Local Covid Anti-Vaxxers vs Studies Spammers

[eitech]

With Merk charging 700+ for the non ivermectin pill they are estimating 7B usd as the year one number.
Of course this pill is on patent while the Ivermectin isn't.

That new pill cost 17 usd to make.

Off patent Ivermectin is available here in TnT for 4.50 per tablet.

Hmm interesting. Is always about money eh nutten else

[matr1x]

Thats a load of crap. Clinical administration has shown practical applications of easing of symptoms.

Also, thank you for the spell check. You are now as useful as Clippy in Microsoft office

[adnj]

Thats a load of crap. Clinical administration has shown practical applications of easing of symptoms.

Also, thank you for the spell check. You are now as useful as Clippy in Microsoft office

You cannot cite one international organization that sanctions the use of ivermectrin for for COVID-19 treatment outside of a clinical study.

If you could, you would. You can't.

[Penguin]

Isn't India claiming that ivermectin is why their death rate is so low?

There needs to be proper analysis done there as it coincides with the tail end of the delta peak us increases in vaccination.

[Redman]

With Merk charging 700+ for the non ivermectin pill they are estimating 7B usd as the year one number.
Of course this pill is on patent while the Ivermectin isn't.

That new pill cost 17 usd to make.

Off patent Ivermectin is available here in TnT for 4.50 per tablet.

Ivermectrin is an anthelmintic drug specifically designed to treat parasitic worms.

Molnupiravir is an experimental antiviral drug designed to treat influenza viruses.

After more than 18 months, there has not been a single study of quality that establishes ivermectrin as a reasonably safe treatment for COVID. Even though the drug is inexpensive and widely avaible to ANY country or organization that has the interest required to run the study.

meanwhile in the real world India,and Mexico have had great results in issuing Kits with Ivermectin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO9cjy3Rydc

As the vid indicates there is a correlation that deserves investigation.

Uttar Pradesh is 15% fully vaxxed, with a population of 240M. Today the District has a a 7 day new case average of 14 (TnT is 180 ish)
They began issuing the kits 11 May,on the below graph on the way up to the peak.A few weeks later cases peak, begin decreasing and they are now at a 14 case run rate with 15% fully vaxxed.

https://ivmmeta.com/

The lack of study means what???
There is a massive financial incentive to maximise the adoption of new on patent meds.


Think for yourself-

[st7]

Why I am unvaccinated?


I am not vaccinated against Covid-19 and do not intend to take any of the existing vaccines. Here are my reasons.


Medical: I am under 70 years of age, have no co-morbidities, am not obese, and can run one mile in under nine minutes. This puts me in a cohort that Covid does not seriously affect. Thus, the vaccine does not benefit me.


Statistical: If I do catch Covid, the odds of me dying are virtually nil; and for hospitalisation, extremely low. The overall fatality rate is 1.3 per cent, and 99 per cent of those who die have already exceeded the average life expectancy of their country (73 years in Trinidad), have co-morbidities, and/or are obese.
Put another way, I know the risks of Covid, but the vaccine risk for me remains an unknown—ie, I do not know if I am one of the few who will have a severe or fatal reaction.


Epidemiological: In all previous pandemics, two principles have applied—protect the sick and vulnerable and carry on as normal (ie, no lockdowns of any sort). These basics have been overturned for Covid-19—the only coronavirus that poses no danger to healthy persons. It is, therefore, wrong in principle to obey such restrictions.


Ethical: It is now known that even vaccinated people can infect others. This means that my taking the vaccine does not protect anyone else. Even before the vaccines were available, however, the “protect other people” argument was specious. Anyone who wishes to avoid catching Covid can do so by staying away from others. If they refuse to do so, it is because they have decided that the risk is worth it. It is not anyone else’s responsibility to either facilitate or block their decision.


Everyone has their own reasons for taking or not taking the Covid vaccine. That should be their choice. When coercion is invoked (eg, “safe” zones), it becomes a civic duty to oppose the Government’s erosion of our human rights.


Kevin Baldeosingh

https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/let ... ium=social

look.. the sheep sheeping

[Dohplaydat]

Why I am unvaccinated?


I am not vaccinated against Covid-19 and do not intend to take any of the existing vaccines. Here are my reasons.


Medical: I am under 70 years of age, have no co-morbidities, am not obese, and can run one mile in under nine minutes. This puts me in a cohort that Covid does not seriously affect. Thus, the vaccine does not benefit me.


Statistical: If I do catch Covid, the odds of me dying are virtually nil; and for hospitalisation, extremely low. The overall fatality rate is 1.3 per cent, and 99 per cent of those who die have already exceeded the average life expectancy of their country (73 years in Trinidad), have co-morbidities, and/or are obese.
Put another way, I know the risks of Covid, but the vaccine risk for me remains an unknown—ie, I do not know if I am one of the few who will have a severe or fatal reaction.


Epidemiological: In all previous pandemics, two principles have applied—protect the sick and vulnerable and carry on as normal (ie, no lockdowns of any sort). These basics have been overturned for Covid-19—the only coronavirus that poses no danger to healthy persons. It is, therefore, wrong in principle to obey such restrictions.


Ethical: It is now known that even vaccinated people can infect others. This means that my taking the vaccine does not protect anyone else. Even before the vaccines were available, however, the “protect other people” argument was specious. Anyone who wishes to avoid catching Covid can do so by staying away from others. If they refuse to do so, it is because they have decided that the risk is worth it. It is not anyone else’s responsibility to either facilitate or block their decision.


Everyone has their own reasons for taking or not taking the Covid vaccine. That should be their choice. When coercion is invoked (eg, “safe” zones), it becomes a civic duty to oppose the Government’s erosion of our human rights.


Kevin Baldeosingh

https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/let ... ium=social

look.. the sheep sheeping

Kevin Baldeosingh has no concept of data and statistics and routinely falls for misinformation.

The only thing he's right in saying is that the probability of him being hospitalized due to covid is low.

And while he might be safe, others he interacts with might not be. He states that you can spread covid after vaccination but conveniently ignores that the probability of doing so is greatly reduced. His inconsistent use of data and stats is done intentional to support his viewpoint, that we are making too big a deal about covid and only sick or old people dying so we shouldn't care.

What he doesn't realize is that covid is dangerous enough to warrant this response, if governments did nothing a responsible population (like Sweden) would adopt self limiting measures to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. Effectively the same thing, but it relies on people being rational, the majority of us are not.

He ignores the fact that hospitals were overcrowded for months and many many patients had delayed check-ups, surgeries or other maladies that required urgent care.

He has no solution other than to let it run through the population, killing thousands and facilitating more variants.

[st7]

Why I am unvaccinated?


I am not vaccinated against Covid-19 and do not intend to take any of the existing vaccines. Here are my reasons.


Medical: I am under 70 years of age, have no co-morbidities, am not obese, and can run one mile in under nine minutes. This puts me in a cohort that Covid does not seriously affect. Thus, the vaccine does not benefit me.


Statistical: If I do catch Covid, the odds of me dying are virtually nil; and for hospitalisation, extremely low. The overall fatality rate is 1.3 per cent, and 99 per cent of those who die have already exceeded the average life expectancy of their country (73 years in Trinidad), have co-morbidities, and/or are obese.
Put another way, I know the risks of Covid, but the vaccine risk for me remains an unknown—ie, I do not know if I am one of the few who will have a severe or fatal reaction.


Epidemiological: In all previous pandemics, two principles have applied—protect the sick and vulnerable and carry on as normal (ie, no lockdowns of any sort). These basics have been overturned for Covid-19—the only coronavirus that poses no danger to healthy persons. It is, therefore, wrong in principle to obey such restrictions.


Ethical: It is now known that even vaccinated people can infect others. This means that my taking the vaccine does not protect anyone else. Even before the vaccines were available, however, the “protect other people” argument was specious. Anyone who wishes to avoid catching Covid can do so by staying away from others. If they refuse to do so, it is because they have decided that the risk is worth it. It is not anyone else’s responsibility to either facilitate or block their decision.


Everyone has their own reasons for taking or not taking the Covid vaccine. That should be their choice. When coercion is invoked (eg, “safe” zones), it becomes a civic duty to oppose the Government’s erosion of our human rights.


Kevin Baldeosingh

https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/let ... ium=social

look.. the sheep sheeping

Kevin Baldeosingh has no concept of data and statistics and routinely falls for misinformation.

The only thing he's right in saying is that the probability of him being hospitalized due to covid is low.

And while he might be safe, others he interacts with might not be. He states that you can spread covid after vaccination but conveniently ignores that the probability of doing so is greatly reduced. His inconsistent use of data and stats is done intentional to support his viewpoint, that we are making too big a deal about covid and only sick or old people dying so we shouldn't care.

What he doesn't realize is that covid is dangerous enough to warrant this response, if governments did nothing a responsible population (like Sweden) would adopt self limiting measures to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. Effectively the same thing, but it relies on people being rational, the majority of us are not.

He ignores the fact that hospitals were overcrowded for months and many many patients had delayed check-ups, surgeries or other maladies that required urgent care.

He has no solution other than to let it run through the population, killing thousands and facilitating more variants.

he and hover was home busy researching this pandemic. had no time to see hospital wards overwhelmed and thing. as long as it doh affect them, nothing is of concern to them. they are part of the reason why this country backward, and would remain so.

the sheep sheeping.

[pugboy]

his statements are identical to several yankee radio hosts who got covid and died……

[aaron17]

Ent they say Pradesh corrupted?

[timelapse]

What if the microchips are in the Ivermectin?

[Dohplaydat]

What if the microchips are in the Ivermectin?

LOL

[adnj]

With Merk charging 700+ for the non ivermectin pill they are estimating 7B usd as the year one number.
Of course this pill is on patent while the Ivermectin isn't.

That new pill cost 17 usd to make.

Off patent Ivermectin is available here in TnT for 4.50 per tablet.

Ivermectrin is an anthelmintic drug specifically designed to treat parasitic worms.

Molnupiravir is an experimental antiviral drug designed to treat influenza viruses.

After more than 18 months, there has not been a single study of quality that establishes ivermectrin as a reasonably safe treatment for COVID. Even though the drug is inexpensive and widely avaible to ANY country or organization that has the interest required to run the study.

meanwhile in the real world India,and Mexico have had great results in issuing Kits with Ivermectin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO9cjy3Rydc

As the vid indicates there is a correlation that deserves investigation.

Uttar Pradesh is 15% fully vaxxed, with a population of 240M. Today the District has a a 7 day new case average of 14 (TnT is 180 ish)
They began issuing the kits 11 May,on the below graph on the way up to the peak.A few weeks later cases peak, begin decreasing and they are now at a 14 case run rate with 15% fully vaxxed.
Screen Shot 2021-10-06 at 11.03.00 AM.png

https://ivmmeta.com/

The lack of study means what???
There is a massive financial incentive to maximise the adoption of new on patent meds.


Think for yourself-

This is no repeatable process. If it were, then that would be fabulous. Without a repeatable and provable outcome, you cannot identify the actual cause of the decrease in cases.

[Redman]

As I said the correlation is worthy of more investigation.


Of course the reality is that the UP experience was matched in Goa with similarities in the results.
And Mexico.

Off patent meds don't make money for anyone.

[matr1x]

Didn't the discoverers win a nobel prize?

[Kenjo]

Didn't the discoverers win a nobel prize?

The newer antiviral discoverers want one too?

[ed360123]

Didn't the discoverers win a nobel prize?

For treating parasites. Not viruses.

[matr1x]

It's was for handling the symptoms. That's how you handle viral treatment. Help the body outlive the virus

[ed360123]

With Merk charging 700+ for the non ivermectin pill they are estimating 7B usd as the year one number.
Of course this pill is on patent while the Ivermectin isn't.

That new pill cost 17 usd to make.

Off patent Ivermectin is available here in TnT for 4.50 per tablet.

Ivermectrin is an anthelmintic drug specifically designed to treat parasitic worms.

Molnupiravir is an experimental antiviral drug designed to treat influenza viruses.

After more than 18 months, there has not been a single study of quality that establishes ivermectrin as a reasonably safe treatment for COVID. Even though the drug is inexpensive and widely avaible to ANY country or organization that has the interest required to run the study.

meanwhile in the real world India,and Mexico have had great results in issuing Kits with Ivermectin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO9cjy3Rydc

As the vid indicates there is a correlation that deserves investigation.

Uttar Pradesh is 15% fully vaxxed, with a population of 240M. Today the District has a a 7 day new case average of 14 (TnT is 180 ish)
They began issuing the kits 11 May,on the below graph on the way up to the peak.A few weeks later cases peak, begin decreasing and they are now at a 14 case run rate with 15% fully vaxxed.

Screen Shot 2021-10-06 at 11.03.00 AM.png

https://ivmmeta.com/

The lack of study means what???
There is a massive financial incentive to maximise the adoption of new on patent meds.


Think for yourself-

Your source is a YouTube video and some questionable website. You can't be serious. 'Think for yourself' my ass.

[ed360123]

It's was for handling the symptoms. That's how you handle viral treatment. Help the body outlive the virus

Viruses and parasites are not treated the same way.

[matr1x]

Well seeing as how the patients who have been treated with it, the results speak for themselves

[ed360123]

Well seeing as how the patients who have been treated with it, the results speak for themselves

That's...not how science works. Placebo's are also a thing.

[adnj]

As I said the correlation is worthy of more investigation.


Of course the reality is that the UP experience was matched in Goa with similarities in the results.
And Mexico.

Off patent meds don't make money for anyone.

There are other studies. There are other drugs. Some are showing benefits. Some are not.

Better Data on Ivermectin Is Finally on Its Way


09.08.2021 07:00 AM

EDWARD MILLS CAME to the meeting last month with very good data. A clinical trials expert at McMaster University, Mills was presenting new results from a trial that is looking at how well half a dozen different drugs treat Covid-19—not for the people so sick they’re in the emergency room or the hospital, but in people whose symptoms haven’t gotten that bad yet. People sick at home, in other words.

At his online talk, put on by the National Institutes of Health, Mills’ slides told the tale: A relatively safe, familiar, cheap drug reduced the relative risk of mild Covid getting worse by nearly 30 percent. The drug is fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor—an antidepressant. (It’s also an anti-inflammatory, and inflammation and an overreacting immune system are hallmarks of serious Covid infection, so that might be why it seems to help). Get a bunch of people with Covid and randomize them into two groups; 739 get fluvoxamine and 733 get a placebo. Only 77 of the fluvoxamine-takers end up in the hospital; 109 of the placebo group do. This is exciting.

“This is the first time these results have been presented in a public forum?” asked the moderator, Adrian Hernandez, director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute.

“Yeah,” Mills answered. “You are hearing it for the first time.”

“Well, simply, wow,” Hernandez said. If the data bears out, it’ll be only the second repurposed drug that works for outpatient Covid-19. (The other is a steroid called budesonide; other drugs you might have heard of, like remdesivir or dexamethasone, are for people who are severely ill and hospitalized.) The team’s results haven’t been peer-reviewed or officially published yet, but the Together trial, on which Mills is co-principal investigator, is well-designed and respected. Now, to be clear, fluvoxamine is still a ways off from becoming part of the standard of care for people with Covid-19. Once the Together trial’s results get published, guideline-setting organizations like the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization will have to take a look. But the Together trial data, if it holds up, seems positive for the SSRI.

But wait! There’s more! In the very same presentation, the very same trial that showed this antidepressant might lessen the symptoms of Covid-19 also showed that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin—you’ve heard about that one, right?—doesn’t help at all. In the Together trial, that drug, commonly used against things like river blindness and intestinal roundworms, didn’t keep anyone with Covid out of the hospital any better than a placebo. Of 677 people with Covid who got 400 micrograms per kilogram of weight per day for three days, 86 ended up in the ER or hospital; of the 678 people who got a placebo, 95 went. That’s not a significant difference, and Mills’ team dropped it from the study. (Vaccination, I should add, is still the most effective, safest, cheapest, and easiest way to avoid getting sick.)

Ivermectin had some promising early results against the virus in petri dishes and in smaller and observational studies, but it still hasn’t aced a trial. Of two apparent large-scale confirmations of its effects, one (a preprint from researchers in Egypt) got retracted over concerns about plagiarism and fake data. Scientists and journalists at BuzzFeed have found irregularities in the data from another. A separate, positive review of all the data on ivermectin was rejected from a journal after provisional acceptance for concerns about research integrity and conflicts of interest, while a strict meta-analysis of all the randomized, controlled trials of ivermectin against Covid found no positive effect for the drug. The FDA says people shouldn’t take it. The American Medical Association and two pharmacist associations have issued a statement recommending that none of their members prescribe ivermectin for Covid-19 outside of a clinical trial. (Oh, and a physician in Arkansas gave the drug to unknowing, unconsenting prison inmates, which generally is not the side of history you want to be on.)

https://www.wired.com/story/better-data ... n-its-way/

[De Dragon]

As I said the correlation is worthy of more investigation.


Of course the reality is that the UP experience was matched in Goa with similarities in the results.
And Mexico.

Off patent meds don't make money for anyone.

Merck makes Ivermectin.
Merck currently doesn't make a Covid-19 vaccine.
Merck currently has advised AGAINST using Ivermectin for Covid-19

[drchaos]

Well seeing as how the patients who have been treated with it, the results speak for themselves

That's...not how science works. Placebo's are also a thing.

If placebos are a thing and they do actually have an effect then that means even if Ivermectin is just Placebo then it would still help.

[aaron17]

Regardless of treatment medication avail if it exist... they will still rate vaccines because it is still the best. Just like the situation with the yearly flu. There are countless treatments available for it and they say to get vaccinated. Prev is better than cure .

[De Dragon]

Regardless of treatment medication avail if it exist... they will still rate vaccines because it is still the best. Just like the situation with the yearly flu. There are countless treatments available for it and they say to get vaccinated. Prev is better than cure .

Nah, we local anti vax crew say different. Dem say tuh get it better

[matr1x]

Vaccines help to train you to fight the virus.

Ivermectin helps you treat some to the more serious symptoms.

It's not rocket science

[aaron17]

https://youtube.com/shorts/5_VtjF8GCmE?feature=share

This is the person who compared the flu to covid regarding treatments.

[adnj]

Well seeing as how the patients who have been treated with it, the results speak for themselves

That's...not how science works. Placebo's are also a thing.

If placebos are a thing and they do actually have an effect then that means even if Ivermectin is just Placebo then it would still help.

Placebos ‘work without deception’
24 DECEMBER, 2010

Patients with irritable bowel syndrome have added a further twist to the mystery of the placebo effect - where patients see relief in their symptoms despite being given a dummy drug.

A study has found that such placebos can work even when patients know they contain nothing more active than sugar.

The effect has long been recognised where a new drug is tested and a control group is given a dummy tablet that they too think is the active drug. It was thought the positive thinking of patients helps to relieve their symptoms.

However it now appears there is more involved than mere positive thinking with the “placebo effect”, as patients do not need to be deceived into thinking they are taking the active drug for it to work.

Participants experienced relief from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) despite being told their medication was “like sugar pills” and contained no active ingredients.

At the end of the three-week trial, twice as many of the patients given the “dummy” pills reported loss of symptoms as those receiving no treatment at all.

Rates of improvement also doubled in the placebo group, an effect usually only associated with powerful IBS medications.

Study leader Dr Ted Kaptchuk, from Boston’s Harvard Medical School in the US, said: “Not only did we make it absolutely clear that these pills had no active ingredient and were made from inert substances, but we actually had ‘placebo’ printed on the bottle.

“We told the patients that they didn’t have to even believe in the placebo effect; just take the pills.

“These findings suggest that rather than mere positive thinking, there may be significant benefit to the very performance of medical ritual. I’m excited about studying this further. Placebo may work even if patients know it is a placebo.”

https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-a ... 4-12-2010/