View Full Version : Is it true that vaccinated people are counted as non vaccinated for 14 days?
Someone told me that people are not counted as being vaccinated until 14 days after their second dose, with the implication that a lot of the people who are being counted as non vaccinated deaths may in fact be vaccinated after all. The biggest statistic being used to support the vaccine is the alleged 90+% of covid deaths being among the non vaccinated.
I've also been told by some people who are against the vaccine that they run more cycles when performing the PCR test on patients who are counted as non vaccinated, which I guess would include people who had taken the vaccine but weren't "fully vaccinated" according to that strict definition. The implication there is that not only are some of these deaths in fact vaccinated people, but that they might not have even had covid at all, and may have died of the ordinary flu, for example.
Not saying any of this is true, but rather looking for verification if anyone has any factual information that's not just hearsay. For example if you're a nurse or doctor or know someone who is and know what the internal policy is in your/their institution in particular, I would be interested in hearing that. I'm kind of thinking these policies might be dependent on state and maybe even individual healthcare providers.
It takes 14 days to develop the antibodies at a level which it is said to be effective. Per the manufacturers as well as what lab testing shows.
I don’t see how it could vary by policy, unless the policy is to ignore the research and recommendations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone told me that people are not counted as being vaccinated until 14 days after their second dose, with the implication that a lot of the people who are being counted as non vaccinated deaths may in fact be vaccinated after all. The biggest statistic being used to support the vaccine is the alleged 90+% of covid deaths being among the non vaccinated.
Could be that they mean 'not fully protected' instead of 'not vaccinated'.
With dogs (think puppy shots here), Only a fool would think their puppy is 'protected' one day after the first round of shots. They are not as it takes time for the dogs body to build the immunity after the shots. Generally speaking, Your puppy is not considered 'safe' or 'fully protected' until a few weeks after the last round of shots. In some cases with particular breeds that are more susceptible to particular diseases often times Vets / Breeders with add one additional round of whatever particular vaccine to better insure that immunity is achieved. (Parvo is a good example here)
None of these Covid vaccines were tested anywhere near as thoroughly as the Vaccines that our dogs get...
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-21, 18:06
Who picks up whom's poop....
They even say in reports "Fully vaccinated 14 days after your second shot" in all the reports. Look at the rate of vacinations now, it isn't that high. The number of people in the month between the first shot and two past their second isn't that great. If anything, they would help the survival rates of the 'unvaxxed' since even one shot is helpful, though not as good as two shots + a paycheck.
the implication that a lot of the people who are being counted as non vaccinated deaths may in fact be vaccinated after all. The biggest statistic being used to support the vaccine is the alleged 90+% of covid deaths being among the non vaccinated.
None of the stats/number should be trusted under any circumstances. It doesn't matter. They're made up to fit the agenda of getting people to get a vaccine that DOES NOT WORK, and could have God knows what type of long term damage to the body/brain.
davidjinks
09-03-21, 18:55
Hey! You better watch out or the “getyourvaccineandsavetheworld” nazis are gonna track you down and give you a what for mister!
None of the stats/number should be trusted under any circumstances. It doesn't matter. They're made up to fit the agenda of getting people to get a vaccine that DOES NOT WORK, and could have God knows what type of long term damage to the body/brain.
None of the stats/number should be trusted under any circumstances. It doesn't matter. They're made up to fit the agenda of getting people to get a vaccine that DOES NOT WORK, and could have God knows what type of long term damage to the body/brain.
I don't think the stats are made up. But I think there's a disconnect between how the data is collected and used by healthcare providers, vs. how it's reported by the politicians and bureaucrats.
The healthcare providers don't give a rat's ass about accurately saying who's positive and who's not. What they care about is risk assessment, and to that end they're adopting policies that would far rather produce false positives than false negatives. If they put a bunch of people in isolation who don't actually have covid, that's no big deal, as long as they have the beds and staff to do it. Whereas if they put a bunch of people who do have it in the general population, that's a huge liability for them. So what they're going to do is adjust their policies to be as cautious as they can afford to be. I.e. if they have plenty of beds, they'll run as many PCR cycles as they can as policy, knowing full well it's producing lots of false positives, and not caring.
But then the media takes that data and spins it as absolute truth, when in reality it's a set of statistical probabilities that are heavily weighted towards false positives.
It takes 14 days to develop the antibodies at a level which it is said to be effective. Per the manufacturers as well as what lab testing shows.
I don’t see how it could vary by policy, unless the policy is to ignore the research and recommendations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No I'm talking about how each hospital collects and records the data, as well as how that data is compiled into the stats we see on the news. Like I don't know, maybe some hospitals have a category for vaxxed but not protected, whereas maybe others just have the unvaxxed category, and maybe when the news tells us that 90% of people with covid in hospitals are unvaxxed, you know, maybe at least some of them are vaxxed but only have one or aren't two weeks out from the second one.
So I would like to know, out of those people who are considered unvaxxed, how many of them have one or both shots. If it's like 40% or less then you could surmise that it's nothing to do with the vaccine. But if the majority of those who are considered to be unvaxxed have in fact taken one or both, then you have to consider the possibility that the vaccine is causing antibody dependent enhancement. Or worse. If it's true that they're running 45 cycles on them, you would even have to consider the possibility that they don't even have covid period, and that it's the spike proteins themselves killing them. That's not far fetched, because the mechanism by which the vaccine injures people (the spike protein) is the same mechanism by which the virus injures them, so the deaths would look very similar. And with the revelation that the vaccine's spike proteins don't stay in the arm, but are in fact systemic, we have to at least consider that possibility going forward, especially before giving it to young children.
No I'm talking about how each hospital collects and records the data, as well as how that data is compiled into the stats we see on the news. Like I don't know, maybe some hospitals have a category for vaxxed but not protected, whereas maybe others just have the unvaxxed category, and maybe when the news tells us that 90% of people with covid in hospitals are unvaxxed, you know, maybe at least some of them are vaxxed but only have one or aren't two weeks out from the second one.
So I would like to know, out of those people who are considered unvaxxed, how many of them have one or both shots. If it's like 40% or less then you could surmise that it's nothing to do with the vaccine. But if the majority of those who are considered to be unvaxxed have in fact taken one or both, then you have to consider the possibility that the vaccine is causing antibody dependent enhancement. Or worse. If it's true that they're running 45 cycles on them, you would even have to consider the possibility that they don't even have covid period, and that it's the spike proteins themselves killing them. That's not far fetched, because the mechanism by which the vaccine injures people (the spike protein) is the same mechanism by which the virus injures them, so the deaths would look very similar. And with the revelation that the vaccine's spike proteins don't stay in the arm, but are in fact systemic, we have to at least consider that possibility going forward, especially before giving it to young children.
You’re reading too much into it. There are no lists or data collections. But that’s how long it takes the antibodies to build.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-03-21, 20:34
None of the stats/number should be trusted under any circumstances. It doesn't matter. They're made up to fit the agenda of getting people to get a vaccine that DOES NOT WORK, and could have God knows what type of long term damage to the body/brain.
This is pretty much my observation.
Folks will hopefully wake up when those with 5 jabs will be blaming those with only 3 jabs for spreading new variants & not doing enough of their patriotic duty...it's coming.
You’re reading too much into it. There are no lists or data collections. But that’s how long it takes the antibodies to build.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well help me out here then, if there are no lists or data collection, how in the world are they making claims that 90% of the covid patients in hospitals are unvaccinated?
Averageman
09-03-21, 23:18
Well help me out here then, if there are no lists or data collection, how in the world are they making claims that 90% of the covid patients in hospitals are unvaccinated?
Okie, they go with what fits the narrative that week.
Folks will hopefully wake up when those with 5 jabs will be blaming those with only 3 jabs for spreading new variants & not doing enough of their patriotic duty...it's coming.
I think the narrative will have broken down by that point, which is why I suspect they're so desperate to get as many people vaccinated as possible, by whatever hook or crook they can. If I'm right in my suspicions, and antibody dependent enhancement is in play, these people who are vaccinated will need a long line of rapidly developed boosters to maintain immunity. And if the spike proteins are just straight up hurting people, they may also need a long series of gene therapies to fix the problems caused by the proteins. And if one or both of those things is true, you can well imagine the never ending profits the pharmaceutical companies would enjoy from that. I'm beginning to suspect that they've started us down an involuntarily rabbit trail towards a full blown transhumanist future, about mere survival instead of choice. Basically the old lady who swallowed the fly, but with CRISPR.
Averageman
09-03-21, 23:48
I think the narrative will have broken down by that point, which is why I suspect they're so desperate to get as many people vaccinated as possible, by whatever hook or crook they can. If I'm right in my suspicions, and antibody dependent enhancement is in play, these people who are vaccinated will need a long line of rapidly developed boosters to maintain immunity. And if the spike proteins are just straight up hurting people, they may also need a long series of gene therapies to fix the problems caused by the proteins. And if one or both of those things is true, you can well imagine the never ending profits the pharmaceutical companies would enjoy from that. I'm beginning to suspect that they've started us down an involuntarily rabbit trail towards a full blown transhumanist future, about mere survival instead of choice. Basically the old lady who swallowed the fly, but with CRISPR.
Never ending profits? I'm more concerned with never ending control.
Once you've had the jab, what happens when this goes sideways in two years?
No one wants to discuss natural immunity due to having the antibodies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v5VrpgXPm4
If you had Chicken Pox, would you go get a vaccination? Why? Would you wear a mask? Would you isolate?
Oh and speaking of all that, it would put those of use who haven't been vaxxed in a really strange position. If Luc Montonier is to be believed, and he's looking to be nearly prophetic thus far, the people who don't take the vax will enjoy something tantamount to immunity, while those who took the vaccine will be increasingly vulnerable to each new variant. The unvaccinated will be able to move freely with zero ****s given, while the vaccinated will have to continue to take every precaution. This hysteria that the pro vaxxers are in regarding the unvaccinated was just that, until now. But if antibody dependent enhancement is actually already in play, then anyone who's not taking precautions is a very real threat to them now.
And that would conjure up all sorts of moral dilemmas about the needs of the many vs. the rights of the few. I would like to think it's going to be 50/50, and until a few days ago I did think that, but now it's pretty clear that the vast majority of people are going to take it. Inside of our ultra conservative echo chambers it feels like we're at least making a pretty good stand, but out there on the streets people just really don't know the facts to have a concrete stance on it. So when push comes to shove, they're going to do it. And on the one end you have the carrot. Free stuff, money, even free pot. Getting a passport is starting to look like a shopping spree, with the list of benefits growing daily. And then on the other hand, you have the stick. The loss of jobs, the levying of fines, the loss of privileges like going to the bars and restaurants, not being to participate in group activities like fitness classes, not being able to travel.
So in the end, I think we the unvaxxed will represent a small minority, and even after the narrative breaks down I doubt we'll get our freedoms back, because the status quo will be the same. We will want to live freely and do as we please, whereas the vaccinated, being so susceptible to the variants, won't want to be around us, because they won't know where we've been and what we might be carrying. Therefore the world will have to pander to them, since they will be the vast majority.
It's such a bizarre proposition though isn't it? The healthy becoming the lepers. Just hope I'm wrong, because that shit wouldn't be fun for any of us.
Never ending profits? I'm more concerned with never ending control.
Once you've had the jab, what happens when this goes sideways in two years?
No one wants to discuss natural immunity due to having the antibodies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v5VrpgXPm4
If you had Chicken Pox, would you go get a vaccination? Why? Would you wear a mask? Would you isolate?
Oh for sure. If a never-ending series of variant specific boosters becomes necessary to ward off antibody dependent enhancement, it's going to go instantly from being mandated to privileged. Either one will have to have the money to afford paying for them out of pocket, or they will have to rely on employer/state insurance. And the announcement of each new variant will result in people sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for the associated booster to come out, and those with the deepest pockets will get first dibs. With time being of such essence, demand will far exceed supply. And for the average person who's not well connected or wealthy, not having a good employer provided healthcare plan will mean being at the very back of that line. And even those at the back of the line will be relying on state healthcare. So you know toeing the line is going to be of the utmost importance. People will live in fear of losing their jobs because it would mean losing their plan, so naturally they will be good little boys and girls and not post anything naughty on social media.
Well help me out here then, if there are no lists or data collection, how in the world are they making claims that 90% of the covid patients in hospitals are unvaccinated?
I’ll expand:
When a patient is vaccinated, if it’s within a system it just simply has dates, lot number, and manufacturers in their electronic record.
When I was a patient, nobody asked me. And I wasn’t in their system. So they would count me as unvaccinated if they rely solely on their system, but nobody asked me.
In fact, when I was tested, nobody asked me. What did happen, employee health called me and asked me a laundry list of questions including whether or not I was vaccinated and that is forwarded to the county health department who sends it to the CDC.
At work, I don’t ask anybody. It’s either in the record or it’s not. I assume when somebody pops positive the reporter that sends info to the county health department would be asking…but there is a lot of things that can happen between positive test and admission, or ICU stay.
I haven’t seen the claim that 90% of patients in hospitals are unvaccinated. I had seen the number was around 60%, but 90% of ICU admission were unvaccinated. There is no way that they actually know this as a fluid number because nobody is keeping taking records and crunching those fluid numbers.
I think they maybe took a small sample survey and that’s what it was in one study in one area at one moment of time, so they keep repeating it as though it’s true and constant.
Like I’ve said multiple times on other threads, I’ve seen more positive cases in vaccinated than unvaccinated people. The population I specifically work with is very compliant with vaccines and around 70% were vaccinated. In fact, I can think of only one admission that wasn’t vaccinated on the shifts I have worked since our surge in July.
But again to answer your question, nobody is linking those number in real time. Nobody is asking those questions in many places. The only mandated reporting is provider to county health department to CDC at the time of positive test. What happens beyond that can only be retrospective study and that isn’t being used for real-time meta analysis.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Never ending profits? I'm more concerned with never ending control.
Once you've had the jab, what happens when this goes sideways in two years?
No one wants to discuss natural immunity due to having the antibodies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v5VrpgXPm4
If you had Chicken Pox, would you go get a vaccination? Why? Would you wear a mask? Would you isolate?
I brought that point the other day. It doesn’t do so much good to vaccinate for chicken pox AFTER you get it. It’s in your system forever.
With COVID you should have natural antibodies once you get it and they will last for a specific amount of time. I’ve read 12 months and I’ve read 18 months. I got COVID almost 18 months apart and obviously they were different variants. When I’m seeing freshly vaccinated people get it along side, it’s hard to convince me to vaccinate, especially after seeing what my supervisor has gone through with renal failure and the possible need for chemotherapy.
No thanks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's plenty of data looking at 1 shot vs 2 shots compared to no vax on end points such as hospitalizations and deaths. That's he know the effectiveness of 1 shot vs both of 2 shot protocols. I have known people who got covid between their first and second shot and you're not consired fully vaccinated until 14 days after second shot. So there must be a % who get vaccinated yet get covid depending on time frames, or in that 5% or so for who the vaccines are not effective.
Personally when someone tells me something, I ask for a source.
I’ll expand:
When a patient is vaccinated, if it’s within a system it just simply has dates, lot number, and manufacturers in their electronic record.
When I was a patient, nobody asked me. And I wasn’t in their system. So they would count me as unvaccinated if they rely solely on their system, but nobody asked me.
In fact, when I was tested, nobody asked me. What did happen, employee health called me and asked me a laundry list of questions including whether or not I was vaccinated and that is forwarded to the county health department who sends it to the CDC.
At work, I don’t ask anybody. It’s either in the record or it’s not. I assume when somebody pops positive the reporter that sends info to the county health department would be asking…but there is a lot of things that can happen between positive test and admission, or ICU stay.
I haven’t seen the claim that 90% of patients in hospitals are unvaccinated. I had seen the number was around 60%, but 90% of ICU admission were unvaccinated. There is no way that they actually know this as a fluid number because nobody is keeping taking records and crunching those fluid numbers.
I think they maybe took a small sample survey and that’s what it was in one study in one area at one moment of time, so they keep repeating it as though it’s true and constant.
Like I’ve said multiple times on other threads, I’ve seen more positive cases in vaccinated than unvaccinated people. The population I specifically work with is very compliant with vaccines and around 70% were vaccinated. In fact, I can think of only one admission that wasn’t vaccinated on the shifts I have worked since our surge in July.
But again to answer your question, nobody is linking those number in real time. Nobody is asking those questions in many places. The only mandated reporting is provider to county health department to CDC at the time of positive test. What happens beyond that can only be retrospective study and that isn’t being used for real-time meta analysis.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good info! Thanks! So do you think antibody dependent enhancement is already in play? Or are the vaccines merely not providing the level protection claimed by the media?
There's plenty of data looking at 1 shot vs 2 shots compared to no vax on end points such as hospitalizations and deaths. That's he know the effectiveness of 1 shot vs both of 2 shot protocols. I have known people who got covid between their first and second shot and you're not consired fully vaccinated until 14 days after second shot. So there must be a % who get vaccinated yet get covid depending on time frames, or in that 5% or so for who the vaccines are not effective.
Personally when someone tells me something, I ask for a source.
Well therein lies the problem. Lots of circular reasoning from both sides. About the only thing we have to rely on is anecdotal information.
Well therein lies the problem. Lots of circular reasoning from both sides. About the only thing we have to rely on is anecdotal information.
I do the science thing for a living and the last thing I'm relying on, and ever will, is anecdotal information. It is difficult to very difficult to find the signal among the noise to be sure, but can be done. Dependent on the source, anecdotal information has it's place and it's part of my signal source as I talk to med pros and such in the trenches as often as i can, but it's still a data point among many.
Good info! Thanks! So do you think antibody dependent enhancement is already in play? Or are the vaccines merely not providing the level protection claimed by the media?
The media is just reporting what they are told to.
When I read the original moderna white paper, all 144 pages of it, the day it was released, I noticed something.
Their control group was contracting COVID at almost twice the rate of the general population during the same time period. The paper didn’t acknowledge that in discussion, or even provide a comparison to real world numbers outside the phase three clinical trials. They simply compared control group to vaccinated group to develop their efficacy.
I suspect that their ignoring it was intentional. A rational mind could come to very logical conclusions:
The control group engaged in more risky behaviors believing they were vaccinated and protected from COVID.
Or
The testing sensitivity was tweaked to a level which wasn’t being done clinically to give more positives.
Or
The study called for a testing protocol that was catching more cases that would have been missed organically.
Or
There was some intentional data manipulation to provide the results they wanted.
The fact that it WASN’T ACKNOWLEDGED or discussed means the researchers were incompetent or they wanted to hide something.
So we have to question, do we trust big Pharma when they have a new product to sell worth BILLIONS.
I brought up to colleagues and was dismissed. They all bought the 95% narrative and whatever % they said if prevented symptomatic infection. I was their tinfoil guy I guess…but I learned a thing or two about data manipulation with my Econ and business degrees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The media is just reporting what they are told to.
When I read the original moderna white paper, all 144 pages of it, the day it was released, I noticed something.
Their control group was contracting COVID at almost twice the rate of the general population during the same time period. The paper didn’t acknowledge that in discussion, or even provide a comparison to real world numbers outside the phase three clinical trials. They simply compared control group to vaccinated group to develop their efficacy.
I suspect that their ignoring it was intentional. A rational mind could come to very logical conclusions:
The control group engaged in more risky behaviors believing they were vaccinated and protected from COVID.
Or
The testing sensitivity was tweaked to a level which wasn’t being done clinically to give more positives.
Or
The study called for a testing protocol that was catching more cases that would have been missed organically.
Or
There was some intentional data manipulation to provide the results they wanted.
The fact that it WASN’T ACKNOWLEDGED or discussed means the researchers were incompetent or they wanted to hide something.
So we have to question, do we trust big Pharma when they have a new product to sell worth BILLIONS.
I brought up to colleagues and was dismissed. They all bought the 95% narrative and whatever % they said if prevented symptomatic infection. I was their tinfoil guy I guess…but I learned a thing or two about data manipulation with my Econ and business degrees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The control group received saline I guess?
I do the science thing for a living and the last thing I'm relying on, and ever will, is anecdotal information. It is difficult to very difficult to find the signal among the noise to be sure, but can be done. Dependent on the source, anecdotal information has it's place and it's part of my signal source as I talk to med pros and such in the trenches as often as i can, but it's still a data point among many.
I don't know man, I don't think there is any signal to be found here, and I think that's intentional. I guess as long as they keep the waters muddy enough they can get away with saying things that are either untrue or unfounded, to support their narrative of necessitated control and mandated vaccination.
The media is just reporting what they are told to.
When I read the original moderna white paper, all 144 pages of it, the day it was released, I noticed something.
Their control group was contracting COVID at almost twice the rate of the general population during the same time period. The paper didn’t acknowledge that in discussion, or even provide a comparison to real world numbers outside the phase three clinical trials. They simply compared control group to vaccinated group to develop their efficacy.
I suspect that their ignoring it was intentional. A rational mind could come to very logical conclusions:
The control group engaged in more risky behaviors believing they were vaccinated and protected from COVID.
Or
The testing sensitivity was tweaked to a level which wasn’t being done clinically to give more positives.
Or
The study called for a testing protocol that was catching more cases that would have been missed organically.
Or
There was some intentional data manipulation to provide the results they wanted.
The fact that it WASN’T ACKNOWLEDGED or discussed means the researchers were incompetent or they wanted to hide something.
So we have to question, do we trust big Pharma when they have a new product to sell worth BILLIONS.
I brought up to colleagues and was dismissed. They all bought the 95% narrative and whatever % they said if prevented symptomatic infection. I was their tinfoil guy I guess…but I learned a thing or two about data manipulation with my Econ and business degrees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And here we have the crux of the matter. And this is exactly what I've been trying to get Will to see in the other thread. Focusing exclusively on numbers provided by people with a vested interest in the manipulation of those numbers can make you blind to the truth. What was it again that Einstein said about statistics? :rolleyes:
The control group received saline I guess?
Yes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And here we have the crux of the matter. And this is exactly what I've been trying to get Will to see in the other thread. Focusing exclusively on numbers provided by people with a vested interest in the manipulation of those numbers can make you blind to the truth.
And I have never done any such thing, and you et al will focus exclusively on any bit of info, no matter how poor, if it supports your bias. A random vid by someone who makes up claims easy to disprove is what you hang on for example. You et al also assume X researchers motivated to hide something, ignore the fact those making random claims on vids and such may have motives to hide something.
For example, the noble front line docs people love to quote, are also making a fortune off people too.
There's $ being made from vaccines and such, lots of $ being made by people claiming they have the cure, and people should ignore what the evil scientists have to say.
You just don't know how well you are being played.
I on the other hand read/listen/look at all sides all the time and attempt to find the balanced pragmatic approaches and recs.
What was it again that Einstein said about statistics? :rolleyes:
What was that?
Yes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well I don't believe for one second that they were out there yoloing. They took part in the trials, so they were obviously very concerned about the virus, and that type of person isn't going to start taking risks just because there's a chance they may have gotten the vaccine, especially considering at that point nobody even knew if it worked and if so how well.
The fact that the study doesn't disclose what test was used and what the procedures were says it all.
Not only that, but I remember seeing as study a while back that showed quarantines weren't slowing the spread. People really don't understand the level of extreme it takes to seriously reduce one's exposure. We're talking like isolating in your house quarantining your mail for two weeks. The way people were "quarantining" was simply absurd. Basically they were play acting.
And I have never done any such thing, and you et al will focus exclusively on any bit of info, no matter how poor, if it supports your bias. A random vid by someone who makes up claims easy to disprove is what you hang on for example. You et al also assume X researchers motivated to hide something, ignore the fact those making random claims on vids and such may have motives to hide something.
For example, the noble front line docs people love to quote, are also making a fortune off people too.
There's $ being made from vaccines and such, lots of $ being made by people claiming they have the cure, and people should ignore what the evil scientists have to say.
You just don't know how well you are being played.
I on the other hand read/listen/look at all sides all the time and attempt to find the balanced pragmatic approaches and recs.
What was that?"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
A quote attributed to Mark Twain I have used countless times.
Well I don't believe for one second that they were out there yoloing. They took part in the trials, so they were obviously very concerned about the virus, and that type of person isn't going to start taking risks just because there's a chance they may have gotten the vaccine, especially considering at that point nobody even knew if it worked and if so how well.
The fact that the study doesn't disclose what test was used and what the procedures were says it all.
Not only that, but I remember seeing as study a while back that showed quarantines weren't slowing the spread. People really don't understand the level of extreme it takes to seriously reduce one's exposure. We're talking like isolating in your house quarantining your mail for two weeks. The way people were "quarantining" was simply absurd. Basically they were play acting.
The paper did show what their testing procedures were as far as what test, how often, etc. I don’t remember the specifics but there ARE things that can be done to influence how sensitive a test is.
For example, the PCR test can be used to detect genetic viral material. Historically, we didn’t run PCRs on people that weren’t symptomatic for other viruses. Why? Why would you randomly test somebody for something they don’t show symptoms of. But we tested the symptomatic to narrow down exactly what was affecting them.
Since COVID we test people “just because” despite there being no indication they need tested. But we count the asymptomatic positives as infected, though there is no support for that hypothesis; no symptoms and no labs that suggest the individual has contracted a virus. The mere presence of DNA in the respiratory tract is enough to make them a statistic…and uproot their life for a couple of weeks. The “asymptomatic spreaders” theory has been blown out of proportion and some schotty scientific work has been conducted to support that theory.
So what is the answer? I don’t know, but the efficacy of the vaccine wasn’t nearly what they told it was and there were questionable scientific practices being done with their phase 3 clinical trial analysis.
I don’t TRUST them. And you shouldn’t either.
The truth is somewhere between the tinfoil hat narrative and the government narrative. Where? I don’t know but I can only report on what I see as metaphorical boots on the ground.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A quote attributed to Mark Twain I have used countless times.Ah, yes. I stand corrected.
The paper did show what their testing procedures were as far as what test, how often, etc. I don’t remember the specifics but there ARE things that can be done to influence how sensitive a test is.
For example, the PCR test can be used to detect genetic viral material. Historically, we didn’t run PCRs on people that weren’t symptomatic for other viruses. Why? Why would you randomly test somebody for something they don’t show symptoms of. But we tested the symptomatic to narrow down exactly what was affecting them.
Since COVID we test people “just because” despite there being no indication they need tested. But we count the asymptomatic positives as infected, though there is no support for that hypothesis; no symptoms and no labs that suggest the individual has contracted a virus. The mere presence of DNA in the respiratory tract is enough to make them a statistic…and uproot their life for a couple of weeks. The “asymptomatic spreaders” theory has been blown out of proportion and some schotty scientific work has been conducted to support that theory.
So what is the answer? I don’t know, but the efficacy of the vaccine wasn’t nearly what they told it was and there were questionable scientific practices being done with their phase 3 clinical trial analysis.
I don’t TRUST them. And you shouldn’t either.
The truth is somewhere between the tinfoil hat narrative and the government narrative.
Right on.
The paper did show what their testing procedures were as far as what test, how often, etc. I don’t remember the specifics but there ARE things that can be done to influence how sensitive a test is.
For example, the PCR test can be used to detect genetic viral material. Historically, we didn’t run PCRs on people that weren’t symptomatic for other viruses. Why? Why would you randomly test somebody for something they don’t show symptoms of. But we tested the symptomatic to narrow down exactly what was affecting them.
Since COVID we test people “just because” despite there being no indication they need tested. But we count the asymptomatic positives as infected, though there is no support for that hypothesis; no symptoms and no labs that suggest the individual has contracted a virus. The mere presence of DNA in the respiratory tract is enough to make them a statistic…and uproot their life for a couple of weeks. The “asymptomatic spreaders” theory has been blown out of proportion and some schotty scientific work has been conducted to support that theory.
So what is the answer? I don’t know, but the efficacy of the vaccine wasn’t nearly what they told it was and there were questionable scientific practices being done with their phase 3 clinical trial analysis.
I don’t TRUST them. And you shouldn’t either.
The truth is somewhere between the tinfoil hat narrative and the government narrative. Where? I don’t know but I can only report on what I see as metaphorical boots on the ground.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've heard in many hospitals the flipside of that is true, too, where someone who's vaccinated who tests positive, but is asymptomatic, is assumed to be a false positive. Because you know, the vaccines undoubtedly work and that science is settled so there's no reason to even talk about it.:rolleyes:
So basically they disclosed that they were using the PCR test, but didn't disclose how many cycles they were running for each group?
I've heard in many hospitals the flipside of that is true, too, where someone who's vaccinated who tests positive, but is asymptomatic, is assumed to be a false positive. Because you know, the vaccines undoubtedly work and that science is settled so there's no reason to even talk about it.:rolleyes:
So basically they disclosed that they were using the PCR test, but didn't disclose how many cycles they were running for each group?
It’s been 9 months since I read it, I don’t remember their testing methods, but was using the PCR as an example of how it’s being done in practice in the real world. My point was that while they did share their method, there are dirty little tricks they could do such as changing test sensitivity to a more sensitive level than is being used in clinical practice. Theoretically, it shouldn’t matter if you trust they used the identical test with the same sensitivity on both groups. But ignoring their control group contraction rate is a REAL reason not to trust their paper.
We don’t really know what they are doing to come up with their numbers. At the end of the day, it was fishy and their numbers were wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-21, 12:01
The media is just reporting what they are told to.
When I read the original moderna white paper, all 144 pages of it, the day it was released, I noticed something.
Their control group was contracting COVID at almost twice the rate of the general population during the same time period. The paper didn’t acknowledge that in discussion, or even provide a comparison to real world numbers outside the phase three clinical trials. They simply compared control group to vaccinated group to develop their efficacy.
I suspect that their ignoring it was intentional. A rational mind could come to very logical conclusions:
The control group engaged in more risky behaviors believing they were vaccinated and protected from COVID.
Or
The testing sensitivity was tweaked to a level which wasn’t being done clinically to give more positives.
Or
The study called for a testing protocol that was catching more cases that would have been missed organically.
Or
There was some intentional data manipulation to provide the results they wanted.
The fact that it WASN’T ACKNOWLEDGED or discussed means the researchers were incompetent or they wanted to hide something.
So we have to question, do we trust big Pharma when they have a new product to sell worth BILLIONS.
I brought up to colleagues and was dismissed. They all bought the 95% narrative and whatever % they said if prevented symptomatic infection. I was their tinfoil guy I guess…but I learned a thing or two about data manipulation with my Econ and business degrees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course.
The control group is tested constantly. The general pop isn’t. If there are a lot of asymptotic cases in the general pop, they don’t get tested, they don’t pop pos, and the rate looks lower in the general pop. Not quite a Hawthorne effect, but when you look for stuff, you find stuff. The general pop wasn’t tested with the same protocol as the control. Different results.
Surprised that they wouldn’t mention it, it it’s kind of basic.
Of course.
The control group is tested constantly. The general pop isn’t. If there are a lot of asymptotic cases in the general pop, they don’t get tested, they don’t pop pos, and the rate looks lower in the general pop. Not quite a Hawthorne effect, but when you look for stuff, you find stuff. The general pop wasn’t tested with the same protocol as the control. Different results.
Surprised that they wouldn’t mention it, it it’s kind of basic.
That’s the point, they don’t acknowledge it. And you also must remember, large swaths of the general population was getting tested regularly. Certain healthcare workers, food workers, communal living residents, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s the point, they don’t acknowledge it. And you also must remember, large swaths of the general population was getting tested regularly. Certain healthcare workers, food workers, communal living residents, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, how was that measured? Just there were x number of positives out of the total population, or out of those tested? Because his explanation makes sense in the first scenario, not so much in the second. And I'm kind of remembering that the reported numbers back then were x number of positives out of the number of tests administered, not per capita total.
Also, how was that measured? Just there were x number of positives out of the total population, or out of those tested? Because his explanation makes sense in the first scenario, not so much in the second. And I'm kind of remembering that the reported numbers back then were x number of positives out of the number of tests administered, not per capita total.
IIRC, or was that per capita numbers.
You wouldn’t be able to do the “per test” obviously with experimental testing numbers. Additionally, testing the same person over and over is going to be skewed if and when that one person pops positive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only individuals who have two shots and two weeks since the second are considered "vaccinated". Everyone else is put into the unvaccinated group. There isn't anything wrong with this method of classification. HOWEVER you may remember the CDC revised their guidance in May to no longer require testing of "vaccinated" individuals. THIS is likely the source of the CDC and hospital statistics. the hospitals are not testing "vaccinated" patients for COVID and classifying admission outside COVID. Read about golfer Patrick Reed. He was treated for bilateral pneumonia and was never tested for COVID.
Only individuals who have two shots and two weeks since the second are considered "vaccinated". Everyone else is put into the unvaccinated group. There isn't anything wrong with this method of classification. HOWEVER you may remember the CDC revised their guidance in May to no longer require testing of "vaccinated" individuals. THIS is likely the source of the CDC and hospital statistics. the hospitals are not testing "vaccinated" patients for COVID and classifying admission outside COVID. Read about golfer Patrick Reed. He was treated for bilateral pneumonia and was never tested for COVID.
This isn’t true in the clinical environment. And I believe the CDC doesn’t recommend testing asymptomatic vaccinated people.
I do about 20 COVID tests on weekdays and even more on weekends I work. More than half those people are vaccinated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-21, 15:51
That’s the point, they don’t acknowledge it. And you also must remember, large swaths of the general population was getting tested regularly. Certain healthcare workers, food workers, communal living residents, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As long as they pulled control and test subjects from there overall of subjects, it doesn’t matter. What you’re really saying is that the control group was not representative total test subjects. What you were implying is that the people controlling the experiment intentionally put people more likely to get infected into the control group, and people less likely to get infected in the vaccination group, and this led to the vaccine looking more effective than it actually was.
But you can’t say The control group wasn’t representative of the general population when they were tested by different protocols. The people that got multiple tested in your example are kind of not meaningful. We’ve never had a systematic testing other general population. We never will. We can’t people to come in for the vaccine, you’re not gonna get people to come in to get tested.
I guess what I’m saying is, if The difference in the infection rates between the general population and the test control subject group are what you are basing a lot of your issue with the vaccine trial, you do not have a very strong argument. For your hypothesis to be true, the trial would have had to use incredibly sophisticated data mining to segregate people by their likelihood to get the infection ahead of time, and then assign those people to control an the experimental group. Without anyone noticing. Occam‘s razor that.
I think it’s good to question the data. And especially how it’s measured. And if you look at any kind of medical study there are always issues with the populations. But I’d rather focus on other things, especially the why and how things were measured. Different testing protocols at different locations. This all comes down to why I want more statistics taught in high schools rather relatively less useful geometry and calculus.
This isn’t true in the clinical environment. And I believe the CDC doesn’t recommend testing asymptomatic vaccinated people. I do about 20 COVID tests on weekdays and even more on weekends I work. More than half those people are vaccinated.At what point did you begin testing vaccinated patients? The last month or so? The CDC updated their guidance at the end of July. All the statistics I was referencing are from before then. I understand I don't have much to offer and am just throwing darts, but their reported numbers were so far off other sources, like the UK and Israel, to be anywhere close to accurate.
At what point did you begin testing vaccinated patients? The last month or so? The CDC updated their guidance at the end of July. All the statistics I was referencing are from before then. I understand I don't have much to offer and am just throwing darts, but their reported numbers were so far off other sources, like the UK and Israel, to be anywhere close to accurate.
We never stopped testing them…
I saw my first “fully vaccinated” patient down with COVID back in Feb or March.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As long as they pulled control and test subjects from there overall of subjects, it doesn’t matter. What you’re really saying is that the control group was not representative total test subjects. What you were implying is that the people controlling the experiment intentionally put people more likely to get infected into the control group, and people less likely to get infected in the vaccination group, and this led to the vaccine looking more effective than it actually was.
But you can’t say The control group wasn’t representative of the general population when they were tested by different protocols. The people that got multiple tested in your example are kind of not meaningful. We’ve never had a systematic testing other general population. We never will. We can’t people to come in for the vaccine, you’re not gonna get people to come in to get tested.
I guess what I’m saying is, if The difference in the infection rates between the general population and the test control subject group are what you are basing a lot of your issue with the vaccine trial, you do not have a very strong argument. For your hypothesis to be true, the trial would have had to use incredibly sophisticated data mining to segregate people by their likelihood to get the infection ahead of time, and then assign those people to control an the experimental group. Without anyone noticing. Occam‘s razor that.
I think it’s good to question the data. And especially how it’s measured. And if you look at any kind of medical study there are always issues with the populations. But I’d rather focus on other things, especially the why and how things were measured. Different testing protocols at different locations. This all comes down to why I want more statistics taught in high schools rather relatively less useful geometry and calculus.
The fact that they didn’t mention it at all in their paper shows intentionally ignoring it. Any other time, that would be discussed and possible explanations offered. But none of that happened.
And the fact that they determine efficacy based on those numbers that were far different than the organic population says something. Especially since the actual real-world efficacy of the vaccine is turning out to be less than half what they said it was. Does that seem odd to you?
Personally, I think they were selling hopium trying to collect all the cash they could. Either way, the paper was dishonest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-21, 17:19
The fact that they didn’t mention it at all in their paper shows intentionally ignoring it. Any other time, that would be discussed and possible explanations offered. But none of that happened.
And the fact that they determine efficacy based on those numbers that were far different than the organic population says something. Especially since the actual real-world efficacy of the vaccine is turning out to be less than half what they said it was. Does that seem odd to you?
Personally, I think they were selling hopium trying to collect all the cash they could. Either way, the paper was dishonest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your horse, your windmill. Have at it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-21, 17:26
And here we have the crux of the matter. And this is exactly what I've been trying to get Will to see in the other thread. Focusing exclusively on numbers provided by people with a vested interest in the manipulation of those numbers can make you blind to the truth. What was it again that Einstein said about statistics? :rolleyes:
You might be thinking of the quote- “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.” That is my argument against a booster based on the same thing that we got in the beginning of the year. Now the booster affect is a real thing, but if the current vaccine isn’t working against Delta as well as it did other variants, wouldn’t you want to update the vaccine for at least Delta?
Only individuals who have two shots and two weeks since the second are considered "vaccinated". Everyone else is put into the unvaccinated group. There isn't anything wrong with this method of classification. HOWEVER you may remember the CDC revised their guidance in May to no longer require testing of "vaccinated" individuals. THIS is likely the source of the CDC and hospital statistics. the hospitals are not testing "vaccinated" patients for COVID and classifying admission outside COVID. Read about golfer Patrick Reed. He was treated for bilateral pneumonia and was never tested for COVID.
I can agree with that, except the anecdotal information out there seems to suggest that vaccine injury rates are extremely high. I get it, VAERS is self reported, but they've used that data for years as the gold standard to tout vaccine safety for everything else. And now all of the sudden it's meaningless and we can't even talk about it. And I just out of reflex assume they're trying to hide something anytime they start speaking out both sides of their mouth.
But yea, it's undeniable that there at least exists the possibility that a lot of people allegedly dying of covid are in fact dying of complications of the vaccine itself, and that they're being reported as unvaccinated covid deaths in the media. Since the spike protein is the dangerous element of both the vaccine and the virus, the way people die might be similar enough for one to be mistake for the other.
And then you get into the whole Remdesivir thing, where once these people are diagnosed with covid they get funneled into this treatment protocol that's going to make all the deaths look extremely similar. So for example someone shows up to the ER with a nondescript vaccine related injury, like trouble breathing, but they aren't considered "fully vaccinated" for whatever reason. So they test them and they pop positive after 45 cycles, so maybe they have it maybe they don't, but the hospital will treat them like they do. So this person ends up on Remdesivir, which causes fluid to build up, making their respiratory issues that much worse, next thing you know they're dying on a ventilator of covid, when maybe they never had covid, or maybe they did but it wasn't the thing that killed them.
That just seems incredibly irresponsible to me, to create this system where vaccine injuries could go unnoticed like that. First of all this is an experimental vaccine that's not even out of phase 1 trials yet. That in and of itself screams for extreme caution and intentionally and vigilantly looking for vaccine injuries in people showing up to ERs. Even if not one adverse reaction had been reported to VAERS, just the unknown element in and of itself would warrant that level of caution. But since VAERS blew up practically from day one and you have all these anecdotal reports from people going on the record saying they were injured by the vaccine, I just feel like any halfway sane society's natural reaction would be to take a step back from all this and reevaluate the situation. At a bare minimum admit there's a lot of unknown here and tell people it's up to them to decide what's right for them and their children, not the government, or their school or employer. Whether the vaccine is safe and effective, or not, the only fact I can glean from all this is that nobody knows, anyone on either side who claims to know is batshit crazy.
Your horse, your windmill. Have at it.
Well I mean if you’re cool with the way their research went down and ignoring it as discussion, more power to you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You might be thinking of the quote- “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.” That is my argument against a booster based on the same thing that we got in the beginning of the year. Now the booster affect is a real thing, but if the current vaccine isn’t working against Delta as well as it did other variants, wouldn’t you want to update the vaccine for at least Delta?
Oh we're already there. I can't even remember how many public health officials around the world have gone on television and proclaimed that multiple boosters per year will be needed indefinitely. Some even go as far as to say that covid is here with us permanently and this is just something we need to get used to doing for the rest of our lives. And of course the virologists have been saying for months that the boosters will need to be tweaked to accommodate new variants. I think hardly anyone even begins to fully appreciate that Pandora's box has already been opened. If antibody dependent enhancement is already in play, there might not be any going back once you've had the vaccine. I've heard a lot of people who got the vaccine months ago now saying they won't get the booster or any subsequent variant-specific boosters, and I don't think they even begin to suspect they might not have a choice. Like they're just assuming they can now refuse the boosters and go back to being at the same risk level for covid that they were before they took the vaccine, which seems to me to be a rather optimistic assumption at this point.
Man, if only we had some pre covid example of a virus that mutates and requires an updated vaccine every year....
Why is antibody dependent enhancement only a concern with covid if the antibodies came from vaccination, when we know it exists from a different virus that evades natural antibody immunity that way?
Man, if only we had some pre covid example of a virus that mutates and requires an updated vaccine every year....
Why is antibody dependent enhancement only a concern with covid if the antibodies came from vaccination, when we know it exists from a different virus that evades natural antibody immunity that way?
Same reason there's no vaccine for the common cold, according to the virologists who are against all this.
I can agree with that, except the anecdotal information out there seems to suggest that vaccine injury rates are extremely high. ... But yea, it's undeniable that there at least exists the possibility that a lot of people allegedly dying of covid are in fact dying of complications of the vaccine itself, and that they're being reported as unvaccinated covid deaths in the media. Since the spike protein is the dangerous element of both the vaccine and the virus, the way people die might be similar enough for one to be mistake for the other.It may help to clarify that my statement was only in regards to deaths/hospitalizations due to the virus itself. The reporting from July was "less than ten percent of hospitalizations and less than one percent of deaths" were from "vaccinated" individuals. (I do not believe these figures to be accurate--breakthrough infections are underreported--have simply encountered too many). Obviously the shots have a significant effect, otherwise they could probably only report unvaccinated individuals as being 60-70% of hospitalizations (in the case the shots were completely worthless). Whether that benefit means anything depends on individual risk factors (as you are no doubt aware) as the shots present their own risks as you mentioned.
...I just feel like any halfway sane society's natural reaction would be to take a step back from all this and reevaluate the situation. At a bare minimum admit there's a lot of unknown here and tell people it's up to them to decide what's right for them and their children, not the government, or their school or employer. Whether the vaccine is safe and effective, or not, the only fact I can glean from all this is that nobody knows, anyone on either side who claims to know is batshit crazy.Yes lots of unknowns, to say the least. But we do know the criteria of a proper (now so called perfect) vaccine: (1) lifelong immunity (2) blocks infections (3) blocks transmission. And we know the 2005 PREP act was invoked to shield the manufacturers from any liability for the shots. And we know Pfizer states in their contract "the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."
It may help to clarify that my statement was only in regards to deaths/hospitalizations due to the virus itself. The reporting from July was "less than ten percent of hospitalizations and less than one percent of deaths" were from "vaccinated" individuals. (I do not believe these figures to be accurate--breakthrough infections are underreported--have simply encountered too many). Obviously the shots have a significant effect, otherwise they could probably only report unvaccinated individuals as being 60-70% of hospitalizations (in the case the shots were completely worthless). Whether that benefit means anything depends on individual risk factors (as you are no doubt aware) as the shots present their own risks as you mentioned.
Yes lots of unknowns, to say the least. But we do know the criteria of a proper (now so called perfect) vaccine: (1) lifelong immunity (2) blocks infections (3) blocks transmission. And we know the 2005 PREP act was invoked to shield the manufacturers from any liability for the shots. And we know Pfizer states in their contract "the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."
How do you explain Israel though? If anything it seems like the data is suggesting the vaccine makes people more susceptible to the delta variant, as Luc Montonier and others predicted.
The_War_Wagon
09-05-21, 06:14
Is it true, that I STILL... DON'T give a tenth of a https://i.ibb.co/G03XF40/poop3.png?
Yes.
Yes it is.
~Snip~
And I believe the CDC doesn’t recommend testing asymptomatic vaccinated people.
~Snip~
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Help me understand this statement, please.
People are tested before flying overseas, and due to local or employer requirements to verify they do not have Covid regardless of vaccination status, and those people generally do not have any symptoms.
Andy
Well I don't believe for one second that they were out there yoloing. They took part in the trials, so they were obviously very concerned about the virus, and that type of person isn't going to start taking risks just because there's a chance they may have gotten the vaccine, especially considering at that point nobody even knew if it worked and if so how well.
The fact that the study doesn't disclose what test was used and what the procedures were says it all.
Not only that, but I remember seeing as study a while back that showed quarantines weren't slowing the spread. People really don't understand the level of extreme it takes to seriously reduce one's exposure. We're talking like isolating in your house quarantining your mail for two weeks. The way people were "quarantining" was simply absurd. Basically they were play acting.
Yep. For quarantine to actually work everyone in the household stays in the house. No stores, neighbors, friends. No ordering delivery
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Yep. For quarantine to actually work everyone in the household stays in the house. No stores, neighbors, friends. No ordering delivery
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Exactly. It's like these people weren't even here back when Ebola was in the news, or they just have really short memories. All the truly extraordinary measures those doctors and nurses were taking over there quarantine wise, and they STILL got sick. That quarantine last year was the biggest larp I've ever seen.
Same reason there's no vaccine for the common cold, according to the virologists who are against all this.The difference being the common cold does not kill X percent of people, and make Y percent very sick, with Z percent having yet to be determined long covid impacts.
Help me understand this statement, please.
People are tested before flying overseas, and due to local or employer requirements to verify they do not have Covid regardless of vaccination status, and those people generally do not have any symptoms.
Andy
Where did you get the idea that employers, businesses, airlines, and destination countries care to do what the CDC recommends?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The difference being the common cold does not kill X percent of people, and make Y percent very sick, with Z percent having yet to be determined long covid impacts.
That's debatable in the first place, and in the second place even if it's true it doesn't change the fact that there are good reasons why these types of vaccines have been ineffective and or dangerous in all previous attempts.
That's debatable in the first place, and in the second place even if it's true it doesn't change the fact that there are good reasons why these types of vaccines have been ineffective and or dangerous in all previous attempts.Dude, don't even head down that path.
I and many others on this site know many people in the first two categories and are starting to see people in the third category.
Are you denying that covid kills a certain percentage of people? And also that it makes another chunk extremely sick?
You want to not take the shot and eat puppy warmer instead, go for it. I think it's sad, but it's your right.
But to deny the disease impact and potential impact is just ignorant.
I have two different nieces who are nurses. One in hospital close to me. Three weeks ago they basically had to convert the cardiac floor to covid because the covid floor is full. ICU is full.
All she does day in day out on very long shifts is deal with covid patients.
This is not a situation of shortages of nurses or things like that, the county is seen the highest spike since its peak last January.
The largest hospital in the county just had to order a mobile morgue as their morgue was full due to the covid spike.
Yet you covid deniers are still trying to claim it's just the flu?
Averageman
09-05-21, 17:51
Dude, don't even head down that path.
I and many others on this site know many people in the first two categories and are starting to see people in the third category.
Are you denying that covid kills a certain percentage of people? And also that it makes another chunk extremely sick?
You want to not take the shot and eat puppy warmer instead, go for it. I think it's sad, but it's your right.
But to deny the disease impact and potential impact is just ignorant.
I have two different nieces who are nurses. One in hospital close to me. Three weeks ago they basically had to convert the cardiac floor to covid because the covid floor is full. ICU is full.
All she does day in day out on very long shifts is deal with covid patients.
This is not a situation of shortages of nurses or things like that, the county is seen the highest spike since its peak last January.
The largest hospital in the county just had to order a mobile morgue as their morgue was full due to the covid spike.
Yet you covid deniers are still trying to claim it's just the flu?
So, who do you blame for this lack of trust?
So, who do you blame for this lack of trust?Want to say that Fauci is a two faced idiot? I think most of us here would agree with you.
Want to accuse the CDC of being political and inconsistent on recommendations? Go for it.
But if that "lack of trust" you mention leads to a belief that this disease and its impact is not real, then I only see two contenders:
1) You live in a remote area / don't have any friends. Cuz those of us who do have circles of friends and aren't in super remote areas know people who have died from this. And know people who were very sick, came close to dying, or had a long recovery. We also see the impact on hospitals.
OR
2) You are a sucker for all the conspiracy theories. Many I hear repeated here. Most bouncing around a common theme that somehow there is this perfect global conspiracy presumably led by big pharma that has somehow duped all the countries in the world.
And that these countries leaders many of which who do not agree with the US are all in conspiracy together to keep the use of puppy wormer which could cure this disease overnight.
So yes, I will say those that somehow think this is just the flu are ignorant. Not in a name calling way, but in the purest sense of the definition: just missing information.
Averageman
09-05-21, 18:58
Want to say that Fauci is a two faced idiot? I think most of us here would agree with you.
Want to accuse the CDC of being political and inconsistent on recommendations? Go for it.
But if that "lack of trust" you mention leads to a belief that this disease and its impact is not real, then I only see two contenders:
1) You live in a remote area / don't have any friends. Cuz those of us who do have circles of friends and aren't in super remote areas know people who have died from this. And know people who were very sick, came close to dying, or had a long recovery. We also see the impact on hospitals.
OR
2) You are a sucker for all the conspiracy theories. Many I hear repeated here. Most bouncing around a common theme that somehow there is this perfect global conspiracy presumably led by big pharma that has somehow duped all the countries in the world.
And that these countries leaders many of which who do not agree with the US are all in conspiracy together to keep the use of puppy wormer which could cure this disease overnight.
So yes, I will say those that somehow think this is just the flu are ignorant. Not in a name calling way, but in the purest sense of the definition: just missing information.
But how can you blame folks for being skeptics?
I mean in your first two statements...?
I have very few friends and I live in a rather rural area, but it's going on how long now?
How do I not have natural anti bodies by now?
No Mask, No Vax, No Problems
Dude, don't even head down that path.
I and many others on this site know many people in the first two categories and are starting to see people in the third category.
Are you denying that covid kills a certain percentage of people? And also that it makes another chunk extremely sick?
You want to not take the shot and eat puppy warmer instead, go for it. I think it's sad, but it's your right.
But to deny the disease impact and potential impact is just ignorant.
I have two different nieces who are nurses. One in hospital close to me. Three weeks ago they basically had to convert the cardiac floor to covid because the covid floor is full. ICU is full.
All she does day in day out on very long shifts is deal with covid patients.
This is not a situation of shortages of nurses or things like that, the county is seen the highest spike since its peak last January.
The largest hospital in the county just had to order a mobile morgue as their morgue was full due to the covid spike.
Yet you covid deniers are still trying to claim it's just the flu?
I don't have time for these emotionally laden rants. No I do not deny that some people have gotten very sick and even died. But that's also true of the seasonal flu and even the common cold. I also know for a fact that medical malpractice is playing a huge part in the death toll, and that much has even been admitted to when it comes to the ventilators, and I'm pretty confident that it's going to come out soon that Remdesivir is also largely responsible for many deaths due to the strain it puts on the renal system, causing fluid retention, which is potentially fatal for someone who's already having trouble breathing due to pneumonia from any source, covid or otherwise.
I also know for a fact that many people who are counted among the covid dead did not die of covid, even to the point where we're finding people on those lists who were DOA in car accidents, for example. And that's to say nothing of the ten thousand shades of gray when it comes to the overwhelming majority of deaths, where they had so many other terminal conditions no ME in the world could say what they actually died from.
But even if you take all the official stats at face value, it's STILL not that scary, particularly for someone who's not on death's door to begin with. I think the scariest thing for anyone is what kinds of medical malpractice you might be subject to if you get a cough and test positive. I've heard of people having damn near physical confrontations with doctors and nurses over refusing ventilators and Remdesivir.
This is NOT a pandemic. It's not the Spanish flu. This isn't even SARS or Ebola or something like that, or even bordering on it. This is something that might be a little more dangerous than the seasonal flu, but the again might not be. The data is so poisoned by political posturing that it's impossible to say. But the proof is in the pudding as it were. The way people behave is proof positive we're not in imminent danger beyond what we're used to as mortal beings on this planet. People like to play pandemic when it suits them, but then when it becomes inconvenient they like to hit the pause button and go do whatever they want, and that's true of the politicians and gullible public alike.
I don't have time for these emotionally laden rants. No I do not deny that some people have gotten very sick and even died. But that's also true of the seasonal flu and even the common cold.
SNIP
People like to play pandemic when it suits them, but then when it becomes inconvenient they like to hit the pause button and go do whatever they want, and that's true of the politicians and gullible public alike.
Dude, whatever. So you're going with the it's just another flu thing, and that it's just a pandemic when the politicians want it to be. Tells me all I need to know.
I hope for your sake this thing doesn't get bad in your area. We just lost another family friend down in the keys (Mangrove Mike Forester) . Children of good friends have an infant fighting for its life due to fever from covid.
I know multiple people who absolutely died from covid, had their lives tragically cut short. And no one coded as covid who was really a car wreck or similar.
Two things can be true at the same time:
Politicians can do power grabs or just be incompetent
AND
This disease can be a real problem.
Dude, whatever. So you're going with the it's just another flu thing, and that it's just a pandemic when the politicians want it to be. Tells me all I need to know.
You should see some of the video from the recent Obama birthday party. Fine example of 'rules for thee but not for me (or my few hundred guests)'.
Data does not support your claims about Ivermectin either...
https://i.imgur.com/mMkdIcf.png
How do you explain Israel though? If anything it seems like the data is suggesting the vaccine makes people more susceptible to the delta variant, as Luc Montonier and others predicted.I cannot speak for others but no, I don't know how anyone could see anything like that in the data. I just looked at updated Israeli figures for Sep 2, there were 673 serious cases. The media does their best to present a biased view but if you do the numbers yourself, that is 0.01% of population REGARDLESS OF AGE so they really are fine (unless you are one of the few unlucky individuals). Of these, 88 were "vaccinated" under 60 compared to 154 unvaccinated under 60, despite at least probably four to six times more "vaccinated" population. It makes sense that for a period of time, reproducing elements of the virus (spike) can make people sick ("vaccine"), and if they survive that (which nearly everyone does) they will handle the current variants a bit better than someone whose body has never seen similar spike proteins.
The best source at this point is the gentleman who pioneered the mRNA therapeutics used in the covid shots: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-american-thought-leaders
I am not up to date, but he was saying the correct policy at this point was to limit the covid shots to only people of a certain age or at-risk individuals. By forcing the shots on everyone we exponentially increased the rate of "vaccine resistant" mutants that will end up killing the "vaccinated" elderly and at-risk individuals. So the benefit to an individual who receives the shot decreases as more people receive them. And obviously the shots have their own serious risk factors....while offering the majority of the population no benefits.
You should see some of the video from the recent Obama birthday party. Fine example of 'rules for thee but not for me (or my few hundred guests)'.
Data does not support your claims about Ivermectin either...
https://i.imgur.com/mMkdIcf.pngI know it's coming from J. Hopkins but I don't know how much trust I put into those countries.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
I hope for your sake this thing doesn't get bad in your area. We just lost another family friend down in the keys (Mangrove Mike Forester) . Children of good friends have an infant fighting for its life due to fever from covid.
I know multiple people who absolutely died from covid, had their lives tragically cut short. And no one coded as covid who was really a car wreck or similar.
.
At this point I know about 100 people who have been sick. Ages from children to seniors (over 70). 4 hospitalizations and one death (not hospitalized). 2 were getting chemo for cancer at the time of infection. I would say the avg age about 60. The two who were getting chemo were 77 and 67. The 67 year old was by no means a small man. His symptoms lasted a few days
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
I know it's coming from J. Hopkins but I don't know how much trust I put into those countries.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
What about Japan?
https://citizenfreepress.com/column-2/tokyo-medical-chairman-press-conference-all-patients-and-physicians-should-begin-using-ivermectin/
Tokyo Medical Chairman holds press conference recommending Ivermectin to all doctors, for all Covid patients.
What about Japan?
https://citizenfreepress.com/column-2/tokyo-medical-chairman-press-conference-all-patients-and-physicians-should-begin-using-ivermectin/
Tokyo Medical Chairman holds press conference recommending Ivermectin to all doctors, for all Covid patients.So he's citing the same African data.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Data does not support your claims about Ivermectin either...He is programmed by the media to dismiss it, "puppy dewormer" and other false insults are simply used to redirect dialogue, rather than have to acknowledge, "I don't actually know if it helps or not." I understand his frustration with the people denying the virus is a real problem or the extreme fringe claiming the virus doesn't exist, but you see this same brainwashing with physicians. The most recent anecdote is the gentleman I believe in Ohio who was intubated for 30 days, the wife had to get a judge to allow treatment, and with 3 days of treatment he went from fully dependent on the ventilator to half that.
At some point we as a society have to have a reckoning about the insanity of the medical community de-facto banning decades-safe potential treatments (chloroquine, ivermectin) but actively promoting intramuscular injections of essentially untested technology into children, teen and otherwise healthy individuals when they are seeing immediate cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, even before considering long-term effects.
children, teen and otherwise healthy individuals when they are seeing immediate cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, even before considering long-term effects.
Yep but this reckoning has to go both ways because the side effects are not as common as people make it out and covid actually causes it as well, at a higher rate.
Both sides are just cherry picking data. You hear JJ causes blood clots but then you find out it's happened like less than 100 times meanwhile there's been hundreds if not thousands of cases of blood clots from covid. So just by the percentage one would have a better chance of getting a blood clot from covid.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
So he's citing the same African data.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
And accepted it...
And accepted it...More like F'it it can't get worse.
His actual words are "we cannot say ivermectin is absolutely not effective, at least not me. We can do other studies to confirm it's efficiency by we are in a crisis situation"
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
He is programmed by the media to dismiss it, "puppy dewormer" and other false insults are simply used to redirect dialogue, rather than have to acknowledge, "I don't actually know if it helps or not."
Sorry, not programmed by the media on this. I've actually researched what Ivermectin is used for and what percentages. And posted the data in other threads on this forum.
It is absolutely use for humans in different formulations to treat parasitic worms.
But it's primary use (95 to 98%) is as an animal dewormer. But I've fully admited to the *possibility* that it could have side effects that help in this case. I've just not seen any reputable data to back that up
It would be a wonderful thing if it was a silver bullet for covid. I have not seen any solid data, other than a couple of rants from doctors in other countries saying that it worked.
My brother's family had covid run through them with almost no side effects. Thought my brother didn't even know he had it until later antibody test showed he had.
Had they been taking Ivermectin or whatever They would now be a data point that says "see it works".
I understand his frustration with the people denying the virus is a real problem or the extreme fringe claiming the virus doesn't exist, but you see this same brainwashing with physicians.
And that is what started my response in the thread, an earlier post implying that the virus did not make people sick or die, that the numbers were completely made up.
Sadly, I know as fact that is not the case. In our area, people who should be in ICU aren't, and are dying. People who should be on ventilators, aren't because there's not enough, and are most likely going to die. The hospital morgue is so full they've had to get a portable morgue.
This is not a case of hospitals keeping beds unused, etc. They are all hands-on deck, struggling to give enough care two people that should be in ICU.
There are nurses quitting from their variant of combat fatigue. One of my nieces is having a hard time because of this. Repeated 12-hour shifts dealing with a completely full ward of people who should be getting a higher level of care than they can give outside of ICU. And dying from it.
If you want to take horse wormer, go for it. Just get the dosage right. It is something I'm very familiar with having had horses. The only harm I could see coming from this is a false sense of security that you are covered.
An extended family member who thought they were immune as covid had gone through their house ended up catching it a couple of months ago on her way up to Montana to visit her dad and stepmom. She infected both of them, she got very sick had to go into the ER twice, and her dad died from it. They thought remote eural location and presumed immunity would save them. And it might for many, but there is just no guarantee
At some point we as a society have to have a reckoning about the insanity of the medical community de-facto banning decades-safe potential treatments (chloroquine, ivermectin) but actively promoting intramuscular injections of essentially untested technology into children, teen and otherwise healthy individuals when they are seeing immediate cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, even before considering long-term effects.
You guys need to think this through... If Biden (spit spit) became aware of some magic bullet for covid, especially one that was cheap and available, he would be all over that and claim credit for ending the pandemic. And I can guarantee you these third world countries that are having a hard time getting / producing vaccines would.
Instead people are getting sucked into some perfect conspiracy where all the countries in the world are in the thrall of big pharma and keeping the anti-parasite magic fix from being used so that they can sell their high priced vaccines.
I would happily bet on Hunter's multi-million dollar diamonds he got from China that folks like Joe/Nancy will pick political power (winning re) over whatever kickbacks they might get from big pharma, if any.
I guarantee you the WHO and the CDC would do the same, they are struggling with credibility. If they had any glimmer of a magic fix they would embrace it and claim it was their idea.
He is programmed by the media to dismiss it, "puppy dewormer" and other false insults are simply used to redirect dialogue, rather than have to acknowledge, "I don't actually know if it helps or not."
SNIP...
At some point we as a society have to have a reckoning about the insanity of the medical community de-facto banning decades-safe potential treatments (chloroquine, ivermectin) but actively promoting intramuscular injections of essentially untested technology into children, teen and otherwise healthy individuals when they are seeing immediate cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, even before considering long-term effects.
Pretty much this.
They refuse to even consider stuff that has been safely used for years in most every imaginable sort of patient be it dog or human. Ivermectin did not just come out yesterday and it did not just get approved for use in humans last week...
'Programmed by the media' is a good way to describe them. A media that is well known for being untruthful and outright misleading a good deal of the time. How many times does a person have to be misled before they look elsewhere for their facts?
Averageman
09-06-21, 10:43
'Programmed by the media' is a good way to describe them. A media that is well known for being untruthful and outright misleading a good deal of the time. How many times does a person have to be misled before they look elsewhere for their facts?
Iam asking how in the heck do you expect people to line up for a vaccine, when the information about this vaccine has been a combination of wishes, white lies and supposition and then when the obvious facts are blown out of the water we get the Fauci shuffle (and not always just by Fauci) the media allows them to sidestep any responcability.
At what point do you ask for answers, not get them and finally say, "Screw this vaccination." ?
Dude, whatever. So you're going with the it's just another flu thing, and that it's just a pandemic when the politicians want it to be. Tells me all I need to know.
I hope for your sake this thing doesn't get bad in your area. We just lost another family friend down in the keys (Mangrove Mike Forester) . Children of good friends have an infant fighting for its life due to fever from covid.
I know multiple people who absolutely died from covid, had their lives tragically cut short. And no one coded as covid who was really a car wreck or similar.
Two things can be true at the same time:
Politicians can do power grabs or just be incompetent
AND
This disease can be a real problem.
Like I said, I have no time for this kind of alarmism. Even according to the official data, which is beyond flawed, and heavily weighted to favor the alarmist view, the risk to the average person is so low as to be negligible. This thing could easily turn out to be less dangerous than the seasonal flu.
You should see some of the video from the recent Obama birthday party. Fine example of 'rules for thee but not for me (or my few hundred guests)'.
Precisely. The people who have the most direct access to the information sources are the ones who care the least. Were we in actual danger, those people would know about it, and they wouldn't be out there yoloing. Alternately, it's also reasonable to surmise that they would know if we weren't in actual danger, and their behavior obviously shows this to be the case.
I cannot speak for others but no, I don't know how anyone could see anything like that in the data. I just looked at updated Israeli figures for Sep 2, there were 673 serious cases. The media does their best to present a biased view but if you do the numbers yourself, that is 0.01% of population REGARDLESS OF AGE so they really are fine (unless you are one of the few unlucky individuals). Of these, 88 were "vaccinated" under 60 compared to 154 unvaccinated under 60, despite at least probably four to six times more "vaccinated" population. It makes sense that for a period of time, reproducing elements of the virus (spike) can make people sick ("vaccine"), and if they survive that (which nearly everyone does) they will handle the current variants a bit better than someone whose body has never seen similar spike proteins.
The best source at this point is the gentleman who pioneered the mRNA therapeutics used in the covid shots: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-american-thought-leaders
I am not up to date, but he was saying the correct policy at this point was to limit the covid shots to only people of a certain age or at-risk individuals. By forcing the shots on everyone we exponentially increased the rate of "vaccine resistant" mutants that will end up killing the "vaccinated" elderly and at-risk individuals. So the benefit to an individual who receives the shot decreases as more people receive them. And obviously the shots have their own serious risk factors....while offering the majority of the population no benefits.
Study out of Israel, yet to be peer reviewed and will likely be buried, showed vaccinated were 13 times more susceptible to the delta variant than someone with natural immunity derived from exposure to any of the covid variants. I would imagine just about everyone has been exposed to it at some point in the last 18 months, considering the absurdity of the so called quarantine.
Averageman
09-06-21, 11:24
Study out of Israel, yet to be peer reviewed and will likely be buried, showed vaccinated were 13 times more susceptible to the delta variant than someone with natural immunity derived from exposure to any of the covid variants. I would imagine just about everyone has been exposed to it at some point in the last 18 months, considering the absurdity of the so called quarantine.
They were saying that up to 80% have antibodies already.
They were saying that up to 80% have antibodies already.
That certainly wouldn't surprise me, and I would even feel comfortable assuming that that's a very conservative estimate. I'm convinced that the virus was here in the US far earlier than what anyone will admit to. My family and I and our close friends all got something right around Christmas that almost had to have been covid. It was unlike anything I had ever had before, and everyone else who got it said the same thing. We all talked about what a strange flu it was, long before news of covid had reached our ears, and naturally after the covid news hit we were all like yep that's what we had, despite the media saying definitively it hadn't reached the US at that time. It put me on my ass for about two weeks, and I didn't feel right for several months afterwards. The strange part we all talked about was how it would come and go. I would go from barely able to stand up to feeling normal within a few hours, then back to feeling half dead again several hours later, and that happened to all of us throughout the time we had it. And that was something that people described around here early on, who had gotten covid and knew they had it because they had been tested. Oh and the cough! Maybe the worst cough I've ever had, but at the same time unlike any I've ever had in the past.
Then another one of our friend's daughters in her mid 30s keeled over dead in a doctor's office parking lot. This was before covid hit the news, and ended up being a week before the official "start date" of the pandemic in OK. She had gone to the doctor's office with a cough and they diagnosed her with bronchitis or something. I'm not sure if they ever gave an official cause of death, but they refused to put covid on the death certificate because according to their narrative covid wasn't in the US yet. Then maybe a month after that, my mom's best friend's daughter was found dead in her apartment. They still don't know what happened to her. She hadn't been sick as far as they know, but they never found a cause. They tried to imply it was suicide because she had oxycontin for a back injury, but the test for drugs came back negative.
I don't know if any of you guys follow Chinese news or not, but what's interesting is the Chinese are building their own narrative that the virus actually started here in the US when it escaped Fort Detrick. I'm not saying I believe it, at least not entirely, but they make as strong a case as we do for the Wuhan lab leak theory. I can't say where it actually originally leaked from, but what's clear is that whatever this thing is was an international effort so to speak. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was leaked from multiple locations all at once. It's hard to argue against the Wuhan leak, but it's also hard to deny evidence that it was already loose in North America prior to that. What should be clear to everyone by now is that Fauci, the NIH, and the WHO played both sides to make this thing happen. Whether they intentionally released it or not isn't for me to say, but they were conducting illegal research both here and in Wuhan, and that's really the only fact we know. Instead of playing the blame game, I think we need to arrest that SOB, and I'm sure the CCP has their very own Fauci who they need to arrest, as well.
He is programmed by the media to dismiss it, "puppy dewormer" and other false insults are simply used to redirect dialogue, rather than have to acknowledge, "I don't actually know if it helps or not." I understand his frustration with the people denying the virus is a real problem or the extreme fringe claiming the virus doesn't exist, but you see this same brainwashing with physicians. The most recent anecdote is the gentleman I believe in Ohio who was intubated for 30 days, the wife had to get a judge to allow treatment, and with 3 days of treatment he went from fully dependent on the ventilator to half that.
At some point we as a society have to have a reckoning about the insanity of the medical community de-facto banning decades-safe potential treatments (chloroquine, ivermectin) but actively promoting intramuscular injections of essentially untested technology into children, teen and otherwise healthy individuals when they are seeing immediate cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, even before considering long-term effects.
Funny you say that, HCQ is causing real cardiac damage to people. I’ve seen it and ivermectin turn bad for people. My sister-in-law, an ICU physician has similar experience. She treated a patient who refused anything we know to work and wanted HCQ. She gave it to her and it killed her.
Judges have no place ordering treatment. Period.
It’s funny the idiots complaining about the vaccine being untested literally advocate for drugs untested for COVID because they’ve been
Used to treat other things in the past.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-06-21, 18:19
Funny you say that, HCQ is causing real cardiac damage to people. I’ve seen it and ivermectin turn bad for people. My sister-in-law, an ICU physician has similar experience. She treated a patient who refused anything we know to work and wanted HCQ. She gave it to her and it killed her.
Judges have no place ordering treatment. Period.
It’s funny the idiots complaining about the vaccine being untested literally advocate for drugs untested for COVID because they’ve been
Used to treat other things in the past.
It's Mass hysteria, our biggest enemy in this whole fiasco has been ourselves.
We have always had a biased Media, the list of historical BS they have gotten us in to is monumental, "Remember the Maine?". They've really outdone themselves this time.
We've got nothing but questions that we want answers to, but at this point you've been lied to so many times, who do you believe?
So it certainly doesn't surprise me that people are poisoning themselves looking for a cure.
At this point I'm very skeptical about anyones numbers, it's become too political.
Funny you say that, HCQ is causing real cardiac damage to people. I’ve seen it and ivermectin turn bad for people. My sister-in-law, an ICU physician has similar experience. She treated a patient who refused anything we know to work and wanted HCQ. She gave it to her and it killed her.
Judges have no place ordering treatment. Period.
It’s funny the idiots complaining about the vaccine being untested literally advocate for drugs untested for COVID because they’ve been
Used to treat other things in the past.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The thought has crossed my mind that the whole ivermectin thing is reverse psychology. I've also considered the possibility that parasitic infections are way more common in the west than we would like to believe, and the potential that various diseases in some people are the result of that weakening of the body by some undiagnosed parasitic infection, and once free of the parasites the person recovers from an acute illness seemingly unrelated to anything ivermectin might be able to treat. That could potentially explain why it's a silver bullet for some people.
The thought has crossed my mind that the whole ivermectin thing is reverse psychology. I've also considered the possibility that parasitic infections are way more common in the west than we would like to believe, and the potential that various diseases in some people are the result of that weakening of the body by some undiagnosed parasitic infection, and once free of the parasites the person recovers from an acute illness seemingly unrelated to anything ivermectin might be able to treat. That could potentially explain why it's a silver bullet for some people.
I don’t think there has been a single case which it is a silver bullet.
But the tinfoil case of pharmaceuticals and physicians conspiring to keep them out of mainstream is asinine. Physicians don’t make money by denying treatment with cheaper drugs. In fact, in the hospital setting cheaper drugs are preferred because it’s easier to get an insurance company to pay for it.
In fact, the most common drugs we know work to support the body through COVID are decades-old drugs and quite cheap with the exception of monoclonal antibodies. Dexamethasone, guafenisson, remdesivir, albuterol, etc are old, old drugs and they are working. Azithromycin is helping to prevent secondary bacterial infections.
So I guess that blows the theory out of the water.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's Mass hysteria, our biggest enemy in this whole fiasco has been ourselves.
We have always had a biased Media, the list of historical BS they have gotten us in to is monumental, "Remember the Maine?". They've really outdone themselves this time.
We've got nothing but questions that we want answers to, but at this point you've been lied to so many times, who do you believe?
So it certainly doesn't surprise me that people are poisoning themselves looking for a cure.
At this point I'm very skeptical about anyones numbers, it's become too political.
I agree. The “leaders” screwed the pooch and have lost the trust of the people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-06-21, 20:07
I agree. The “leaders” screwed the pooch and have lost the trust of the people.
And they are doing NOTHING to fix it.
eightmillimeter
09-06-21, 22:35
https://youtu.be/fIy3SBqdawo
17 minutes of cold, hard, truth
I don’t think there has been a single case which it is a silver bullet.
But the tinfoil case of pharmaceuticals and physicians conspiring to keep them out of mainstream is asinine. Physicians don’t make money by denying treatment with cheaper drugs. In fact, in the hospital setting cheaper drugs are preferred because it’s easier to get an insurance company to pay for it.
In fact, the most common drugs we know work to support the body through COVID are decades-old drugs and quite cheap with the exception of monoclonal antibodies. Dexamethasone, guafenisson, remdesivir, albuterol, etc are old, old drugs and they are working. Azithromycin is helping to prevent secondary bacterial infections.
So I guess that blows the theory out of the water.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not that easy to just put the ivermectin debate to bed by writing it off as a social media trend or whatever. There are anecdotal reports, even in hospital settings, some verging on what could be called a study, that make you go hmmmm. Same thing with the cancer treatment angle. Naturally it has to be understood that there is a such thing as spontaneous remission, but at the same time it's not all that common in very late stage cases, which are typically the kinds of cases that use ivermectin. The people who use it are most often desperate, and have most often exhausted all other options, and use it only once they've been told to go home and die. So that tends to help rule out misdiagnosis and spontaneous remission as plausible, across the board explanations for the anecdotal reports.
The government/media reaction to it is also extremely unmeasured, and only makes sense either in the context of reverse psychology or trying to cover up a potentially legitimate treatment. For example, here in Oklahoma, our NBC affiliate news agency KFOR did a major hit piece where they fabricated a story about how ivermectin overdoses are filling up the hospitals, preventing actual covid patients from getting treatment. They dug up this alleged doctor to claim he had been witness to this in his ER. After the story went live, the hospital he allegedly worked at came out and fully refuted all aspects of his story. They said he was only there briefly from a temp agency to fill in for a regular ER doctor, he had been gone for two months (placing him as not having worked there during the time of the alleged ivermectin overdose crisis), and they said the ER there hadn't treated a single ivermectin related emergency, nor did they have any overflow of covid patients. And I've yet to see any retractions, so 99.9% of the general news-watching public is surely still thinking that the story was real.
Like I said, I halfway suspect that chronic parasitic infections might be not only commonplace, but might be a major underlying factor behind many diseases, which might hypothetically go into remission once the parasitic infection is taken care of. As far fetched as that sounds, it's really not. There are many types of parasites that are extremely hard to detect, and there's virtually zero screening for them in the western world, because we all just assume that's only something that affects brown people in far off places. Unless someone has traveled to one of these places they would never ever look for them. And not only are some if not most of them very hard to detect, but the symptoms can be all over the map and mimic other "syndromes." And it's certainly no stretch to surmise that after a long chronic infection the person's immune system and every other system for that matter would be taxed to the point that the person would be many time more susceptible to all kinds of acute illnesses they otherwise would have been able to fight off. And that's to say nothing of the all drugs they prescribe people for all these mystery syndromes, which would serve only to weaken them further, many of which just so happen to be immunosuppressants. And on top of that, these people tend to self medicate with alcohol and cannabis, not eat well or exercise because they don't feel well enough to, etc. I think everyone here probably knows someone with one of these mystery syndromes like chronic fatigue, and can attest to those behavior patterns.
What I also find interesting is that if a brown person in the third world is allowed to develop a chronic parasitic infection that leads to acute disease after many years, the medical industry doesn't stand to make any money from this person because they have none, so selling them some ivermectin is the most they stand to make from such people. Vs. someone in the west, who potentially has access to millions of dollars through their insurance, or through charities and government money available in the hospital systems to people who can't afford to pay for advanced treatments. So if it's true that chronic parasitic infections are commonplace in the west, as they are in other parts of the world, and that those chronic infections eventually lead to acute diseases, the medical industry would stand to lose trillions of dollars in the medium term by allowing that knowledge to come out. And I sure can't think of a better opportunity for it to come out than if a bunch of people were to suddenly discover that a broad spectrum anti parasitic drug was capable of inexplicably curing a wide range of diseases. Being that anti parasitic drugs have no anti viral effects, it wouldn't take doctors long to realize what was actually happening, and then the cat would be out of the bag.
Now going back to the first possibility, of this autistic screeching from the media being a conspiratorial attempt at reverse psychology, aimed at encouraging alternative medicine seekers to harm themselves...to what end I would ask? I think we've already established that they had to fabricate ivermectin injuries, which would seem to suggest there were no real injuries to put on show. And that was only in my state, and given the monolithic nature of the media I'm just going to assume that similar hit pieces were fabricated in other states, as well. So if ivermectin is so dangerous, where are the victims? They eat that shit for breakfast in Africa, and even give it to their young children, as a purely prophylactic measure. Western doctors have no qualms about prescribing it prophylactically to people planning to travel to Africa. Millions of people all over the third world take it periodically as a regimen, in the same way that farmers give it to their animals, regardless of whether they knowingly have an active infection or not. So if it's so dangerous as to be an avenue for some mass media conspiracy revolving around population control, where are all the ivermectin injuries and deaths?
It's not that easy to just put the ivermectin debate to bed by writing it off as a social media trend or whatever. There are anecdotal reports, even in hospital settings, some verging on what could be called a study, that make you go hmmmm. Same thing with the cancer treatment angle. Naturally it has to be understood that there is a such thing as spontaneous remission, but at the same time it's not all that common in very late stage cases, which are typically the kinds of cases that use ivermectin. The people who use it are most often desperate, and have most often exhausted all other options, and use it only once they've been told to go home and die. So that tends to help rule out misdiagnosis and spontaneous remission as plausible, across the board explanations for the anecdotal reports.
The government/media reaction to it is also extremely unmeasured, and only makes sense either in the context of reverse psychology or trying to cover up a potentially legitimate treatment. For example, here in Oklahoma, our NBC affiliate news agency KFOR did a major hit piece where they fabricated a story about how ivermectin overdoses are filling up the hospitals, preventing actual covid patients from getting treatment. They dug up this alleged doctor to claim he had been witness to this in his ER. After the story went live, the hospital he allegedly worked at came out and fully refuted all aspects of his story. They said he was only there briefly from a temp agency to fill in for a regular ER doctor, he had been gone for two months (placing him as not having worked there during the time of the alleged ivermectin overdose crisis), and they said the ER there hadn't treated a single ivermectin related emergency, nor did they have any overflow of covid patients. And I've yet to see any retractions, so 99.9% of the general news-watching public is surely still thinking that the story was real.
Like I said, I halfway suspect that chronic parasitic infections might be not only commonplace, but might be a major underlying factor behind many diseases, which might hypothetically go into remission once the parasitic infection is taken care of. As far fetched as that sounds, it's really not. There are many types of parasites that are extremely hard to detect, and there's virtually zero screening for them in the western world, because we all just assume that's only something that affects brown people in far off places. Unless someone has traveled to one of these places they would never ever look for them. And not only are some if not most of them very hard to detect, but the symptoms can be all over the map and mimic other "syndromes." And it's certainly no stretch to surmise that after a long chronic infection the person's immune system and every other system for that matter would be taxed to the point that the person would be many time more susceptible to all kinds of acute illnesses they otherwise would have been able to fight off. And that's to say nothing of the all drugs they prescribe people for all these mystery syndromes, which would serve only to weaken them further, many of which just so happen to be immunosuppressants. And on top of that, these people tend to self medicate with alcohol and cannabis, not eat well or exercise because they don't feel well enough to, etc. I think everyone here probably knows someone with one of these mystery syndromes like chronic fatigue, and can attest to those behavior patterns.
What I also find interesting is that if a brown person in the third world is allowed to develop a chronic parasitic infection that leads to acute disease after many years, the medical industry doesn't stand to make any money from this person because they have none, so selling them some ivermectin is the most they stand to make from such people. Vs. someone in the west, who potentially has access to millions of dollars through their insurance, or through charities and government money available in the hospital systems to people who can't afford to pay for advanced treatments. So if it's true that chronic parasitic infections are commonplace in the west, as they are in other parts of the world, and that those chronic infections eventually lead to acute diseases, the medical industry would stand to lose trillions of dollars in the medium term by allowing that knowledge to come out. And I sure can't think of a better opportunity for it to come out than if a bunch of people were to suddenly discover that a broad spectrum anti parasitic drug was capable of inexplicably curing a wide range of diseases. Being that anti parasitic drugs have no anti viral effects, it wouldn't take doctors long to realize what was actually happening, and then the cat would be out of the bag.
Now going back to the first possibility, of this autistic screeching from the media being a conspiratorial attempt at reverse psychology, aimed at encouraging alternative medicine seekers to harm themselves...to what end I would ask? I think we've already established that they had to fabricate ivermectin injuries, which would seem to suggest there were no real injuries to put on show. And that was only in my state, and given the monolithic nature of the media I'm just going to assume that similar hit pieces were fabricated in other states, as well. So if ivermectin is so dangerous, where are the victims? They eat that shit for breakfast in Africa, and even give it to their young children, as a purely prophylactic measure. Western doctors have no qualms about prescribing it prophylactically to people planning to travel to Africa. Millions of people all over the third world take it periodically as a regimen, in the same way that farmers give it to their animals, regardless of whether they knowingly have an active infection or not. So if it's so dangerous as to be an avenue for some mass media conspiracy revolving around population control, where are all the ivermectin injuries and deaths?
It really is that easy to write it off…there is nothing “verging on a study” to support it. That is absolute nonsense. Furthermore, from actually having treated COVID, you start to recognize trends. People have drastic swings with the illness.
And again, it’s not a money thing about ivermectin. I don’t think you even read, but we are using decades-old medication to treat COVID that are some of the cheapest medications on the market. And early treatment works.
All the people totally against the vaccine believing it’s “unstudied” that support the use of ivermectin or HCQ are hypocrites. At first the vaccine was “not FDA approved” then just “we don’t know long-term affects”. We don’t have FDA approval for either HCQ or ivermectin for treating COVID, we don’t know how the body reacts long term, and we certainly don’t know short-term. Taking a drug outside the conditions which it was study and outside the illness it was meant to treat may and often does have negative affects, just like my sister-in-laws patient that died from HCQ. Drugs may be safe under specific health conditions, but if you do not have said health condition, that “safe” drug can be fatal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It really is that easy to write it off…there is nothing “verging on a study” to support it. That is absolute nonsense. Furthermore, from actually having treated COVID, you start to recognize trends. People have drastic swings with the illness.
And again, it’s not a money thing about ivermectin. I don’t think you even read, but we are using decades-old medication to treat COVID that are some of the cheapest medications on the market. And early treatment works.
All the people totally against the vaccine believing it’s “unstudied” that support the use of ivermectin or HCQ are hypocrites. At first the vaccine was “not FDA approved” then just “we don’t know long-term affects”. We don’t have FDA approval for either HCQ or ivermectin for treating COVID, we don’t know how the body reacts long term, and we certainly don’t know short-term. Taking a drug outside the conditions which it was study and outside the illness it was meant to treat may and often does have negative affects, just like my sister-in-laws patient that died from HCQ. Drugs may be safe under specific health conditions, but if you do not have said health condition, that “safe” drug can be fatal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First of all you're taking what I said out of context. I said if widespread parasitic infections are common in the western world, and that's a large underlying factor for disease, the losses for the medical industry would be huge if that came out. Let's say, for example, that underlying parasitic infection was responsible for 10% of cancers. Or rather, 10% of cancer was preventable by correctly diagnosing and treating parasitic infections. That would represent billions of dollars lost for the medical industry.
And let's say that some cases of covid are secondary to parasitic infection. Which isn't even all that far fetched, unless you're assuming that parasitic infections are virtually unheard of in the west, vs. potentially being common. If a bunch of people are suddenly cured of their covid by taking ivermectin, it's not going to take doctors very long to figure out what's actually happening. They know good and well ivermectin is only effective in treating parasites, so if ivermectin is causing spontaneous remission of disease, the very first thing they're going to be looking for is undiagnosed parasitic infections in their patients.
And yes, there have been studies done on ivermectin, as well as the anecdotal reports that aren't able to be dismissed out of hand as you're doing. I'm not saying they're true, I'm saying that they warrant investigation, especially in light of the medical industry's response, which is completely inappropriate. They're behaving as if people were drinking household bleach or something. But the media's complete fabrication of ivermectin overdoses and debunked claims of an epidemic of ivermectin injuries filling up hospitals... What's a person supposed to make of that?
Like I said, there are only two logical conclusions to draw from their autistic screeching when it comes to ivermectin. Either they're actually hiding something, or it's some reverse psychology thing and they actually want people to take it. It seems like the risk is very low, though, so my suspicion leans towards the first one. And I highly doubt that ivermectin has some yet to be discovered anti viral properties, given how well studied that is, so I imagine whatever they're hiding, that that's not it. The simplest explanation would be that westerners are far more at risk from parasites than we think, and that managing them, as is done in other countries, would drastically improve our overall health. Possibly even to the point that treating it would lead to spontaneous remission of seemingly unrelated diseases the host might be suffering from, including but not limited to covid.
News story regarding doctor claiming ivermectin overdose: https://www.kxmx.com/post/ivermectin-overdose-not-an-issue-at-sallisaw-emergency-room-or-hospital
Rolling Stone's original article (if you must):
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608
A lying doctor does not mean that it is safe to home administer ivermectin, of course.
Andy
First of all you're taking what I said out of context. I said if widespread parasitic infections are common in the western world, and that's a large underlying factor for disease, the losses for the medical industry would be huge if that came out. Let's say, for example, that underlying parasitic infection was responsible for 10% of cancers. Or rather, 10% of cancer was preventable by correctly diagnosing and treating parasitic infections. That would represent billions of dollars lost for the medical industry.
And let's say that some cases of covid are secondary to parasitic infection. Which isn't even all that far fetched, unless you're assuming that parasitic infections are virtually unheard of in the west, vs. potentially being common. If a bunch of people are suddenly cured of their covid by taking ivermectin, it's not going to take doctors very long to figure out what's actually happening. They know good and well ivermectin is only effective in treating parasites, so if ivermectin is causing spontaneous remission of disease, the very first thing they're going to be looking for is undiagnosed parasitic infections in their patients.
And yes, there have been studies done on ivermectin, as well as the anecdotal reports that aren't able to be dismissed out of hand as you're doing. I'm not saying they're true, I'm saying that they warrant investigation, especially in light of the medical industry's response, which is completely inappropriate. They're behaving as if people were drinking household bleach or something. But the media's complete fabrication of ivermectin overdoses and debunked claims of an epidemic of ivermectin injuries filling up hospitals... What's a person supposed to make of that?
Like I said, there are only two logical conclusions to draw from their autistic screeching when it comes to ivermectin. Either they're actually hiding something, or it's some reverse psychology thing and they actually want people to take it. It seems like the risk is very low, though, so my suspicion leans towards the first one. And I highly doubt that ivermectin has some yet to be discovered anti viral properties, given how well studied that is, so I imagine whatever they're hiding, that that's not it. The simplest explanation would be that westerners are far more at risk from parasites than we think, and that managing them, as is done in other countries, would drastically improve our overall health. Possibly even to the point that treating it would lead to spontaneous remission of seemingly unrelated diseases the host might be suffering from, including but not limited to covid.
How could a COVID infection be secondary to a parasite? You sound fairly out of your lane here. Additionally, as the narrative states, why are we using common, decades old drugs to treat COVID?
Additionally, just because some media outlets took the bait on a fake story doesn’t mean home-dosing ivermectin is safe. As I said earlier, my unit has seen several people that were doing so and we had to treat them for GI issues and dehydration. Ironically, one had developed the very COVID he was “protecting” himself from.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-07-21, 08:26
How could a COVID infection be secondary to a parasite? You sound fairly out of your lane here. Additionally, as the narrative states, why are we using common, decades old drugs to treat COVID?
There used to be a parasitic worm that was primarily in the Southern United States that caused mental deficiencies in adults.
You got the parasite by walking barefoot in an area that was home to the worm, when it came in contact with your flesh, it would worm it's way in to your skin and then through your system to your brain. Slowly reproducing and causing havoc with you CNC.
https://www.healthtap.com/questions/12217-what-type-of-parasites-are-common-in-the-southern-united-states/
Take a look then go for a nice walk barefoot.
There used to be a parasitic worm that was primarily in the Southern United States that caused mental deficiencies in adults.
You got the parasite by walking barefoot in an area that was home to the worm, when it came in contact with your flesh, it would worm it's way in to your skin and then through your system to your brain. Slowly reproducing and causing havoc with you CNC.
https://www.healthtap.com/questions/12217-what-type-of-parasites-are-common-in-the-southern-united-states/
Take a look then go for a nice walk barefoot.
Lots of parasitic infections, but they don’t cause COVID.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-07-21, 08:39
Lots of parasitic infections, but they don’t cause COVID.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, they don't "Cause" Covid, but the damage that is continuing to occur as these nasty little buggers eat your brain, might make you more suseptable to other diseases and virus.
Averageman
09-07-21, 13:32
Why you cannot disagree with any of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06FDg44vdQ
They simply cancel you out.
Why you cannot disagree with any of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06FDg44vdQ
They simply cancel you out.
Yep, the communists at Google deleted my very own youtube account because I had the utter gall to comment on a few videos that Biden is an illegal office holder.
How could a COVID infection be secondary to a parasite? You sound fairly out of your lane here. Additionally, as the narrative states, why are we using common, decades old drugs to treat COVID?
Additionally, just because some media outlets took the bait on a fake story doesn’t mean home-dosing ivermectin is safe. As I said earlier, my unit has seen several people that were doing so and we had to treat them for GI issues and dehydration. Ironically, one had developed the very COVID he was “protecting” himself from.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well a chronic parasitic infection would just weaken the person overall, making them less resistant to disease in general. There are also parasites that affect the cardiovascular system directly and indirectly, so it's very possible that specific parasites could make someone more susceptible to respiratory infection in general.
Well a chronic parasitic infection would just weaken the person overall, making them less resistant to disease in general. There are also parasites that affect the cardiovascular system directly and indirectly, so it's very possible that specific parasites could make someone more susceptible to respiratory infection in general.
Secondary would not be the proper terminology.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
News story regarding doctor claiming ivermectin overdose: https://www.kxmx.com/post/ivermectin-overdose-not-an-issue-at-sallisaw-emergency-room-or-hospital
Rolling Stone's original article (if you must):
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608
A lying doctor does not mean that it is safe to home administer ivermectin, of course.
Andy
For sure, for sure, I'm definitely not saying people should run out and start eating horse paste, not by any means.
But they SHOULD be demanding to know why the government, the medical industry, and the media are all shitting themselves over this. It's not a case of one lying doctor. It's a case of a monolithic state run media fabricating a story to fit the regime's narrative. The only logical conclusion you can draw from their fear over ivermectin is that either it works or they're hiding something else, and my bet is on something else.
There used to be a parasitic worm that was primarily in the Southern United States that caused mental deficiencies in adults.
You got the parasite by walking barefoot in an area that was home to the worm, when it came in contact with your flesh, it would worm it's way in to your skin and then through your system to your brain. Slowly reproducing and causing havoc with you CNC.
https://www.healthtap.com/questions/12217-what-type-of-parasites-are-common-in-the-southern-united-states/
Take a look then go for a nice walk barefoot.
Now that I'm researching parasites endemic to North America, I'm failing to see much of a fundamental difference between us and Africa, except that we here in the west are weakened by our terrible diets, lack of exercise, and overuse of both prescription and non prescription drugs. I'm beginning to suspect the only difference between us and Africa is that they acknowledge the risk there and take preventative measures, whereas we here in the west are completely ignorant to it.
Secondary would not be the proper terminology.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please explain.
Please explain.
Secondary would mean “caused by”. You cannot catch COVID by having a parasitic infection. It would still require an exposure to COVID. You may say it symptoms were exacerbated by a comorbidity, but not caused by. I hope that makes sense to you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Irresponsible journalism...
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2021/09/06/mea-culpa-associated-press-falsely-claims-70-of-mississippi-poison-control-calls-due-to-ivermectin/
The reason therapeutics like HCQ was demonized after Trump touted it early on at the outbreak & now IVM is because they never would have gotten emergency use authorization if there were available options to where early detection treatments / prevention was readily available & successful...especially cheap generic ones. All the 411 of the success therapeutics are seeing globally is being squashed. Heck, they say prizers new therapeutic pill is going to be an expensive kissing cousin to what's available & you know it will be pinged asap for approval. It's a joke at this point.
Secondary would mean “caused by”. You cannot catch COVID by having a parasitic infection. It would still require an exposure to COVID. You may say it symptoms were exacerbated by a comorbidity, but not caused by. I hope that makes sense to you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Holy shit, dude, I mean c'mon. If you're really a doctor then stop gaslighting me. We both know good and well that parasites modulate the host's immune system, making them more susceptible to disease in general, from everything from infection to even cancer.
Holy shit, dude, I mean c'mon. If you're really a doctor then stop gaslighting me. We both know good and well that parasites modulate the host's immune system, making them more susceptible to disease in general, from everything from infection to even cancer.
I never claimed to be a doctor. I’ve explained my profession in this or the other thread.
Again, it is NOT a secondary infection because it requires exposure. You may susceptibility increases, I don’t believe it’s been studied or common enough that it’s a significant number of cases.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Irresponsible journalism...
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2021/09/06/mea-culpa-associated-press-falsely-claims-70-of-mississippi-poison-control-calls-due-to-ivermectin/
The reason therapeutics like HCQ was demonized after Trump touted it early on at the outbreak & now IVM is because they never would have gotten emergency use authorization if there were available options to where early detection treatments / prevention was readily available & successful...especially cheap generic ones. All the 411 of the success therapeutics are seeing globally is being squashed. Heck, they say prizers new therapeutic pill is going to be an expensive kissing cousin to what's available & you know it will be pinged asap for approval. It's a joke at this point.
I could definitely see that as being a big part of it, but it seems like no one, the alternative medicine folks included, are really asking the big question, which is, If these anti parasitical drugs are working, WHY are they working? Especially in the case of ivermectin, because this isn't its first rodeo in terms of oddball off label use by the internet to cure a disease seemingly completely unrelated to what it's known to treat. If it's true that this stuff is working, the how and why could be a huge threat to the medical establishment as a whole, with implications far beyond just this one vaccine.
I could definitely see that as being a big part of it, but it seems like no one, the alternative medicine folks included, are really asking the big question, which is, If these anti parasitical drugs are working, WHY are they working? Especially in the case of ivermectin, because this isn't its first rodeo in terms of oddball off label use by the internet to cure a disease seemingly completely unrelated to what it's known to treat. If it's true that this stuff is working, the how and why could be a huge threat to the medical establishment as a whole, with implications far beyond just this one vaccine.
Can you please site the evidence of ivermectin working so I can give it a look.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I never claimed to be a doctor. I’ve explained my profession in this or the other thread.
Again, it is NOT a secondary infection because it requires exposure. You may susceptibility increases, I don’t believe it’s been studied or common enough that it’s a significant number of cases.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So if someone has a common cold, let's say, which has left their respiratory system inflamed, you don't think them getting covid after that would potentially be a secondary infection?
But you know what, screw it, we're not here to play semantic **** **** games. The fact at hand is that parasites weaken the host's immune system in a number of ways, and could therefore play a major role in that person getting a whole list of diseases they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, had they not been compromised by the parasite to begin with. And it would therefore follow that preventing and treating parasites would prevent those diseases, and maybe even cause them to go into spontaneous remission. For example, let's say someone gets cancer because the parasite was excreting some immunomodulator that kept their immune system from attacking the cancerous cells. Then let's say you get rid of the parasite, and suddenly the immune system is capable of responding to the cancer, which goes into remission, seemingly inexplicably from the doctor's perspective.
I'm not saying that's what's happening, mind you. What I AM saying is that anyone who dismisses that possibility out of hand is a complete moron, or shill for the medical establishment.
So if someone has a common cold, let's say, which has left their respiratory system inflamed, you don't think them getting covid after that would potentially be a secondary infection?
But you know what, screw it, we're not here to play semantic **** **** games. The fact at hand is that parasites weaken the host's immune system in a number of ways, and could therefore play a major role in that person getting a whole list of diseases they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, had they not been compromised by the parasite to begin with. And it would therefore follow that preventing and treating parasites would prevent those diseases, and maybe even cause them to go into spontaneous remission. For example, let's say someone gets cancer because the parasite was excreting some immunomodulator that kept their immune system from attacking the cancerous cells. Then let's say you get rid of the parasite, and suddenly the immune system is capable of responding to the cancer, which goes into remission, seemingly inexplicably from the doctor's perspective.
I'm not saying that's what's happening, mind you. What I AM saying is that anyone who dismisses that possibility out of hand is a complete moron, or shill for the medical establishment.
No, it wouldn’t be a secondary to the parasite.
Why are you playing hypotheticals? Do you think there are significant number of people walking around with asymptomatic parasitic infections? No symptoms, just something causing them to catch one of the most highly contagious viruses on the planet that they would not have otherwise caught?
ETA: please, can you link to me some credible research which illustrated ivermectin is showing clinical efficacy?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can you please site the evidence of ivermectin working so I can give it a look.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I said IF it's working. You're obviously just here to argue rather than discuss.
The bottom line is people way more qualified than you or me, despite being in the minority, are saying it's worth looking into (like the head of the Tokyo Medical Association just the other day). And anecdotally, the stories are stacking up high enough that they can't be dismissed out of hand.
That in and of itself warrants investigation, but you color all this with the whole anti ivermectin propaganda campaign in the government/media and that starts to beg some very interesting questions.
There have been a ton of stories out there where they see IVM being successful...you won't find it using google, twatter, YT or any msm article though. Maybe us duck-go if you want to do your own digging. Those folks that have already convinced themselves the jab is the only cure all will always poo-poo the source / kook doctor or anything else to defend the jabs. I swear, it's like folks don't want any therapeutics to be successful even with all the evidence of 'break through' & all the variants might help them some day...the only choice should be the jab boosters & it's the un-jab'd fault. The fact the narrative is solidly supportive of post 111 the way you are seeing it being played out & purposefully demonized / censored should be enough to make people who are already suspicious of the fake news scratch their heads & do their own research to the counter that IVM is a rat poison meant for sick animal's guts.
Follow the $$$$.
https://rumble.com/vlzihf-the-story-of-ivermectin-and-covid-19.html
https://rumble.com/vlxs4f-interview-with-dr.-ryan-cole-about-ivermectin-and-covid-19.html
No, it wouldn’t be a secondary to the parasite.
Why are you playing hypotheticals? Do you think there are significant number of people walking around with asymptomatic parasitic infections? No symptoms, just something causing them to catch one of the most highly contagious viruses on the planet that they would not have otherwise caught?
ETA: please, can you link to me some credible research which illustrated ivermectin is showing clinical efficacy?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you literally read nothing I've said??? It's pretty obvious you didn't, and were merely scanning my posts for little buzzwords you could attack on a semantic level.
Yes, for ****'s sake, that's what I've said like three times now. I'm not saying it's true, or that I believe it even, but that possibility does seem to exist.
And now for the second time, there ARE symptoms. Have you read nothing in the news about the insane rates of all these new syndromes that keep piling up? Seems every day now there's a new syndrome or autoimmune disease that doctors can't even begin to explain so they just throw pills at it. People going into the doctor's office with all these weird pains and other nondescript symptoms like brain fog, lethargy, etc. If you start doing some cross checking, the symptoms of chronic parasitical infections are extremely similar to a lot of the symptoms people experience when they're diagnosed with one of these new syndromes.
Averageman
09-07-21, 16:49
Holy shit, dude, I mean c'mon. If you're really a doctor then stop gaslighting me. We both know good and well that parasites modulate the host's immune system, making them more susceptible to disease in general, from everything from infection to even cancer.
My Mother is 83, she and I were just speaking, She remembers every Spring kids got dewormed, the medicine was common and it was encouraged to do so.
NOW;
How much has changed in her lifetime? Did parasites suddenly no longer exist? Or, are we too civilized to get parasites anymore?
No, chances are a lot more of us than we would like to admit are carrying a few extra wormy passengers.
And somewhere in Australia;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qHaeLO4RZg
My Mother is 83, she and I were just speaking, She remembers every Spring kids got dewormed, the medicine was common and it was encouraged to do so.
NOW;
How much has changed in her lifetime? Did parasites suddenly no longer exist? Or, are we too civilized to get parasites anymore?
No, chances are a lot more of us than we would like to admit are carrying a few extra wormy passengers.
And somewhere in Australia;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qHaeLO4RZg
Man I never would have figured it. I just kind of thought people in Africa either lived in places that had more parasites than we do here, or they were doing stupid shit like eating and drinking things they shouldn't.
But in terms of parasites in the environment, and risk of contracting them, I'm not seeing much difference between Americans and Africans. Obviously we have different parasites, but our risk doesn't seem fundamentally different.
And man, the food safety here is pretty abysmal I think. These factory farms are NASTY places. You don't want to know how any of the sausage gets made, I get that, but these factory farms are just disgusting in terms of the animals living in filth, and eating filth. I realize they're treated, but sometimes an environment can become so nasty that the load is too high to effectively prevent.
Not only that, but we swam in lakes and rivers around here when I was a kid. We all go barefoot in the grass. We've all been bitten by all kinds of bugs.
And then the whole diet/exercise/stress thing with us, that most Africans don't have. You look at the average African and they're strong and healthy. You know, ideal weight, lots of muscle tone, clear skin and eyes, strong white teeth. Pretty obvious their diet and exercise situation is way better than ours.
Averageman
09-07-21, 17:35
Man I never would have figured it. I just kind of thought people in Africa either lived in places that had more parasites than we do here, or they were doing stupid shit like eating and drinking things they shouldn't.
But in terms of parasites in the environment, and risk of contracting them, I'm not seeing much difference between Americans and Africans. Obviously we have different parasites, but our risk doesn't seem fundamentally different.
And man, the food safety here is pretty abysmal I think. These factory farms are NASTY places. You don't want to know how any of the sausage gets made, I get that, but these factory farms are just disgusting in terms of the animals living in filth, and eating filth. I realize they're treated, but sometimes an environment can become so nasty that the load is too high to effectively prevent.
Not only that, but we swam in lakes and rivers around here when I was a kid. We all go barefoot in the grass. We've all been bitten by all kinds of bugs.
And then the whole diet/exercise/stress thing with us, that most Africans don't have. You look at the average African and they're strong and healthy. You know, ideal weight, lots of muscle tone, clear skin and eyes, strong white teeth. Pretty obvious their diet and exercise situation is way better than ours.
I think that's all about which Africans you're looking at and how old they are.
Pretty much, if your poo isnt wiggling with worms, we figure you don't have parasites here in the US. That's a simple test, but certainly not very accurate.
Man if you wanna see some parasites go find a sandbox.
I said IF it's working. You're obviously just here to argue rather than discuss.
The bottom line is people way more qualified than you or me, despite being in the minority, are saying it's worth looking into (like the head of the Tokyo Medical Association just the other day). And anecdotally, the stories are stacking up high enough that they can't be dismissed out of hand.
That in and of itself warrants investigation, but you color all this with the whole anti ivermectin propaganda campaign in the government/media and that starts to beg some very interesting questions.
And doing so requires a clinical trial, willing participants, etc. If these people believe it should be looked into, they should do so. They have credentials.
However, blindly telling people to take it is NOT good practice. As I’ve said before and it was glossed over, like multiple things I’ve stated, I have PERSONALLY seen people make themselves sick by overdosing themselves on ivermectin. One of which contracted the very COVID VIRUS the patient thought ivermectin was protecting them from. The pt likely would have beat COVID without hospitalization, but instead severe dehydration, abdominal pain, etc.
People should not be self-dosing this stuff from farm store veterinary stock.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And doing so requires a clinical trial, willing participants, etc. If these people believe it should be looked into, they should do so. They have credentials.
However, blindly telling people to take it is NOT good practice. As I’ve said before and it was glossed over, like multiple things I’ve stated, I have PERSONALLY seen people make themselves sick by overdosing themselves on ivermectin. One of which contracted the very COVID VIRUS the patient thought ivermectin was protecting them from. The pt likely would have beat COVID without hospitalization, but instead severe dehydration, abdominal pain, etc.
People should not be self-dosing this stuff from farm store veterinary stock.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've literally been saying that this whole time. I don't know what part of the medical field you're in, but the gaslighting you're doing to me right now is EXACTLY why people don't trust you guys. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you people because you're not willing to discuss, you just dictate, and then when the person doesn't bow down to your dictation you gaslight, strawman, and play semantical **** **** games with them in some arrogant attempt to prove you're smart and they're stupid.
I've literally been saying that this whole time. I don't know what part of the medical field you're in, but the gaslighting you're doing to me right now is EXACTLY why people don't trust you guys. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you people because you're not willing to discuss, you just dictate, and then when the person doesn't bow down to your dictation you gaslight, strawman, and play semantical **** **** games with them in some arrogant attempt to prove you're smart and they're stupid.
Bullshit. You’ve been ignoring most of why I say for several posts. Anything that doesn’t support your theory, pisses you off.
Nobody is stopping the Ivermectin proponents from doing research except for themselves. Nor have I or anybody else expressed stopping them from doing so. We’ve just stated people don’t need to dose themselves with it and that there has been no evidence to this date it works. Which there hasn’t.
You’re being disingenuous. And worse, you’re guilty of confirmation bias.
And you know damn well I’ve been calling out those guilty of being untrustworthy in media and the government medical mouth pieces. To act like I’m part of some elitist club carrying their water is flat out bullshit. You evidently don’t read anything I write. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-07-21, 18:04
I've literally been saying that this whole time. I don't know what part of the medical field you're in, but the gaslighting you're doing to me right now is EXACTLY why people don't trust you guys. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you people because you're not willing to discuss, you just dictate, and then when the person doesn't bow down to your dictation you gaslight, strawman, and play semantical **** **** games with them in some arrogant attempt to prove you're smart and they're stupid.
And this goes for every discussion at every level, from the Knuckle heads here to Internationally with the WHO.
Someone's always got to be the smartest guy in the room and like a dog with a bone, they're gonna gnaw and gnaw.
This is worth a watch and the first 6:30 I've been saying since last Christmas. This got out of hand in China and in desperation they decided to export it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIckJMm1o-0
Man I never would have figured it. I just kind of thought people in Africa either lived in places that had more parasites than we do here, or they were doing stupid shit like eating and drinking things they shouldn't.
But in terms of parasites in the environment, and risk of contracting them, I'm not seeing much difference between Americans and Africans. Obviously we have different parasites, but our risk doesn't seem fundamentally different.
And man, the food safety here is pretty abysmal I think. These factory farms are NASTY places. You don't want to know how any of the sausage gets made, I get that, but these factory farms are just disgusting in terms of the animals living in filth, and eating filth. I realize they're treated, but sometimes an environment can become so nasty that the load is too high to effectively prevent.
Not only that, but we swam in lakes and rivers around here when I was a kid. We all go barefoot in the grass. We've all been bitten by all kinds of bugs.
And then the whole diet/exercise/stress thing with us, that most Africans don't have. You look at the average African and they're strong and healthy. You know, ideal weight, lots of muscle tone, clear skin and eyes, strong white teeth. Pretty obvious their diet and exercise situation is way better than ours.That's why everything is fake, super processed, and bathed in chemicals. What is "natural" has a one day expiration. Just look at the official recommended cooking temperatures. Everything is cooked to coal perfection.
Id be curious to see if I have anything. I'm always eating cold smoked meat and fish
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
And doing so requires a clinical trial, willing participants, etc. If these people believe it should be looked into, they should do so. They have credentials.
However, blindly telling people to take it is NOT good practice. As I’ve said before and it was glossed over, like multiple things I’ve stated, I have PERSONALLY seen people make themselves sick by overdosing themselves on ivermectin. One of which contracted the very COVID VIRUS the patient thought ivermectin was protecting them from. The pt likely would have beat COVID without hospitalization, but instead severe dehydration, abdominal pain, etc.
People should not be self-dosing this stuff from farm store veterinary stock.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not picking at you but curious if you KNOW just how much too much ivermectin it takes to overdose like you are describing.
I am venturing to guess it is a good bit more than the usual per lb dosage that would normally be prescribed by a doctor for a human.
For those that 'seem' to think ivermection is some sort of general purpose 'cure all' for parasites - It is not. It works against a very limited range of parasites and some of the parasites that it USED to be quite effective at killing years ago (heartworms is a good example here) have evolved to be resistant and ivermectin alone may not be quite so effective any longer. The MP3 strain of heartworms is just one that has been shown to not really be bothered by ivermectin and I am sure there are others (heartworm strains).
Last rescue dog I had arrived with just about every kind of parasite that a mutt could have and the ivermectin did not do crap for most of them. The tapeworms she had laughed at it and kept right on rocking... I think it took 4 separate drugs to kill ALL the different parasites that mutt had.
Not picking at you but curious if you KNOW just how much too much ivermectin it takes to overdose like you are describing.
I am venturing to guess it is a good bit more than the usual per lb dosage that would normally be prescribed by a doctor for a human.
For those that 'seem' to think ivermection is some sort of general purpose 'cure all' for parasites - It is not. It works against a very limited range of parasites and some of the parasites that it USED to be quite effective at killing years ago (heartworms is a good example here) have evolved to be resistant and ivermectin alone may not be quite so effective any longer. The MP3 strain of heartworms is just one that has been shown to not really be bothered by ivermectin and I am sure there are others (heartworm strains).
Last rescue dog I had arrived with just about every kind of parasite that a mutt could have and the ivermectin did not do crap for most of them. The tapeworms she had laughed at it and kept right on rocking... I think it took 4 separate drugs to kill ALL the different parasites that mutt had.
This person claimed to have been taking 12 mg daily for a week. Of course how accurately was this patient measuring?
How much does it take for an individual to OD, that’ll depend on their health, renal function and so on. If I recall, normal dosing is one or two doses by body weight usually not exceeding 12 mg.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-07-21, 18:51
Last rescue dog I had arrived with just about every kind of parasite that a mutt could have and the ivermectin did not do crap for most of them. The tapeworms she had laughed at it and kept right on rocking... I think it took 4 separate drugs to kill ALL the different parasites that mutt had.
I guarentee some kid in America tonight has all the same bunch of worms inside.
Bullshit. You’ve been ignoring most of why I say for several posts. Anything that doesn’t support your theory, pisses you off.
Nobody is stopping the Ivermectin proponents from doing research except for themselves. Nor have I or anybody else expressed stopping them from doing so. We’ve just stated people don’t need to dose themselves with it and that there has been no evidence to this date it works. Which there hasn’t.
You’re being disingenuous. And worse, you’re guilty of confirmation bias.
And you know damn well I’ve been calling out those guilty of being untrustworthy in media and the government medical mouth pieces. To act like I’m part of some elitist club carrying their water is flat out bullshit. You evidently don’t read anything I write. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dude, I have been saying repeatedly that people shouldn't just go out and start eating horse paste on crackers. You're as bad as the media the way you just gaslighted me, like I haven't been saying that this whole time when I absolutely have. Your mind is obviously made up so I don't even know why you're here other than to be a little pest with an assumed but entirely undeserved sense of authority.
What are you exactly anyways? What qualifies you to sit there and pontificate your opinions as facts?
This person claimed to have been taking 12 mg daily for a week. Of course how accurately was this patient measuring?
How much does it take for an individual to OD, that’ll depend on their health, renal function and so on. If I recall, normal dosing is one or two doses by body weight usually not exceeding 12 mg.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because patients never lie to their doctors when they **** up.:rolleyes:
Because patients never lie to their doctors when they **** up.:rolleyes:
Exactly how much should we assume he was taking since we can’t trust him?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There have been a ton of stories out there where they see IVM being successful...you won't find it using google, twatter, YT or any msm article though. Maybe us duck-go if you want to do your own digging. Those folks that have already convinced themselves the jab is the only cure all will always poo-poo the source / kook doctor or anything else to defend the jabs. I swear, it's like folks don't want any therapeutics to be successful even with all the evidence of 'break through' & all the variants might help them some day...the only choice should be the jab boosters & it's the un-jab'd fault. The fact the narrative is solidly supportive of post 111 the way you are seeing it being played out & purposefully demonized / censored should be enough to make people who are already suspicious of the fake news scratch their heads & do their own research to the counter that IVM is a rat poison meant for sick animal's guts.
Follow the $$$$.
https://rumble.com/vlzihf-the-story-of-ivermectin-and-covid-19.html
https://rumble.com/vlxs4f-interview-with-dr.-ryan-cole-about-ivermectin-and-covid-19.html
crickets...figures. Just Keep on bitching vs any independent thinking. Ya know it's the whole divide & conquer war 'they' are currently succeeding in winning. I knew this would be dismissed by the back & forth's.
Exactly how much should we assume he was taking since we can’t trust him?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or maybe just stop making assumptions period? Who knows, maybe he was drinking alcohol with it, or worse. Maybe he's allergic to it. Maybe he was eating it by the tube because he liked the apple taste. Maybe all of the above or a little from column a and a little from column b. We'll never know.
Or maybe just stop making assumptions period? Who knows, maybe he was drinking alcohol with it, or worse. Maybe he's allergic to it. Maybe he was eating it by the tube because he liked the apple taste. Maybe all of the above or a little from column a and a little from column b. We'll never know.
Or maybe we take him for his word.
Are you really so ate up to believe that anybody having negative side effects from “miracle drug” had to lie about their admitted over dose or were doing some other nonsense? It couldn’t be that taking it outside prescribed doses for an off label use without the care of a doctor could be dangerous?
More confirmation bias.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-07-21, 20:03
Or maybe just stop making assumptions period? Who knows, maybe he was drinking alcohol with it, or worse. Maybe he's allergic to it. Maybe he was eating it by the tube because he liked the apple taste. Maybe all of the above or a little from column a and a little from column b. We'll never know.
Wait a minute.
It comes in apple flavor?…..
Or maybe we take him for his word.
Are you really so ate up to believe that anybody having negative side effects from “miracle drug” had to lie about their admitted over dose or were doing some other nonsense? It couldn’t be that taking it outside prescribed doses for an off label use without the care of a doctor could be dangerous?
More confirmation bias.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stop with the gaslighting already. Again, for like the twentieth time, I've been saying that for ten pages now. Stop pretending like I haven't, and stop insinuating that I'm advocating things I clearly am not. I'm not advocating ivermectin period, much less from the feed store.
What I am advocating is that people start asking questions, and demanding answers from this sorry excuse for a government. And stop blindly trusting the media that has lied on so many occasions, and will continue to lie.
The facts we know, objectively speaking, are as follows:
Ivermectin is extremely safe when prescribed by a doctor
There is evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, that it somehow works aginst covid
The government/establishment/media response is batshit crazy and full of lies, threats, and propaganda
I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers, or any of them even. But neither do you, obviously. There are all kinds of theories about this whole thing, ranging from government propaganda to batshit crazy conspiracy theories. For example, some people think it's a psyop to divide and conquer. But by far the simplest explanation is simply that it works, and that it threatens the establishment's bottom line, not to mention every pretext the government now has to take more of our rights.
Some people stand to lose their lives over this, in one way or another. Others stand to lose their careers. And we all stand to lose our freedoms. Seems to me that we as a society have very little to lose by entertaining this discussion without so much autistic screeching from the opponents.
Averageman
09-07-21, 20:12
Wait a minute.
It comes in apple flavor?…..
And how does it spread on toast?
Stop with the gaslighting already. Again, for like the twentieth time, I've been saying that for ten pages now. Stop pretending like I haven't, and stop insinuating that I'm advocating things I clearly am not. I'm not advocating ivermectin period, much less from the feed store.
What I am advocating is that people start asking questions, and demanding answers from this sorry excuse for a government. And stop blindly trusting the media that has lied on so many occasions, and will continue to lie.
The facts we know, objectively speaking, are as follows:
Ivermectin is extremely safe when prescribed by a doctor
There is evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, that it somehow works aginst covid
The government/establishment/media response is batshit crazy and full of lies, threats, and propaganda
I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers, or any of them even. But neither do you, obviously. There are all kinds of theories about this whole thing, ranging from government propaganda to batshit crazy conspiracy theories. For example, some people think it's a psyop to divide and conquer. But by far the simplest explanation is simply that it works, and that it threatens the establishment's bottom line, not to mention every pretext the government now has to take more of our rights.
Some people stand to lose their lives over this, in one way or another. Others stand to lose their careers. And we all stand to lose our freedoms. Seems to me that we as a society have very little to lose by entertaining this discussion without so much autistic screeching from the opponents.
You keep claiming to be a victim. You keep screaming gaslighting, straw man, etc but you’re just eager to play victim.
Again, I asked you to share scientific evidence that ivermectin works to end the COVID disease process, but you can’t/won’t provide it.
If you’re going to say it works, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE.
In what way does ivermectin threaten the bottom line of the pharmaceutical industry? They are the ones to provide it. They are also the ones providing the treatments we are using that are extremely old and extremely cheap. Yet you won’t acknowledge that fact despite me providing it multiple times. I guess it’s inconvenient, and goes against your tendency for confirmation bias.
Some people take a position, then use every ounce of energy to support it.
So unless you can address why we are currently using CHEAP medication with great success to treat COVID without pharma squashing them…
AND
You can provide scientific evidence that ivermectin works, you’re just throwing bullshit hoping something sticks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You keep claiming to be a victim. You keep screaming gaslighting, straw man, etc but you’re just eager to play victim.
Again, I asked you to share scientific evidence that ivermectin works to end the COVID disease process, but you can’t/won’t provide it.
If you’re going to say it works, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE.
In what way does ivermectin threaten the bottom line of the pharmaceutical industry? They are the ones to provide it. They are also the ones providing the treatments we are using that are extremely old and extremely cheap. Yet you won’t acknowledge that fact despite me providing it multiple times. I guess it’s inconvenient, and goes against your tendency for confirmation bias.
Some people take a position, then use every ounce of energy to support it.
So unless you can address why we are currently using CHEAP medication with great success to treat COVID without pharma squashing them…
AND
You can provide scientific evidence that ivermectin works, you’re just throwing bullshit hoping something sticks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Holy shit you really don't read do you. You have obviously not read more than 10% of any of my posts that you've responded to. I take back what I said about gaslighting. You simply have no clue what we're even talking about.
Holy shit you really don't read do you. You have obviously not read more than 10% of any of my posts that you've responded to. I take back what I said about gaslighting. You simply have no clue what we're even talking about.
Yeah that’s it…yet you continue to ignore most of what I type. Mmmhmm.
Confirmation bias is all you’re looking for.
Still waiting for that scientific evidence you said didn’t exist before you said it exists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys need to knock off the bickering before this thread gets locked like the other one.
@mRad, confirmation bias seems to be preventing you from even trying to look at this objectively. If you do just a bit of digging, you would see that research all over the world is being conducted on the efficasy of ivermectin. And that the Australian study shows clearly its ability to inhibit viral replication. The biggest criticism of the Aussy study's results are that the dosage is much higher than what is typically prescribed on label, but that there are calls to do safety studies to ascertain safe dosage, such as the current one at Oxford. Furthermore, it is part of the protocol in several US hospital systems, though it is most effective at symptom onset during the viral stage, in what is increasingly looking like a syndrome.
Ivermectin is not HCQ. It does work, and as I've said before, did eliminate symptoms in my family within 5 days of onset. If you give it a fair shake, you might be surprised at what you'd learn.
And then the whole diet/exercise/stress thing with us, that most Africans don't have. You look at the average African and they're strong and healthy. You know, ideal weight, lots of muscle tone, clear skin and eyes, strong white teeth. Pretty obvious their diet and exercise situation is way better than ours.
Where in Africa have you been? Africa is an entire continent.
Andy
Yeah that’s it…yet you continue to ignore most of what I type. Mmmhmm.
Confirmation bias is all you’re looking for.
Still waiting for that scientific evidence you said didn’t exist before you said it exists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are actual doctors citing scientific evidence. Why on earth should people listen to you, vs. someone like the head of the Tokyo Medical Association?
Your psychological inability to see a middle ground is quite frankly disturbing. You obviously see anyone who's not vehemently against it as someone who's for it. I don't know, maybe the people thinking this is some giant psyop are right. It certainly seems to have worked on you.
There are actual doctors citing scientific evidence. Why on earth should people listen to you, vs. someone like the head of the Tokyo Medical Association?
Your psychological inability to see a middle ground is quite frankly disturbing. You obviously see anyone who's not vehemently against it as someone who's for it. I don't know, maybe the people thinking this is some giant psyop are right. It certainly seems to have worked on you.
I’ve asked you to share but you won’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys need to knock off the bickering before this thread gets locked like the other one.
@mRad, confirmation bias seems to be preventing you from even trying to look at this objectively. If you do just a bit of digging, you would see that research all over the world is being conducted on the efficasy of ivermectin. And that the Australian study shows clearly its ability to inhibit viral replication. The biggest criticism of the Aussy study's results are that the dosage is much higher than what is typically prescribed on label, but that there are calls to do safety studies to ascertain safe dosage, such as the current one at Oxford. Furthermore, it is part of the protocol in several US hospital systems, though it is most effective at symptom onset during the viral stage, in what is increasingly looking like a syndrome.
Ivermectin is not HCQ. It does work, and as I've said before, did eliminate symptoms in my family within 5 days of onset. If you give it a fair shake, you might be surprised at what you'd learn.
I’ve asked him to share it.
Five days? Most drop symptoms within five days anyway.
Can you share with me what US hospitals are using it as protocol?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inkslinger
09-08-21, 10:00
I’ve asked you to share but you won’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33723507/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33065103/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34052007/
Seems all these studies show at least a reduction in symptoms.
You guys need to knock off the bickering before this thread gets locked like the other one.
@mRad, confirmation bias seems to be preventing you from even trying to look at this objectively. If you do just a bit of digging, you would see that research all over the world is being conducted on the efficasy of ivermectin. And that the Australian study shows clearly its ability to inhibit viral replication. The biggest criticism of the Aussy study's results are that the dosage is much higher than what is typically prescribed on label, but that there are calls to do safety studies to ascertain safe dosage, such as the current one at Oxford. Furthermore, it is part of the protocol in several US hospital systems, though it is most effective at symptom onset during the viral stage, in what is increasingly looking like a syndrome.
Ivermectin is not HCQ. It does work, and as I've said before, did eliminate symptoms in my family within 5 days of onset. If you give it a fair shake, you might be surprised at what you'd learn.
HCQ is effective in some patients as well George. HCQ is yet another example of Orange man bad (just like the lab leak.) Only this time someone actually wrote a fake "academic" paper, published in the Lancet, purporting to prove it wasn't effective, that was later completely discredited.
The more you know about this fiasco, the more it all strikes as trending toward the conspiracy side of things. How exactly does this paper get published? One simple answer, they needed the plan-demic to continue so they could mail by fruad Chi-den into office. Its really that simple and the only thing that explains all of the lies, fraud and utter incompetence on display for the past 18 months. Why do you think Chi-den was hiding in his basement for the entire campaign? Answer: He knew the fix was in.............
Regardless, the actual truth won't be pursued so I choose to believe what I have determined is the truth.
Read below:
https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/lancet-formally-retracts-fake-hydroxychloroquine-study-used-by-media-to-attack-trump-inbox/
This one is probably the most detailed summary.
https://defyccc.com/another-junk-anti-hydroxychloroquine-study-2/
I’ve asked him to share it.
Five days? Most drop symptoms within five days anyway.
Can you share with me what US hospitals are using it as protocol?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have a client who's a pulmonologist at a Columbia, SC hospital who explained the protocol to me and that it's being in severe cases, and I've also recently read of other systems using it, but can't remember where. Ultimately, it IS being used, though in later stages of the disease, where it may not be as effective according to some.
HCQ is effective in some patients as well George. HCQ is yet another example of Orange man bad (just like the lab leak.) Only this time someone actually wrote a fake "academic" paper, published in the Lancet, purporting to prove it wasn't effective, that was later completely discredited.
The more you know about this fiasco, the more it all strikes as trending toward the conspiracy side of things. How exactly does this paper get published? One simple answer, they needed the plan-demic to continue so they could mail by fruad Chi-den into office. Its really that simple.
Regardless, the actual truth won't be pursued so I choose to believe what I have determined is the truth.
Read below:
https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/
I was watching a video that Will posted in the other thread, and the doctor, who struck me as objective explained that HCQ does work in inhibiting viral passage through the endocrine pathway into the cell. Unfortunately, the virus uses two pathways (I can't remember what the other is called) in the respiratory tract which differs from elsewhere in the body. That said, I can see it having some benefit, but as Ivermectin prevents replication, and has been proven to do so in the lab, it is a better option.
I posted two videos for your review / request & yet to comment...posting like a troll at this point simply to argue & as mentioned it's the same sorta nonsense that got will's thread halted.
I’ve asked him to share it.
Five days? Most drop symptoms within five days anyway.
Can you share with me what US hospitals are using it as protocol?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was watching a video that Will posted in the other thread, and the doctor, who struck me as objective explained that HCQ does work in inhibiting viral passage through the endocrine pathway into the cell. Unfortunately, the virus uses two pathways (I can't remember what the other is called) in the respiratory tract which differs from elsewhere in the body. That said, I can see it having some benefit, but as Ivermectin prevents replication, and has been proven to do so in the lab, it is a better option.
Yep, its complicated, well beyond my viral understanding. Ivermectin isn't a cure all either and appears most effective when taken early in the cycle. I had someone I know who refused to take it until it was too late and he ended up in the hospital for two weeks. But there were tools in the medical communities arsenal and for the most part, they refused to acknowledge or use them to save lives.
I posted two videos for your review / request & yet to comment...posting like a troll at this point simply to argue & as mentioned it's the same sorta nonsense that got will's thread halted.
Just toss the troll onto your ignore list and things will improve. He's added absolutely nothing to this discussion and seems to know even less about firearms.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33723507/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33065103/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34052007/
Seems all these studies show at least a reduction in symptoms.
Every one of those studies also shows, and I quote from one:
“Although the study sample was too small (n = 72) to draw any solid conclusions”
All but one suggests ivermectin WITH azithromycin and/or HCQ which is also what we are using which shows efficacy when used alone. They mention “possible” reduction in mild symptoms. Additionally, this is patients without co-morbidity.
So potential? Maybe? Studies can be done. Smoking gun? No.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I posted two videos for your review / request & yet to comment...posting like a troll at this point simply to argue & as mentioned it's the same sorta nonsense that got will's thread halted.
I don’t believe I ever saw such a post. Repost it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just toss the troll onto your ignore list and things will improve. He's added absolutely nothing to this discussion and seems to know even less about firearms.
Seems to be all we can say about you…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inkslinger
09-08-21, 10:48
Smoking gun? No.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not saying they were. The problem is, by reading some of your posts, you’re looking for something that is undeniable and 100% perfect. Anyone with a triple digit IQ realize those don’t exist so….
Posted twice on #119 & again on #135...they touch on some of your concerns / arguments. Slow down, lighten up & be receptive to what could possibly be helping folks if it was accepted as a safe option especially for early treatments vs sending folks home & telling them to come back when you need the ER. The reason it's not widely accepted by hospitals is simply because of protocol & the fact IVM is not the original application for corona type assistance...THAT sure in the hell doesn't mean it's not working for a shit ton of people.
I don’t believe I ever saw such a post. Repost it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just toss the troll onto your ignore list and things will improve. He's added absolutely nothing to this discussion and seems to know even less about firearms.
Well, he's passionate & if we can get more folks to counter the MSM narrative that ivermectin is rat poison when combined with covid vs being awarded one of the safest & essential drugs on the planet & it's success in saving peoples lives as we speak?? IVM & HCQ when combined with Zinc are curing folks of covid & the MSM / Swamp is doing everything they can to suppress / vilify a safe option for the sake of $$$$ and it's WORKING...period.
Well, he's passionate & if we can get more folks to counter the MSM narrative that ivermectin is rat poison when combined with covid vs being awarded one of the safest & essential drugs on the planet & it's success in saving peoples lives as we speak?? IVM & HCQ when combined with Zinc are curing folks of covid & the MSM / Swamp is doing everything they can to suppress / vilify a safe option for the sake of $$$$ and it's WORKING...period.
Agreed.
Well, he's passionate & if we can get more folks to counter the MSM narrative that ivermectin is rat poison when combined with covid vs being awarded one of the safest & essential drugs on the planet & it's success in saving peoples lives as we speak?? IVM & HCQ when combined with Zinc are curing folks of covid & the MSM / Swamp is doing everything they can to suppress / vilify a safe option for the sake of $$$$ and it's WORKING...period.
Again, even those foreign studies only include mild cases, not life saving cases and they admit the sample size is too small to draw statistical conclusions.
Accusing the medical community of “suppressing for sake of $$$” will not help your case. Furthermore, the drugs we are seeing efficacy with are already cheap, wildly available drugs.
No one making the money argument seems to understand that steroids, albuterol, and azithromycin are incredibly inexpensive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was watching a video that Will posted in the other thread, and the doctor, who struck me as objective explained that HCQ does work in inhibiting viral passage through the endocrine pathway into the cell. Unfortunately, the virus uses two pathways (I can't remember what the other is called) in the respiratory tract which differs from elsewhere in the body. That said, I can see it having some benefit, but as Ivermectin prevents replication, and has been proven to do so in the lab, it is a better option.
This is a really difficult topic to cover as there's so many moving parts, some valid, some not, and my take is a bit different from others on the issue. All of which would be a wall of text to even try and cover adequately.
• I suspect ivermectin and HCQ should be part of the overall approach if they pass the first do no harm requirement. Extensive human data suggests they do.
• Anyone who falls for those calling either cures for covid and or uses them as mono therapy for covid, may regret that bigly.
• Assuming the push for vaccines etc is all about $, yet think those pushing so hard on other approaches such as HCQ etc are doing so without their own agenda, is naive at best.
• Personally, I feel they are all (ok, call it 98.6%) still missing the essential aspect, which is addressing the fuel (ROS formation) vs the fire (the hyper immune response) that leads to the serious illness/complications/hospitalizations/long term damage/death from that virus as outlined in my article (https://brinkzone.com/life-saving-strategies-for-covid-19-complications/) and vid on the topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVMlsW53kiE&t=2291s). A year + into all this, frustration levels rising I appear to the lone voice on that one, unless I'm just missing it. Lots mention it in papers, dance around it, seem like they will "get it" but don't. They clearly understand oxidative stress an aspect of covid infections, some make some mention of addressing it, most don't, none (call it none from a statistical POV...) seem to realize what it means in the pathophys of where/how it gets ugly. Key aspects seem to be mitigate formation of ROS, maintain GSH, for the win. Neither is rocket science to do...
• There's a variety of reasons "they" continue to target the fire vs the fuel in that virus for those who do get ill - and doing a good job of it too - no single reasons, and like most things, multi factorial. Some of the reasons suck, such as the reality there's no $ in it, but it's not the only reason.
More interesting perhaps, that while that drug remains controversial for use for covid, it appears promising for cancer, and that’s being over shadowed with covid, while cancer will of course kill far more people. That may be an opportunity to elevate interest in that drug for cancer simply riding on its popularity – for better or worse – as at applies to covid. This is but one of various papers:
Pharmacological Research
Volume 163, January 2021, 105207
Review
Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug
Highlights
•
Ivermectin effectively suppresses the proliferation and metastasis of cancer cells and promotes cancer cell death at doses that are nontoxic to normal cells.
•
Ivermectin shows excellent efficacy against conventional chemotherapy drug-resistant cancer cells and reverses multidrug resistance.
•
Ivermectin combined with other chemotherapy drugs or targeted drugs has powerful effects on cancer.
•
The structure of crosstalk centered on PAK1 kinase reveals the mechanism by which ivermectin regulates multiple signaling pathways.
•
Ivermectin has been used to treat parasitic diseases in humans for many years and can quickly enter clinical trials for the treatment of tumors.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661820315152
The do no harm aspect of treatment is often ignored. We do a lot of harm treating cancer, or running a code.
Sometimes the ONLY treatment involves harm. When there are alternatives that do not do harm, they should first be considered over possible harmful treatments and those with known harmful side effects. As I mentioned previously, my sister-in-law’s patient refused steroids, antivirals, albuterol, monoclonal antibodies (which have shown the highest efficacy of ALL treatments), but demanded HCQ. Finally, she broke down and ordered HCQ at the patients request. The patient went into a fatal arrhythmia and died shortly after the first dose, despite having no cardiac history. That isn’t the first patient suffering such a fate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The do no harm aspect of treatment is often ignored. We do a lot of harm treating cancer, or running a code.
Sometimes the ONLY treatment involves harm. When there are alternatives that do not do harm, they should first be considered over possible harmful treatments and those with known harmful side effects. As I mentioned previously, my sister-in-law’s patient refused steroids, antivirals, albuterol, monoclonal antibodies (which have shown the highest efficacy of ALL treatments), but demanded HCQ. Finally, she broke down and ordered HCQ at the patients request. The patient went into a fatal arrhythmia and died shortly after the first dose, despite having no cardiac history. That isn’t the first patient suffering such a fate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you know what the dosage was? Just curious, as HCQ has been used very safely worldwide for 50 years. I'm guessing the dose must have been significant if it caused arrhythmia.
The do no harm aspect of treatment is often ignored. We do a lot of harm treating cancer, or running a code.
Sometimes the ONLY treatment involves harm. When there are alternatives that do not do harm, they should first be considered over possible harmful treatments and those with known harmful side effects. As I mentioned previously, my sister-in-law’s patient refused steroids, antivirals, albuterol, monoclonal antibodies (which have shown the highest efficacy of ALL treatments), but demanded HCQ. Finally, she broke down and ordered HCQ at the patients request. The patient went into a fatal arrhythmia and died shortly after the first dose, despite having no cardiac history. That isn’t the first patient suffering such a fate.
Per above, passes the first do no harm hurtle, add it into the tool box and leave it to front line clinicians to decide. Use it as mono therapy per your story above, you're an idiot. Rejecting use of what clearly works, via steroids, antivirals, albuterol, monoclonal antibodies, if you end up in the hospital, well, Darwin gonna Darwin...
To not employ modalities to control the ROS, support GSH, etc at this point, huge missed opportunity in a good outcome, and is at worst, a wasting a few $ of compounds employed as they pass the first do no harm hurtle by a margin beyond anything being employed.
Doc buddy of mine who works in a major metro hospital in FL, and critical care doc, said if it was his family, he had what I discuss ready to go. He said he tried to bring up just NAC for use in their meeting, and was shot down and looked at like he was crazy.
He knew NAC at best was the only one he might be able to get used, being it's already in the system, is SOC for other things, has a billable code, etc, and got no place. Meanwhile, the expensive anti viral SOC continues to demonstrate less than impressive results in clinical trails, along with HCQ:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-0653
While there are a few depts and hospitals employing some of it, NAC or vite C, etc, it's a small %, and not SOC. For me, that's medical negligence at this point.
One of various reason I didn't go to med school after doing all the pre med sciences and a lot more not required.
I would have choked someone in the process of getting the MD before I was ever able to open my own shop.
Do you know what the dosage was? Just curious, as HCQ has been used very safely worldwide for 50 years. I'm guessing the dose must have been significant if it caused arrhythmia.
300mg. Arrhythmias aren’t uncommon, and there is a difference between drugs given in the presence of disease process and in the absence. Also, suffering from COVID can lower thresholds for the human body. Age and sex are also risk factors.
Oftentimes, other treatments used for COVID such as azithromycin, can also prolong Qt which increases the risk of ventricular arrhythmias.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Per above, passes the first do no harm hurtle, add it into the tool box and leave it to front line clinicians to decide. Use it as mono therapy per your story above, you're an idiot. Rejecting use of what clearly works, via steroids, antivirals, albuterol, monoclonal antibodies, if you end up in the hospital, well, Darwin gonna Darwin...
To not employ modalities to control the ROS, support GSH, etc at this point, huge missed opportunity in a good outcome, and is at worst, a wasting a few $ of compounds employed as they pass the first do no harm hurtle by a margin beyond anything being employed.
Doc buddy of mine who works in a major metro hosptal in FL, and critical care doc, said if it was his family, he had what I discuss ready to go. He said he tried to bring up just NAC for use in their meeting, and was shot down and looked at like he was crazy.
He knew NAC at best was the only one he might be able to get used, being it's already in the system, is SOC for other things, has a billable code, etc, and got no place.
For me, that's medical negligence, and one of various reason I didn't go to med school after doing all the pre med sciences and a lot more not required.
I would have choked someone in the process of getting the MD before I was ever able to open my own shop.
The system is most certainly wacked in many ways. I was considering med school at one point but chose another path. My sister-in-law wishes she HADN’T gone to med school between being burnt out in critical care, and the relatively low pay compared to other specialties. She said to do it over again, CRNA would have been her choice. That was my path until life got in the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a really difficult topic to cover as there's so many moving parts, some valid, some not, and my take is a bit different from others on the issue. All of which would be a wall of text to even try and cover adequately.
• I suspect ivermectin and HCQ should be part of the overall approach if they pass the first do no harm requirement. Extensive human data suggests they do.
• Anyone who falls for those calling either cures for covid and or uses them as mono therapy for covid, may regret that bigly.
• Assuming the push for vaccines etc is all about $, yet think those pushing so hard on other approaches such as HCQ etc are doing so without their own agenda, is naive at best.
• Personally, I feel they are all (ok, call it 98.6%) still missing the essential aspect, which is addressing the fuel (ROS formation) vs the fire (the hyper immune response) that leads to the serious illness/complications/hospitalizations/long term damage/death from that virus as outlined in my article (https://brinkzone.com/life-saving-strategies-for-covid-19-complications/) and vid on the topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVMlsW53kiE&t=2291s). A year + into all this, frustration levels rising I appear to the lone voice on that one, unless I'm just missing it. Lots mention it in papers, dance around it, seem like they will "get it" but don't. They clearly understand oxidative stress an aspect of covid infections, some make some mention of addressing it, most don't, none (call it none from a statistical POV...) seem to realize what it means in the pathophys of where/how it gets ugly. Key aspects seem to be mitigate formation of ROS, maintain GSH, for the win. Neither is rocket science to do...
• There's a variety of reasons "they" continue to target the fire vs the fuel in that virus for those who do get ill - and doing a good job of it too - no single reasons, and like most things, multi factorial. Some of the reasons suck, such as the reality there's no $ in it, but it's not the only reason.
More interesting perhaps, that while that drug remains controversial for use for covid, it appears promising for cancer, and that’s being over shadowed with covid, while cancer will of course kill far more people. That may be an opportunity to elevate interest in that drug for cancer simply riding on its popularity – for better or worse – as at applies to covid. This is but one of various papers:
Pharmacological Research
Volume 163, January 2021, 105207
Review
Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug
Highlights
•
Ivermectin effectively suppresses the proliferation and metastasis of cancer cells and promotes cancer cell death at doses that are nontoxic to normal cells.
•
Ivermectin shows excellent efficacy against conventional chemotherapy drug-resistant cancer cells and reverses multidrug resistance.
•
Ivermectin combined with other chemotherapy drugs or targeted drugs has powerful effects on cancer.
•
The structure of crosstalk centered on PAK1 kinase reveals the mechanism by which ivermectin regulates multiple signaling pathways.
•
Ivermectin has been used to treat parasitic diseases in humans for many years and can quickly enter clinical trials for the treatment of tumors.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661820315152
I've never had much interest in medical science, more of an aversion actually, so all I really have to guide me is intuition and common sense. It seems obvious that ivermectin is very safe as far as pharmaceuticals go. They pass it around like tictacs in Africa, and I've yet to see any news stories of those jungle hospitals being overrun with overdoses. If Jungle Joe in the Congo can follow the directions on the box then I kind of imagine the average American can, too. As for whether it's effective in treating covid or not, that's so far outside of my knowledge base I couldn't even begin to make an informed decision. I'm that dude right in the middle of the DK curve trying to figure out which loud mouth is the expert and which is the idiot. I think the important takeaway is that people who are qualified to have an opinion think it's worth investigating, and people who have experienced it firsthand seem to think it helped them. I'm like 90% sure I got the original covid strain back around Christmas before the pandemic started, and that shit did NOT go away in five days. It was two weeks of being the sickest I've ever been, followed by two months of feeling like I wasn't getting enough air. So when people get full on covid and say they bounce back to normal after five days because they took ivermectin, I can't really argue with them. All I can do is just be like hmmm, maybe that dude's onto something.
Now I may not be an expert in medical science, but I am an expert in bullshit, and what's coming from the establishment right now is some of the finest bullshit I've ever seen. Like this kind of quality is only seen maybe once in a generation. Probably the last time we saw this level of BS was when the East Germans said they were building the wall to keep people out. The only thing I can be sure of is that they're lying to us, but why? It really works and they don't want people to find out? It's actually harmful in some sneaky way, and it's reverse psychology? It's neither harmful nor helpful, and they're just stirring the pot to cause further division?
Part of me suspects that covid is just like the common cold is the sense that there is no cure or therapy or vaccine, but just a bunch of superstition and competing witchdoctors all peddling their own brand of snake oil. Some of which is benign, some of which is deadly, all of which is useless. I think I'm leaning like 75% in that direction to be honest.
The system is most certainly wacked in many ways. I was considering med school at one point but chose another path. My sister-in-law wishes she HADN’T gone to med school between being burnt out in critical care, and the relatively low pay compared to other specialties. She said to do it over again, CRNA would have been her choice. That was my path until life got in the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The final straw was my doc friends leaving medicine at the time (mid/late 90s) and told me, knowing me as they did, I would not be happy. I do wish I'd gotten a PhD, but done just fine without it. Being called "Dr. Brink" would have honestly been the only part that would almost be worth it for me.
The final straw was my doc friends leaving medicine at the time (mid/late 90s) and told me, knowing me as they did, I would not be happy. I do wish I'd gotten a PhD, but done just fine without it. Being called "Dr. Brink" would have honestly been the only part that would almost be worth it for me.
Curious, what types of doctors were your friends that were leaving medicine at the time?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The system is most certainly wacked in many ways. I was considering med school at one point but chose another path. My sister-in-law wishes she HADN’T gone to med school between being burnt out in critical care, and the relatively low pay compared to other specialties. She said to do it over again, CRNA would have been her choice. That was my path until life got in the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was going to do CRNA until I shadowed a buddy (former 18D, he was a flight nurse when I was a flight medic). I didn't care for it.
I have spent almost 30 years in the medical field in some capacity...EMS, military, nursing (clinical, management, and education). If I didn't have kids to send to college, I could walk today. The field has beaten the shi* out of me. I am tired.
I was going to do CRNA until I shadowed a buddy (former 18D, he was a flight nurse when I was a flight medic). I didn't care for it.
I have spent almost 30 years in the medical field in some capacity...EMS, military, nursing (clinical, management, and education). If I didn't have kids to send to college, I could walk today. The field has beaten the shi* out of me. I am tired.
It isn’t going to get any better, I’m afraid. I’ve been in the field since 2006 with direct involvement, and indirectly (administrative) since 1999. Many days I want to hang up my hat and go back to being a mechanic, but that has changed so much…
Early on, I shadowed a former Army flight nurse turned CRNA. He worked outpatient surgery per diem. It was a cake job and actually somewhat routine. He claimed to be set for a nice retirement at 55. But at this point, I’m too old for that. If I get out anytime soon, it’ll be to farm. The last year and a half had been rough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Funny you say that, HCQ is causing real cardiac damage to people. I’ve seen it and ivermectin turn bad for people. My sister-in-law, an ICU physician has similar experience. She treated a patient who refused anything we know to work and wanted HCQ. She gave it to her and it killed her.
It’s funny the idiots complaining about the vaccine being untested literally advocate for drugs untested for COVID because they’ve been
Used to treat other things in the past.It is established chloroquine has no effect later on, it is only very early when it can inhibit fusion between SARS-CoV-2 and the host cell membrane. I doubt your sister-in-law administered HCQ without a judge's order and in sufficient dosage to kill her. Sounds very invented. Likewise with "ivermectin turn bad for people", there is no scientific evidence of that, you seem to be simply making stuff up. You are not Dr. Jason McElyea are you?
You can call me an idiot to distract from the "vaccine" being untested, but it doesn't change the truth. Certainly not for Maddie De Garay, Ernesto Ramirez Jr, Lisa Shaw and many others well outside of the at-risk covid demographic. The good news is the CDC has changed the definition of vaccine so the shots can still qualify as we learn that have no long-lasting immunity, (sometimes no immunity), do not prevent infection, and do not prevent transmission. They are a failure, linked to spike that was likely already outdated as of October's discovery of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2. Every country with high usage is still in restrictions. And the completely resistant variants haven't arrived yet.
Would be ironic if historians attribute the increased proliferation and impact of the virus to increased asymptomatic spread from the flawed covid shots.
It is established chloroquine has no effect later on, it is only very early when it can inhibit fusion between SARS-CoV-2 and the host cell membrane. I doubt your sister-in-law administered HCQ without a judge's order and in sufficient dosage to kill her. Sounds very invented. Likewise with "ivermectin turn bad for people", there is no scientific evidence of that, you seem to be simply making stuff up. You are not Dr. Jason McElyea are you?
You can call me an idiot to distract from the "vaccine" being untested, but it doesn't change the truth. Certainly not for Maddie De Garay, Ernesto Ramirez Jr, Lisa Shaw and many others well outside of the at-risk covid demographic. The good news is the CDC has changed the definition of vaccine so the shots can still qualify as we learn that have no long-lasting immunity, (sometimes no immunity), do not prevent infection, and do not prevent transmission. They are a failure, linked to spike that was likely already outdated as of October's discovery of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2. Every country with high usage is still in restrictions. And the completely resistant variants haven't arrived yet.
Would be ironic if historians attribute the increased proliferation and impact of the virus to increased asymptomatic spread from the flawed covid shots.
Believe whatever the hell you want, but you’re going on ignore. I do no appreciate being called a liar by a conspiracy theorist. F off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Curious, what types of doctors were your friends that were leaving medicine at the time?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Internal med, GPs, and the like. Specialists then and now, did well $ wise. That was when HMOs were really hammering docs, and they were making way less $, working far more hours, spending and equal amount of time on paper work, and unable to spend enough time with patients. The tended to go into corporate stuff like working for pharma, developing and marketing a medical widget and so one.
Secondary to that, the BS they dealt with hospital admins and such, made them feel patient outcomes were not the main focus.
That is fine. All you have done is call me names as if we are ten. It seems safe to assume you were making stuff up.
Where in the hell did I say the medical community is suppressing anything...there are a lot of Dr's scripting out IVM & HCQ & that's the whole point. I really think you've simply chosen a side & don't care about anything other than your self perceived appearance of being the smartest in the room & to move the needle now would damage your own internal reputation. Not worth it.
Again, even those foreign studies only include mild cases, not life saving cases and they admit the sample size is too small to draw statistical conclusions.
Accusing the medical community of “suppressing for sake of $$$” will not help your case. Furthermore, the drugs we are seeing efficacy with are already cheap, wildly available drugs.
No one making the money argument seems to understand that steroids, albuterol, and azithromycin are incredibly inexpensive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where in the hell did I say the medical community is suppressing anything...there are a lot of Dr's scripting out IVM & HCQ & that's the whole point. I really think you've simply chosen a side & don't care about anything other than your self perceived appearance of being the smartest in the room & to move the needle now would damage your own internal reputation. Not worth it.
I didn’t say YOU said it, but it’s been said time and time again through this thread.
But your assessment is absolutely dead wrong. I don’t care about “appearance” or being “smart”. I care about, at a professional level, one thing: people getting better. We have a good treatment regime…and it’s not only well-studied, it is proven safe and it works. Rabbit trails that may or may not have minor efficacy is not where we should be focusing concentration. It’s a distraction at this point. Study it, fine…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where in the hell did I say the medical community is suppressing anything...there are a lot of Dr's scripting out IVM & HCQ & that's the whole point. I really think you've simply chosen a side & don't care about anything other than your self perceived appearance of being the smartest in the room & to move the needle now would damage your own internal reputation. Not worth it.
My dad got an ivermectin script, and when he went to fill it the pharmacy said he got the literal last pill they had left. There are lots of people out there taking it, obviously. But I don't know how much of that is demand, vs. supply being taken off the market by all the establishment moves to make it harder to get. So again, really hard to tell if it's like a reverse psychology thing, or if the establishment is genuinely trying to deny people access to it because they have some ulterior motive. I'm trying to get some. Have no immediate plans to take it, but if it turns out to be the magic elixir and you can't get it anymore, no harm in having some in the medicine cabinet.
This is a really difficult topic to cover as there's so many moving parts, some valid, some not, and my take is a bit different from others on the issue. ...
• I suspect ivermectin and HCQ should be part of the overall approach if they pass the first do no harm requirement. Extensive human data suggests they do.
• Anyone who falls for those calling either cures for covid and or uses them as mono therapy for covid, may regret that bigly.
• Assuming the push for vaccines etc is all about $, yet think those pushing so hard on other approaches such as HCQ etc are doing so without their own agenda, is naive at best.Will, the first two are great points. Your latter seems "naive at best." Based on my very limited experience (studies/talking to physicians), HCQ has no use in a hospitalization case. But the ivermectin saga is a huge black eye on the medical community. Doctors are being targeted if they step out of line. The refusal to even attempt short-term use is not normal. I don't know if it works. I don't the mechanisms by which it might work. But watching someone decline before they need to intubated and die, the whole time refusing to try it seems insane (https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/09/08/family-angry-after-grandfather-who-was-denied-ivermectin-dies-from-covid-19-despite-judges-order-to-administer-drug/)
We are talking about a new $100+ billion a year market created overnight --- covid shots. (Israel paid $120 per person for the shots and found them ineffective after six months). As pointed out by others, if ivermectin had been used and been successful (not saying it would have been!) this industry would not exist. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is (1) ivermectin has been proven to be completely ineffective, which I do not believe it has, or (2) this is a race to establish a market based on these solutions/shots for not only covid but future diseases, any alternative treatment methods threaten that and they are investing considerable resources in limiting the competition's spread.
Internal med, GPs, and the like. Specialists then and now, did well $ wise. That was when HMOs were really hammering docs, and they were making way less $, working far more hours, spending and equal amount of time on paper work, and unable to spend enough time with patients. The tended to go into corporate stuff like working for pharma, developing and marketing a medical widget and so one.
Secondary to that, the BS they dealt with hospital admins and such, made them feel patient outcomes were not the main focus.
Hospital administrators certainly have one focus: their bonus. The hospital I worked at the last several cut our salaries, eliminated our EMT, and reduced our ETO accrual rates to “meet budget shortfalls”. Ultimately, the CEO “earned” a two million dollar bonus for cutting the budget and projected budget.
RTs, RNs, Radiology Techs, and other licensed staff left in droves…it created a personnel shortage the year BEFORE COVID. The intensive care unit I was in called for 70 RNs, and was down to 30 the day I left. I’ve since been told they are down to 10 and filling the gaps with travelers and per diems. That is never good for patient outcomes.
At the same time, physicians were being forced to take more call and they stopped replacing physicians when they left. At one point, we lost two pulmonologist they refused to replace, then one of the two remaining came down with COVID, ended up vented, trached/pegged, and had a long rehab. He was gone six months. That’s a long time
To be down three pulmonologist during the respiratory pandemic.
My current public sector ED gig is much much better, and actually pays above national median income, which is significantly higher than surrounding facilities. Otherwise, I’d be like Chuckman wanting out right now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Via doc buddy of mine who know's what is what and does not give a damn about where X group, org, etc stands on the topic. He cuts through the BS, and is easy enough to understand with or without sci/med background, and supplies sources too:
My skepticism for ivermectin and utility for COVID-19 is very high.
Perhaps on-going and/ or future trials will demonstrate benefit, but this is very, very unlikely (in my opinion).
Nevertheless, I would embrace being proven incorrect if ivermectin offers a safe and effective outpatient option for COVID-19 (a safe and effective outpatient treatment option is urgently needed).
To date, the clinical data with ivermectin used by most ivermectin proponents/ advocates is plagued by high bias, weak study methodology (observational/ retrospective studies, unclear randomization and/ or blinding procedures that indicate high bias, limited sample size controlled/ randomized trials that have been withdrawn due to data discrepancy errors; etc. – high quality studies published to date do not support benefit.
A recent presentation of the TOGETHER adaptive trial platform (.pdf of slide presentation, attached) emphasized no benefit for ivermectin in COVID-19 patients.
Detailed information on the trial design is provided within the presentation (link below).
{Early Treatment of COVID-19 with Repurposed Therapies: The TOGETHER Adaptive Platform Trial (Edward Mills, PhD, FRCP)}:
https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/KR/GR-Slides-08-06-21.pdf
There are two studies (and one review) that have been strongly touted by ivermectin advocates/ proponents as evidence of efficacy.
One was a preprint from Egyptian researchers (however, the paper was subsequently retracted over plagiarism and forged/ bogus data):
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v4
The second paper was from Argentina, and was plagued by irregularities and data discrepancies (e.g. numbers, genders, and ages of the trial participants were inconsistent, a hospital named in the paper as taking part in the experiments has no record of the trial, health officials in the province of Buenos Aires have indicated there is no record of the study receiving local IRB approval):
https://www.buongiornosuedtirol.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Nota-Journal-of-Biomedical-Research-Safety-and-Efficacy-Iota-Carrageenan-and-Ivermectin.pdf
A gushingly positive review of all the current data on ivermectin was rejected from a journal after provisional acceptance for concerns about research integrity and conflicts of interest:
https://blog.frontiersin.org/2021/03/02/2-march-2021-media-statement/
A Cochrane meta-analysis of all the randomized, controlled trials to date of ivermectin against COVID-19 concluded that the available data was of generally weak quality and suffered from high bias, without clear evidence of benefit:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full
Further, both the proposed mechanism for ivermectin against COVID-19 is debatable, and the pharmacokinetic data defy plausible use in COVID-19.
A 5 µmol/L ivermectin concentration reported in the literature is over 50 times higher than the levels attainable after 700 μg/kg dosing and 17 times higher vs. the largest Cmax found in the literature to date.
From the reference: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2020.1775118
Will, the first two are great points. Your latter seems "naive at best." Based on my very limited experience (studies/talking to physicians), HCQ has no use in a hospitalization case. But the ivermectin saga is a huge black eye on the medical community. Doctors are being targeted if they step out of line. The refusal to even attempt short-term use is not normal. I don't know if it works. I don't the mechanisms by which it might work. But watching someone decline before they need to intubated and die, the whole time refusing to try it seems insane (https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/09/08/family-angry-after-grandfather-who-was-denied-ivermectin-dies-from-covid-19-despite-judges-order-to-administer-drug/)
We are talking about a new $100+ billion a year market created overnight --- covid shots. (Israel paid $120 per person for the shots and found them ineffective after six months). As pointed out by others, if ivermectin had been used and been successful (not saying it would have been!) this industry would not exist. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is (1) ivermectin has been proven to be completely ineffective, which I do not believe it has, or (2) this is a race to establish a market based on these solutions/shots for not only covid but future diseases, any alternative treatment methods threaten that and they are investing considerable resources in limiting the competition's spread.
See #184 for the legit run down on that so far. Reasons for rejection of Ivermectin are multi factorial, and a big cluster. Fact is, 10 quality RCTs can get published demonstrating ivermectin is not effective, and they will be met with claims they were all fixed/faked, will cling to the very low quality studies, some done by people with their own agenda and $ interests, is what will happen.
People are convinced, due to corner they stuck themselves, that it's only one side that's playing them and have an agenda due to various reasons.
Inkslinger
09-08-21, 14:29
Will, the first two are great points. Your latter seems "naive at best." Based on my very limited experience (studies/talking to physicians), HCQ has no use in a hospitalization case. But the ivermectin saga is a huge black eye on the medical community. Doctors are being targeted if they step out of line. The refusal to even attempt short-term use is not normal. I don't know if it works. I don't the mechanisms by which it might work. But watching someone decline before they need to intubated and die, the whole time refusing to try it seems insane (https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/09/08/family-angry-after-grandfather-who-was-denied-ivermectin-dies-from-covid-19-despite-judges-order-to-administer-drug/)
We are talking about a new $100+ billion a year market created overnight --- covid shots. (Israel paid $120 per person for the shots and found them ineffective after six months). As pointed out by others, if ivermectin had been used and been successful (not saying it would have been!) this industry would not exist. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is (1) ivermectin has been proven to be completely ineffective, which I do not believe it has, or (2) this is a race to establish a market based on these solutions/shots for not only covid but future diseases, any alternative treatment methods threaten that and they are investing considerable resources in limiting the competition's spread.
Don’t worry, the new and improved Ivermectin will be available soon and whole heartedly endorsed. I wonder if it will cost more than ivermectin?
https://www.lifepronow.com/molnupiravir/
We are on the border so had a friend pick up both HCQ & IVM when he crossed as you don't need scripts...I know some are taking the IVM as a preventative but having already had C19 & the other myriad of vits / supplements we are taking, I see no reason to take it till one feels ill. We've had a bunch of praise reports on another forum where folks got sick & had quick recoveries after taking it, so I suspect the positive reputation is simply growing. If they could not get a local Dr. to prescribe, they went online (I think it was the Push app most were using??) to get it filled. Regardless if you are pro/con jab, covid is still out there & spreading / morphing with the potential to make any & everyone sick, so not even wanting to consider having a known safe therapeutic in your arsenal because you fall for the msm / swamp propaganda is ignorant. The fact some refuse to acknowledge it's current success with C19 globally that is being suppressed and then to support it's dismissal as a viable option is also ignorant. It is a total waste of time to engage with folks unwilling to have a discussion vs debating with their heels dug in.
Remember, tell your Dad it needs to be taken with Zinc as they work together as a delivery system & it helps recovery with all sorts of corona viruses...the valley is having an outbreak of the common cold, so I'm gonna just jump in if feeling any sorta cold / flu symptoms. It's decades old, proven safe so I don't understand why anyone with an open mind is so hell bent to go along with the msm narrative of it being evil?? They are now having to walk back their hit pieces as BS & still won't call it anything but animal medicine. Also, budesonide / nebulizer inhaler has shown to help with quicker recoveries & something to remember if the need arises.
My dad got an ivermectin script, and when he went to fill it the pharmacy said he got the literal last pill they had left. There are lots of people out there taking it, obviously. But I don't know how much of that is demand, vs. supply being taken off the market by all the establishment moves to make it harder to get. So again, really hard to tell if it's like a reverse psychology thing, or if the establishment is genuinely trying to deny people access to it because they have some ulterior motive. I'm trying to get some. Have no immediate plans to take it, but if it turns out to be the magic elixir and you can't get it anymore, no harm in having some in the medicine cabinet.
Saw this on SM from a couple different sources...hospital won't allow even a right to try of the safe therapeutics.
Loco times...I would be livid.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/lahey-hospital-denies-deathly-womans-request-life-saving-treatment-prescribed-frontline-doctors-protest-planned-today/
Saw this on SM from a couple different sources...hospital won't allow even a right to try of the safe therapeutics.
Loco times...I would be livid.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/lahey-hospital-denies-deathly-womans-request-life-saving-treatment-prescribed-frontline-doctors-protest-planned-today/Actually I wish they would allow it on the simple fact that there will start to be some real evidence in either direction
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Actually I wish they would allow it on the simple fact that there will start to be some real evidence in either direction
I think that's the whole reason it's not allowed on protocol for covid...you can't have anything effective with the EUO jab or it will blow the whole ordeal up. I don't know how well it would even help this late in the game as it's really been more proven helpful for early treatment, but what is the harm in granting the family their wish?? It's suspect for sure.
I think that's the whole reason it's not allowed on protocol for covid...you can't have anything effective with the EUO jab or it will blow the whole ordeal up. I don't know how well it would even help this late in the game as it's really been more proven helpful for early treatment, but what is the harm in granting the family their wish?? It's suspect for sure.I don't think it's that good that it will blow anything up. I do think that there seems to be enough credibility to it to do unbiased, apolitical, neutral testing but even if it proves to work I doubt it's going to be the one.
Im skeptical of all the online forum claims. In an uncontrolled environment there's so much that can act on someone's health, good or bad, that I can give you examples of where running 5k or drinking whiskey did exactly what Ivermectin is claimed to do. I know people that have done both and swear by it! So the answer might lie on the track and in the liquor store
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Saw this on SM from a couple different sources...hospital won't allow even a right to try of the safe therapeutics.
Loco times...I would be livid.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/lahey-hospital-denies-deathly-womans-request-life-saving-treatment-prescribed-frontline-doctors-protest-planned-today/
Article so full of hyperbole hard to comment. I'm personally all for trying what ever the hell a person asks for, or their proxy asks for if it passes the "first do no harm" hurdle, but this seems to be the first exposure have the the system. People have been trying to get hospitals to try/add various therapies for people dying from cancer, and other diseases for decades and refused.
Hospitals more focused on liability that patient outcomes, and if it's not SOC and can't be justified if/when things got tits up, they will resist or refuse to use it as a rule.
Docs themselves are hit or miss on that aspect, but understandably, not a fan of putting their careers on the line for therapies that are not approved as SOC and perhaps in theirs minds, not enough evidence to chance using it.
Perhaps people should be able to sign a waver that they want X used, and have no legal standing if it does not help, they die, etc.
When my father was in the hospital with C diff, which he got from the F-ing hospital, the anti biotics they were using did not work.
I asked if they were aware of what at the time was new and cutting edge treatment, which was fecal transplant (yup, just as it sounds), and they said "yes, we are aware, but we don't offer that here." I suggested to his doc to move him asap to a place that did. I was ignored. He died not long after that.
That is now SOC for C diff that is not responsive to anti biotics.
Welcome to the system some appear to be just waking up to, I have been addressing for 30 years.
Averageman
09-09-21, 11:27
I don't think it's that good that it will blow anything up. I do think that there seems to be enough credibility to it to do unbiased, apolitical, neutral testing but even if it proves to work I doubt it's going to be the one.
Im skeptical of all the online forum claims. In an uncontrolled environment there's so much that can act on someone's health, good or bad, that I can give you examples of where running 5k or drinking whiskey did exactly what Ivermectin is claimed to do. I know people that have done both and swear by it! So the answer might lie on the track and in the liquor store
This was political the Minute Biden and Harris began denying the desire to get vaccinated because Trump came up with it. It's gone down hill since then, nothing is apolitical, nothing is clean and untranished with these folks.
You expect me to take a vaccine that simply doesn't do what we were told it would do and actually there some question that it might be bad for you.
And then there's this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPqjOIqVDeQ
This guy echo's a lot of my feelings.
Liability is exactly why hospitals and physicians are hesitant to try non-FDA approved treatments.
When the patient develops side-effects or dies from the non-approved treatment like HCQ or ivermectin, who’s fault is it?
The headlines, “Hospital silent as their physician uses non-FDA approved treatment protocols killing patient with experimental drugs”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ivermectin has FDA approval :)
not for covid but its been shown with many to work and help if taken early
funny cause the mRNA just recently got approved :) and fast tracked and yet its OK but something that has approval and been out for a freaking long time is bad something that was not and had to be emergency fast tracked is good ? and has NO history of use in humans pushed by a gov that is lying pushed by fauci who helped fund this mess and lied and yet roll up your sleeve :) hahahahahaaha
odd times for sure
Liability is exactly why hospitals and physicians are hesitant to try non-FDA approved treatments.
When the patient develops side-effects or dies from the non-approved treatment like HCQ or ivermectin, who’s fault is it?
The headlines, “Hospital silent as their physician uses non-FDA approved treatment protocols killing patient with experimental drugs”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And in our over the top litigious society, it makes perfect sense. They can't be sued for not trying non approved stuff, they can be sued for using non approved stuff.
They are often over the the top with their refusal to add/try stuff where their liability is minimal to non existent, and that sucks.
You also have legit issues of doctor ego syndrome, fear of change, conservative closed minded med pros who amount to well educated Pavlovian dogs, some real idiots, and you get "The System" as it exists today. Now, add in the whole political variable to that equation that covid and we end up where we are, and it's uglier than Red Fox in drag.
It's been interesting to watch the responses and such by those apparently just experiencing it as it unfolds, and exposes the pros/cons of the system.
Maybe, a silver lining of covid will be more people waking up to the system and a serious examination there of, but I doubt it.
Why could the patient not invoke the right to try option for non fda protocols...I foresee a lawsuit in their future if she dies without their requested treatment & I'm sure the hospital understands this. She is already quoted that they are wanting her to die by denial. I cannot see the argument the hospital is worried about granting the wish of the family due to litigation.
Experimental EUO only jab is GTG but an attempt to try safe time proven drugs as an experiment for a non fda condition is a no go...talk about fubar.
Good luck with suing for death for not prescribing a non-FDA treatment protocol.
Patients don’t have the right to dictate treatment. If they did, then all the junkies would dictate opiates or other controlled substances.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why could the patient not invoke the right to try option for non fda protocols...I foresee a lawsuit in their future if she dies without their requested treatment & I'm sure the hospital understands this. She is already quoted that they are wanting her to die by denial. I cannot see the argument the hospital is worried about granting the wish of the family due to litigation.
Experimental EUO only jab is GTG but an attempt to try safe time proven drugs as an experiment for a non fda condition is a no go...talk about fubar.
Their liability far higher if they grant that request than deny it and she dies and it sounds like she probably will. Again, been going longer than we have been alive, especially evident with cancer treatments. The RTT Act happened in 2018, and far as I know, lead to very few really getting access to non approved treatments and you're already essentially dead to get approval:
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/right-try
sigh...cancer.
A patient cured is a patient lost...
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/it_is_possible_to_bring_clarity_to_the_ivermectin_debate.html
As of the end of 2016, scientists published a study of adverse reporting on ivermectin contained in VigiBase. This global database, with information originating in 125 countries, contained just 1,668 reports regarding ivermectin covering more than 30 years of administering more than a billion doses.
Ivermectin is safe. It is likely that very soon it will be proved to be satisfactorily efficacious in preventing and treating SARS-CoV2. Those jumping the gun and trying out their own home remedies don't seem to be hurting anyone, not even themselves.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/09/08/nolte-medias-lies-about-therapeutics-increase-suspicion-of-coronavirus-vaccine/
Why are the media so desperate, and I mean desperate to the point of fabricating the most desperate and outrageous lies imaginable, to condemn the very idea of a therapeutic?
But many among the unvaccinated who are already suspicious of the vaccine see this jihad of lies against any and all therapeutics as a propaganda campaign to pressure them to get the vaccine, and they wonder why that is.
One of the biggest reasons people refuse to get vaccinated is distrust of a medical community that says it’s safe for Black Lives Matter to gather but not Trump supporters, distrust in a media that lie about everything, distrust in a government that, among other things, told us we were winning the war in Afghanistan… If people had faith in our institutions, there is no doubt in my mind our vaccination rates would be higher.
All these lies about therapeutics are hurting the vaccination cause, not helping it.
India charges WHO Scientist Soumya Swaminathan for Mass Murder: The beginning of Accountability
https://hannenabintuherland.com/asia/india-charges-who-scientist-soumya-swaminathan-for-mass-murder-the-beginning-of-accountability/
From the article:
Specific charges included the running of a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin and issuing statements in social and mainstream media to wrongfully influence the public against the use of Ivermectin despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data showing its profound effectiveness in both prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
The Indian Bar Association is charging WHO chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan with the mass murder of Indians. Dr. Swaminathan spoke against the use of Ivermectin in the Tamil Nadu province with the consequence that Ivermectin’s use was blocked and Covid cases skyrocketed with deaths increasing ten-fold.
In the provinces where Ivermectin was used—Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Goa— Covid cases declined sharply by 98%, 97%, 94%, and 86%.
Inkslinger
09-09-21, 14:27
India charges WHO Scientist Soumya Swaminathan for Mass Murder: The beginning of Accountability
https://hannenabintuherland.com/asia/india-charges-who-scientist-soumya-swaminathan-for-mass-murder-the-beginning-of-accountability/
From the article:
We need a little dose of that medicine here!
We need a little dose of that medicine here!Roger that!
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/09/no-minister-vaccine-passports-are-not-necessary-to-end-the-pandemic/
https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/coronavirus-data-explorer-97-1536x1084.png
https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/coronavirus-data-explorer-96-1536x1084.png
https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/coronavirus-data-explorer-95-2048x1446.png
Keep in mind that India is handing out Ivermectin like candy.
During that 4 1/2 month span is when they had their Delta spike and largely, they had already gotten it. The graph doesn’t show any ivermectin data. It’s a logical fallacy to assume they are related without data.
Also, note the scale difference. Furthermore, note vaccination doesn’t prevent infection or transmission.
A better comparison would be severe infection, hospitalizations, and death.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
During that 4 1/2 month span is when they had their Delta spike and largely, they had already gotten it. The graph doesn’t show any ivermectin data. It’s a logical fallacy to assume they are related without data.
Also, note the scale difference. Furthermore, note vaccination doesn’t prevent infection or transmission.
A better comparison would be severe infection, hospitalizations, and death.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correlation does not equal causation, you're absolutely right. But if you read the data in my prior post, the Indians have seen dramatic decreases in infection and death in the states that used ivermectin, in contrast to the state where it was halted. Sure looks like where there's smoke; there's fire. :confused:
Correlation does not equal causation, you're absolutely right. But if you read the data in my prior post, the Indians have seen dramatic decreases in infection and death in the states that used ivermectin, in contrast to the state where it was halted. Sure looks like where there's smoke; there's fire. :confused:
I’m not familiar with the internal politics of India. But has the metric changed from ivermectin reducing symptoms to now it PREVENTS INFECTION?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-09-21, 17:02
Story about a five month pregnant Mother with heart problems waits 4 months for an appointment and is turned away by the Doctor because she isn't vaccinated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO1LhgqjTbs
Why isn't she vaccinated, because she has heart problems and is pregnant.
Story about a five month pregnant Mother with heart problems waits 4 months for an appointment and is turned away by the Doctor because she isn't vaccinated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO1LhgqjTbs
Why isn't she vaccinated, because she has heart problems and is pregnant.
That is a terrible human being that should lose his license.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not familiar with the internal politics of India. But has the metric changed from ivermectin reducing symptoms to now it PREVENTS INFECTION?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if a drug eradicates a virus in your body, would you not then test negative?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if a drug eradicates a virus in your body, would you not then test negative?
No, you can test positive for days and even weeks after a COVID infection.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inkslinger
09-09-21, 17:21
I’m not familiar with the internal politics of India. But has the metric changed from ivermectin reducing symptoms to now it PREVENTS INFECTION?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, I don’t know…maybe the states with lower infection rates took it as a prophylactic?
Oh, I don’t know…maybe the states with lower infection rates took it as a prophylactic?
The claim has been not that it prevents infection, but reduces symptoms and the body gets over it faster.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-09-21, 17:24
Listen to what Fauci has to say about the Delta vatiant levels of infection, unvacinated vs vaccinated.
WTF??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nG2tFyf3hg
Listen to what Fauci has to say about the Delta vatiant levels of infection, unvacinated vs vaccinated.
WTF??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nG2tFyf3hg
That’s been said for months now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Late last year when Trump got COVID and was admitted to Walter Reed he was given monoclonal antibodies. I was like "WTF is that?" Obviously being POTUS he would be given whatever was the top-of-the-line treatment available.
Been doing a little research, and today I spoke to the head Pulmonary doc at my facility. It turns out his parents (he is in his early 50's, so they are no doubt "older") had been vaccinated back in January/February when it first became available. Recently they both got COVID; developed symptoms on a Tuesday night, got tested on Thursday. Results came back Friday evening as positive. It was the following Tuesday before they could get the monoclonal antibody (Regeneron) infusion. Within two days his dad was back out doing stuff on his farm. The doc told me studies have shown there is about a 10-day window of opportunity once symptoms show for max effectiveness. His parents got it 7 days in, so well within that window. Waiting until someone is in the ICU circling the drain is too late.
I told my wife tonight that if either of us gets COVID (we've both had the J&J jab) that we will seek out and demand the Regeneron infusion right-fvcking-away.
Listen to what Fauci has to say about the Delta vatiant levels of infection, unvacinated vs vaccinated.
WTF??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nG2tFyf3hg
That’s been said for months now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way, it completely leaves the idea of mandates with no leg on which to stand. Emphatically.
Inkslinger
09-09-21, 18:02
The claim has been not that it prevents infection, but reduces symptoms and the body gets over it faster.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, clearly you’re not as versed on Ivermectin as you think.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ivermectin+as+a+prophylaxis&t=iphone&ia=web
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf
Well, clearly you’re not as versed on Ivermectin as you think.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ivermectin+as+a+prophylaxis&t=iphone&ia=web
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf
Nice! That duckduckgo link has a bunch of good info.
Well, clearly you’re not as versed on Ivermectin as you think.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ivermectin+as+a+prophylaxis&t=iphone&ia=web
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf
And you read the first article and it states prevention of symptomatic infection. Not positive PCR. Additionally, that’s the claim that was made in this thread, which I’m referencing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inkslinger
09-09-21, 19:24
And you read the first article and it states prevention of symptomatic infection. Not positive PCR. Additionally, that’s the claim that was made in this thread, which I’m referencing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn’t read any of them. I was just trying to help you out. You seem to act like you have all the information on ivermectin, yet didn’t know it was being pursued as a possible preventive. I figured if you want to be an authority on the subject, more information would help you out.
I didn’t read any of them. I was just trying to help you out. You seem to act like you have all the information on ivermectin, yet didn’t know it was being pursued as a possible preventive. I figured if you want to be an authority on the subject, more information would help you out.
So you don’t read the studies but make claims about them, meanwhile disputing what is said without any prior knowledge. Not a good look.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Either way, it completely leaves the idea of mandates with no leg on which to stand. Emphatically.
I don’t care if the vaccine worked 100% and had zero reported side-effects. Mandates are wrong and the work of tyrants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inkslinger
09-09-21, 19:52
So you don’t read the studies but make claims about them, meanwhile disputing what is said without any prior knowledge. Not a good look.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not making any claims. That would be you. You said you had no knowledge of ivermectin being used as a prophylactic. I directed you to the information. You’re really in no position to be making “not a good look” comments….
I’m not making any claims. That would be you. You said you had no knowledge of ivermectin being used as a prophylactic. I directed you to the information. You’re really in no position to be making “not a good look” comments….
I did not say that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inkslinger
09-10-21, 04:52
I did not say that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[emoji1362]
Some interesting developments:
Judge orders Cincy-area hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with ivermectin, despite warnings
https://www.fox19.com/2021/08/30/judge-orders-cincy-area-hospital-treat-covid-19-patient-with-ivermectin-despite-cdc-warnings/
Some interesting developments:
Judge orders Cincy-area hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with ivermectin, despite warnings
https://www.fox19.com/2021/08/30/judge-orders-cincy-area-hospital-treat-covid-19-patient-with-ivermectin-despite-cdc-warnings/
I think it's terrible that it's come to this. People should have the freedom to make their own choices, and that goes for doctors, too. No patient should ever have to seek the government's permission to treat themselves, and no doctor should ever be forced to do something he thinks is harmful just because a judge with no medical training says so. We need the government OUT of healthcare, PERIOD.
Will we be Following canada's lead...smug pos.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RebelNewsOnline/status/1436197361966067713
Will we be Following canada's lead...smug pos.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RebelNewsOnline/status/1436197361966067713
wondered what Romans felt like now we know :)
Grand58742
09-10-21, 12:38
Will we be Following canada's lead...smug pos.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RebelNewsOnline/status/1436197361966067713
Yeah, he's a POS.
On a side note, I would NOT want that reporter mad at me. French (even Canadian French) tends to be a very soft and beautiful language. However, she sounds like she was threatening to cut his balls off with a toothpick with the way she was going on.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-14-21, 22:30
I’m just laying a marker here. My crystal ball is telling me that in between Feb and April 2022, there will be another Covid surge, but this time it will be vaccinated getting sick and dying, while people with previous infections are under-represented.
With COVID variants popping up, and 6-9 months for new vaccines tailored for them, the boosters will always be too late for that variant. The +/- is if having had a vaccine, you never will get a good response to an infection, and you’ll be stuck getting boosters forever.
Let’s see how this plays out.
I’m just laying a marker here. My crystal ball is telling me that in between Feb and April 2022, there will be another Covid surge, but this time it will be vaccinated getting sick and dying, while people with previous infections are under-represented.
With COVID variants popping up, and 6-9 months for new vaccines tailored for them, the boosters will always be too late for that variant. The +/- is if having had a vaccine, you never will get a good response to an infection, and you’ll be stuck getting boosters forever.
Let’s see how this plays out.
I think we're already there.
I’m just laying a marker here. My crystal ball is telling me that in between Feb and April 2022, there will be another Covid surge, but this time it will be vaccinated getting sick and dying, while people with previous infections are under-represented.
With COVID variants popping up, and 6-9 months for new vaccines tailored for them, the boosters will always be too late for that variant. The +/- is if having had a vaccine, you never will get a good response to an infection, and you’ll be stuck getting boosters forever.
Let’s see how this plays out.
As I said in the other thread, why do we have to guess influenza vaccines? Why not one that works for them all?
If I recall, nobody got it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/life-has-not-improved-much-we-hoped-singapore-outbreak-worsens-80-vaccinated
“A curious thing has happened since Singapore hit 80%, Cook reminds us: "The community cases have actually gone up since reaching 80 per cent coverage, in part because we're allowing more social events for those who are vaccinated and, I dare say, more fatigue at the control measures," Cook told ABC.”
It seems - and I admit I’m just a guy observing and trying to understand - that the jab is starting to show it’s not the miracle the world was promised it was.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See #184 for the legit run down on that so far. Reasons for rejection of Ivermectin are multi factorial, and a big cluster. Fact is, 10 quality RCTs can get published demonstrating ivermectin is not effective, and they will be met with claims they were all fixed/faked, will cling to the very low quality studies, some done by people with their own agenda and $ interests, is what will happen.
People are convinced, due to corner they stuck themselves, that it's only one side that's playing them and have an agenda due to various reasons.Thank you Will!
1. Based on the Brazilian studies it is interesting how little interest Fluvoxamine has generated.
2. Anecdotally I saw HCQ fail to have any impact (early on 2020) for individuals already displaying symptomatic infection. The study results do not surprise me. I would be interested in knowing if uninfected individuals already administered HCQ have a lower infection rate/severity but obviously we cannot intentionally expose people to the virus, nor consistent viral loads.
3. Anecdotally any impact I have seen/heard from ivermectin has not been in early treatment as the study, but later on. I recognize you said the proposed mechanism and data for ivermectin use is questionable. I am not saying one way or another that ivermectin has any impact, only that it has been a year-and-half and we only have a Brazilian study showing it doesn't work in early treatment??? Seems crazy to not have put this to bed in mid-2020 with a responsible large study????
4. I am not sure if your last comment was directed to me. I do not feel stuck in a corner. I appreciate your dialogue even as perhaps my comments were too "out there"... I support the efforts to develop treatments that can reduce the risk of death for older and at-risk individuals and directed elderly individuals seeking such to both the Pfizer and Moderna shots early on. But in my opinion, the impact of say a single individual on Facebook loudly proclaiming ivermectin a do-all miracle cure (one agenda) cannot be compared to trillion dollar multinationals and government entities all functioning in concert (another agenda).
When my father was in the hospital with C diff, which he got from the F-ing hospital, the anti biotics they were using did not work.
I asked if they were aware of what at the time was new and cutting edge treatment, which was fecal transplant (yup, just as it sounds), and they said "yes, we are aware, but we don't offer that here." I suggested to his doc to move him asap to a place that did. I was ignored. He died not long after that.I am sorry for your loss. Witnessing surgeons complete procedures and say "it wasn't that bad" afterwards that dozens of surgeons did not even want to attempt has shown me medicine is like any other profession in life, there are good and bad :(
A couple of excerpts from the FDA meeting yesterday. The first is from Dr Jessica Rose, and the second from Steve Kirsch. Play the videos.
https://twitter.com/neversleever/status/1438935548664688643?s=10
https://twitter.com/graphiccons/status/1439030069155012620?s=10
As a result of the VAERS data showing an unmistakable trend, the FDA voted 7 to 2 against approving boosters for anyone under 65. Ultimately, the data presented shows that you are TWICE as likely to die as a result of the vaccine (let alone other adverse effects) as you are to be saved by it. The implications here are, of course, going to be down played by the talking heads, if they're discussed at all, but make no mistake, this is BIG.
A couple of excerpts from the FDA meeting yesterday. The first is from Dr Jessica Rose, and the second from Steve Kirsch. Play the videos.
They better hurry up if they are going to 'disappear' that data...
Dr Peter McCullough
https://www.americanpartisan.org/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=track&action=click&data=WzM4OTQsInVoanIzMzNpdTgwMDQ4a2drMDRzd2s4NHN3MGtnMGNnIiwiMTQ1NSIsIjBlY2ZkYjkwNzhhOSIsZmFsc2Vd
Averageman
09-18-21, 09:16
A couple of excerpts from the FDA meeting yesterday. The first is from Dr Jessica Rose, and the second from Steve Kirsch. Play the videos.
https://twitter.com/neversleever/status/1438935548664688643?s=10
https://twitter.com/graphiccons/status/1439030069155012620?s=10
As a result of the VAERS data showing an unmistakable trend, the FDA voted 7 to 2 against approving boosters for anyone under 65. Ultimately, the data presented shows that you are TWICE as likely to die as a result of the vaccine (let alone other adverse effects) as you are to be saved by it. The implications here are, of course, going to be down played by the talking heads, if they're discussed at all, but make no mistake, this is BIG.
WOW, Just Wow!
They better hurry up if they are going to 'disappear' that data...
The presentations are actually inside the FDA's video on their YT channel. Would be VERY interesting to see YT try to censor them.
Here are the two presentations on YouTube in the FDA's live video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFph7-6t34M&t=14988s
Go to 4:09:47 for the first one, and 4:20:14 for the second.
The_War_Wagon
09-18-21, 11:03
How is this thread STILL going?! :confused:
https://i.ibb.co/gR065qG/DELTA-BS.jpg
As my main vid still closed due to trolls, I'm posting this here for those interested.
Just made, very good vid for those who want accurate, objective, science based discussion on important topics we all need to understand. MedCram is one my go to sources, and highly recommend YT channel for those trying to find good signal among the noise. Some of you may recognize Dr. Patrick.
Topics covered:
00:00:00 - Introducing Dr. Rhonda Patrick and Dr. Seheult
00:01:20 - Should young and healthy get vaccinated?
00:10:40 - Long-haul COVID
00:19:58 - Is spike protein from vaccines dangerous?
00:35:39 - COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
01:01:17 - Antibody dependent enhancement?
01:09:16 - Do COVID vaccines damage fertility?
01:14:13 - Will mRNA vaccines alter DNA?
01:22:32 - Are alternatives like ivermectin as effective as the vaccine?
01:42:02 - Do vaccines prevent Delta transmission?
01:56:04 - Will the virus become more deadly due to vaccines?
02:05:07 - T-cell immunity
02:08:34 - Long term side effects / were vaccines rushed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp-nPZETLTo
As my main vid still closed due to trolls, I'm posting this here for those interested.
Just made, very good vid for those who want accurate, objective, science based discussion on important topics we all need to understand. MedCram is one my go to sources, and highly recommend YT channel for those trying to find good signal among the noise. Some of you may recognize Dr. Patrick.
Topics covered:
00:00:00 - Introducing Dr. Rhonda Patrick and Dr. Seheult
00:01:20 - Should young and healthy get vaccinated?
00:10:40 - Long-haul COVID
00:19:58 - Is spike protein from vaccines dangerous?
00:35:39 - COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
01:01:17 - Antibody dependent enhancement?
01:09:16 - Do COVID vaccines damage fertility?
01:14:13 - Will mRNA vaccines alter DNA?
01:22:32 - Are alternatives like ivermectin as effective as the vaccine?
01:42:02 - Do vaccines prevent Delta transmission?
01:56:04 - Will the virus become more deadly due to vaccines?
02:05:07 - T-cell immunity
02:08:34 - Long term side effects / were vaccines rushed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp-nPZETLTo
This is nothing but propaganda. Everything he's claiming isn't and cannot be substantiated because of the way they have intentionally skewed all the data. The tests don't work very well to begin with, and not at all in the way they're using them. We don't even know how many people have actually died of covid, vs. of preexisting conditions. And that's not even to mention the seasonal flu. It goes without saying the flu didn't just go away, and if you take the alleged covid deaths and subtract the running average flu deaths, not even counting the people who so obviously died of other things, that's not much to write home about.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-18-21, 16:51
Excess deaths. Not perfect, but that’s why its statistics and not math. Look at death trends and compare. I don’t have a great article on it, but I’ve seen some simple looks at it. Of course, that won’t factor in the deaths because of anti-Covid effects- isolation, deferred care and the like.
Why someone dies is never straightforward- sure you can say a gun shot wound or a hear attack killed someone, but WHY those things happened can be highly variablea and have vastly different ways to prevent them.
This is nothing but propaganda. Everything he's claiming isn't and cannot be substantiated because of the way they have intentionally skewed all the data. The tests don't work very well to begin with, and not at all in the way they're using them. We don't even know how many people have actually died of covid, vs. of preexisting conditions. And that's not even to mention the seasonal flu. It goes without saying the flu didn't just go away, and if you take the alleged covid deaths and subtract the running average flu deaths, not even counting the people who so obviously died of other things, that's not much to write home about.
What was your sci/med background again to lecture me on what's propaganda and " intentionally skewed " data?
What was your sci/med background again to lecture me on what's propaganda and " intentionally skewed " data?
This is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. You can do better Will. He not having a sci/med background doesn't invalidate his argument. Nor does it prove. Arguments must stand on their own merits alone.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.