COVID-19

[Cackalacky2.0]

I clikced on his profile link to the covidcandy.net website. I need a shower.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Hopefully. I'm just hopeful that the Oxford trial is not structured in a way to preordain a result.

Eh...i'd be more concerned this idiot is completely and intentionally misrepresenting what they are doing. Disinfo ...yes.

 

[TorontoGold]

Hopefully. I'm just hopeful that the Oxford trial is not structured in a way to preordain a result.

Of course. Any extra weapon, especially one that could be used in 3rd world countries would be incredible.

Just, tinfoil hat societal outcast likely isn't the best judge of a trial efficacy considering it's purely their opinion with no supporting articles/reports/data.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Here is the criteria per the link below.
https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial

I guess they are only allowing people who are high risk (65+ or those with underlying conditions) into the study. Treatment does appear to be for 3 days only. Not sure if this is typical treatment that others have provided or not. Previous tweet was making it sound like everyone would be 14 days after symptom. Reality is that they can be up to 14 days.

Following a screening questionnaire to confirm eligibility, participants enrolled in the study will be randomly assigned to receive a three-day course of oral ivermectin treatment. They will be followed-up for 28 days and will be compared with participants who have been assigned to receive the usual standard of NHS care only. People aged 18 to 64 with certain underlying health conditions or shortness of breath from COVID-19, or aged over 65, are eligible to join the trial within the first 14 days of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or receiving a positive test.

 

[Irishize]

Given those going to the warmer states are usually going to the beach and will be outdoors it may not be as bad. I think around September when vacations are pretty much over we'll find out the real impact.

The Fall will be key

 

[IrishRazor82]

Guys, this isn't rocket science.

If Ivermectin is a wonder drug, at least one pharmaceutical company will find a few analogues and put them through $$$ trials. They'll publish papers on the efficacy under the new drug name and they'll mass market the shit out of it until people link that particular drug name with effectiveness against COVID and it's variants.

PR fall out can happen but it rarely moves the needle for these companies that can take a minor black eye while raking in large amounts of cash.

And even if it doesn't play out how I imagine, Ivermectin's potential positive benefits will be picked up by other doctors and it'll take off like a wildfire. Give it a bit more time to play out.

The disinformation in this thread is hard to keep up with. But this line of thought is ass backwards. I think it's ABC on the previous page that's understanding how this works - but why would the pharmaceutical companies pump money into a giant study on a drug that can only lose them money, when every clown is convinced the vaccine (which is a huge revenue generator) or some "new drug that's not developed" will be the ticket? There's only money to lose in Ivermectin.

Follow. The. money.

Repasting the peer reviewed, meta-analysis study on Ivermectin. It prevents COVID as well as the best vaccines and doubles as a treatment if you take it after. It's virtually free. It's proven safe. It would end the pandemic according to a number of doctors and before the Virus has time to evolve:

This is what science looks like when it's not propaganda: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Conclusion:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified

 

[IrishRazor82]

There are aver a dozen state-specific examples of the introduction of Ivermectin decimating COVID, and now the varient.

Do your own research.


https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1410023102399102981?s=19

 

[Trait Expectations]

The disinformation in this thread is hard to keep up with. But this line of thought is ass backwards. I think it's ABC on the previous page that's understanding how this works - but why would the pharmaceutical companies pump money into a giant study on a drug that can only lose them money, when every clown is convinced the vaccine (which is a huge revenue generator) or some "new drug that's not developed" will be the ticket? There's only money to lose in Ivermectin.

Follow. The. money.

Repasting the peer reviewed, meta-analysis study on Ivermectin. It prevents COVID as well as the best vaccines and doubles as a treatment if you take it after. It's virtually free. It's proven safe. It would end the pandemic according to a number of doctors and before the Virus has time to evolve:

This is what science looks like when it's not propaganda: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Conclusion:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified

Disinformation? You do some really weird word games to describe your position. We are all saying we hope Ivermectin proves to be exactly what is purported in your posts/links. I don't think you understand basic science or economics but you are really good at parroting what you just read/heard. Moving on from my hypothetical example of "Big Pharma" swooping in to capitalize...

What's the longest consistent dose people can take before having severe side effects with Ivermectin? You keep mentioning prophylaxis, how long will the world need to take Ivermectin prophylactically to end the pandemic? What kind of coordination effort will we need to distribute that amount of Ivermectin? Have you started taking Ivermectin IrishRazor82? What's your dosing schedule? You still haven't answered my questions that I posed a few pages back. You're really good at that.

Just because I took the vaccine to fulfill what I felt was my obligation as a citizen, I sincerely hope Ivermectin is everything you state it is and more. I look forward to your answers to the questions in this post and my prior post.

 

[TorontoGold]

Curious on how you interpret data from a report like this https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...pi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?la=en

Breakthrough cases - only 4.8% of overall cases from December 14, 2020 to June 12, 2021 (page 5)

Individuals who had a breakthrough case of people who received at least one dose - 0.02% of anyone who got a vaccine (page 9)

Fatalities for those 79 and under fully vaccinated - only 7 total, and none from 49 and younger. (page 24)

The hospitalizations are interesting too, huge reductions for all age groups (page 22). My layman's guess about taking an anti-parastic for a long time probably isn't good on the kidneys/heart with possible interactions with a host of whatever else that person is on.

So, what you have there is a study conducted by a first world country (sorry it isn't from Gabon or Paraguay) that essentially clowns the results from a study done last summer/fall with poor controls. So even the most generous study can not keep up to the kind of results that the vaccines are producing. This a Brian Lewerke vs Trevor Lawrence debate, it isn't even remotely close. Unless your goal is the be Michigan State of COVID options. No one wants to be Michigan State.

 

[IrishRazor82]

Disinformation? You do some really weird word games to describe your position. We are all saying we hope Ivermectin proves to be exactly what is purported in your posts/links. I don't think you understand basic science or economics but you are really good at parroting what you just read/heard. Moving on from my hypothetical example of "Big Pharma" swooping in to capitalize...

What's the longest consistent dose people can take before having severe side effects with Ivermectin? You keep mentioning prophylaxis, how long will the world need to take Ivermectin prophylactically to end the pandemic? What kind of coordination effort will we need to distribute that amount of Ivermectin? Have you started taking Ivermectin IrishRazor82? What's your dosing schedule? You still haven't answered my questions that I posed a few pages back. You're really good at that.

Just because I took the vaccine to fulfill what I felt was my obligation as a citizen, I sincerely hope Ivermectin is everything you state it is and more. I look forward to your answers to the questions in this post and my prior post.

Ask better, significant questions.

To answer your dosing questions since you're rabbit holing hard to try to skip over the powerful science of Ivermectin, all studies mentioned (which I doubt you listened to) were once per week using the correct MG's for a 140 LB male and 120 LB male. Obviously much of the world is over that, so you could argue they should up the dosage for heavier people (and Dr. Kory suggests this).

The distribution is a non issue, it's one of the most widely available and used drugs in the world.

Back to bad questions. I'm not going to address bad questions from you, especially ones that have been answered (like this one) in the videos and studies I've provided that you ignore because of your passion for unapproved, non-liable vaccines.

"waiting for a big pharma funded study" is gross negligence given what we know about Ivermectin and the fact that the longer this virus sticks around, the "smarter" it will get at evolving.

Meanwhile, the COVID vaccine has resulted in ~4,800 deaths within 72 hours of getting the vaccine. In the entire 31 year history of VAERS there were 5,000 total prior to COVID. And that's not counting any of the neurological and cognitive issues that are starting to come to light (there are things short of death that still ruin lives).

The vaccine is "good" if you're in risky health. Otherwise it's a gamble because it's truly unknown the short and long term effects of it. This is a fact. When the inventor of mRNA vaccines is begging people to not vaccinate kids, that alone should cause you to stop and think.

Ivermectin is the opposite.

 

[notredomer23]

The vaccines that were paused because of 14 blood clots and had an ACIP meeting over 200 cases of myocarditis have caused 4800 deaths but the government is hiding that.

The qanon in this thread is strong.

 

[IrishRazor82]

Follow the money. Learn the science.

https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1410085161392214021?s=19

 

[Trait Expectations]

Ask better, significant questions.

To answer your dosing questions since you're rabbit holing hard to try to skip over the powerful science of Ivermectin, all studies mentioned (which I doubt you listened to) were once per week using the correct MG's for a 140 LB male and 120 LB male. Obviously much of the world is over that, so you could argue they should up the dosage for heavier people (and Dr. Kory suggests this).

The distribution is a non issue, it's one of the most widely available and used drugs in the world.

Back to bad questions. I'm not going to address bad questions from you, especially ones that have been answered (like this one) in the videos and studies I've provided that you ignore because of your passion for unapproved, non-liable vaccines.

"waiting for a big pharma funded study" is gross negligence given what we know about Ivermectin and the fact that the longer this virus sticks around, the "smarter" it will get at evolving.

Meanwhile, the COVID vaccine has resulted in ~4,800 deaths within 72 hours of getting the vaccine. In the entire 31 year history of VAERS there were 5,000 total prior to COVID. And that's not counting any of the neurological and cognitive issues that are starting to come to light (there are things short of death that still ruin lives).

The vaccine is "good" if you're in risky health. Otherwise it's a gamble because it's truly unknown the short and long term effects of it. This is a fact. When the inventor of mRNA vaccines is begging people to not vaccinate kids, that alone should cause you to stop and think.

Ivermectin is the opposite.

Lol. I hope this doesn't end up poorly for you.

I hope I get a chance to meet you at a game this fall, are you going to any?

No rabbit hole here, you keep selectively pulling info that matches your desired outcome. Spoiler alert: I hope your desired outcome is the actual outcome.

As to the dosing, you take it once/week for how long? Until we've extinguished COVID-19? Are you saying it's safe to take Ivermectin that long prophylactically?

I listened to the entire Rogan podcast with Weinstein/Kory?. Very intriguing stuff and I think what they describe holds promise. I've read through some of your posted links and I've been less impressed. How many of my articles did you read?

 

[notredomer23]

Follow the money. Learn the science.

https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1410085161392214021?s=19

You know there is a strict lockdown in that state right and they coincide directly with how that graph would look right?

 

[Trait Expectations]

Here is the criteria per the link below.
https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial

I guess they are only allowing people who are high risk (65+ or those with underlying conditions) into the study. Treatment does appear to be for 3 days only. Not sure if this is typical treatment that others have provided or not. Previous tweet was making it sound like everyone would be 14 days after symptom. Reality is that they can be up to 14 days.

I agree, this doesn't seem like a sufficient study to show what Ivermectin can do but it's a start. This "wonder drug" should easily put out numbers that garners attention even if it doesn't show everything it's purported to do.

 

[Irish#1]

Ask better, significant questions.

To answer your dosing questions since you're rabbit holing hard to try to skip over the powerful science of Ivermectin, all studies mentioned (which I doubt you listened to) were once per week using the correct MG's for a 140 LB male and 120 LB male. Obviously much of the world is over that, so you could argue they should up the dosage for heavier people (and Dr. Kory suggests this).

The distribution is a non issue, it's one of the most widely available and used drugs in the world.

Back to bad questions. I'm not going to address bad questions from you, especially ones that have been answered (like this one) in the videos and studies I've provided that you ignore because of your passion for unapproved, non-liable vaccines.

"waiting for a big pharma funded study" is gross negligence given what we know about Ivermectin and the fact that the longer this virus sticks around, the "smarter" it will get at evolving.

Meanwhile, the COVID vaccine has resulted in ~4,800 deaths within 72 hours of getting the vaccine. In the entire 31 year history of VAERS there were 5,000 total prior to COVID. And that's not counting any of the neurological and cognitive issues that are starting to come to light (there are things short of death that still ruin lives).

The vaccine is "good" if you're in risky health. Otherwise it's a gamble because it's truly unknown the short and long term effects of it. This is a fact. When the inventor of mRNA vaccines is begging people to not vaccinate kids, that alone should cause you to stop and think.

Ivermectin is the opposite.

 

[Irish#1]

Follow the money. Learn the science.

https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1410085161392214021?s=19

Do the heads of all big pharma, the media and the president have a secret special hot line when an epidemic like this happens? One picks up the phone and the rest ring at the same time? Then they quickly collude on how to make billions of dollars off this while turning a blind eye on people dyeing when all they had to do was ramp up production of Ivermectin?

 

[Irish#1]

I agree, this doesn't seem like a sufficient study to show what Ivermectin can do but it's a start. This "wonder drug" should easily put out numbers that garners attention even if it doesn't show everything it's purported to do.

Agree. This needs to be studied more before just throwing caution to the wind and administering as a solution.

Indy is finally removing most COVID restrictions tomorrow. Plan was to keep them in place until the holiday was over, but I think there was pressure to move it to before the holiday.

 

[Trait Expectations]

Missouri is getting slammed. We have family there and previously lived there so it's painful to read these reports.

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...sparagers-to-shut-up-as-delta-slams-missouri/

 

[phork]

The vaccine reporting system (VAERS) has over 4,800 deaths following the COVID vaccines that have been reported. In the entire 31 year history of VAERS, there are only 5,000 vaccine related deaths. We essentially hit that in 6 months.

The vaccine has failed on a number of fronts. First it's passing the blood brain barrier and opening the central nervous system to pathogens. The spike protein also isn't staying at the local spot where it was hoped to and it's showing up floating around the body in autopsies which is just becoming known now. Clotting and vascular damage is also starting to show up.

Meanwhile, poor little cheap Ivermectin prevents COVID as effectively as vaccines, helps you if you actually get COVID, is far cheaper, and there is zero safety risk...

What are your politicians and media telling you or not telling you though?

You do understand that anyone can enter anything in VAERS. Please read about a side effect of getting pregnant while getting the vaccine. All reports are verified, this database is never updated with findings.

I can't believe you are still pushing this shit. EVEN THE MAKER of Ivermectin says not to use it for Covid. AND its not approved for use against covid since you like to push the narrative that the vaccines aren't FDA approved.

Protip of the day, just stop bud, every post makes you look more unintelligent.

 

[IrishRazor82]

You do understand that anyone can enter anything in VAERS. Please read about a side effect of getting pregnant while getting the vaccine. All reports are verified, this database is never updated with findings.

I can't believe you are still pushing this shit. EVEN THE MAKER of Ivermectin says not to use it for Covid. AND its not approved for use against covid since you like to push the narrative that the vaccines aren't FDA approved.

Protip of the day, just stop bud, every post makes you look more unintelligent.

Do you understand the majority of VAERS reports come through doctors? The number is now over 6,000 deaths and that's US alone. And there's an extreme hesitancy to report because of the stigma (people like you).

Do you realize the maker of Ivermectin is banned from youtube for promoting Ivermectin for COVID? The exact opposite of what you're saying. Look it up.

A meta-analysis. As good of a study as you can wish for at this point, peer reviewed. Ivermectin saves lives and against the variant. Imagine declaring war on this life saving drug because big pharma wants to make more money. Imagine how fooled they must have someone.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

 

[ab2cmiller]

Do you understand the majority of VAERS reports come through doctors? The number is now over 6,000 deaths and that's US alone. And there's an extreme hesitancy to report because of the stigma (people like you).

Do you realize the maker of Ivermectin is banned from youtube for promoting Ivermectin for COVID? The exact opposite of what you're saying. Look it up.

A meta-analysis. As good of a study as you can wish for at this point, peer reviewed. Ivermectin saves lives and against the variant. Imagine declaring war on this life saving drug because big pharma wants to make more money. Imagine how fooled they must have someone.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

I have no idea what maker you are referring to, but Merck has repeatedly come out against use of Ivermectin against COVID. They even went so far as to question the safety of the drug, one of the safest drugs around. Of course Merck has 3.2 billion reasons to downplay, minimize, and question the safety of a drug that is out of patent.

 

[IrishLax]

Missouri is getting slammed. We have family there and previously lived there so it's painful to read these reports.

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...sparagers-to-shut-up-as-delta-slams-missouri/

Yeah, I've got family in a small town called Marshall and it's pretty insane. My grandma got the vaccine ASAP but I have heard horror story upon horror story from out there. At one point the funeral home got past capacity so they ended up having to use refrigerator trucks to store the dead bodies.

 

[Irish#1]

Yeah, I've got family in a small town called Marshall and it's pretty insane. My grandma got the vaccine ASAP but I have heard horror story upon horror story from out there. At one point the funeral home got past capacity so they ended up having to use refrigerator trucks to store the dead bodies.

Waiting for this to happen to other small towns. Hope your grandmother stays safe.

 

[Rogue219]

Yeah, I've got family in a small town called Marshall and it's pretty insane. My grandma got the vaccine ASAP but I have heard horror story upon horror story from out there. At one point the funeral home got past capacity so they ended up having to use refrigerator trucks to store the dead bodies.

A good friend of mine is from there and her plan was to take a trip down there this month with her husband and kids to see her parents. That trip isn't happening anymore.

Questioning my trip to the Carolinas at the end of this month too. I have three kids under the age of 12 and none are vaccinated yet. That and I really don't want to go to the Carolinas so any excuse I can drum up works.

 

[Irishize]

Yeah, I've got family in a small town called Marshall and it's pretty insane. My grandma got the vaccine ASAP but I have heard horror story upon horror story from out there. At one point the funeral home got past capacity so they ended up having to use refrigerator trucks to store the dead bodies.

You may find this hard to believe but when I went to West Plains, MO earlier this year I was shocked that restaurants didn’t have stricter mask policy than Arkansas. They didn’t give a damn, so I seated my masked ass at the bar.

My bro-in-law has a colleague whose married with kids. She is a professional woman yet none of them got vaccinated nor had COVID previously. Her husband got COVID and died. Get the damn vaccine!

 

[IrishRazor82]

Small sample, but scary. Few will be unsurprised as the spike protein has been showing up in uterus's for a while now in autopsies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117969/#r15

"This means just 127 women received either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the first / second trimester, with 104 of the woman sadly losing their baby."

 

[ab2cmiller]

Small sample, but scary. Few will be unsurprised as the spike protein has been showing up in uterus's for a while now in autopsies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...MC8117969/#r15

"This means just 127 women received either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the first / second trimester, with 104 of the woman sadly losing their baby"

Razor man, I'm sympathetic to some of your arguments, but man some of the stuff you post is just throwing crap at the wall and see what sticks. I do believe that there is some likelihood that the vaccine has caused some miscarriages that are concerning. But when you post the bolded with absolutely no context and one is left to conclude that you are saying that 82% (104 of 127) of pregnant women in their first or second trimester lost their baby after getting the vaccine. Do you really believe that?

At the end of the study, only 127 women had completed their pregnancies that were in their first or second trimester at the start of the study. That means there were an additional 2,719 participants that were still pregnant in those categories at the end of the study. If all of those participants eventually gave birth, then the miscarriage rate is 3.65% (104 of 2,846). Is that higher than the typical miscarriage rate? I don't know.

 

[notredomer23]

Razor man, I'm sympathetic to some of your arguments, but man some of the stuff you post is just throwing crap at the wall and see what sticks. I do believe that there is some likelihood that the vaccine has caused some miscarriages that are concerning. But when you post the bolded with absolutely no context and one is left to conclude that you are saying that 82% (104 of 127) of pregnant women in their first or second trimester lost their baby after getting the vaccine. Do you really believe that?

At the end of the study, only 127 women had completed their pregnancies that were in their first or second trimester at the start of the study. That means there were an additional 2,719 participants that were still pregnant in those categories at the end of the study. If all of those participants eventually gave birth, then the miscarriage rate is 3.65% (104 of 2,846). Is that higher than the typical miscarriage rate? I don't know.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/miscarriage-rates-by-week#risk-rates

According to this, the miscarriage rate starting week 13 is 5%. So if the miscarriage rate in this study is 3.65%, one can assume that the vaccine helps with fertility.

 

[phork]

Do you understand the majority of VAERS reports come through doctors? The number is now over 6,000 deaths and that's US alone. And there's an extreme hesitancy to report because of the stigma (people like you).

Do you realize the maker of Ivermectin is banned from youtube for promoting Ivermectin for COVID? The exact opposite of what you're saying. Look it up.

A meta-analysis. As good of a study as you can wish for at this point, peer reviewed. Ivermectin saves lives and against the variant. Imagine declaring war on this life saving drug because big pharma wants to make more money. Imagine how fooled they must have someone.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Show me the verified reports of 6000 dead, not from VAERS. I'm not going to wait, because you can't.

Straight from Merck. You know, the makes of Ivermectin. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

You can't be this stupid, can you?