Delta Variant

#177
#177
The reasons I don't trust any of the COVID vaccines:

* There is a clear media push to promote them as safe while ignoring and burying any stories of side effects associated with the vaccines (and subsequently using the lack of stories about negative side effects in the mainstream media to further tout its safety.)

* The same media push to promote the vaccines was working tirelessly to bury any and all information about alternatives that have been tested thoroughly. Ivermectin is MORE effective at reducing symptoms of COVID patients than any vaccine. It is also MORE effective (to the tune of almost 90%), when taken prophylactically to prevent from getting COVID than ANY of the vaccines. Hydroxychloroquine is at least more effective than the least effective vaccine at mitigating symptoms of COVID (when taken early) and is MORE effective at preventing contraction of COVID when taken prophylactically than any of the vaccines, though it isn't as effective as Ivermectin. We have long term data proving the safety of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. They are safe enough to be listed as medication that pregnant women can take. How much safer can it get?

* Unlike Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, there is NO long term data (obviously) about the safety of the new and fairly un-tested vaccines. What we do know, is that they shouldn't be taken by pregnant women, as spike proteins have been found to collect in particularly bad areas like ovaries and bone marrow.

The propaganda that we've been fed about the virtues of the vaccines and the evils of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is appalling and shocking. It is evidence, in my opinion, that the "science" we've been told to "listen to" is nothing more than a political tool used to manipulate the masses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KentheOrange, SpaceCoastVol, Zues1 and 7 others
#178
#178
SamRebel35 said:
The reasons I don't trust any of the COVID vaccines:

* There is a clear media push to promote them as safe while ignoring and burying any stories of side effects associated with the vaccines (and subsequently using the lack of stories about negative side effects in the mainstream media to further tout its safety.)

* The same media push to promote the vaccines was working tirelessly to bury any and all information about alternatives that have been tested thoroughly. Ivermectin is MORE effective at reducing symptoms of COVID patients than any vaccine. It is also MORE effective (to the tune of almost 90%), when taken prophylactically to prevent from getting COVID than ANY of the vaccines. Hydroxychloroquine is at least more effective than the least effective vaccine at mitigating symptoms of COVID (when taken early) and is MORE effective at preventing contraction of COVID when taken prophylactically than any of the vaccines, though it isn't as effective as Ivermectin. We have long term data proving the safety of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. They are safe enough to be listed as medication that pregnant women can take. How much safer can it get?

* Unlike Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, there is NO long term data (obviously) about the safety of the new and fairly un-tested vaccines. What we do know, is that they shouldn't be taken by pregnant women, as spike proteins have been found to collect in particularly bad areas like ovaries and bone marrow.

The propaganda that we've been fed about the virtues of the vaccines and the evils of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is appalling and shocking. It is evidence, in my opinion, that the "science" we've been told to "listen to" is nothing more than a political tool used to manipulate the masses.
Click to expand...
Reasons to consider the vaccine: basically the only people still dying/sick from the virus at this point are the unvaccinated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ENGRVOL, TN Ribs and Hunerwadel
#179
#179
SamRebel35 said:
The reasons I don't trust any of the COVID vaccines:

* There is a clear media push to promote them as safe while ignoring and burying any stories of side effects associated with the vaccines (and subsequently using the lack of stories about negative side effects in the mainstream media to further tout its safety.)

* The same media push to promote the vaccines was working tirelessly to bury any and all information about alternatives that have been tested thoroughly. Ivermectin is MORE effective at reducing symptoms of COVID patients than any vaccine. It is also MORE effective (to the tune of almost 90%), when taken prophylactically to prevent from getting COVID than ANY of the vaccines. Hydroxychloroquine is at least more effective than the least effective vaccine at mitigating symptoms of COVID (when taken early) and is MORE effective at preventing contraction of COVID when taken prophylactically than any of the vaccines, though it isn't as effective as Ivermectin. We have long term data proving the safety of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. They are safe enough to be listed as medication that pregnant women can take. How much safer can it get?

* Unlike Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, there is NO long term data (obviously) about the safety of the new andgu fairly un-tested vaccines. What we do know, is that they shouldn't be taken by pregnant women, as spike proteins have been found to collect in particularly bad areas like ovaries and bone marrow.

The propaganda that we've been fed about the virtues of the vaccines and the evils of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is appalling and shocking. It is evidence, in my opinion, that the "science" we've been told to "listen to" is nothing more than a political tool used to manipulate the masses.
Click to expand...

And Donald Trump will be returning to office in August.
 
#180
#180
0nelilreb said:
Just like a frontal lobotomy for those society deems dangerous to the rest of us . You know the saying .. “if it saves just one life” .
Click to expand...

Your extreme exaggeration is not a valid analogy. I took one of the covid vaccines and can say that it is definitely not like a frontal lobotomy.
 
#182
#182
OHvol40 said:
Reasons to consider the vaccine: basically the only people still dying/sick from the virus at this point are the unvaccinated.
Click to expand...

Sure, but why not consider taking something with a long term history of being safe and which is more effective than the vaccines instead?
 
#184
#184
SamRebel35 said:
The reasons I don't trust any of the COVID vaccines:

* There is a clear media push to promote them as safe while ignoring and burying any stories of side effects associated with the vaccines (and subsequently using the lack of stories about negative side effects in the mainstream media to further tout its safety.)

* The same media push to promote the vaccines was working tirelessly to bury any and all information about alternatives that have been tested thoroughly. Ivermectin is MORE effective at reducing symptoms of COVID patients than any vaccine. It is also MORE effective (to the tune of almost 90%), when taken prophylactically to prevent from getting COVID than ANY of the vaccines. Hydroxychloroquine is at least more effective than the least effective vaccine at mitigating symptoms of COVID (when taken early) and is MORE effective at preventing contraction of COVID when taken prophylactically than any of the vaccines, though it isn't as effective as Ivermectin. We have long term data proving the safety of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. They are safe enough to be listed as medication that pregnant women can take. How much safer can it get?

* Unlike Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, there is NO long term data (obviously) about the safety of the new and fairly un-tested vaccines. What we do know, is that they shouldn't be taken by pregnant women, as spike proteins have been found to collect in particularly bad areas like ovaries and bone marrow.

The propaganda that we've been fed about the virtues of the vaccines and the evils of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is appalling and shocking. It is evidence, in my opinion, that the "science" we've been told to "listen to" is nothing more than a political tool used to manipulate the masses.
Click to expand...

I've gone looking for the information on long term usage of ivermectin and hcq and can't find any clinical data regarding Covid-19. I also have to dispute the concept of a media blackout on these treatments given the easily found releases on Britain's new PRINCIPLE testing that includes ivermectin as a tested treatment for COVID-19. When I do find sites toutingb the effectiveness of these two treatments, they are generally hyper-partisan and rely on anecdotal data rather than reproducible testing.

No data available to suggest a link between India’s reduction of COVID-19 cases and the use of ivermectin

"In summary, neither the epidemiological nor the clinical data support the claim that the reduction in COVID-19 cases in India is due to the use of ivermectin. Media outlets making that claim based this solely on temporal correlation without providing evidence of a causal relationship. Contradicting this claim, epidemiological data show that contagiousness began to decrease in India before the release of new official guidelines recommending the use of ivermectin."

You also have to take into account the need for ivermectin to be dosage-tuned to each patient based on weight, and that serious contraindications exist for patients with any type of liver issues or on anticoagulants.

A large body of research exists demonstrating hydroxy chloroquine's lack of efficacy as a prophylaxis for COVID-19.

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials - PubMed

"Background: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19.

Methods and findings: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty).

Conclusion: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.

Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."
 
#185
#185
5,000+ Covid cases today in the US.

15,000 a week from today.

The entire country has been wide open for a while now for the most part.

How long have they been talking about that Delta variant?

Yeah it sure is spreading fast 😒
 
#186
#186
AshG said:
I've gone looking for the information on long term usage of ivermectin and hcq and can't find any clinical data regarding Covid-19. I also have to dispute the concept of a media blackout on these treatments given the easily found releases on Britain's new PRINCIPLE testing that includes ivermectin as a tested treatment for COVID-19. When I do find sites toutingb the effectiveness of these two treatments, they are generally hyper-partisan and rely on anecdotal data rather than reproducible testing.

Then please explain why Biden voting liberals on youtube who talk about Ivermectin get demonitized. Any time Brett Weinstein talks about Ivermectin as a treatment to COVID, the video gets demonitized and gets a strike from youtube.

No data available to suggest a link between India’s reduction of COVID-19 cases and the use of ivermectin

"In summary, neither the epidemiological nor the clinical data support the claim that the reduction in COVID-19 cases in India is due to the use of ivermectin. Media outlets making that claim based this solely on temporal correlation without providing evidence of a causal relationship. Contradicting this claim, epidemiological data show that contagiousness began to decrease in India before the release of new official guidelines recommending the use of ivermectin."

You also have to take into account the need for ivermectin to be dosage-tuned to each patient based on weight, and that serious contraindications exist for patients with any type of liver issues or on anticoagulants.

A large body of research exists demonstrating hydroxy chloroquine's lack of efficacy as a prophylaxis for COVID-19.

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials - PubMed

"Background: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19.

Methods and findings: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty).

Conclusion: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.

Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."
Click to expand...

UK-based Meta Analysis Peer Reviewed & Published Suggests Ivermectin A Key Public Health Weapon in the War Against COVID-19

Is this site "hyper-partisan"?

"This study published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics suggests a “moderate-certainty evidence” indicating a substantial reduction in COVID-19 related deaths would be a feasible outcome with the use of ivermectin. The study results mirror what TrialSite’s observed in study after study from Bangladesh and India to Peru and Argentina; from Israel and Nigeria to the ICON study in South Florida and population-wide public health initiatives using ivermectin from Mexico City to Uttar Pradesh, India, that there’s now overwhelming data that this generic drug used as an antiparasitic treatment should be considered on at least an emergency basis as another tool in the medical tool chest to fight SARS-CoV-2. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange
#187
#187
AshG said:
I've gone looking for the information on long term usage of ivermectin and hcq and can't find any clinical data regarding Covid-19. I also have to dispute the concept of a media blackout on these treatments given the easily found releases on Britain's new PRINCIPLE testing that includes ivermectin as a tested treatment for COVID-19. When I do find sites toutingb the effectiveness of these two treatments, they are generally hyper-partisan and rely on anecdotal data rather than reproducible testing.

No data available to suggest a link between India’s reduction of COVID-19 cases and the use of ivermectin

"In summary, neither the epidemiological nor the clinical data support the claim that the reduction in COVID-19 cases in India is due to the use of ivermectin. Media outlets making that claim based this solely on temporal correlation without providing evidence of a causal relationship. Contradicting this claim, epidemiological data show that contagiousness began to decrease in India before the release of new official guidelines recommending the use of ivermectin."

You also have to take into account the need for ivermectin to be dosage-tuned to each patient based on weight, and that serious contraindications exist for patients with any type of liver issues or on anticoagulants.

A large body of research exists demonstrating hydroxy chloroquine's lack of efficacy as a prophylaxis for COVID-19.

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials - PubMed

"Background: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19.

Methods and findings: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty).

Conclusion: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.

Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."
Click to expand...

May click through some of these links too if you're having a hard time finding compelling data for Ivermectin. It is there if you're not willfully blind to it.

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 100 studies
 
#188
#188
Vol Main said:
Your extreme exaggeration is not a valid analogy. I took one of the covid vaccines and can say that it is definitely not like a frontal lobotomy.
Click to expand...

Wait were are talking about forcing a substance into someone’s body for the “Safety of society “ without giving them a choice and t’s just my analogy that is not valid because it’s “ extreme “ one ? Come on man .
 
#189
#189
AshG said:
I've gone looking for the information on long term usage of ivermectin and hcq and can't find any clinical data regarding Covid-19. I also have to dispute the concept of a media blackout on these treatments given the easily found releases on Britain's new PRINCIPLE testing that includes ivermectin as a tested treatment for COVID-19. When I do find sites toutingb the effectiveness of these two treatments, they are generally hyper-partisan and rely on anecdotal data rather than reproducible testing.

No data available to suggest a link between India’s reduction of COVID-19 cases and the use of ivermectin

"In summary, neither the epidemiological nor the clinical data support the claim that the reduction in COVID-19 cases in India is due to the use of ivermectin. Media outlets making that claim based this solely on temporal correlation without providing evidence of a causal relationship. Contradicting this claim, epidemiological data show that contagiousness began to decrease in India before the release of new official guidelines recommending the use of ivermectin."

You also have to take into account the need for ivermectin to be dosage-tuned to each patient based on weight, and that serious contraindications exist for patients with any type of liver issues or on anticoagulants.

A large body of research exists demonstrating hydroxy chloroquine's lack of efficacy as a prophylaxis for COVID-19.

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials - PubMed

"Background: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19.

Methods and findings: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty).

Conclusion: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.

Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."
Click to expand...
Double - blind, randomized controlled studies are not the only source of evidence. There is a huge body of metadata that exists which contradicts the study. Metadata is evidence and there is plenty of evidence as to the effectiveness of ivermectin.

Ivermectin in COVID-19 | FLCCC | Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
 
Last edited:
#192
#192
Electric Orange said:
"The Lambda Variant" what happened with Delta?

It's never going to end. Rarely do people just give up power.
Click to expand...

Power control would make sense if you were talking just about the left vs right in the United States.
But this is impacting the whole world, not just the US
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top