Coronavirus around the world

There are 1,097 replies in this Thread which has previously been viewed 149,751 times. The latest Post () was by Rice.

    Quote from Hydrino

    I was dealing with symptoms for about 5 months before trying ivermectin. At one point, I was close to going to hospital. The first dose of 18 mg ivermectin had such profound effect within a couple of hours to reduce symptoms of breathing difficulty, brain fog, dizziness, body aches that it was euphoric. Improvement continued slowly for weeks after. Early treatment is said to eliminate such symptoms with no need for continued use, but I take it weekly now. Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug, in use since the 70s, with billions of people having taken it, and it's extremely cheap. Drug interactions and other precautionary information is very reliable and it about as benign as any drug. A Nobel prize was awarded to the inventor of ivermectin because it brought so much relief to vast numbers of people in the tropics suffering with parasitic infestations. In some tropical countries, it is taken routinely to control parasites and is over the counter.

    I am an engineer who worked for the US federal government 23 years. So, I trust no official sources.

    The main complaint against studies that show positive effects in COVID treatment with ivermectin is small sample size, that is, not enough patients in the study. However, large samples are needed to reach statistical significance when the signal is weak. With ivermectin, the effects are so strong that large trials are unnecessary.

    Maybe a shot of Lysol to boost the effect of Ivermectin. [bunk]

    Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
    Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.
    www.fda.gov

    Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by clean end!

    Quote from daniel

    the hypocrisy about this

    pandemic is beyond reason.

    That’s for sure. Starting with the former guy, who secretly was vaccinated before leaving the White House in January, and was only outed months later. But still won’t encourage his followers to be vaccinated. Sheesh!


    The USA reported 86,000 new infections yesterday, up from 12,000 new infections a month ago. The Delta variant has caused enormous spikes in cases in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida.


    My home state, Louisiana, leads the country in the fastest rise in new cases this week. Oh, and I should also mention that we’re fourth from last in percentage of population vaccinated. There is a ray of hope in the news that in the past 6 days, the state has had a vaccination rate increase of about 300%, indicating that perhaps people are finally paying attention to the ravages of this virus and deciding they prefer not to die of it.

    Rice .... I'm not sure if the ones whom are vaccinated, and have never had covid, are anymore protected than the ones who have had covid

    and now have natural immunity. Explain to me how a government tries to get a handle on a pandemic and yet allows undocumented, untested

    migrants, and just let them walk across a border, and then bus them to different locales across our nation. Just doesn't make any sense!!!!

    While I’m not following the rather loaded (undocumented, untested, etc) immigrant part, I can definitely shed some light on your first concern. The problem with relying on antibodies developed through having had COVID is that the levels of these antibodies and their length of duration seem to vary widely and unpredictably. Person A May be strongly protected for months by natural antibodies, while Person B may be only weakly protected for weeks.


    With reliable vaccines available, why would anyone take a chance? Breakthrough infections, like Senator Lindsey Graham’s, will certainly occur, especially when a vaccinated person is exposed to a large viral load (think crowded venue of unmasked people). But statistics compiled over the past 7 months very clearly show that it is extremely rare for a vaccinated person to land in the ICU or the morgue with COVID.

    Quote from Ghost

    Maybe a shot of Lysol to boost the effect of Ivermectin. [bunk]

    https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updat

    "Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Einstein


    Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day
    Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use
    m.jpost.com


    Let me know how your Lysol experiment goes.

    Seems a Wuhan lab whistleblower has been informing the CIA of the real truth behind the Covid virus. According to reports, they now have material in their hands which could open a massive can of worms.


    Hardly a surprise I would have thought.

    In yesterday’s Los Angeles Times:

    “Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease, according to a large patient study.”

    Complete article:

    Column: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'
    Ivermectin, touted as a treatment of COVID by the anti-vaccine crowd, has "no effect," according to a major study.
    www.latimes.com

    I got as far as the association of ivermectin with anti-vax, followed by Trump photo. When an article starts with 2 smears, going further is a waste of time. Of all of the articles I've read about ivermectin clinical results, none have mentioned any opposition to a safe and effective vaccine and some recommend using a COVID vaccine. Many of the authors go out of their way to state a strong support of vaccine science.


    This is not a contest between science and anti-science, between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers.


    The public policy in every country for discovery of truth and developing treatment for COVID has been excellent for amusement purposes if you don't live on this planet and have a sadistic sense of humor.

    Even if the study’s conclusion isn’t what you’d prefer to hear, Hydrino , it might be instructive to read enough to see the scale of the study.


    Article highlights:


    “The findings on Ivermectin are yet another blow for advocates promoting the drug as a magic bullet against COVID-19. Ivermectin was developed as a treatment for parasitical diseases, mostly for veterinarians, though it’s also used against some human parasites.


    “Its repurposing as a COVID treatment began with a 2020 paper by Australian researcherswho determined that at extremely high concentrations it showed some efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID, in the lab. But their research involved concentrations of the drug far beyond what could be achieved, much less tolerated, in the human body.”


    And


    “The Ivermectin camp, as I reported earlier, is heavily peopled by anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy mongers. They maintain that the truth about the drug has been suppressed by agents of the pharmaceutical industry, which ostensibly prefers to collect the more generous profits that will flow from COVID vaccines.


    “The problem, however, is that the scientific trials cited by Ivermectin advocates have been too small or poorly documented to prove their case. One large trial from Egypt that showed the most significant therapeutic effect was withdrawn from its publishers due to accusations of plagiarism and bogus data.


    “Nevertheless, the advocates have continued to press their case — without necessarily observing accepted standards of scientific discourse.”

    Dr. Robert Malone, MD, developer of the mRNA technology, Dr. Geert Bossche, PhD, a developer of vaccines among other qualifications, and Dr. Bret Weinstein, PhD professor of evolutionary biology, all lament the effects of the unscientific rejection of repurposed drugs and coercion of people into using experimental drugs specifically because it causes the observed response from the anti-vaxxers and strongly reinforces their convictions. It is not hard to see the illegality and immorality of what is forced by the state.


    All these men lean left politically, it appears. All strongly believe in vaccine science. All cite long established vaccination and virology principles regarding cautions against using non-sterilizing vaccine in a population with wide spread of the target disease, because it is almost guaranteed to make it much worse and could erupt into a nightmare that can barely be imagined. So far, the variants have been no more deadly than the original. However, they target young people now, a much broader segment of the population. There is no guarantee that the new mutations will be less devastating than prior variants. It is random. An ebola or HIV level of virulence might be the result of the evolutionary selection that is exacerbated by the vaccines, called by various names, including "immune escape".


    New mutations raise specter of ‘immune escape’
    Science's COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation When the number of COVID-19 cases began to rise again in…
    science.sciencemag.org


    That _Science_ article was written in anticipation that the COVID variants would arise, which they certainly have. Non-sterilizing vaccines can accelerate mutation testing and development. That is why they should be used only in a population with few or no cases.


    The criticisms of these scientists attracted the support of people who are political opponents of the author of the article you cite. That author wishes to make the case that the narrow political considerations of his opponents are driving vaccine hesitancy. That author appears unable to see science apart from his political ideology, which is exactly the error he is attributing to the vaccine hesitant population.


    The book, _Science of Coercion_ by Professor Christopher Simpson, Oxford Press, was written because Simpson was an expert in the field of communications studies, yet he was troubled because he knew nothing of the field's pedigree. It suddenly was born, fully formed, as an academic discipline, with almost no prior field of knowledge. So he dug it up, with great effort.


    Communications Studies is the college major of journalists. It was developed from data gathered from studying humans under severe coercion, like prisons and concentration camps. Its goal was not to contemplate what communication is, why it is done the way it is, how it originates or any of the philosophically based questions used to ordinarily probe a subject. No, the driving imperative was, how can communication be used to control the masses? Obviously, this was masked from the eager young college students who wanted to be chroniclers and informers.


    The masses are controlled as H. L. Menchen observed, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." That is, maintain a high level of fear and keep everyone at each others' throats. Combine that with, "Never let a crisis go to waste." Rahm Immanuel



    The illusion of evidence-based medicine.


    This explains a lot about how the popular media currently functions. Fortunately, not all journalism was so brutally coopted. They focused on the mainstream until recent years. Now, we are seeing much fake science journalism created by pharmaceutical companies, who ghost write articles and control journals.


    Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
    Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov



    This is a fairly recent systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of ivermectin that are selected by a method disclosed in the paper, so the reader can fairly easily explore which studies were accepted and rejected and why. They found a 62% reduction in mortality with the use of ivermectin against COVID, indicating most COVID victims would not have died if ivermectin was in wide use.