When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"The results showed a 6.6 percent infection rate for non-users of ivermectin, and a 3.7 percent infection rate for regular users of the drug, a 44 percent reduction in the COVID-19 infection rate.There was also a 56 percent reduction in the hospitalization rate for ivermectin users (44 versus 99 hospitalizations).
The most striking result was the difference in the mortality rate. Of the subjects who were infected, those who regularly used ivermectin had a 70 percent reduction in COVID-19 mortality."
"The results showed a 6.6 percent infection rate for non-users of ivermectin, and a 3.7 percent infection rate for regular users of the drug, a 44 percent reduction in the COVID-19 infection rate.There was also a 56 percent reduction in the hospitalization rate for ivermectin users (44 versus 99 hospitalizations).
The most striking result was the difference in the mortality rate. Of the subjects who were infected, those who regularly used ivermectin had a 70 percent reduction in COVID-19 mortality."
One was sold as a safe required-by-law-prophylactic that would end the pandemic because it would stop transmission as well as prevent you from getting the virus as well as preventing severe illness and hospitalization, the other a treatment if you happened to be a horse and needed to be dewormed.
So there's a big difference...
You neglected the other BIG difference - dollars. One is almost free from an OTC retail cost at nearly $2/treatment cycle, the other is "free" because the government is "giving it away" even though they cost ~$3K/dose
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
Nobody is actually acknowledging the facts, much less talking about them. The only thing which seems to inform the opinions of many people on this matter seems to be which specific treatment is / has been advocated for by which specific politician or appointee.
Actually, plenty on the Conservative side have been talking about facts - whether they be doctors or citizens. They just happened to also have their posts deleted on every major platform, lose their medical license, receive retributions from employers and friends/family. So, for you to think that "people haven't been talking about the other side" is near delusional.Yes, plenty of people have been saying that since the vaccine is questionable and still not completed the full cycle of clinical trials, why aren't we using the numerous other medications available that are proven safe, with long history of success and known outcomes AND are affordable in every country.
Lastly, I recognize you as a rational thinking person, but can't for the life of me figure out your agenda of ignoring and not speaking out to the treatment of all people that are making their own decision not to take a questionable mRNA vaccine. You haven't talked about your surprise that Fauci was completely on the inside of creating this virus in a Chinese lab. I haven't seen a single post of yours acknowledging that masks are absolutely useless. Where are you recognizing that people have a RIGHT to make decisions about their own body without coercion from Government or loss of income?
Lastly, I recognize you as a rational thinking person, but can't for the life of me figure out your agenda of ignoring and not speaking out to the treatment of all people that are making their own decision not to take a questionable mRNA vaccine. You haven't talked about your surprise that Fauci was completely on the inside of creating this virus in a Chinese lab. I haven't seen a single post of yours acknowledging that masks are absolutely useless. Where are you recognizing that people have a RIGHT to make decisions about their own body without coercion from Government or loss of income?
Nobody, at least here on this forum, is arguing against anything you're saying. I agree with you on all counts, but since we're more or less all in agreement, I'd just be adding my own voice to an existing echo-chamber. No point.
And, yeah, the recent polls showing that approximately half of democrat voters believe that the unvaccinated should be rounded up and tossed into camps. Terrifying? Absolutely. Surprising? Not at all. Ever since Trump was first elected in 2016, those at the left have been growing increasingly hysterical and detached from reality, and ever since Biden was first elected in 2020, the goal-posts have been in constant motion.
So, when you ask about "my surprise" about Fauci, or masks, or coercion, or anything along those lines, I have no surprise to speak of. This is all straight out of the "how to topple a democracy, while the people cheer you on" handbook, which is something that my own family has lived through before. It's not surprising, it's expected given the trajectory we've been on in this country for a while.
And, sadly, posting the same memes over and over again isn't going to change that. Nobody is seeing them except for those of us who are already aware that the president can't produce a coherent sentence, and that the appointed chief of a federal administrative agency now wields more actual power than he does.
But, far from being de-platformed or censored, I've been seeing a lot more of this sort of thing around the interblog of late:
And that's what I was referring to earlier. It pains me to see the Being Libertarian account re-posting this. Because when you mix truth with falsehood, the falsehood tends to discredit the truth.
What's false about it? The phrase "the worthless COVID vaccine..." You repeat that sort of thing often enough, loudly enough, and folks start to repeat it.
Are the currently available Covid vaccines 100% effective at preventing infection? Not even close. But saying that this makes them "worthless" reveals the same sort of binary-extremist logic which liberals use to convince themselves that if you question whether boys can become girls just by saying "I am a girl", then you're automatically a ****.
Vaccinations are highly effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. The ivmmeta website which Brainey linked to shortly ago unambiguously supports vaccination as a useful tool.
But, for some reason, that's not a message I'm hearing an awful lot of, even here on this forum where the only folks capable of censoring anybody are, well... we're right here in plain sight, participating in the conversation. Not censoring / de-platforming people other than for spamming, scamming, or extreme idiocy.
Because when you mix truth with falsehood, the falsehood tends to discredit the truth.
What's false about it? The phrase "the worthless COVID vaccine..." You repeat that sort of thing often enough, loudly enough, and folks start to repeat it.
Are the currently available Covid vaccines 100% effective at preventing infection? Not even close. But saying that this makes them "worthless" reveals the same sort of binary-extremist logic which liberals use to convince themselves that if you question whether boys can become girls just by saying "I am a girl", then you're automatically a ****.
The democrats and "scientists" have lied so much that it has people who pay any attention extremely sceptical of the vaccine. I was talking to the Mexicans at the farmers market yesterday and several of them are convinced that the vaccine makes you sicker when you do catch covid.
The most common thing I'm hearing in my conservative bubble is older/high risk people should get the vax, those of us young and healthy should probably skip it. Very little outright denial of the vaccine.
...Vaccinations are highly effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death...
I'm just going to look at this part here. How can we or anyone say that statement without a control group? There isn't a maintained control group. Concerning everything that has happened in the past year, there is no particular indicator of whether or not it was the vaccination that "helped" or whether it was the natural progression of a virus/mutation life cycle (more contagious, less lethal). There IS one way to do that, and it would be a maintained control group.
Also, remove the "with COVID" vs "due to COVID." If you're jabbed you don't get tested when you go into a hospital, but if you're unjabbed - you get tested when you're admitted. "Gee I wonder why the unjabbed hospitalizations are so high?"
But the end part is ........ IF anyone accepts the data about IVM and HCQ and any other viable treatment - the jabs become null and illegal. The group that's against jabs isn't binary because "THEY DONT WORK" - they're binary because EVERY SINGLE AUDIBLE AND VISUAL advertisement from every arm of media is saying get it get it get it because it's super safe and effective. I would agree that it's MORE effective the older and higher risk you are - at least the benefit outweighs the risk. But as you get younger and healthier the case just isn't there. It most certainly is NOT there for mandating it, let alone voluntarily taking it. Not to mention, again, that without a control group the long term effects are unknown and consequently infinite.
"I didn't die or get hospitalized from covid, but...
...a complication has knocked of 20 years off my life.
...my fertility disappeared 5 years ealier than expected
...I can't play sports anymore
...my chances of having a heart attack in 5 years have quadrupled
...and so on and so on"
Has that ever happened? Who knows!? How do you know that might happen. WHO KNOWS? The only thing scientific about the entirety of this jab are the people not getting jabbed, as they are maintaining a control group to study in the future. Coincidentally, they're the only proof that would cost big pharma, gov't, media, infinite damages. But they would never do that.
Who knew, medicine against parasites works in a part of the world where half of the population has parasites.
This is one of the key problems with observational studies where you cannot control for variables:
I suppose that's the same excuse with India. Or the HCQ study from Ford last year in Michigan. It's fun to play this game online, but doctors actually use and rely on these drugs, because they work. It's sad to see that Big Pharma and their toadies make it difficult to treat people with what for most people is a cold. Nope. Get the jab, wear a mask, bring your vaccine card, and no you can't open your business back up. Pretty fucked up world.
Vaccinations are highly effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.
Every single other benefit the manufacturers and gov't promised about the vaccines have been proven to be 100% undeniably inaccurate. What's to say that them being highly effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death isn't also a falsehood or exaggeration?
I will agree the case fatality rate is currently very low, but that's because the incredible number of people currently infected with the Shanghai Shivers is astronomical and since this variant is so mild, most don't even have symptoms, and those who do have nothing more than a sore throat and a headache.
BUT if you exclude the December spike in Omicron cases, there's really been no real significant reduction in deaths:cases since the vaccine roll-out.
And if you look at Deaths during the Delta wave of Sept 2021, deaths per million spiked significantly, as did hospitalizations and ICU patients. Both at a much greater rate than the summer of 2020 when no was vaccinated. Even in Israel -- where over half the population has at least one booster -- has nearly identical looking data here... But claims the booster cuts the death rate by 90%.
The biggest issue is that we are not collecting good, reliable, and consistent data on hospitalizations. and the CDC keeps lumping in those who were recently boosted as vaccinated, those who were quite "fully vaccinated" yet as unvaccinated. Those data points need to be collected and split from each other to get a better picture --- you know, since we don't have a real long-term control group in a clinical trial.
If you scroll to the chart/graph it appears that being unvaccinated is a clear way into being hospitalized -- but it also shows you that getting covid, and developing immunity, is just as good as being vaccinated.
But the CDC still lumps people with 1 shot, and even 2 shots as unvaccinated, so it's really not a clear and complete picture.
Anyway, the vaccines were sold as the end of the pandemic. Our WH and the CDC both agreed the vaccines would prevent you from getting covid, prevent you form spreading covid, and prevent you from being hospitalized, and were completely safe. None of these really held true. And now two years of crippling lockdowns, record inflation, empty shelves, open borders, vaccines and boosters, crime waves, and a new variant every few months, the new grand solution to the epidemic is: wear an n95 mask.
The vaccines were politicized from day one, so it's not shocking that the vaccines are politized.
I was really amused by this. Biden said “Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
MLK was a conservative, if not a Republican. Wallace was a democrat. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Jefferson Davis a democrat.
Assuming Biden is saying he is on the side of MLK and Lincoln, he's making the point we should all be Republicans.
Perhaps it depends what you focus on. The only reason for any kind of measures (masks, lockdowns, etc) in the Netherlands is whenever the hospitals are overflowing. Death rates is not really something that people focus on. Our biggest concern is that avoidable deaths (including non-covid deaths) start occurring when the hospitals are full. That seems like a reasonable approach to me. But it does also make the vacc discussion different than in other countries, I guess, if your main metric is hospitalization.
But, for some reason, that's not a message I'm hearing an awful lot of, even here on this forum where the only folks capable of censoring anybody are, well... we're right here in plain sight, participating in the conversation. Not censoring / de-platforming people other than for spamming, scamming, or extreme idiocy.
It seems to me, unvaccinated people are trying to get others not to take the vaccine because they believe the vaccine causes more harm than good. Vaccinated people, however, are trying to get people to take the vaccine because they believe the unvaccinated will kill them.
Considering the data shows that there's no external benefit to getting the vaccination: the former is being noble (while possibly misguided), the later is being selfish (while incredibly misguided/manipulated).
Skamba - for the Netherlands data... What's the chart's definition of vaccinated? Is it 3 or 2 jabs? I'd like to see that chart with the differentiation. It'd be comical if the split shifted to the right.
To add. The main point of contention is simple. The advertisement for the jab was 3 fold...
1. Can't get it
2. On the rare occasion that you did get it, you can't spread it.
3. And when you did get it, you won't go to the hospital or die.
IF those 3 were true, the statement "protect your community, get jabbed" would still stand strong. But since number 1 has been widely destroyed in many countries including the US alongside number 2, that statement also becomes null.
Since the only thing that still "sort of" stands even on an anecdotal angle is number 3, then mandates should be banned, and a jab effectively should "naturally" become a personal choice. What do YOU want to do to protect YOURSELF. If the argument starts talking about filling up hospitals, there is a huuuuugggeee laundry list of other things people do that should be lumped together. At this point you'd be mandating diet, exercise, reducing speed limits to 20mph, eliminating large cars, illegalizing smoking and drinking, etc etc etc. If you're OK with that, then you'd be consistent in mandating a jab.
My favorite are the jabbed people who consistently wear masks, then get a cold/flu, get tested to make sure it isn't covid, THEN come to work while being symptomatic, but wear a mask - "so it's fine." If your mask didn't stop you from getting a cold/flu - why are you coming to work with a cold/flu that statistically has the same/similar mortality rates as covid for your similarly aged coworkers? ...mind...blown...
Everyone, even Walensky, is walking back all the data. If 75% of the people who died WITH Covid had four or more comorbidities, how many deaths had 2-3 comorbidities? 95%? 99%? These people are all dying WITH Covid, not FROM it.
And again the average age at death is 84 years old!
My middle son has Covid now and it's barely registered as a sore throat. My wife has been a bit fatigued this week, but no one else seems to have gotten it. Reality vs. the suspense of not knowing has been a relief.
Until we give a large percentage of the population antibody tests, we won't know how many people have actually even gotten the China Crisis, and that will never happen because it will take away the fear narrative from the White House and Big Pharma.
Antibodies fade. T-cells are ~forever. The push for antibody testing has been misled as its best guess is a proximity to when you got it as well as how bad it was. T-cells (aka the recipe to generate said antibodies) are logged ~forever. So when you're hit with it again, your body can generate those antibodies again from said recipe book (t-cell book).
01-20-2022, 12:10 PM
0
