Covid vsccine

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight.  I hope Ivermectin is the miracle drug you're claiming it to be, but, had you finished the piece you'd see there's a pretty gigantic mountain of evidence that its efficacy is far more limited than its Covid advocates would have you believe, and that the science they're using is, put generously, pretty sloppy.

ETA: i mean "limited" with regards to its anti-viral properties, and in particular, how those might work to battle a covid infection. The author does an excellent job picking apart the recent meta study that was shared a few posts back, as well as another study that apparently made its way round the socials.  For my part, I had never heard of ivermectin till this very thread, so literally everything i know about it is from reading the debate here, and the article I just read and shared above.

The article i shared is less  about whether or not ivermectin is effective against Covid (the author admits it very well might be) and more about the flaws in analysis (to put it kindly) that some of its advocates have used.

So what you're saying is we believe works in the absence of evidence, and we can't prove it.  

That also means you can't provide informed consent or demonstrated efficacy and bio-ethics dictates you ought not treat with it.

Didn't we all just finish agreeing that doing something is precluded if you don't know that something is safe and effective?

That's not science. Its faith.

No.  What I'm saying is the funding is never going to be there to prove it to the level the critics are looking for.  My point is, it's a 40 year old drug with a very good safety profile so if it has any promise at all, I can understand why doctors like Dr. Kory are willing to try it because they got tired of watching patients suffer and die with no treatment options.  

I'm ok with a little faith when science has been this convoluted and full of political b.s.  If I was interested in bypassing informed consent I'd be pushing everyone to get the vaccine 😜

And 40 years is a hell of a lot longer to understand the long term risk of ivermectin than the months we have of the vaccine.

And that is the crux of what some of us have been trying to say. I hope some cheap, readily available drug will eventually turn out to be an effective, safe treatment for Covid. Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't anybody?

But that's a separate discussion. It's just simply frustrating to see some pro-Ivermectin folks here in this thread (and in the real world) equate skepticism of it's use with having some sort of agenda.

It's not about being pro or anti Ivermectin (or insert HCQ or new cure of the week). It's about being pro scientific method. Which is a slow deliberate process, not really designed to feed people's need for their daily confirmative dopamine hit.

Penicillin won the Nobel prize too. Would you suggest we use it to treat cancer?

If, as it seems you're implying, Ivermectin has been used in the past for OTHER non-Covid treatments, so what's the harm in trying it for Covid, I would say the following.

Have you considered that efforts by the Weinstein/Kory crowd, via suggestions that people should NOT get vaccinated and try Ivermectin instead, may be harming people greatly by leaving them much more vulnerable to the virus in hopes of alternatively being saved by an unproven cure instead of just getting the vaccine?

Granted, that's a choice anyone is free to make but, if you're going to consider the cons of the vaccine you should consider the cons of Ivermectin too. It's not necessarily all pros or, rather, free of all cons.

Why is 50 years ridiculous? Many carcinogens have multi-decade latency periods - arsenic may be 40-50 years! So are you able to say unequivocally that Ivermectin doesn't cause cancer? No, but it's probably not something we should worry about -at all-. But 50 years is no longer hyperbole, just unlikely. You can't say positively ivermectin doesn't cause cancer. And that's ok, because we can't speculate on what we haven't measured, and can't say with confidence what we haven't tested. It's also unreasonable to tell someone to not take ivermectin if they need it because it might cause cancer.

On the other hand, we've been studying mRNA for a long time. Read this:
blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/01/21/mrna-vaccines-what-happens

We know with as much certainty as we know Ivermectin doesn't cause cancer that mRNA breaks down in your body with a short half-life. This is, as near as anything can be, established Fact. It will be absolutely gone in a few days, which means it is no longer actively doing anything. It's gone - your body has processes for consuming and destroying mRNA. That means there are no more spike proteins being made because there is no more mRNA to tell your body to make them. Since mRNA is just an order for the cook, there's no way for your body to "learn" to make the spike protein -- so once the mRNA is gone, it's gone. We know where it goes when injected into your muscles (contra what that video said). We know where it ends up. So we have an understanding that if you haven't had a severe adverse reaction within a reasonable amount of time after the injection, you're probably not going to. It's unreasonable to tell someone to not take the vaccine if they need it because it might cause an adverse reaction months or years after the mRNA is done. Just like we know there is a reasonable amount of time after which you should be comfortable that ivermectin is not going to cause cancer (even though it still might).

I haven't accepted the narrative that all of the VAERS reports aren't related. I have done some math to see that when you give over 150 million doses to people, a few thousand people dying afterward isn't something that jumps out as huge. As I mentioned, even if every single one of those deaths was directly caused by the vaccine - and even if they're underreported by a factor of two - that's some 10,000 per 150,000,000, or 60 times safer than getting COVID. This strains credulity; it is far more likely that the vaccines are several orders of magnitude safer than getting COVID.

Knowing everything he knows, with all of his reservations, both Dr Malone and his wife were vaccinated. What does that suggest to you?

All we can deal with is evidence. Without that, there's no tether at all.

Maybe my rationale was unclear...The only way you “prove” safety is absence of evidence. You can’t do that, you can only observe. You have a risk window for evaluation for safety of these mRNA vaccines - whatever we have done to date, you say is not enough. Call it over six months, nine months? You seem to be fine with ivermectin, so 40 years is good. But the length of time is arbitrary. Ivermectin has a longer half life in your body than mRNA. And as I said there may be risks outside of the 40 year window with ivermectin. So how long is long enough? A year? Ten years? At what point do we say - ok, a vaccine is irrelevant to preventing a pandemic?

And at what cost? We have a good idea of the risk of covid19. There’s a downside to inaction.

As for the VAERS thing - we talked about this. The reporting requirements are different. This is the first vaccine under emergency use authorization in VAERS so the reporting window is months compared to 8 days for others. They’re not comparable numbers. I agree, they should investigate them. And they are. So what’s the problem?

Anyway. I don’t think anyone on this thread is arguing for
- censorship
- government mandated vaccines
- not finding treatments

So who is this directed against?

I agree that censorship by the government is bad. But if private companies or individuals choose to not let their platform or business be used for something that violates their values, that's their prerogative as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class of individuals.

I don't want to record or mix neo-nazi music. It's against my values and I don't want to be complicit in spreading that hate. Thank god there isn't a law that requires us to work on anything that comes our way to avoid "censorship."

YouTube has decided they don't want their platform used to spread medical misinformation because that goes against their values. That's their prerogative. If a competitor wants to pop up and be the medical misinformation video hub, they can go ahead and do that. Twitter decided after January 6th that they no longer want to be a platform for QAnon insanity. The QAnon mess has now moved to competitors like Parlour and Telegram, who are okay with being a platform for that.

We all get to choose what our business can be a platform for, and that's true freedom.

I'll let the truth police sort out this Dr. and his conclusions. All I know is that he is smarter than I am.... (Not hard) But there are certainly dissenting opinions out there, and IMO both sides should be heard so that intelligent conversation (not censorship) can occur, and progress can be made on these problems. Even in music, dissenting opinions bring clarity and creativity to the table. How much more so in medicine.

This analysis seems to be popping up everywhere this week. I suppose in 6 months we'll know whether or not his conclusions (based on peer reviewed reports from what he said, and no I don't have links. ) are valid, or lacking. Still....worth examining - not deep 6-ing.

newtube.app/user/FaktaSaja/5ndRqzu

🤣🤣🤣the comments section🤣🤣🤣😵😵😵