Vaccine or not?

#7,476
#7,476
Sea Ray said:
Notice I refrained from posting a crappy meme so that's irrelevant to my post. Here's the actual study:

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary...tions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf

If there's evidence that it's bogus, please present it. I'm interested in facts and if there are factual reasons to discount it, I'm interested
Click to expand...
It's not a valid medical journal, it's not reviewed by anyone and even the FDA says that's not a side effect. It would only be more believable if it was written by a prince
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#7,477
#7,477
LouderVol said:
I am not arguing actual safety, just why people may be resisting one vs the other.

As far as I know there is only one option out there that can legally say it, and again it only could a month ago.

The vaccine push started far longer than a month ago.

Therefore getting pushed into a unknown is far more likely to upset people than choosing an unknown. Also the unknown at least comes with a side of direct doctor interaction to prescribe ivermetcin. That cant be overlooked.

AFAIK doctors cant, or at least dont, actually prescribe the vaccine. If a doctor prescribes me ivermetcin I personally have a strong reason to believe it will be safe for me even as an unknown.
Click to expand...
Doctors can and do prescribe the vaccine. For example when the vaccine first came out, doctors would write a vaccine prescription to someone who wasn’t eligible because they were younger but were immunocompromised.
 
#7,479
#7,479
Sea Ray said:
Notice I refrained from posting a crappy meme so that's irrelevant to my post. Here's the actual study:

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary...tions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf

If there's evidence that it's bogus, please present it. I'm interested in facts and if there are factual reasons to discount it, I'm interested
Click to expand...
I’ve been pretty critical of many of these ivermectin studies showing benefit but this study is pretty poor. It looks at 11 months of therapy and excludes more than 90% of people initially screened. Also there is no control group that they compared sperm counts to that had onchocerciasis just historical norms. Don’t believe ivermectin works for covid but this study doesn’t show anything.
 
#7,480
#7,480
Tyler Durden said:
But that something with years of history behind it is completely unproven when it comes to treating viruses, let alone COVID. It has been used as an anti-parasitic treatment. You are essentially trying to use a paint brush to build a deck.

We have 9 months of live data around the vaccine along with studies before it was rolled out. It is clearly the safest and most effective way to prevent infection, serious illness, and death.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, there are also enough instances in this country and others where Ivermectin has been used and it has been shown to work. I also know of someone that used it and it worked.
 
#7,481
#7,481
ENGRVOL said:
I’ve been pretty critical of many of these ivermectin studies showing benefit but this study is pretty poor. It looks at 11 months of therapy and excludes more than 90% of people initially screened. Also there is no control group that they compared sperm counts to that had onchocerciasis just historical norms. Don’t believe ivermectin works for covid but this study doesn’t show anything.
Click to expand...
You know it is interesting that you would bring up control groups. Where is the control group that will be used to study the long term effects of these new vaccines?
 
#7,482
#7,482
Rasputin_Vol said:
Fortunately, there are also enough instances in this country and others where Ivermectin has been used and it has been shown to work. I also know of someone that used it and it worked.
Click to expand...
How do you know it worked?
For example, Joe Rogan who claims to have had Covid and was not vaccinated took ivermectin, but he also was taking several medications, including monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pak and prednisone, a NAD drip and a vitamin D drip. Does that mean ivermectin worked?
 
#7,483
#7,483
mad4vols said:
How do you know it worked?
For example, Joe Rogan who claims to have had Covid and was not vaccinated took ivermectin, but he also was taking several medications, including monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pak and prednisone, a NAD drip and a vitamin D drip. Does that mean ivermectin worked?
Click to expand...
Because outside of some over the counter Tylenol, Ivermectin was the only thing the guy I know took for COVID.
 
#7,486
#7,486
Rasputin_Vol said:
You know it is interesting that you would bring up control groups. Where is the control group that will be used to study the long term effects of these new vaccines?
Click to expand...
Well you still have some people in a few of these original trials that may have refused to be unblinded if given the choice. However suspect that the vast majority of the original control groups decided they wanted the vaccine so therefore what you would do is find an unvaccinated group of people in a population with similar socioeconomic or clinical characteristics such as what was done recently in Israel.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Though with these high hospitalization rates among the unvaccinated compared to vaccinated we are already seeing a long-term study playing out unless you don’t believe what the hospitals are reporting.
 
#7,487
#7,487
mad4vols said:
Doctors can and do prescribe the vaccine. For example when the vaccine first came out, doctors would write a vaccine prescription to someone who wasn’t eligible because they were younger but were immunocompromised.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Didnt know that. Good on them, glad they were able to help people. Now maybe they can keep on writing prescriptions as they see fit.
 
#7,488
#7,488
LouderVol said:
A

And is it too much to ask for the articles sourcing that study to actually provide the numbers? I mean it's just the basis of why these guys are supposed to be experts. As a professional I cant imagine making these types of assertions and not even directly reference the numbers I have sourced.

Especially on the backdrop of all the recalled studies. And those recalls have gone both ways, so it's not a "denialist" stance.
Click to expand...
The article does contain the numbers.

Also, the number wasn’t really relevant to assertions made by the article. The article was about how vaccinated people can spread the virus. The study determined that vaccinated people can have a viral load beneath the Ct threshold at which they expect to find infectious virus. They tested people who had viral loads below that Ct threshold and found infectious virus. The Ct threshold was just a road map to help design the test. The presence of infectious virus in the noses of vaccinated people was why that hypothesis was supported, not the particular number. The article really wouldn’t have suffered from omitting the Ct threshold, but it is in there. More than once.

Did you say you read the article, or not?
 
Last edited:
#7,496
#7,496
Rickyvol77 said:
Lol this will be struck down by the court
Click to expand...

Jacobson v. Massachusetts is the seminal case regarding a state or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers. 8 In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, and determined that the vaccination program instituted in the city of Cambridge had “a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.”9 In upholding the law, the Court noted that “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.”10 The Court added that such laws were within the full discretion of the state, and that federal powers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler Durden
#7,497
#7,497
Doesn't Imposing a fine require a law to do so? What law do they think is on the books that allows the Feds to issue fines for non-compliance with their COVID edicts? More COVID fascism from the demented Biden
 
  • Like
Reactions: golfballs, Sea Ray and tbwhhs
#7,500
#7,500
Hunerwadel said:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts is the seminal case regarding a state or municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of its police powers. 8 In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, and determined that the vaccination program instituted in the city of Cambridge had “a real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.”9 In upholding the law, the Court noted that “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.”10 The Court added that such laws were within the full discretion of the state, and that federal powers
Click to expand...
Good find, but slightly different issue.

Remedial stuff: every statute must exercise one of congress’s enumerated powers. Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Congress could do this under the commerce clause. If there’s a statute that delegates that authority to the executive branch, then Biden can do it unless that statute is unconstitutional for some reason.

That article deals with the police power, which is reserved to the states. A blanket vaccine mandate would most likely be an exercise of the police power. So states have to do it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top