Ok let's walk through this - these pieces of media you've posted are from the period in which the opinions are based on is from the December 11, 2020 EUA
https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download Which the tests showed that the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective after dose 2 in preventing COVID-19 occurrence. So if you're only going to accept binary results (which is not something people do in the real world) then you are correct they were wrong. But with the available data at that time they were correct with the information available to them at that time. Revising positions based on
results that are available through testing is what every person should expect of their healthcare providers.
So if the tests said that the vax was 95% effective, why didn't they say that? Why did they misrepresent the efficacy by calling it a dead end? We both agree that there is a difference between 100% and 95%. Wouldn't you expect the so called experts to do the same?
And why were all the experts unable to predict that a coronavirus would mutate? Are you admitting that these experts lacked that basic foundational knowledge to know that the virus would mutate? Well they were wrong; either it was gross incompetence or willful misleading. Which was it?
And why were all the doctors who said that the virus would mutate to avoid the vax silenced, deplatformed, and discredited, even though they were correct?
There it is - "Dr. Robert Malone" the guy who claims COVID-19 vaccines can give an AIDS like reaction. This is the man you want to hold up as an authority figure. I'm sure you can find better than him.
And yet he was still more correct than all the experts. Imagine that.
And I'm sure you understand that AIDS isn't always HIV. And that his claim about vax-induced AIDS is actually backed by data where case rates in vaccinated are 3-4x higher than unvaccinated per 100k, which indicates ADE, a form of AIDS.
Malone actually provided data backing his claim. MSM ignored the data and made fun of him. You know, standard process for scientific debate.
The insuiation that taking regular vaccines is a negative thing. So if children can handle taking multiple vaccines monthly at young ages, is it not reasonable to expect adults to take regular doses annually for a vaccine?
I didn't say anything about other vaccines. Traditional vaccines. Vaccines that have decades of safety data.
Answer this question for me: can you verify that the mRNA shots will not have health side effects 20 years from now? 10 years? 5 years? Any answer other than "no" is incorrect. And since the shot doesn't stop the spread, and since children aren't at significant risk from COVID, there is zero motivation to mandate these on kids like California tried to do.
This is 100% false - December 11, 2020 was the very first EUA. In that EUA "FDA’s analysis of the available efficacy data from 36,523 participants 12 years of age and older without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after dose 2 confirmed that the vaccine was 95% effective (95% credible interval 90.3, 97.6) in preventing COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose (with 8 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared to 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group)"
One of us is trying to re-write history, and it isn't me.
Yes, you are correct, and I was wrong. My apologies. I read the Pfizer press release header data without the body data. The header claimed 95% efficacy with one dose, but the body confirms that 2 doses was the intent.
'What's great about this is that I actually went back to the HSA report that you hold dearly, and the graph's you showed did not line up with the data in the report. So I guess, the raw data being available allows for some grifter on substack to manipulate it and include some correct items so that their subscribers can receive that dopamine hit in their confirmation bias. I should honestly start doing that.
Oh yeah? Show me please. I don't see a discrepancy.
Did you know fentanyl can be prescribed by doctors? Just because a certain drug is prescribed, does not mean that it makes it malleable to be used for other uses. If it was this miracle drug, wouldn't it be a universal drug used for COVID-19 around the world? This is critically important to debunking the myth. Wouldn't poor countries be using it? Oh that's right, it was used in poor countries and the scientific community debunked that
Ivermectin against COVID-19: The unprecedented consequences in Latin America
What is the reason why? Big Media? Big Pharma? Big Government? Or it's just snake oil.
Off label drug use is common practice in medicine.
Why wasn't it used around the world? Prescriptions were BANNED in many places. Ask yourself: why would health agencies ban a safe, cheap, available, and potentially effective medication? What were the harms in trying it off label?
ivermectin alone can't cure COVID. It is one medication that can be used with other medications in a layered defense. So why was it outlawed? I can't answer that. Can you?
So medications are unsuitable for use in first world countries if they are used effectively in poor countries? Interesting assertion.
That link you posted is a political hit piece, not a scientific study. Scientific journals focus on unbiased data analysis. The study you linked uses loaded phrases like "bombarded by false promises", "IVM may have contributed to this terrible situation", "human intake of IVM could have a significant impact in urban sewage plants, ground water and city reservoirs" (unfounded), "political fanaticism", and "condemn its illegitimate and fabricated prescription." That's an opinion piece of one author. It does not invalidate all of the other studies showing efficacy. Especially when some of the primary concerns (small sample sizes, not RCT, etc) is common across all sorts of approved medicines.
Bottom line: if a medicine is safe, cheap, available, and could potentially have benefit, why would it be blacklisted? It's illogical.
The studies in that website are laughable, I didn't even read them till now. But oh man, most are "reviews" done by P.Kory who like Malone is a class A grifter. Here's a summary pulled from one of the studies "Very high conflict of interest RCT with design optimized for a null result: very low risk patients, high existing immunity, post-hoc change to exclude patients more likely to benefit.". So if anyone drills down into these "studies" they'll have a good laugh. Also - summarizing all the studies together to produce a "134K patients, 62% improvement" is statistical malpractice. If you've ever conducted any academic research or study you'll know that you can not simply combine studies together as you have no control over the environments in which other studies were conducted. You are not using the same variables either. So to take the results and package them up together is comical.
6.5% counts as "most of the studies"? Kory is an author in 6 of the 92 studies.
You like to call people who disagree with you "grifters." It's a bad look that smacks of intolerance. You don't want to debate; you want to confirm your bias. You discredit someone with credentials that dwarf yours with no argument other than you disagree with him.
Now, you mention very high COI RCT. Why, specifically, is it high COI? Provide evidence.
Very low risk patients. If that is the case, you must acknowledge that vaccines weren't tested on even lower risk patients. They didn't even test the shots on pregnant women. Don't move the goalposts.
High existing immunity. Explain what you mean.
Post hoc change. What change specifically? I'm not seeing it.
If you are going to throw stones, you have to be more specific.
And you are going to dismiss 92 studies from numerous authors because one study had poor boundaries? Your dismissal shows your bias. You aren't here for an open minded debate. It is illogical to dismiss 92 studies because you have very generic issues with one study.
And I'm not trying to summarize 92 studies with one percentage. I'm giving you high level information for a broad comparison. You know this. You are saying that I'm committing statistical malpractice as a deflection technique.
I don't discount the profit motive behind Merck. However, for this theory to work the government would have to be in on the scam. Specifically with the trial being in the 3rd stage. You do not take something that far in the product development life cycle without assurances there will be profitability and funding. The "corrupt government....big pharma!" narrative also is removed as this development straddled two administrations. Additionally, Molnupiravir was being studied before IVM as far treatment for COVID-19.
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals...g-antiviral-takes-aim-COVID-19/98/web/2020/05
Kickbacks.
$193M in royalties paid to NIH employees over a 6-year period. NIH refuses to make the names of the employees, the amount that each received, and from whom, available to the public. And that doesn't include the money under the table. That's why.
Watch the video below all the way through. Paul makes excellent points throughout, including the need for transparency on kickbacks. Fauci's resistance to providing this information is telling.
Oh, and molnipiravir is a repurposed drug like Ivermectin? For shame!
, we should be seeing people in Ontario just keeling over and dying because they got multiple vaccines, right? 
