Jump to content

Vaccination for cruise ships


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

You touched on their point.  Given that the pandemic shutdowns have caused trillions of dollars in damages and the vaccine program has cost billions and will likely cause billions more for several years to come.  If there seems to be a cheap, safe treatment that is showing very strong promise in uncontrolled trials, at some point it is the duty of the government organizations who are charged with the task of protecting public health to figure out how to run some properly controlled studies (which only cost millions) so this matter can be determined with greater scientific certainty.

That is exactly the point.  @Steam Flyer and others seem to be intent on a one trick pony approach to managing the pandemic.  Anything outside of Government mandated NPI'S and vaccinations are considered to be "nutjob conspiracy theories perpetuated by the political radical right.

That doesn't indicate an open unbiased mind to addressing what could be alternative treatments.

Ivermectin for example is being widely used in many countries to combat disease.  Is that why some of those countries have shown lower levels of cases and serious illness from Covid-19?

Many can't see the contradiction they promote which is that Ivermectin is dangerous yet it has been prescribed and distributed to large numbers of people for decades.  After its discovery in the 1970's.

I would have thought it would have been right up there in acceptance by the wacky left as it is of natural origin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1.  Please get vaccinated  2.  Please do not self administer Ivermectin 3. Specialists in every discipline debate and share treatment protocols. This has been especially true during Covid an

There is your main clue to the authenticity of these claims.  If they were reporting them to their doctor they would not be censored, and the information would find its way into the body of knowledge

I was surprised at the cruise ships skipping BC. The Jones Act applies to cargo vessels, the Passenger Vessel Services act is for passenger ships. People often get them confused. The Jones Act is

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Tharsheblows said:

I agree that "the guy on the right" was a bit excitable and spoke less precisely, but it was a podcast not a white paper.  Also, I am OK with whatever your opinion of them personally so long as you "heard" the scientific concerns they voiced (both the fact that the vaccine is behaving in  manner that they didn't expect and Ivermectin) because if you heard them you will be aware of the issue if you hear it again.  If any of it is true you will likely hear it again from another source as the whole world cares about these issues.

Ultimately, time will tell if the vaccine has greater safety concerns and only a properly controlled study will determine the effectiveness of Ivermectin.

Hello Tharsh,

I listened carefully and i entered the podcast with an open mind.  I gradually became skeptical .  I felt Dr. Malone measured tone belied a series of illogical and contradictory statements and some of his claims I just did not believe.   Referring to his website, he is very bitter about the mRNA vaccines because he claims to have done the early work in the 1980s which discovered the potential for a messenger RNA to act as a vaccine, and that this work and the patents were stolen from him.  If true, I can understand his antipathy.  I doubt he has access to the Ambani family as he claims, and the suggestion that he is a consultant to the Reliance Foundation and that he could enlist them in a shareholder activism project seems far fetched. But my skepticism was largely due to the way they leapt about gathering every bit of unrelated hearsay to reinforce their argument that there is a conspiracy among pharma companies.   I would hav given more credibility if their discussion was anchored around 1, 2 or 3 important studies.   The point about lipds being found all over the body especially the ovaries, due to a release they had obtained from Japan was based on a graph they they the guy on the right (an entrepreneur not a scientist) had drawn with no reference to any other study out there (except Malone hinted he had a team who had come to similar results) . It was not a scientific discussion, it was three guys agreeing with each other, going all over the map quoting names and studies that they claimed were unequivocal. Yet when i turned to check the work they quoted on Ivermectin, it was anything but conclusive.  By all means advocate that Ivermectin should be subject to more study but be clear that thus far the larger more systematic studies of Ivermectin have not found evidence of effectiveness.   Their argument is that it does no harm, so why not take it.   Anyway, the whole thing was unconvincing.

I heard the concerns.

The only valid concern thus far was that, we are only 1 year and 2 months since phase 3 trials started and 6 months since mass vaccination started so we do have to monitor the vaccinated population to observe if thee are any unintended side effects.  Yes we should. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Ivermectin is indeed a wonder drug. The co-discoverers won a Nobel prize.  It has saved millions of lives in Africa from worm infections , notably "River Blindness".  

Ivermectin and its related drugs act by interfering with nerve and muscle function of helminths and insects. The drug binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels that are common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells. Ivermectin binding pushes these channels open, increasing the flow of chloride ions and hyper-polarizing the cell membranes.This hyperpolarization paralyzes the affected tissue, eventually killing the invertebrate.In mammals (including humans) glutamate-gated chloride channels are restricted to the brain and spinal cord; ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier and so it does not make it to the brain to affect mammalian channels.

It is essentially an anti-parasitic. Viruses are very different from parasites.  In vitro,(eg a massive dosage of Ivermectin into a culture made from monkey kidney inhibited replication of the virus) it has been observed to have some anti-viral effect but the dosage required would be incredibly high and the mechanism appears to be suppressing the host cellular process.  Taken to an extreme, if you kill your cells they cannot get infected by CV19 virus.  Studies will likely continue but thus far there has been no rigorous statistical evidence that Ivermectin works to suppress Covid 19 .   

I dont believe in one trick pony approach and I think we must work to discover anti-virals (existing or new), treatment protocols (plasma etc ) and vaccination.  Prevention is better than a cure so I hope that one or two of the many vaccines already in use or in development prove to be safe and sterilizing.  Then we could hop to start the long process (very long process) of eliminating the disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 11:40 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

You can't discriminate and prevent someone from obtaining essential services on the basis of whether or not they have been vaccinated.  As yet I haven't seen any democratic country pass a law allowing that.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't think you are either. In the US, there are protected classes that you cannot discriminate against. But the un-vaccinated are not a protected class federally. A private business is generally free to determine who it wants to do business with. If I run a grocery store and say "No redheads allowed" it might end up in court - but there are probably no laws prohibiting it except some states like Florida, which passed a law saying businesses cannot require customers to provide proof of vaccination.  But they can certainly ASK if you have been vaccinated and if you say no, they can turn you away, Other states have passed laws requiring state agencies to provide service to the un-vaccinated, but have not touched private business.

Basically you have it backward. Businesses can discriminate, within the law, until a law prohibits it. There doesn't have to be a law allowing it.

Federal protected classes include:   https://content.next.westlaw.com/5-501-5857?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Race.

Color.

Religion or creed.

National origin or ancestry.

Sex (including gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity).

Age.

Physical or mental disability.

Veteran status.

Genetic information.

Citizenship

And the Americans with Disabilities Act protects disabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about other places, but US TV routinely carries long ads "ask your doctor for" FDA approved drugs that sound great until you hear the rattled on list of side effects. Including death. Oh yes get your kidney/liver/ whatever monitored too...

Yes these are big selling drugs for all sorts of things. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Zonker said:

I'm not a lawyer and I don't think you are either. In the US, there are protected classes that you cannot discriminate against. But the un-vaccinated are not a protected class federally. A private business is generally free to determine who it wants to do business with. If I run a grocery store and say "No redheads allowed" it might end up in court - but there are probably no laws prohibiting it except some states like Florida, which passed a law saying businesses cannot require customers to provide proof of vaccination.  But they can certainly ASK if you have been vaccinated and if you say no, they can turn you away, Other states have passed laws requiring state agencies to provide service to the un-vaccinated, but have not touched private business.

Basically you have it backward. Businesses can discriminate, within the law, until a law prohibits it. There doesn't have to be a law allowing it.

Federal protected classes include:   https://content.next.westlaw.com/5-501-5857?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Race.

Color.

Religion or creed.

National origin or ancestry.

Sex (including gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity).

Age.

Physical or mental disability.

Veteran status.

Genetic information.

Citizenship

And the Americans with Disabilities Act protects disabilities.

I think that’s a pretty good analysis.  I would add that the law is squishy and often new categories of protected classes are “discovered” through litigation so there is never a perfectly clear roadmap. 
 

Also, the American’s with Disabilities Act probably covers those who cannot be vaccinated due to some medically recognized condition.  The company that turns them away after asking people if they are vaccinated might find out about that condition for the first time when they get served the lawsuit.   It could prove to be a very expensive way to do business.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Bullshit?

What was bullshit?  It is a fact that the Law Society of India has filed papers to sue one of the head scientists at WHO.

It is a fact that case numbers in India have declined rapidly even with the so called "super variant" Delta aka India variant.

The distribution of Ivermectin MAY have made a difference.

coronavirus-data-explorer.thumb.png.388d0d9596ddfc4cfb6ee80cb55eb93d.png

Ok, the distribution of ivermectin MAY have made a difference.  It could have been something else entirely.  In the absence of any science to draw conclusions from, it is equally likely that the decrease in cases is due to the name of the month starting with the letter J.  Your assertion that ivermectin may have been the causation, when not accompanied by a disclaimer that there is nothing to support that conclusion, is the bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

By the way, Ivermectin is indeed a wonder drug. The co-discoverers won a Nobel prize.  It has saved millions of lives in Africa from worm infections , notably "River Blindness".  

Ivermectin and its related drugs act by interfering with nerve and muscle function of helminths and insects. The drug binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels that are common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells. Ivermectin binding pushes these channels open, increasing the flow of chloride ions and hyper-polarizing the cell membranes.This hyperpolarization paralyzes the affected tissue, eventually killing the invertebrate.In mammals (including humans) glutamate-gated chloride channels are restricted to the brain and spinal cord; ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier and so it does not make it to the brain to affect mammalian channels.

It is essentially an anti-parasitic. Viruses are very different from parasites.  In vitro,(eg a massive dosage of Ivermectin into a culture made from monkey kidney inhibited replication of the virus) it has been observed to have some anti-viral effect but the dosage required would be incredibly high and the mechanism appears to be suppressing the host cellular process.  Taken to an extreme, if you kill your cells they cannot get infected by CV19 virus.  Studies will likely continue but thus far there has been no rigorous statistical evidence that Ivermectin works to suppress Covid 19 .   

I dont believe in one trick pony approach and I think we must work to discover anti-virals (existing or new), treatment protocols (plasma etc ) and vaccination.  Prevention is better than a cure so I hope that one or two of the many vaccines already in use or in development prove to be safe and sterilizing.  Then we could hop to start the long process (very long process) of eliminating the disease.

Yes I agree, prevention is better than a cure.  That is why potential drugs (like Ivermectin) that have shown promise in non-structured trials as both a prophylaxis and a treatment deserve to be rigorously studied immediately.

And yes, obviously if the dosage would have to be dangerously high to be effective then the drug would not be a viable option, but because it has been given to millions of humans over several decades, we have a decent understanding of its safety profile at those lower doses (which is what is showing promise)  The effectiveness at those lower doses should be a very easy, low risk trial.

The guys on the podcast may have sounded a bit conspiratorial to you but it is because they are convinced that Ivermectin is suffering from censorship due to a form of group think or  “regulatory capture” and YouTube just provided one more data point to confirm their suspicions.  YouTube just took down their previous podcast discussing Ivermectin for violating YouTube user policy.

Do you agree that censoring a conversation about a potentially effective drug during a pandemic is outrageously inappropriate?  
 

https://youtu.be/Tn_b4NRTB6k

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

.....

Do you agree that censoring a conversation about a potentially effective drug during a pandemic is outrageously inappropriate?  
...    ...

That depends.

I would have no problem whatever with "censorship" when it comes to stopping people who think it's funny to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater. I would have no problem whatever with stopping people from continuing to make false claims about drugs proven to not work.

Some consider it censorship

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a real campaign going on here.  Ivermectin is the go now

Oh, and looks like EYESAILOR and Mikey are in fact on the same 'Team', same shit same time.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random. said:

Looks like a real campaign going on here.  Ivermectin is the go now

No campaign just a discussion on various treatments that have anti-viral properties.

4 minutes ago, random. said:

Oh, and looks like EYESAILOR and Mikey are in fact on the same 'Team', same shit same time.

I'm not "Mikey" or @mikewof or any other variant of Michael.  Nor do I live in Colorado.

I see you belong to the Jack Sparrow school of search, cut and place debate.  Do you actually have any opinions of your own?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh No Mikey!  Not a down vote!    AHhhhhhaahaaaaa

Didn't like that much hey?

Well I forgot to add another to the list.

Tharsheblows is you too mate.  Farking hell, start threads and bomb them with all your posts.

Get a fucking life mate.

giphy.gif

This is clearly your style and content

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Who's Mikey?  Your imaginary friend?

I get the impression you can only see two types of people in the world - yourself and anyone intelligence disagrees with you is called Mikey (or Karen?).

If you were genuine, all you had to do was follow the ID link for @mikewof that you have already used.  Instead, even though you used it, you still play dumb.

It's you alright.

But or is that @EYESAILOR or @Tharsheblows?  How many do you have?

Let's make a list!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random. said:

If you were genuine, all you had to do was follow the ID link for @mikewof that you have already used.  Instead, even though you used it, you still play dumb.

It's you alright.

But or is that @EYESAILOR or @Tharsheblows?  How many do you have?

Let's make a list!

It appears the dope you smoke doesn't help that one brain cell you have left with identifying shapes.

I only have one account here are yours: @jack_sparrow, @Plan Covid Normal, @Ran Dom, @random., plus about 30 variations of random.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
8 minutes ago, random. said:

If you were genuine, all you had to do was follow the ID link for @mikewof that you have already used.  Instead, even though you used it, you still play dumb.

It's you alright.

But or is that @EYESAILOR or @Tharsheblows?  How many do you have?

Let's make a list!

It appears the dope you smoke doesn't help that one brain cell you have left with identifying shapes.

Silly me, we already have started a list and there's four on it already!

@mikewof

@Kate short for Bob

@EYESAILOR

@Tharsheblows

Will be fascinating to see where this goes.  Looks like you have most of SA covered with your shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

That depends.

I would have no problem whatever with "censorship" when it comes to stopping people who think it's funny to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater. I would have no problem whatever with stopping people from continuing to make false claims about drugs proven to not work.

Some consider it censorship

- DSK

I think we almost agree.

I generally accept the often-used analogy of prohibiting the yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater when the person who yells knows that there is not a fire, but I think many people miss the point of why that behavior should be prohibited.  The primary reason it is prohibited is not because the information is false, it is prohibited because the people in the theater do not have the ability to confirm the truth of the information before taking action based on the information.

Therefore, it is incorrect to use that analogy to support the prohibition of medical advice on the Internet where the people have ample time to hear several conflicting opinions about the advice and arrive at their own conclusion about the truth of the advice.

That said, what I find most outrageous about censoring a medical discussion about the possibility of Ivermectin being useful against COVID is that nobody knows if it is good or bad advice yet as there has not been a properly controlled study that shows any result either way. 

All we have at this time is the observational results of doctors who have chosen to use it which seem very positive.  My only point is that the observational results certainly are good enough to justify running properly controlled trials and that we should be pursuing all possible ways to address COVID.

That said, even if the trial results initially came back negative, I still would not support censorship because the process of "peer review" (which is a critical step in the scientific method) relies on the ability of people to criticize the trial results... maybe the dose...maybe the trial methods, etc... and that cannot be done effectively with censorship. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, random. said:

Silly me, we already have started a list and there's four on it already!

@mikewof

@Kate short for Bob

@EYESAILOR

@Tharsheblows

Will be fascinating to see where this goes.  Looks like you have most of SA covered with your shit.

Random,

Eye have no connection with KSB whatsoever.

KSB believes that covid was a lab release. I remain open minded between zoonotic transfer and lab release, with a greater probability of zoonotic transfer.  KSB thinks Ivermectin is a anti-viral that works vs Covid, I believe that Ivermectin is an anti -parasitic with no rigorous evidence that it works vs Covid 19.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Random,

Eye have no connection with KSB whatsoever.

KSB believes that covid was a lab release. I remain open minded between zoonotic transfer and lab release, with a greater probability of zoonotic transfer.  KSB thinks Ivermectin is a anti-viral that works vs Covid, I believe that Ivermectin is an anti -parasitic with no rigorous evidence that it works vs Covid 19.

Yep, well played, that's team work for ya.

tenor.gif

EDIT: "Open Minded" is shill speak for "Casting seeds of doubt"  a well known technique.

Oh, did I tell you that I once heard of a 99 year old who smoked?  Said it was what kept them alive.  Me?  I'm not so sure but I'm open minded about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EYESAILOR said:

KSB thinks Ivermectin is a anti-viral that works vs Covid, I believe that Ivermectin is an anti -parasitic with no rigorous evidence that it works vs Covid 19.

No I said Ivermectin MAY work on Covid-19.  It is widely accepted that Ivermectin DOES have anti-viral properties.  Is it or is it not approved by the FDA for the treatment of Zika virus infection?

Lv C., Liu W., Wang B., Dang R., Qiu L., Ren J., Yan C., Yang Z., Wang X. Ivermectin inhibits DNA polymerase UL42 of pseudorabies virus entrance into the nucleus and proliferation of the virus in vitro and vivo.

Wang X., Lv C., Ji X., Wang B., Qiu L., Yang Z. Ivermectin treatment inhibits the replication of porcine circovirus 2 (PCV2) in vitro and mitigates the impact of viral infection in piglets. Virus Res. 2019;263:80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2019.01.010.

Xu T.L., Han Y., Liu W., Pang X.Y., Zheng B., Zhang Y., Zhou X.N. Antivirus effectiveness of ivermectin on dengue virus type 2 in Aedes albopictus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018;12 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006934.

Varghese F.S., Kaukinen P., Glasker S., Bespalov M., Hanski L., Wennerberg K., Kummerer B.M., Ahola T. Discovery of berberine, abamectin and ivermectin as antivirals against chikungunya and other alphaviruses. Antivir. Res. 2016;126:117–124. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2015.12.012.

Barrows N.J., Campos R.K., Powell S.T., Prasanth K.R., Schott-Lerner G., Soto-Acosta R., Galarza-Muñoz G., McGrath E.L., Urrabaz-Garza R., Gao J., Wu P., Menon R., Saade G., Fernandez-Salas I., Rossi S.L., Vasilakis N., Routh A., Bradrick S.S., Garcia-Blanco M.A. A screen of FDA-approved drugs for inhibitors of Zika virus infection. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;20:259–270. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2016.07.004.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random. said:

Oh, did I tell you that I once heard of a 99 year old who smoked?  Said it was what kept them alive.  Me?  I'm not so sure but I'm open minded about it.

So essentially you have nothing to contribute to the discussion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What?  Get sucked into a cabal of shills about treating sick people with a parasite killer?

You've been exposed @mikewof, deal with it.

tenor.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

No I said Ivermectin MAY work on Covid-19.  It is widely accepted that Ivermectin DOES have anti-viral properties.  Is it or is it not approved by the FDA for the treatment of Zika virus infection?

Lv C., Liu W., Wang B., Dang R., Qiu L., Ren J., Yan C., Yang Z., Wang X. Ivermectin inhibits DNA polymerase UL42 of pseudorabies virus entrance into the nucleus and proliferation of the virus in vitro and vivo.

Wang X., Lv C., Ji X., Wang B., Qiu L., Yang Z. Ivermectin treatment inhibits the replication of porcine circovirus 2 (PCV2) in vitro and mitigates the impact of viral infection in piglets. Virus Res. 2019;263:80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2019.01.010.

Xu T.L., Han Y., Liu W., Pang X.Y., Zheng B., Zhang Y., Zhou X.N. Antivirus effectiveness of ivermectin on dengue virus type 2 in Aedes albopictus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018;12 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006934.

Varghese F.S., Kaukinen P., Glasker S., Bespalov M., Hanski L., Wennerberg K., Kummerer B.M., Ahola T. Discovery of berberine, abamectin and ivermectin as antivirals against chikungunya and other alphaviruses. Antivir. Res. 2016;126:117–124. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2015.12.012.

Barrows N.J., Campos R.K., Powell S.T., Prasanth K.R., Schott-Lerner G., Soto-Acosta R., Galarza-Muñoz G., McGrath E.L., Urrabaz-Garza R., Gao J., Wu P., Menon R., Saade G., Fernandez-Salas I., Rossi S.L., Vasilakis N., Routh A., Bradrick S.S., Garcia-Blanco M.A. A screen of FDA-approved drugs for inhibitors of Zika virus infection. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;20:259–270. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2016.07.004.

 

Also, typically when bringing a new drug to market there are two major concerns: 1) is it safe; and 2) is it effective. 

Because this drug is FDA approved for other uses and millions of doses have been been given to humans for decades, question number 1 is already answered at the legacy doses.  This means that a properly trial can proceed quickly and relatively inexpensively.  But there seems to be no interest...in the opinion of some doctors.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

"OK now listen up you lot ... yes that means you down the back!"

serious-business-man-team-leader-260nw-1

"Have a contract to push Invermectin to Cruise ship passengers, 20 million of them a year and the client wants every one  of them to buy a dose before they leave the dock.  Best way is to get word-of-mouth out there through social media.  every fucking boat/sailing/travel site or forum needs to be hammered.  I you have your quotas, you have your ID's and I don't want any fucking whining about shit account names, I don't make up that shit, deal with it."

"Now get out there and give me the metrics we need to send these cunts an invoice!  GO!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

No I said Ivermectin MAY work on Covid-19.  It is widely accepted that Ivermectin DOES have anti-viral properties.  Is it or is it not approved by the FDA for the treatment of Zika virus infection?

 

 

There is a short answer to that question.

Ivermectin is NOT approved by the FDA for the treatment of the Zika virus infection.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Random,

Eye have no connection with KSB whatsoever.

KSB believes that covid was a lab release. I remain open minded between zoonotic transfer and lab release, with a greater probability of zoonotic transfer.  KSB thinks Ivermectin is a anti-viral that works vs Covid, I believe that Ivermectin is an anti -parasitic with no rigorous evidence that it works vs Covid 19.

Actually I've just been looking for trials of Ivermectin against Covid-19 infection; so far they seem to be given during the onset of severe respiratory distress which kind of late to the party.

But 2 things stand out... none of the studies show a significant difference in outcomes between patients treated with Ivermectin (and given standard-of-care treatment also) and patients that were not.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04646109

The second is that there is a very large overlap between people hollering about 'the hydroxy' and people hollering about Ivermectin.

Oh and Randie, she's telling the truth. EYESAILOR has been an SA'er in good standing... really sails 'n everything... for years before mikey showed up.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Also, typically when bringing a new drug to market there are two major concerns: 1) is it safe; and 2) is it effective. 

Because this drug is FDA approved for other uses and millions of doses have been been given to humans for decades, question number 1 is already answered at the legacy doses.  This means that a properly trial can proceed quickly and relatively inexpensively.  But there seems to be no interest...in the opinion of some doctors.   

Yes and there is already proven anti-viral properties with Ivermectin.  So FDA has given approval for human use of Ivermectin and WHO has been pumping it around African countries for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

I think we almost agree.

I generally accept the often-used analogy of prohibiting the yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater when the person who yells knows that there is not a fire,

....

That said, what I find most outrageous about censoring a medical discussion about the possibility of Ivermectin being useful against COVID is that nobody knows

yes, they do

All we have at this time is the observational results of doctors who have chosen to use it which seem very positive.

...

 

If you were to quote those "seems very positive" results, then no problem. Saying it works, when I know of lots of studies that say it does not... and also, when people such as Kate Shit For Brains/Mikey try to quote results from India which are completely spurious... that is worthy of outright censoring.

So far, the only CENSORSHIP here is when The Editor and his minions ban a particularly nasty troll. They do that for a number of reasons, but not because of repeating unpopular and possibly untrue medical statements.

My telling everybody reading this forum that you're full of shit is not censorship. Not even when I provide cites and evidence.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Yes and there is already proven anti-viral properties with Ivermectin.  So FDA has given approval for human use of Ivermectin and WHO has been pumping it around African countries for decades.

Ivermectin has been approved for use as an anti-parasitic.  It has not been approved for zika virus or any other virus for that matter.

Penciclovir has been approved by the FDA for human use.  It has proven anti-viral properties and is used in millions of treatments in both the Western world and less developed world.  Does this have any relevance for applications for Covid 19? Nope, none whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If you were to quote those "seems very positive" results, then no problem. Saying it works, when I know of lots of studies that say it does not... and also, when people such as Kate Shit For Brains/Mikey try to quote results from India which are completely spurious... that is worthy of outright censoring.

So far, the only CENSORSHIP here is when The Editor and his minions ban a particularly nasty troll. They do that for a number of reasons, but not because of repeating unpopular and possibly untrue medical statements.

My telling everybody reading this forum that you're full of shit is not censorship. Not even when I provide cites and evidence.

- DSK

I agree that telling me that I am full of shit is not censorship and I agree that Sailing Anarchy's occasional moderation of trolls is not censorship. 

The censorship I was discussing is YouTube pulling down the Brett Weinstein's episode with Dr. Pierre Kory who is the President and Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC "Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance," and he is also a lung specialist and an ICU specialist.  He certainly has more expertise than anyone on this forum.  His opinion is worth hearing.

In that podcast, Dr. Kory cites that many doctors around the world (including in Mexico, Peru, and India to name a few) have integrated Ivermectin into their COVID-19 response at some point (prophylactically or as a treatment or both) and believes that they have seen "very positive results" and he expressed frustration at the lack of interest and refusal to investigate it further by those who's job it is to assist such things.

I believe such censorship of possible solutions to the pandemic...during the pandemic is absolutely outrageous and should be condemned by anyone with medical training who understand the contribution that the "Scientific Method" has made toward sceintific progress throughout history...especially very important steps of "rigorous criticism of accepted solutions" and "peer review" and can appreciate the numerous times throughout history where the predominant scientific opinion turned out to be wrong.

I think you also will find that I have appropriately hedged my claims and assertions throughout this discussion. 

Luckily for society, Youtube doesn't run the whole internet.  The podcast is still available here if you are curious what one more eminently qualified doctor believes:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/covid-ivermectin-and-the-crime-of-the-century-podcast-with-dr-pierre-kory/

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually I've just been looking for trials of Ivermectin against Covid-19 infection; so far they seem to be given during the onset of severe respiratory distress which kind of late to the party.

But 2 things stand out... none of the studies show a significant difference in outcomes between patients treated with Ivermectin (and given standard-of-care treatment also) and patients that were not.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04646109

The second is that there is a very large overlap between people hollering about 'the hydroxy' and people hollering about Ivermectin.

Oh and Randie, she's telling the truth. EYESAILOR has been an SA'er in good standing... really sails 'n everything... for years before mikey showed up.

 

Actually, I hit 'send' on this too soon. There are a number of web sites that are showing "metadata" from multiple studies that DO show positive results, but they have some problems. The two that are actually legible include a lot of what can only be described as anecdote... "cities in South America distributing mass doses of Ivermectin report vastly reduced CoVid cases" and such. And the studies that are cited showing positive results, all show -different- positive results.

Reduced recovery time... ok, one for that.

Slightly reduced mortality... OK, a couple for that, but only one gives actual numbers.

Reduced severity of infection... good but again sketchy numbers and no real definition of "severity of infection"

Lots of claims for reduced transmissibility, but numbers all over the map.

If Ivermectin worked, wouldn't it provide some fairly consistent benefit? I don't know of any other medicine that does one thing for some patients and then a completely different thing for other patients. This is why I'm sceptical, dammit, I'm an engineer and machines don't work like that.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

I agree that telling me that I am full of shit is not censorship and I agree that Sailing Anarchy's occasional moderation of trolls is not censorship. 

The censorship I was discussing is YouTube pulling down the Brett Weinstein's episode with Dr. Pierre Kory who is the President and Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC "Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance," and he is also a lung specialist and an ICU specialist.  He certainly has more expertise than anyone on this forum.  His opinion is worth hearing.

In that podcast, Dr. Kory cites that many doctors around the world (including in Mexico, Peru, and India to name a few) have integrated Ivermectin into their COVID-19 response at some point (prophylactically or as a treatment or both) and believes that they have seen "very positive results" and he expressed frustration at the lack of interest and refusal to investigate it further by those who's job it is to assist such things.

...

That bolded part, I wouldn't take it for granted. There are a lot of pretty higher-up professionals in a lot of fields, certainly including medicine, here. But I'm not disputing Dr. Kory's credentials.

However it sounds like Dr. Kory has been looking at some of the same websites... probably in more detail as I tend to skim these things... and perhaps seen a few things more convincing than what I've seen. OTOH, it's another case of make up yer fekkin' mind, is it preventative or is it curative? Touting both sounds too much like "true believer" speech.

The odds of there being an anti-Ivermectin conspiracy is very low... so low as to be roughly in the same ballpark as the odds that green monkey is going to fly out of my butt playing a banjo. But, conspiracy nuts hear hoofbeats and not only see zebras, they see zebras landing from a UFO

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Ivermectin has been approved for use as an anti-parasitic.  It has not been approved for zika virus or any other virus for that matter.

Penciclovir has been approved by the FDA for human use.  It has proven anti-viral properties and is used in millions of treatments in both the Western world and less developed world.  Does this have any relevance for applications for Covid 19? Nope, none whatsoever.

It has some relevance, it is my understanding Ivermectin has been observed to have some anti-viral properties (see Dr. Pierre Kory in the above podcast) and we don't fully know what it is capable of until proper trials are performed, that's how these things are discovered. 

Also, doctors can prescribe an approved drug for an off-label use.  It is often the quickest way to treat something new.  I understand that would require a you to perform a rigorous ethical process including a safety assessment and have a personal belief that the drug is likely to help.  I'm not advocating you do that if you don't feel there is sufficient evidence of efficacy...but doctors who feel differently have the authority to try.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That bolded part, I wouldn't take it for granted. There are a lot of pretty higher-up professionals in a lot of fields, certainly including medicine, here. But I'm not disputing Dr. Kory's credentials.

However it sounds like Dr. Kory has been looking at some of the same websites... probably in more detail as I tend to skim these things... and perhaps seen a few things more convincing than what I've seen. OTOH, it's another case of make up yer fekkin' mind, is it preventative or is it curative? Touting both sounds too much like "true believer" speech.

The odds of there being an anti-Ivermectin conspiracy is very low... so low as to be roughly in the same ballpark as the odds that green monkey is going to fly out of my butt playing a banjo. But, conspiracy nuts hear hoofbeats and not only see zebras, they see zebras landing from a UFO

- DSK

Touche' regarding the bolded part.  The sailing community has a lot of really smart people. (and many too busy to contribute).  I'm not a doctor and I think Eyesailor (our vocal resident expert) said this wasn't her expertise, but she is more of an expert than us non-doctors.

I mostly just think that Youtube's censorship of qualified doctors having an intellectual discussion regarding potential life-saving drugs during a pandemic should be universally condemned.  (especially, when the advertisements between Youtube video's comprise various celebrities giving me medical advice!)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tharsheblows said:

Touche' regarding the bolded part.  The sailing community has a lot of really smart people. (and many too busy to contribute).  I'm not a doctor and I think Eyesailor (our vocal resident expert) said this wasn't her expertise, but she is more of an expert than us non-doctors.

I mostly just think that Youtube's censorship of qualified doctors having an intellectual discussion regarding potential life-saving drugs during a pandemic should be universally condemned.  (especially, when the advertisements between Youtube video's comprise various celebrities giving me medical advice!)

 

Yeah, that's going pretty low. YouTube has to advertise to make money somehow but pushing drugs is not good

There are a number of doctors, other medical professionals, and at least a few medical researchers here on SA... that i know of (i do not pry into my fellow SA'ers real world life but in many cases I know them already or have had personal discussions with them) and many more i do not. It's an awesome community we have here.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

I think we almost agree.

I generally accept the often-used analogy of prohibiting the yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater when the person who yells knows that there is not a fire, but I think many people miss the point of why that behavior should be prohibited.  The primary reason it is prohibited is not because the information is false, it is prohibited because the people in the theater do not have the ability to confirm the truth of the information before taking action based on the information.

Therefore, it is incorrect to use that analogy to support the prohibition of medical advice on the Internet where the people have ample time to hear several conflicting opinions about the advice and arrive at their own conclusion about the truth of the advice.

That said, what I find most outrageous about censoring a medical discussion about the possibility of Ivermectin being useful against COVID is that nobody knows if it is good or bad advice yet as there has not been a properly controlled study that shows any result either way. 

All we have at this time is the observational results of doctors who have chosen to use it which seem very positive.  My only point is that the observational results certainly are good enough to justify running properly controlled trials and that we should be pursuing all possible ways to address COVID.

That said, even if the trial results initially came back negative, I still would not support censorship because the process of "peer review" (which is a critical step in the scientific method) relies on the ability of people to criticize the trial results... maybe the dose...maybe the trial methods, etc... and that cannot be done effectively with censorship. 

 

The reason the censorship occurred on Youtube may simply be guilt by association.  Many anti-vaxxers have been promoting ivermectin as the cure for covid with no science to support them.   There are family physicians, nurses and others who are willing to say they believe the ivermectin propaganda.  Their groundless videos expounding the miracle of ivermectin in treating covid are often posted.  

Any rational discussion of ivermectin is likely to be caught in the same net as these irrational, and potentially dangerous videos.  

I don't have a problem with that.  It is more important to get rid of the false information than it is to keep more equivocal discussions, because of the danger and because any rational discussion is simply going to suggest that more studies are needed before any conclusion can be drawn about the efficacy of ivermection.

Where the covidiots/anti-vaxxers really go to far is when they complain loudly that these studies are not being done or that WHO or some other organization are "suppressing" the studies.  Let's just let the scientists do their job, ok?

Deciding which therapies have the most promise is the job of a research scientist, not an internet pundit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

The reason the censorship occurred on Youtube may simply be guilt by association.  Many anti-vaxxers have been promoting ivermectin as the cure for covid with no science to support them.   There are family physicians, nurses and others who are willing to say they believe the ivermectin propaganda.  Their groundless videos expounding the miracle of ivermectin in treating covid are often posted.  

Any rational discussion of ivermectin is likely to be caught in the same net as these irrational, and potentially dangerous videos.  

I don't have a problem with that.  It is more important to get rid of the false information than it is to keep more equivocal discussions, because of the danger and because any rational discussion is simply going to suggest that more studies are needed before any conclusion can be drawn about the efficacy of ivermection.

Where the covidiots/anti-vaxxers really go to far is when they complain loudly that these studies are not being done or that WHO or some other organization are "suppressing" the studies.  Let's just let the scientists do their job, ok?

Yes, I agree with your statement "let the scientists do their job," but we probably disagree on what that means.  Scientists do their job by debating robustly and publicly.  Robust, open debate, and criticism is the very basis of the Scientific Method which is largely responsible for the great scientific progress we have made as a society in the last couple hundred years.

Your statement that it is more important to exclude false information than it is to keep equivocal discussions runs exactly contrary to this chore principle of the Scientific Method (and the US 1st Amendment for that matter) that good information will defeat bad information though open debate

Also, among specialized communities (doctors) and society at large, people become known for their track record of correctness over time.  For example, when Dr. Pierre Kory recommended that steroids be used to treat COVID patients back when it was not the accepted protocol and now we know he was 100% correct because addressing the inflammation is key to treating a COVID patient he gained credibility, or to use a contrary example, when Youtube censored discussion of the lab-leak theory as false information and it is now looking more likely true than not, they lost credibility.

Regrading your characterization of information about the use of Ivermectin as "propaganda" or "groundless," these statements have a far less basis than anything Dr. Kory said.  I can only assume probably haven't watched his Congressional testimony yet because you would not likely have said that it you had.  I'll post the link again.

https://vimeo.com/490351508

Or if you would rather hear about Ivermectin from multiple highly qualified doctors around the world you can watch this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Yes, I agree with your statement "let the scientists do their job," but we probably disagree on what that means.  Scientists do their job by debating robustly and publicly.  Robust, open debate, and criticism is the very basis of the Scientific Method which is largely responsible for the great scientific progress we have made as a society in the last couple hundred years.

Your statement that it is more important to exclude false information than it is to keep equivocal discussions runs exactly contrary to this chore principle of the Scientific Method (and the US 1st Amendment for that matter) that good information will defeat bad information though open debate

Also, among specialized communities (doctors) and society at large, people become known for their track record of correctness over time.  For example, when Dr. Pierre Kory recommended that steroids be used to treat COVID patients back when it was not the accepted protocol and now we know he was 100% correct because addressing the inflammation is key to treating a COVID patient he gained credibility, or to use a contrary example, just like when Youtube censored discussion of the lab-leak theory as false information that is now looking more likely than not, they lost credibility.

Regrading your characterization of information regarding the use of Ivermectin as "propaganda" or "groundless," these statements have a far weaker basis than anything Dr. Kory said.  I can only assume probably haven't watched his Congressional testimony yet because you would not likely have said that it you had.  I'll post the link again.

https://vimeo.com/490351508

Or if you would rather hear about Ivermectin from multiple highly qualified doctors around the world you can watch this.

 

As @EYESAILOR stated there is no research supporting ivermectin treatment in covid-19.  So the only discussion should be "should there be research".

The logical error in your post is drawing an equivalence between Youtube suppressing false information which, in the absence of suppressing it, could give rise to a widespread incorrect impression on the part of its users and the free exchange of information between scientists when considering ivermectin as a potential candidate for trials.

The world of science does not use Youtube as its communication medium.  Youtube is doing the right thing suppressing this incorrect information.  Youtube doing so will have no impact on the scientific community. 

Sorry, I'm not going to watch the video.  There are many of these videos out there from "reputable doctors" who turn out to be family physicians (not offense to them) or psychology Phd's.  

I will read any peer-reviewed research that you have that suggests ivermectin is an effective treatment in covid-19 or any other virus for that matter.  By this I mean real science posted in reputable journals, not the stuff that is submitted to the fake science sites that use lay peer reviewers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

As @EYESAILOR stated there is no research supporting ivermectin treatment in covid-19.  So the only discussion should be "should there be research".

The logical error in your post is drawing an equivalence between Youtube suppressing false information which, in the absence of suppressing it, could give rise to a widespread incorrect impression on the part of its users and the free exchange of information between scientists when considering ivermectin as a potential candidate for trials.

The world of science does not use Youtube as its communication medium.  Youtube is doing the right thing suppressing this incorrect information.  Youtube doing so will have no impact on the scientific community. 

Sorry, I'm not going to watch the video.  There are many of these videos out there from "reputable doctors" who turn out to be family physicians (not offense to them) or psychology Phd's.  

I will read any peer-reviewed research that you have that suggests ivermectin is an effective treatment in covid-19 or any other virus for that matter.  By this I mean real science posted in reputable journals, not the stuff that is submitted to the fake science sites that use lay peer reviewers.

If you did watch this video I believe you would find there is much more evidence supporting the potential effectiveness than you or @eyesailor were previously aware.

I agree that the evidence isn't from properly controlled and the discussion should be "should there be more research"  That is exactly what is wrong with labeling it "propaganda" or "baseless."  There certainly is not sufficient properly controlled studies showing that Ivermectin is NOT effective such that YouTube or anyone else can label such information as "false information."

I believe you are absolutely wrong about the channels of science communications.  Scientists are just people and they communicate through all channels through which people communicate.  There is a lot of valuable learning and communication that exists outside medical journals...especially in quickly developing areas such as pandemic response experiences.   And there are many non-doctors that take important leading roles in public health (i.e. Bill Gates...who I think has been a significant good influence the field of healthcare around the world).  But even if you are just talking about doctors, it would be absolutely absurd for doctors in ICU's around the world to wait for peer reviewed medical journals to learn which pandemic response protocols are showing more promise than others.

Also, the discussion of whether a viable alternatives are available or not is relevant for all people to hear when all citizens are being asked to take a very new vaccine and we are having discussions about whether or not to make the vaccine mandatory in certain circumstances.

You don't have to watch the videos if you don't want to but if you did you would find a doctor whose reputation and credentials are quite easily verifiable and hard to impeach express an opinion that is quite opposite of the opinion you have been expressing.  I'm not saying he's right.  I'm just saying that his opinion should be considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tharsheblows said:

If you did watch this video I believe you would find there is much more evidence supporting the potential effectiveness than you or @eyesailor were previously aware.

I agree that the evidence isn't from properly controlled and the discussion should be "should there be more research"  That is exactly what is wrong with labeling it "propaganda" or "baseless."  There certainly is not sufficient properly controlled studies showing that Ivermectin is NOT effective such that YouTube or anyone else can label such information as "false information."

I believe you are absolutely wrong about the channels of science communications.  Scientists are just people and they communicate through all channels through which people communicate.  There is a lot of valuable learning and communication that exists outside medical journals...especially in quickly developing areas such as pandemic response experiences.   And there are many non-doctors that take important leading roles in public health (i.e. Bill Gates...who I think has been a significant good influence the field of healthcare around the world).  But even if you are just talking about doctors, it would be absolutely absurd for doctors in ICU's around the world to wait for peer reviewed medical journals to learn which pandemic response protocols are showing more promise than others.

Also, the discussion of whether a viable alternatives are available or not is relevant for all people to hear when all citizens are being asked to take a very new vaccine and we are having discussions about whether or not to make the vaccine mandatory in certain circumstances.

You don't have to watch the videos if you don't want to but if you did you would find a doctor whose reputation and credentials are quite easily verifiable and hard to impeach express an opinion that is quite opposite of the opinion you have been expressing.  I'm not saying he's right.  I'm just saying that his opinion should be considered.

It would be interesting to hear @EYESAILOR's take on how doctors obtain information on treating patients.  I suspect it has nothing to do with Youtube or lay persons, and everything to do with communications within the medical community.  

I like to think that medical professionals rely on science and other medical professionals working in their field of expertise exclusively when making decisions regarding patient care.  I'm pretty sure their insurance companies like to think that too.

Regarding your point about the general public needing information, yes, the general public needs it, but the problem we have today is that people use the internet as their source of information (Dr. Google) and there is so much misinformation out there that the only reliable fallback for people is actual peer-reviewed science.  Even that requires filtering due to the rise of pseudo-science websites that masquerade as real science websites.

In this respect, the internet, and social media in particular, have done us no favours.

I am currently reading through Kory et al's meta-analysis of the ivermectin studies.  I note that it has been accepted by the American Journal of Therapeutics.  As is always the case, I have to verify that the AJT is legitimate (it seems to be) and that the study has been peer-reviewed properly.  My impression so far is that a lot of the evidence is anecdotal.   

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

more evidence supporting the potential effectivenes

Ahhhh Mikey you crack me up!

Fucking

NATURE_TheMightyWeasel_002_t800.jpg?9023

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Please get vaccinated 

2.  Please do not self administer Ivermectin

3. Specialists in every discipline debate and share treatment protocols. This has been especially true during Covid and the mortality rate has declined as a result.

Best of luck to all of you

 

 


 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rain Man said:

It would be interesting to hear @EYESAILOR's take on how doctors obtain information on treating patients.  I suspect it has nothing to do with Youtube or lay persons, and everything to do with communications within the medical community.  

I like to think that medical professionals rely on science and other medical professionals working in their field of expertise exclusively when making decisions regarding patient care.  I'm pretty sure their insurance companies like to think that too.

Regarding your point about the general public needing information, yes, the general public needs it, but the problem we have today is that people use the internet as their source of information (Dr. Google) and there is so much misinformation out there that the only reliable fallback for people is actual peer-reviewed science.  Even that requires filtering due to the rise of pseudo-science websites that masquerade as real science websites.

In this respect, the internet, and social media in particular, have done us no favours.

I am currently reading through Kory et al's meta-analysis of the ivermectin studies.  I note that it has been accepted by the American Journal of Therapeutics.  As is always the case, I have to verify that the AJT is legitimate (it seems to be) and that the study has been peer-reviewed properly.  My impression so far is that a lot of the evidence is anecdotal.   

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Regarding the censorship being a terrible idea, its not just doctors that need to hear the experts debate.  Most lay people in the world have had to make a science based decision regardless of their scientific training (or lack thereof) because if they are parents they have to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, and adult children are often asked by elderly parents whether or not to get vaccinated, and friends and spouses ask each other, and relatives who hold conflicting views often debate each other, etc...

Many unscientifically trained people are very concerned with COVID-19, vaccine safety and effectiveness, and the existence of alternative solutions.  These people take the decision whether or not to be vaccinated and/or to try alternative drugs very seriously and look for answers in several different places including their personal family doctors, their "smartest friend," and other professionals online, and they listen to the conflicting opinions of these various people regarding the pro's and con's and try to glean who sounds more credible. 

When censorship happens trust in the "censor's" narrative plummets immediately because even lay people know that almost all governments and large corporations have a long history of occasionally promoting very bad and dangerous ideas, especially those entities that have a history of censoring conflicting ideas. 

Truth is while the vaccines work short term nobody fully knows exactly how safe the vaccines are long term, or how dangerous catching COVID-19 will be for you short or long term, or how effective the various alternative drugs being debated can be.  Those who can admit these truths and welcome open debate and exchange of ideas will gain credibility, those who become associated with censorship and appear uninterested in exploring all solutions will lose credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dorydude said:

This was reported by the BBC a couple of days ago:

Out of 33,000 cases analysed by PHE and confirmed to be the Delta variant since February, 223 have been admitted to hospital - most were unvaccinated or had only had only dose, and 20 people were fully vaccinated.
And of 42 deaths in people with Delta variant infections, 23 were unvaccinated and seven had received only one dose. The other 12 had received two doses more than two weeks before.”

 

That's 19 out of 42 deaths with at least one shot. Considering that the majority of people are still unvaccinated, the figures don't look too good.

 

Methinks the vaccines are proving to be just about useless.

Yeah, its almost as if there is a lot more to be learned about the subject!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tharsheblows said:

Regarding the censorship being a terrible idea, its not just doctors that need to hear the experts debate.  Most lay people in the world have had to make a science based decision regardless of their scientific training (or lack thereof) because if they are parents they have to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, and adult children are often asked by elderly parents whether or not to get vaccinated, and friends and spouses ask each other, and relatives who hold conflicting views often debate each other, etc...

Many unscientifically trained people are very concerned with COVID-19, vaccine safety and effectiveness, and the existence of alternative solutions.  These people take the decision whether or not to be vaccinated and/or to try alternative drugs very seriously and look for answers in several different places including their personal family doctors, their "smartest friend," and other professionals online, and they listen to the conflicting opinions of these various people regarding the pro's and con's and try to glean who sounds more credible. 

When censorship happens trust in the "censor's" narrative plummets immediately because even lay people know that almost all governments and large corporations have a long history of occasionally promoting very bad and dangerous ideas, especially those entities that have a history of censoring conflicting ideas. 

Truth is while the vaccines work short term nobody fully knows exactly how safe the vaccines are long term, or how dangerous catching COVID-19 will be for you short or long term, or how effective the various alternative drugs being debated can be.  Those who can admit these truths and welcome open debate and exchange of ideas will gain credibility, those who become associated with censorship and appear uninterested in exploring all solutions will lose credibility.

The problem is that You tube etc is a vessel for a lot of misinformation.  the smart thoughtful people at FDA and medical institutions don’t take to You Tube and social media to articulate the pros of vaccine etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dorydude said:

This was reported by the BBC a couple of days ago:

Out of 33,000 cases analysed by PHE and confirmed to be the Delta variant since February, 223 have been admitted to hospital - most were unvaccinated or had only had only dose, and 20 people were fully vaccinated.
And of 42 deaths in people with Delta variant infections, 23 were unvaccinated and seven had received only one dose. The other 12 had received two doses more than two weeks before.”

 

That's 19 out of 42 deaths with at least one shot. Considering that the majority of people are still unvaccinated, the figures don't look too good.

 

Methinks the vaccines are proving to be just about useless.

Pages 37 and 38 were interesting to me.    Page 37 shows the effectiveness of the vaccine as cases fell dramatically as the healthcare population became 95% vaccinated and thus far has not been affected by Delta variant. Page 38 shows that there are reinfections.  This is a concern, because it means if you previously had Covid you are not immune, but reinfection fell as population got vaccinated. This may partially reflect a degree of herd immunity reducing exposure but it might also suggest that even if you have had CV 19 it is still worth getting vaccinated

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dorydude said:

This was reported by the BBC a couple of days ago:

Out of 33,000 cases analysed by PHE and confirmed to be the Delta variant since February, 223 have been admitted to hospital - most were unvaccinated or had only had only dose, and 20 people were fully vaccinated.
And of 42 deaths in people with Delta variant infections, 23 were unvaccinated and seven had received only one dose. The other 12 had received two doses more than two weeks before.”

 

That's 19 out of 42 deaths with at least one shot. Considering that the majority of people are still unvaccinated, the figures don't look too good.

 

Methinks the vaccines are proving to be just about useless.

20 out of 33,000?

Methinks that math is not your strong point. Like, not even one of your points at all.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The problem is that You tube etc is a vessel for a lot of misinformation.  the smart thoughtful people at FDA and medical institutions don’t take to You Tube and social media to articulate the pros of vaccine etc. 

Sure they do.  Here is a the Youtube recording of the FDA's 162nd Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting.  Presumably it is not only recorded and put on Youtube for the public, but also for other doctors would would like to listen to the presentations and look up the studies they reference.  Youtube is powerful communication tool.  Science is performed via communication.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tharsheblows said:

Sure they do.  Here is a the Youtube recording of the FDA's 162nd Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting.  Presumably it is not only recorded and put on Youtube for the public, but also for other doctors would would like to listen to the presentations and look up the studies they reference.  Youtube is powerful communication tool.  Science is performed via communication.

 

 

I meant that they dont do the puff jobs like that podcast I watched where the participants would exaggerate and state as facts, when they are far from facts.     Measured, boring balanced opinions are never as exciting as conspiracy theories. Anyway, based on all my reading,with my family and friends, my stance remains the same. We have largely been vaccinated. We encourage vaccination. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

I meant that they dont do the puff jobs like that podcast I watched where the participants would exaggerate and state as facts, when they are far from facts.     Measured, boring balanced opinions are never as exciting as conspiracy theories. Anyway, based on all my reading,with my family and friends, my stance remains the same. We have largely been vaccinated. We encourage vaccination. 

I don't question your medical judgment or have problem with your opinion of those people on the podcast.  I think that's exactly how its supposed to work.  They made their argument and you found them unconvincing.  Maybe someone else will watch them and explain why they are wrong or present something more convincing.  Either way the conversation is allowed.  The best ideas will likely prevail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tharsheblows said:

I don't question your medical judgment or have problem with your opinion of those people on the podcast.  I think that's exactly how its supposed to work.  They made their argument and you found them unconvincing.  Maybe someone else will watch them and explain why they are wrong or present something more convincing.  Either way the conversation is allowed.  The best ideas will likely prevail.

My opinion on these conspiracy theory podcasts is affected by the impact they are having on real people's lives. I think I mentioned on another thread that someone on my staff did not get vaccinated because they were scared of the vaccine. Somehow all this "stuff" percolates out there. She could not explain her fear , just that she had heard it was dangerous.  She did not even tell me that she had missed her vaccine appointment.  Three weeks ago, she came down with Covid and is now very sick. 

How do we go about allaying those fears.  The proponents of vaccines rely on facts, animal studies, phase 1,2 and 3 trials with 40,000+ participants and ongoing monitoring of vaccine outcomes. The opponents of vaccines use unproven theories and speculation.   This is a serious disease. Even if young people recover they likely have some vascular legacy.  We have the tools to contain it and it is frustrating to me that we dont use them to encourage rapid and widespread vaccination.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

I don't question your medical judgment or have problem with your opinion of those people on the podcast.  I think that's exactly how its supposed to work.  They made their argument and you found them unconvincing.  Maybe someone else will watch them and explain why they are wrong or present something more convincing.  Either way the conversation is allowed.  The best ideas will likely prevail.

Wrong, the one who shouts the loudest and the one who appeals to prejudices will be the one who prevails, with an unshakeable 40% of the population.

There are people who have mentally absorbed an education about science, and this gives them the ability to evaluate facts and measurements. Even then, human emotion tends to cloud judgement. Then you have techno-peasants who want to FEEL smart, and they are preyed on by the "have an open mind!" crowd. They don't have any ability to rationally assess fields of numbers and weigh relevant facts.... hence the ridiculous post above saying "20 out of 33,000 is terrible, horrible, really-bad, you're-better-off-not-getting-vaccinated, odds"

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

My opinion on these conspiracy theory podcasts is affected by the impact they are having on real people's lives. I think I mentioned on another thread that someone on my staff did not get vaccinated because they were scared of the vaccine. Somehow all this "stuff" percolates out there. She could not explain her fear , just that she had heard it was dangerous.  She did not even tell me that she had missed her vaccine appointment.  Three weeks ago, she came down with Covid and is now very sick. 

How do we go about allaying those fears.  The proponents of vaccines rely on facts, animal studies, phase 1,2 and 3 trials with 40,000+ participants and ongoing monitoring of vaccine outcomes. The opponents of vaccines use unproven theories and speculation.   This is a serious disease. Even if young people recover they likely have some vascular legacy.  We have the tools to contain it and it is frustrating to me that we dont use them to encourage rapid and widespread vaccination.

It is very inaccurate to call that podcast a conspiracy theory podcasts.  The word "conspiracy" is very unscientific.  They have a hypothesis that you disagree with.  Brett Weinstein (and his wife who is not on that one) are quite accomplished scientists who routinely have high level intellectual conversations on a whole range of topics.  Rigorous skepticism is the basis of all science and should be embraced.

I know you have made your decision between balancing the dangers of COVID-19 and the dangers of the vaccines based on your above average understanding of medicine but I'm sure you can also appreciate that you are making a judgment call based on incomplete information as there is an incredible amount about both COVID-19 and the vaccines that we do not fully understand yet...and may not know for a very long time.

 And yes, it may be very frustrating to hear that your staff member hesitated to get vaccinated because she heard that some people believe the vaccine might be dangerous but it is your job to inform her of your opinion that the vaccines are safe and maybe explain why you have that belief.  In the end, you may convince her or you may not, either way it is not better to try to censor people (including medical professionals) who have an opposite opinion than you because remember your bioethics requires that a doctor get "fully informed consent" from a patient before giving them an experimental drug (which the vaccines are).  If your staff member was to receive the vaccine without the knowledge that some people (including doctors) believe the vaccine might be dangerous then that administering doctor would be violating their ethics.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Wrong, the one who shouts the loudest and the one who appeals to prejudices will be the one who prevails, with an unshakeable 40% of the population.

There are people who have mentally absorbed an education about science, and this gives them the ability to evaluate facts and measurements. Even then, human emotion tends to cloud judgement. Then you have techno-peasants who want to FEEL smart, and they are preyed on by the "have an open mind!" crowd. They don't have any ability to rationally assess fields of numbers and weigh relevant facts.... hence the ridiculous post above saying "20 out of 33,000 is terrible, horrible, really-bad, you're-better-off-not-getting-vaccinated, odds"

- DSK

Several hundred years of scientific progress would prove you wrong.  Many times progress has come from the voices of skeptics who very often opposed the conclusion of the majority.  Rigorous uncensored debate has served us well.  The backlash was often very emotional but logic, debate, peer review, and repeatable test results prevailed. 

Also, the FDA and medical community has made many errors in the past...some of them terrible errors that might have been prevented by some more skeptical voices.  Skepticism is very appropriate and skeptical voices should be allowed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Several hundred years of scientific progress would prove you wrong.  Many times progress has come from the voices of skeptics.......

 

Who can still do math and provide consistent real-world results.

The kind of sceptics who understand and practice actual science do not "prove me wrong" because they are exactly who I am talking about, doing science, in the first place.

The kind of sceptics shouting NO NO YOU'RE WRONG!! I'M SMARTER THAN YOU! have never accomplished a single thing, ever.

Rigorous debate among informed parties is good. Pinheads yelling nonsense is how we get anti-vaxx "science" even being a thing.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Who can still do math and provide consistent real-world results.

The kind of sceptics who understand and practice actual science do not "prove me wrong" because they are exactly who I am talking about, doing science, in the first place.

The kind of sceptics shouting NO NO YOU'RE WRONG!! I'M SMARTER THAN YOU! have never accomplished a single thing, ever.

Rigorous debate among informed parties is good. Pinheads yelling nonsense is how we get anti-vaxx "science" even being a thing.

- DSK

Yes, my position against censorship of "skeptics" is based on the value of the contributions of intelligent skeptics.  The "skeptical" individuals in the podcasts and videos that I linked all were medical doctors and/or had advanced degrees and/or experience in relevant fields.  They might be dead wrong but they are all very intelligent people.

I agree that there certainly can be worthless debates among strongly opinionated uninformed people; however, such low quality debates are easily detected because they usually turn ad hominem and are not very persuasive.  I don't think low quality debates pose a significant enough threat to justify censorship either.  Censorship is very rarely a good idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Yes, my position against censorship of "skeptics" is based on the value of the contributions of intelligent skeptics.  The "skeptical" individuals in the podcasts and videos that I linked all were medical doctors and/or had advanced degrees and/or experience in relevant fields.  They might be dead wrong but they are all very intelligent people.

I agree that there certainly can be worthless debates among strongly opinionated uninformed people; however, such low quality debates are easily detected because they usually turn ad hominem and are not very persuasive.  I don't think low quality debates pose a significant enough threat to justify censorship either.  Censorship is very rarely a good idea. 

In a world of limited bandwidth, you can easily fill the universe with screeching pinheads. "Flood the zone with bullshit" is a well known and oft-used tactic.

Shutting them off is a very reasonable response IMHO. I would agree that the line has to be drawn fairly and applied without favor.

Back to Ivermectin- it's been used to treat Covid, with mixed results documented. It's approved for use in humans on other diseases, so that is not a barrier. I just am not seeing any censorship nor any official effort to prevent further study.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

It is very inaccurate to call that podcast a conspiracy theory podcasts.  The word "conspiracy" is very unscientific.  They have a hypothesis that you disagree with.  Brett Weinstein (and his wife who is not on that one) are quite accomplished scientists who routinely have high level intellectual conversations on a whole range of topics.  Rigorous skepticism is the basis of all science and should be embraced.

 

 

It is entirely correct use of the word "conspiracy".  Bret and his 2 guests outlined a theory that the pharmaceutical companies were conspiring to conceal the efficacy of Ivermectin. Merck, the manufacturer of Ivermectin has flat out come out and said that their scientists see:-

  • No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; 
  • No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; 
  • A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

They specifically alleged that Merck was part of a conspiracy with other drug companies to find higher priced drugs and vaccines rather than acknowledge that Ivermectin works.

If they wanted a fair and interesting debate on Ivermectin, why not invite the Merck scientists on the podcast rather than 1 questionable researcher with a chip in his shoulder about the mRNA vaccine and an entrepreneur with a fund invested in alternate medicines. I would have been interested to hear the Merck point of view in response to Brett's vague allegations.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

It is entirely correct use of the word "conspiracy".  ....

 

the fact that "TharSheBlows" agrees that 20/33,000  somehow "proves" vaccination is ineffective and actually dangerous, shows which side of the line it's on. Time to be done with this troll, although I acknowledge it has better manners than most.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking on these known adverse reactions in exchange for no measured benefit for CV 19 seems foolish and were not mentioned at all in the podcast

 

In clinical trials involving 963 adult patients treated with 100 to 200 mcg/kg STROMECTOL, worsening of the following Mazzotti reactions during the first 4 days post-treatment were reported: arthralgia/synovitis (9.3%), axillary lymph node enlargement and tenderness (11.0% and 4.4%, respectively), cervical lymph node enlargement and tenderness (5.3% and 1.2%, respectively), inguinal lymph node enlargement and tenderness (12.6% and 13.9%, respectively), other lymph node enlargement and tenderness (3.0% and 1.9%, respectively), pruritus (27.5%), skin involvement including edema, papular and pustular or frank urticarial rash (22.7%), and fever (22.6%).

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

the fact that "TharSheBlows" agrees that 20/33,000  somehow "proves" vaccination is ineffective and actually dangerous, shows which side of the line it's on. Time to be done with this troll, although I acknowledge it has better manners than most.

- DSK

The UK study of Delta Virus is only 28 days in.  Some of the numbers are a little concerning but not enough to go on yet.  This is going to be a long haul and Im guessing we will all need booster shots.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The end result of the proliferation of these conspiracy theories and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is that only 52% of the US population is vaccinated.  This is where the rubber hits the road.

This not only threatens the health of the unvaccinated in the USA, it also threatens the rest of the world because there is now a large population of unvaccinated people within which new variants can mutate.

There is a reason why the developed countries are now working hard and spending lots of money to get vaccines out to the rest of the world.  We need to stamp out this virus as best we can before it has a chance to mutate further.  

I believe the scientific community has done an excellent job with this situation.  The quick identification of problems with the AZ vaccine and dissemination of information about those problems should give people confidence that the system is working as it should.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

The end result of the proliferation of these conspiracy theories and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is that only 52% of the US population is vaccinated.  This is where the rubber hits the road.

This not only threatens the health of the unvaccinated in the USA, it also threatens the rest of the world because there is now a large population of unvaccinated people within which new variants can mutate.

There is a reason why the developed countries are now working hard and spending lots of money to get vaccines out to the rest of the world.  We need to stamp out this virus as best we can before it has a chance to mutate further.  

I believe the scientific community has done an excellent job with this situation.  The quick identification of problems with the AZ vaccine and dissemination of information about those problems should give people confidence that the system is working as it should.

 

Agreed. Despite all the naysayers.  Vaccines were developed by scientists and regulators working round the clock. The world would be in a far worse place without them.

I believe in freedom of speech but I am distinctly worried by the ease in which a small number of people can use the internet and social media to scare a large proportion of the population with opinions that do not represent the body of work that has been done studying the disease and devloping vaccines.  The cost could be a missed opportunity to shut down the disease early in its history vs having it part of our lives for the next 10-120 years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Wrong, the one who shouts the loudest and the one who appeals to prejudices will be the one who prevails, with an unshakeable 40% of the population.

There are people who have mentally absorbed an education about science, and this gives them the ability to evaluate facts and measurements. Even then, human emotion tends to cloud judgement. Then you have techno-peasants who want to FEEL smart, and they are preyed on by the "have an open mind!" crowd. They don't have any ability to rationally assess fields of numbers and weigh relevant facts.... hence the ridiculous post above saying "20 out of 33,000 is terrible, horrible, really-bad, you're-better-off-not-getting-vaccinated, odds"

- DSK

So given this post and what you infer we can assume you are an expert on numbers?

20÷30,000=0.07% IFR.  How does that figure compare to other respiratory viruses?  Is the Delta aka India variant truly more transmissible and more dangerous than any other variant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So given this post and what you infer we can assume you are an expert on numbers?

20÷30,000=0.07% IFR.  How does that figure compare to other respiratory viruses?  Is the Delta aka India variant truly more transmissible and more dangerous than any other variant?

You can assume that I know more than to fling about incorrect numbers and wrongly-applied terms. If only you had the same limited smarts.

If, out of 33,000 patients with serious COVID illness, only 20 have been vaccinated... these were the numbers cited... what does that tell you about the danger of the vaccine?

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If, out of 33,000 patients with serious COVID illness

Where was it stated the 33,000 had "serious COVID illness"?  

5 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

This was reported by the BBC a couple of days ago:

Out of 33,000 cases analysed by PHE and confirmed to be the Delta variant since February, 223 have been admitted to hospital - most were unvaccinated or had only had only dose, and 20 people were fully vaccinated.
And of 42 deaths in people with Delta variant infections, 23 were unvaccinated and seven had received only one dose. The other 12 had received two doses more than two weeks before.”

 

Did you actually read what was quoted?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

The UK study of Delta Virus is only 28 days in.  Some of the numbers are a little concerning but not enough to go on yet.  This is going to be a long haul and Im guessing we will all need booster shots.

The latest data shows that the India variant aka Delta is less virulent than the Kent variant.  Don't you has a "medical professional" have an ethical responsibility to be accurate in your public utterances?

What about this study of the Delta aka India variant?

coronavirus-data-explorer.thumb.png.388d0d9596ddfc4cfb6ee80cb55eb93d.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Where was it stated the 33,000 had "serious COVID illness"?  

Did you actually read what was quoted?  

33,206 tested positive.

19,573 were unvaccinated. 7,178 were vaccinated. The rest I would describe as in-determinant. Thus the ratio of vaccinated to un-vaccinated was 26%

223 were admitted to hospital (what I would define as serious).  The ratio was 31%

42 died. 45% of the deaths (19) had been vaccinated.

What we dont know of course is how much of the total population has been vaccinated.   So if the number vaccinated was 65 % and unvaccinated 35% then we would conclude that you are 5x as likely to catch covid without a vaccine......but that is just illustration of the math. 

What this appears to show is that the vaccine reduces the probability of getting covid but if you are vaccinated and do get the delta variant then you are just as likely to be fatal as unvaccinated.  But of course statistics are misleading because this data runs from October. The UK started vaccinating the elderly first, thus I am reasonably sure there is going to be a significant age bias in the data.

My guess is that the numbers show that elderly are more susceptible to covid than the young. Just a guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

My guess is that the numbers show that elderly are more susceptible to covid than the young. Just a guess.

Wow!  And we didn't know that already?

The UK Government is quoting a Scottish study that shows the Delta variant doubles the risk of hospitalisation compared to the Alpha variant "particularly in those with FIVE OR MORE comorbidities"!  Who would have thought that!

Does that sort of "science" achieve anything?

However, the researchers noted that the analysis was observational in nature, and estimates of vaccine effectiveness "need to be interpreted with caution." They also said there were insufficient numbers on hospitalization admissions and the variants "to compare between vaccines in this respect."

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Wow!  And we didn't know that already?

 

That was my point. Unless we have age demographics in the data, we cannot tell very much.  They are crunching the numbers in the UK. A leak in WSJ suggests vaccines are effective vs Delta variant...but we havent seen the data yet,

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

That was my point. Unless we have age demographics in the data, we cannot tell very much.  They are crunching the numbers in the UK. A leak in WSJ suggests vaccines are effective vs Delta variant...but we havent seen the data yet,

Nor have you seen the data for the completion of Phase 3 trials.  The vaccines are still under emergency use permission.

What happens to emergency use justification if cost effective anti-viral drugs (e.g. Ivermectin) are found to mitigate serious Covid-19 illness?

Does the fact that trials are incomplete, there are potential prophylactic drugs available that already have FDA approval (albeit for other diseases) and the fact vaccines are not without risk ethically allow the vaccination of population groups that are at LESS risk from Covid-19 than they are from unproven drugs?  E.g. the vaccination of children and or those that are Covid-19 recovered.

FDA emergency use approval and Government should evaluate all those risks not just the safety aspects. 

Legally if in the future safety concerns are realised regarding the vaccines then the only defence is that the risk of Covid-19 was greater than the risk posed by the vaccines.  Now that might be easy to justify in the vulnerable groups but very hard to justify for anyone under the age of 16 or who has already recovered from Covid-19.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

33,206 tested positive.

19,573 were unvaccinated. 7,178 were vaccinated. The rest I would describe as in-determinant. Thus the ratio of vaccinated to un-vaccinated was 26%

223 were admitted to hospital (what I would define as serious).  The ratio was 31%

42 died. 45% of the deaths (19) had been vaccinated.

What we dont know of course is how much of the total population has been vaccinated.   So if the number vaccinated was 65 % and unvaccinated 35% then we would conclude that you are 5x as likely to catch covid without a vaccine......but that is just illustration of the math. 

What this appears to show is that the vaccine reduces the probability of getting covid but if you are vaccinated and do get the delta variant then you are just as likely to be fatal as unvaccinated.  But of course statistics are misleading because this data runs from October. The UK started vaccinating the elderly first, thus I am reasonably sure there is going to be a significant age bias in the data.

My guess is that the numbers show that elderly are more susceptible to covid than the young. Just a guess.

What vaccines were these data for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Nor have you seen the data for the completion of Phase 3 trials.  The vaccines are still under emergency use permission.

What happens to emergency use justification if cost effective anti-viral drugs (e.g. Ivermectin) are found to mitigate serious Covid-19 illness?

Does the fact that trials are incomplete, there are potential prophylactic drugs available that already have FDA approval (albeit for other diseases) and the fact vaccines are not without risk ethically allow the vaccination of population groups that are at LESS risk from Covid-19 than they are from unproven drugs?  E.g. the vaccination of children and or those that are Covid-19 recovered.

FDA emergency use approval and Government should evaluate all those risks not just the safety aspects. 

Legally if in the future safety concerns are realised regarding the vaccines then the only defence is that the risk of Covid-19 was greater than the risk posed by the vaccines.  Now that might be easy to justify in the vulnerable groups but very hard to justify for anyone under the age of 16 or who has already recovered from Covid-19.  

  • Correct. Vaccines are approved under EAU in the US.  The FDA has continued to receive data on a rolling submission basis. Pfizer and Moderna will likely have submitted enough data for approval in 2 H this year.
  • Thus far the only anti-viral which has been approved for the treatment of CV19 is Remdesivir. The results of RDV trials demonstrated that RDV reduced the recovery time of severely ill patients but did not reduce mortality. Studies remain ongoing including combination studies of Remdesivir combined with corticosteroids which show promise backed by theoretical reasons why the combination should be beneficial. Remdesivir costs about $3,000-$4,000 per patient.  Thus far none of the data surrounding Remdesivir would justify not getting vaccinated
  • Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic.  Covid 19 is not a parasite. Ivermectin is not approved by any regulatory body anywhere in the world the treatment of any viral infection. Reports from some in vitro studies on 4 viruses suggested that heavy dosage of a cell culture with ivermectin may inhibit a host cell's ability to import virus.  However unfortunately the in vitro performance of Ivermectin has not produced results against the same real life virus in clinical trials for dengue, zika , yellow fever and HIV.  In vitro tests with SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures had a similar result. However (1) pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans. Ivermectin is likely toxic at those levels and is highly dangerous.   (2) Thus far clinical trials of Ivermectin have been inconclusive in treating CV19 similar to the trials with other viruses.  Work is ongoing but I think it is a long shot (<15%) and even if something does develop , it will be after vaccines are off EUA
  • Waiting for a miracle drug is not a strategy.   Vaccination is a strategy and thus far all of the data suggests that the CV19 vaccines are safe.  
Link to post