER A THOROUGH SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION that conclusion is proven to be wrong, that error would not be proof of a gigantic coverup without more persuasive evidence of such a
coverup. .

FYI 60 Minutes had a segment several months ago on health expert who has been studying the transmission of disease from wild animals to humans. That expert's conclusion was that we can expect an increase of such transmissions and therefore an increase in potential opportunities for epidemics and pandemics because of increasing human intrusion into the habitats of wild animals ( both directly and indirectly). One very obvious example of such new contact was shown: trips into for foreign tourists to a huge bat cave in the jungles of South East Asia. (No Bat-mobile was found. But hundreds, possibly thousands of bats were put into direct contact with human tourists who would soon return to their home countries.)
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

AunBear89 said:

That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.


Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.


Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?


It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.

The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.

I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.

There was no solid evidence that the virus was transmitted naturally from Wuhan bats to humans either but interestingly, no one got censored or banned for promoting that theory. Bringing up the most plausible theory was previously considered taboo and any discussion was widely suppressed Why do you think?

Obviously politics got inserted into some of the media coverage. Railing against the prevailing media theory doesn't automatically make the opposite theory correct, though. People like Tucker Carlson seem to think it does, because they have their own political motivations.
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah!

Blah blah blah blah.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah!

Blah blah blah blah.

That's what Fauci said and he lied.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?

nothing to see here, just another vaccine, move along
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are covid vaccines riskier than advertised? UCLA and Yale professor in WSJ:

https://oltnews.com/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-the-wall-street-journal
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Are covid vaccines riskier than advertised? UCLA and Yale professor in WSJ:

https://oltnews.com/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-the-wall-street-journal

Take a look at other articles by this same Dr. Ladapo in WSJ. Just to list a few:

October 28,2020. Concluding that masks are oversold as a preventative measure for stopping the INEVITABLE spread of Covid

Feb 4 2021. Concluding that Universal vaccination is a chimera and will not stop COVID. Like face masks, social distancing and lockdowns they only delay the return to economic normal

April 19. Concluding that there is too much a focus on and an overreaction to what the Doctor calls "COVID-mania" to the detriment of other diseases.

From that background and from the pejorative tenor of his comments in his recent article the reader can easily see the Doctor's own biases. (But he is honest enough to say "that he doesn't know" that there is a definite negative impact.).

My personal conclusions is: how can someone say that there is an overreaction to a disease that has killed about 600,000 people in the US in a relatively short period of time. (And has had a severe impact on many of the victims that did not die.) and that is having an even deadlier impact world wide.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1) about 1 in 70,000 12-39 year olds get myocarditis within 3 weeks of second shot of mRNA vaccine. Moreso in men.
2) patients afflicted generally recover
3) despite such, Delta variant is concerning and all 12+ should get vaccinated.

At least we are getting near the truth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2021/6/23/1_5482320.html
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

1) about 1 in 70,000 12-39 year olds get myocarditis within 3 weeks of second shot of mRNA vaccine. Moreso in men.
2) patients afflicted generally recover
3) despite such, Delta variant is concerning and all 12+ should get vaccinated.

At least we are getting near the truth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2021/6/23/1_5482320.html

Yes - this is how science works. You never have all the answers, all at once at the very beginning of the process. And you can't make reasoned and informed decisions with cherry picked information that only affirms your beliefs/suspicions.

Also - there are these people who are experts in science - we call them "scientists", and they are much better at making decisions based on the available data, than non scientists (we call them Right Wing Nut Jobs).
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

1) about 1 in 70,000 12-39 year olds get myocarditis within 3 weeks of second shot of mRNA vaccine. Moreso in men.
2) patients afflicted generally recover
3) despite such, Delta variant is concerning and all 12+ should get vaccinated.

At least we are getting near the truth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2021/6/23/1_5482320.html

Yes - this is how science works. You never have all the answers, all at once at the very beginning of the process. And you can't make reasoned and informed decisions with cherry picked information that only affirms your beliefs/suspicions.

Also - there are these people who are experts in science - we call them "scientists", and they are much better at making decisions based on the available data, than non scientists (we call them Right Wing Nut Jobs).


Just like politics and $$$ is injected into our scientific decisions, politics is injected into your post. Try to be more open-minded.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

Are covid vaccines riskier than advertised? UCLA and Yale professor in WSJ:

https://oltnews.com/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-the-wall-street-journal

Take a look at other articles by this same Dr. Ladapo in WSJ. Just to list a few:

October 28,2020. Concluding that masks are oversold as a preventative measure for stopping the INEVITABLE spread of Covid

Feb 4 2021. Concluding that Universal vaccination is a chimera and will not stop COVID. Like face masks, social distancing and lockdowns they only delay the return to economic normal

April 19. Concluding that there is too much a focus on and an overreaction to what the Doctor calls "COVID-mania" to the detriment of other diseases.

From that background and from the pejorative tenor of his comments in his recent article the reader can easily see the Doctor's own biases. (But he is honest enough to say "that he doesn't know" that there is a definite negative impact.).

My personal conclusions is: how can someone say that there is an overreaction to a disease that has killed about 600,000 people in the US in a relatively short period of time. (And has had a severe impact on many of the victims that did not die.) and that is having an even deadlier impact world wide.
I found similar things when looking up Dr. Ladapo. He was also part of a group (some of whom were not real doctors) pushing for HCQ and other discredited COVID remedies.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-doctors-tout-hydroxychloroquine-covid-who-they/5535096002/

I don't think Ladapo himself has been recommending HCQ, but appearing with a group like this certainly should raise some eyebrows about his motivations.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)

GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)




This is one reason why a person should vet an expert's credentials and not just rely on that person's titles and degrees. Credentials include ALL reports And articles published. And all groups and people with whom the expert is officially and unofficially affiliated.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

HoopDreams said:

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)




This is one reason why a person should vet an expert's credentials and not just rely on that person's titles and degrees. Credentials include ALL reports And articles published. And all groups and people with whom the expert is officially and unofficially affiliated.



Whatever it takes to discredit that which you disagree with.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

HoopDreams said:

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)




This is one reason why a person should vet an expert's credentials and not just rely on that person's titles and degrees. Credentials include ALL reports And articles published. And all groups and people with whom the expert is officially and unofficially affiliated.



Whatever it takes to discredit that which you disagree with.


No. Whatever it takes to get to the truth.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

HoopDreams said:

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)




This is one reason why a person should vet an expert's credentials and not just rely on that person's titles and degrees. Credentials include ALL reports And articles published. And all groups and people with whom the expert is officially and unofficially affiliated.



Whatever it takes to discredit that which you disagree with.


Yes - that's the GQP playbook in a nutshell.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."


AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."



There is moderate certainty of the evidence when there are one or more factors that reduce the certainty of the evidence to the extent that the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
https://getitglossary.org/term/moderate+certainty+of+the+evidence
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
dmh65
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No way should young healthy people get the shot. They are at very low risk of having a severe case of covid without the vaccine. The risks of vaccination is real.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only fair to post this article demonstrating how effective the vaccines are at preventing hospitalizations and death.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-covid-deaths-unvaccinated.html
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Only fair to post this article demonstrating how effective the vaccines are at preventing hospitalizations and death.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-covid-deaths-unvaccinated.html
But for how long.

https://theduran.com/uk-health-data-death-rate-from-covid-variant-is-six-times-higher-for-vaccinated-than-unvaccinated/

"Since hospitalizations are of concern, fully vaccinated people are being hospitalized in the UK at a higher rate than unvaccinated people.
According to most recent technical briefing report, public health data show that 2.0 percent of vaccinated individuals (84 of 4,087) who tested positive for the Delta variant were admitted to hospital (including those tested upon entering the hospital for any other reason) compared with 1.48 percent of unvaccinated individuals (527 of 35,521).
The current data is in keeping with data published last week by England's public health agency that also showed a six-times greater death rate among the fully vaccinated than the unvaccinated and a hospital admission rate of 2.3 percent among those fully vaccinated at least two weeks earlier compared with just 1.2 percent among the unvaccinated."

....

"This is reminiscent of the ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) phenomenon that has been seen for other vaccine and that has been expressed as a point of concern among many scientists for the COVID vaccines," Stephanie Seneff, a senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory told LifeSiteNews.

ADE blighted previous attempts at coronavirus vaccines and frequently resulted in enhanced lung disease among vaccinated lab animals. It led researchers in 2012 to advise scientists to proceed with "caution" for any human coronavirus vaccines which could lead to enhanced lung disease."


So researchers have been aware of the ADE problem with respect to coronavirus vaccines and warned authorities about the Covid vaccines. But the authorities threw caution to the wind and had 100+ million people vaccinated before long-term data on the potential for ADE was even available. What could go wrong.

Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Zippergate said:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."



There is moderate certainty of the evidence when there are one or more factors that reduce the certainty of the evidence to the extent that the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
https://getitglossary.org/term/moderate+certainty+of+the+evidence
The data table summarizing the results didn't work in my last post but I would say "moderate" understates the benefit of this drug considerably.

https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/9862837?key=3b7a3fb36c9a27902363678ef27a2a68

62% reduction in mortality. P-value of 0.004. Even at the top end of the 95% confidence interval, the risk ratio shows a 27% reduction in mortality. Further, I've seen numerous reports of how effective it is if given at the onset of symptoms. And many doctors are using it in combination with other re-purposed drugs with even better results.

As I've said, Ivermectin is extremely inconvenient for the Big Pharma Industrial Complex. If there is an effective treatment for Covid, then it is inappropriate to give the population a vaccine under an EUA. And who would want it anyway.

If you start having symptoms, get treatment while the symptoms are still mild.

dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

AunBear89 said:

Zippergate said:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."



There is moderate certainty of the evidence when there are one or more factors that reduce the certainty of the evidence to the extent that the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
https://getitglossary.org/term/moderate+certainty+of+the+evidence
The data table summarizing the results didn't work in my last post but I would say "moderate" understates the benefit of this drug considerably.

https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/9862837?key=3b7a3fb36c9a27902363678ef27a2a68

62% reduction in mortality. P-value of 0.004. Even at the top end of the 95% confidence interval, the risk ratio shows a 27% reduction in mortality. Further, I've seen numerous reports of how effective it is if given at the onset of symptoms. And many doctors are using it in combination with other re-purposed drugs with even better results.

As I've said, Ivermectin is extremely inconvenient for the Big Pharma Industrial Complex. If there is an effective treatment for Covid, then it is inappropriate to give the population a vaccine under an EUA. And who would want it anyway.

If you start having symptoms, get treatment while the symptoms are still mild.

My cat had ear mites. Ivermectin is one treatment for that. It an anti-parasitic drug also used to treat some types of worms.

Rather than go to the vet, I went to Tractor Supply Company and bought a big box of Ivermectin over-the-counter for cheap.

I decided in the end that I didn't want to use this poison on my cat. I still have the box in my garage somewhere if you want to ingest it. Knock yourself out.




BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:



My cat had ear mites. Ivermectin is one treatment for that.

GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

oski003 said:

Only fair to post this article demonstrating how effective the vaccines are at preventing hospitalizations and death.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-covid-deaths-unvaccinated.html
But for how long.

https://theduran.com/uk-health-data-death-rate-from-covid-variant-is-six-times-higher-for-vaccinated-than-unvaccinated/

"Since hospitalizations are of concern, fully vaccinated people are being hospitalized in the UK at a higher rate than unvaccinated people.
According to most recent technical briefing report, public health data show that 2.0 percent of vaccinated individuals (84 of 4,087) who tested positive for the Delta variant were admitted to hospital (including those tested upon entering the hospital for any other reason) compared with 1.48 percent of unvaccinated individuals (527 of 35,521).
The current data is in keeping with data published last week by England's public health agency that also showed a six-times greater death rate among the fully vaccinated than the unvaccinated and a hospital admission rate of 2.3 percent among those fully vaccinated at least two weeks earlier compared with just 1.2 percent among the unvaccinated."

....

"This is reminiscent of the ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) phenomenon that has been seen for other vaccine and that has been expressed as a point of concern among many scientists for the COVID vaccines," Stephanie Seneff, a senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory told LifeSiteNews.

ADE blighted previous attempts at coronavirus vaccines and frequently resulted in enhanced lung disease among vaccinated lab animals. It led researchers in 2012 to advise scientists to proceed with "caution" for any human coronavirus vaccines which could lead to enhanced lung disease."


So researchers have been aware of the ADE problem with respect to coronavirus vaccines and warned authorities about the Covid vaccines. But the authorities threw caution to the wind and had 100+ million people vaccinated before long-term data on the potential for ADE was even available. What could go wrong.




Sorry Zippergate. I "drilled down" on on the link posted but all I found was conspiracy theories by a life long anti-vaxer.
I am neither a doctor nor a scientist. But as a lawyer I can often spot a film-flam artist.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Zippergate said:

AunBear89 said:

Zippergate said:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."



There is moderate certainty of the evidence when there are one or more factors that reduce the certainty of the evidence to the extent that the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
https://getitglossary.org/term/moderate+certainty+of+the+evidence
The data table summarizing the results didn't work in my last post but I would say "moderate" understates the benefit of this drug considerably.

https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/9862837?key=3b7a3fb36c9a27902363678ef27a2a68

62% reduction in mortality. P-value of 0.004. Even at the top end of the 95% confidence interval, the risk ratio shows a 27% reduction in mortality. Further, I've seen numerous reports of how effective it is if given at the onset of symptoms. And many doctors are using it in combination with other re-purposed drugs with even better results.

As I've said, Ivermectin is extremely inconvenient for the Big Pharma Industrial Complex. If there is an effective treatment for Covid, then it is inappropriate to give the population a vaccine under an EUA. And who would want it anyway.

If you start having symptoms, get treatment while the symptoms are still mild.

My cat had ear mites. Ivermectin is one treatment for that. It an anti-parasitic drug also used to treat some types of worms.

Rather than go to the vet, I went to Tractor Supply Company and bought a big box of Ivermectin over-the-counter for cheap.

I decided in the end that I didn't want to use this poison on my cat. I still have the box in my garage somewhere if you want to ingest it. Knock yourself out.





??? Peer-reviewed meta-analysis not good enough for you? I thought this was about science? Drugs are often re-purposed and used off-label (really, it's a thing, google it). It is well-known that Ivermectin has anti-viral properties and Sars Covid-2 is what again??? Oh yeah, it's a .....virus. Go ahead, dismiss it. It's not like ~30 clinical trials for use against Covid 19 have been published or that it is being used widely on at least five continents. If Gain-of-Function Fauci says it's unproven, well that settles it.

The people of North Korea are completely brain-washed but they at least have an excuse. They are completely cut off from truthful information. People here,though, have made a choice to voluntarily ignore anything not approved by the Ministry of Truth. I bet Orwell didn't see that coming.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://t.co/6X88V7s1CY?amp=1

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the
mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000
(95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse
reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects
per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three
deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This
lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

... Editing this post to say that I believe vaccines have saved more lives than the authors indicate.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

https://t.co/6X88V7s1CY?amp=1

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the
mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000
(95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse
reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects
per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three
deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This
lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

... Editing this post to say that I believe vaccines have saved more lives than the authors indicate.

My anti-virus isn't liking your link. Never heard of the NNTV metric before (stands for "number needed to vaccinate"). Will have to wrap my head around what that means and its usefulness.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326


The vaccines are only 95% effective against the original strain of COVID. They are reportedly effective against the D1 variant. But I have not seen any reports whether that effectiveness is 95% or less.

In any event, we can expect that some number of the vaccinated will be included among those infected during a spike.
The larger the absolute number of vaccinated, the larger will be the absolute number of vaccinated who will be infected during a spike.

That fact is not a criticism of the vaccines. It is merely a mathematical conclusion,
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326


The vaccines are only 95% effective against the original strain of COVID. They are reportedly effective against the D1 variant. But I have not seen any reports whether that effectiveness is 95% or less.

In any event, we can expect that some number of the vaccinated will be included among those infected during a spike.
The larger the absolute number of vaccinated, the larger will be the absolute number of vaccinated who will be infected during a spike.

That fact is not a criticism of the vaccines. It is merely a mathematical conclusion.


It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants. It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326


The vaccines are only 95% effective against the original strain of COVID. They are reportedly effective against the D1 variant. But I have not seen any reports whether that effectiveness is 95% or less.

In any event, we can expect that some number of the vaccinated will be included among those infected during a spike.
The larger the absolute number of vaccinated, the larger will be the absolute number of vaccinated who will be infected during a spike.

That fact is not a criticism of the vaccines. It is merely a mathematical conclusion.


It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants. It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall.
1. I said that i did not know whether the vaccine had the same effectiveness against the D1 Variant as it did against the original strain, my comments were that even assuming 95% effectiveness, we should expect that some percentage of vaccinated individuals would be infected by COVID. if you know the effectiveness of the current vaccine against the D1 Variant, please enlighten us.

2. You say, "It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants." However you ignore that the current vaccine is more or less effective against many of the Variants being experienced in the world. So obviously, some effort was made to make a more broadly effective vaccine.

3, You also say, "It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall." Unless you know Marty McFly and have access to his time machine, it appears more than a little unfair to criticize the vaccine developers for failing to foresee the evolution of the D1 Variant and with that foresight understand how that Variant operates and how to develop an appropriate defense. These vaccines were developed very quickly but they weren't developed overnight.

Perhaps your criticism is better focused on the individuals who are resisting vaccination. It is a well known fact that the Variants arise from mutations that increase the longer the original strain of Covid spreads through the host population. The more people there are that contract Covid (or one of the Variants), the more mutations there will be. one good way to fight further mutations is to "Get the **** shot."
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326


The vaccines are only 95% effective against the original strain of COVID. They are reportedly effective against the D1 variant. But I have not seen any reports whether that effectiveness is 95% or less.

In any event, we can expect that some number of the vaccinated will be included among those infected during a spike.
The larger the absolute number of vaccinated, the larger will be the absolute number of vaccinated who will be infected during a spike.

That fact is not a criticism of the vaccines. It is merely a mathematical conclusion.


It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants. It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall.
1. I said that i did not know whether the vaccine had the same effectiveness against the D1 Variant as it did against the original strain, my comments were that even assuming 95% effectiveness, we should expect that some percentage of vaccinated individuals would be infected by COVID. if you know the effectiveness of the current vaccine against the D1 Variant, please enlighten us.

If you read the WSJ article I posted about Israel and breakthrough covid from Delta strain, you would be enlightened. Nvax is 96% against original strain and 55% against South African strain. Moderna was offered a large grant to test effectiveness against South Africa strain and rejected it. They have only shown immunogenicity against SA strain in a lab, and it is significantly less than 95%, despite the biased setting. I doubt effectiveness against Delta strain is in the 90s.

2. You say, "It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants." However you ignore that the current vaccine is more or less effective against many of the Variants being experienced in the world. So obviously, some effort was made to make a more broadly effective vaccine.

I never said no effort was made to make a more broadly effective vaccine. Your logic here does not cut the mustard.

3, You also say, "It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall." Unless you know Marty McFly and have access to his time machine, it appears more than a little unfair to criticize the vaccine developers for failing to foresee the evolution of the D1 Variant and with that foresight understand how that Variant operates and how to develop an appropriate defense. These vaccines were developed very quickly but they weren't developed overnight.

Again, your logic does not cut the mustard. I am not criticizing spike protein vaccine scientists. I am criticizing the actual vaccine. I am criticizing the FDA/OWS/NIH/politics for having only three vaccines available, all spike protein based off the original variant, one of which was halted in trials for the same condition it was halted after EUA and European countries won't touch it with a ten foot pool.

Perhaps your criticism is better focused on the individuals who are resisting vaccination. It is a well known fact that the Variants arise from mutations that increase the longer the original strain of Covid spreads through the host population. The more people there are that contract Covid (or one of the Variants), the more mutations there will be. one good way to fight further mutations is to "Get the **** shot."

Fine. Let's force vaccination on everyone in the U.S. and close the border for five years. I am being a bit facetious here. In reality, if we could kill it by vaccinating everyone around the same time, it would be great. Perhaps, we should ship Pfizer and Moderna to Mexico, so their adults could get vaccinated.

However, what we really need are SAFE VACCINES that give protection against severe disease that we will likely boost annually, like a flu shot. Btw, vaccine survival causes variants as well.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Japanese study about the spread of mRNA particles past the localized area whereas the allegedly toxic PEG and spike protein get to the kidneys, ovaries, etc...
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.