Local Covid Anti-Vaxxers vs Studies Spammers

[wing]

If ur not boosted ur not vaxed.


Waiting on the people with 6 jabs to start blaming the people with 4 jabs for getting them infected.


Just like the flu shot, if u don't take it every year ur 34 times more likely to get hospitalized or death

Too bad there isn't a vax for stupidity

[sMASH]

If ur not boosted ur not vaxed.


Waiting on the people with 6 jabs to start blaming the people with 4 jabs for getting them infected.


Just like the flu shot, if u don't take it every year ur 34 times more likely to get hospitalized or death

Too bad there isn't a vax for stupidity

Have u taken ur covid booster?
Cdc recommends that sll persons above months take it to safeguard themselves from covid.

If u don't take it, ur N anti vaxer

[Dohplaydat]

Haven't we realised by now that natural immunity is better than vax immunity so there's really no point to taking the Vax anymore.

[sMASH]

That's of u do ur own research.
But the authorities say to boost with a jab.

If u do ur own research ur nutz and anti vax

[aaron17]

Money hadda make

[redmanjp]

don't really need a flu jab twice a year as flu has a limited season. covid is year round.

regarding natural immunity- yeah it protects u but from a later subsequent infection - u have to survive the first on your own without adaptive immunity is not vaxxed. just like it takes 2 weeks for vax immunity to develop it probably takes 2 weeks to develop natural immunity- so the virus has 2 weeks to do what it wants inside u because the immune system doesn't recognise it so if u dont have enough innate immunity (you 're old or have NCDS) hard luck.

but after surviving that first infection weeks later u may actually have 13 times better immunity than vax alone. (hybrid immunity i.e. both vaxxed and infection is the best tho)

[adnj]

don't really need a flu jab twice a year as flu has a limited season. covid is year round.

regarding natural immunity- yeah it protects u but from a later subsequent infection - u have to survive the first on your own without adaptive immunity is not vaxxed. just like it takes 2 weeks for vax immunity to develop it probably takes 2 weeks to develop natural immunity- so the virus has 2 weeks to do what it wants inside u because the immune system doesn't recognise it so if u dont have enough innate immunity (you 're old or have NCDS) hard luck.

but after surviving that first infection weeks later u may actually have 13 times better immunity than vax alone. (hybrid immunity i.e. both vaxxed and infection is the best tho)

Infection acquired immunity wanes over time just as vaccine induced immunity does. Good luck later on in life.

Antivax beliefs are a win-win for the survivors. It's just one of society's weapons in the push to reduce stupidity and overpopulation.

[aaron17]

Wish they handle crime in this fashion.

[sMASH]

don't really need a flu jab twice a year as flu has a limited season. covid is year round.

regarding natural immunity- yeah it protects u but from a later subsequent infection - u have to survive the first on your own without adaptive immunity is not vaxxed. just like it takes 2 weeks for vax immunity to develop it probably takes 2 weeks to develop natural immunity- so the virus has 2 weeks to do what it wants inside u because the immune system doesn't recognise it so if u dont have enough innate immunity (you 're old or have NCDS) hard luck.

but after surviving that first infection weeks later u may actually have 13 times better immunity than vax alone. (hybrid immunity i.e. both vaxxed and infection is the best tho)

Infection acquired immunity wanes over time just as vaccine induced immunity does. Good luck later on in life.

Antivax beliefs are a win-win for the survivors. It's just one of society's weapons in the push to reduce stupidity and overpopulation.

Not "just" like.
It wanes,Yes. But 27 times less than vax induced immunity.



And hear this, how can u call a vaccine a vaccine if ur MORE susceptible to reinfection than if u didnt take the jab?
#cdc

Alltuh selling dreams... Lol

[sMASH]

If ur not boosted ur nit vaxed, and if u are vaxed, ur mire likely to reinfection..
Burrrrrrrr.
Burrrrrrrr

[adnj]

Not "just" like.
It wanes,Yes. But 27 times less than vax induced immunity.

And hear this, how can u call a vaccine a vaccine if ur MORE susceptible to reinfection than if u didnt take the jab?
#cdc

Alltuh selling dreams... Lol

27 is a made-up number.
Increased susceptibility to infection because of vaccination is a lie.

[drchaos]

Haven't we realised by now that natural immunity is better than vax immunity so there's really no point to taking the Vax anymore.

I remember you denying the efficacy of natural immunity vs Vaccine immunity during the crazy period of the pandemic.

Welcome back to the realm of common sense.

[drchaos]

Not "just" like.
It wanes,Yes. But 27 times less than vax induced immunity.

And hear this, how can u call a vaccine a vaccine if ur MORE susceptible to reinfection than if u didnt take the jab?
#cdc

Alltuh selling dreams... Lol

27 is a made-up number.
Increased susceptibility to infection because of vaccination is a lie.

Just like how you lied or made up the fact that Influenza and RSV mutate at the same rate as Covid?

[adnj]

Not "just" like.
It wanes,Yes. But 27 times less than vax induced immunity.

And hear this, how can u call a vaccine a vaccine if ur MORE susceptible to reinfection than if u didnt take the jab?
#cdc

Alltuh selling dreams... Lol

27 is a made-up number.
Increased susceptibility to infection because of vaccination is a lie.

Just like how you lied or made up the fact that Influenza and RSV mutate at the same rate as Covid?

What was posted: Influenza, RSV and COVID have a similar mutation rate.

If you want to risk getting granular, although all RNA viruses mutate at approximately the same rate as a consequence of the number of replications and nucleotides, SARS-CoV-2 has about 30k nucleotides and Influenza A has about 14k.

Influenza A is likely to experience a functional change more rapidly than SARS-CoV-2, all other things being equal.

IIRC, all tracked influenza pandemics in the last century or so have been a consequence of Influenza A.

But because a virus mutates so very rapidly, there can never be a vaccination for it. You posted that.

Hmmph.

[drchaos]

Not "just" like.
It wanes,Yes. But 27 times less than vax induced immunity.

And hear this, how can u call a vaccine a vaccine if ur MORE susceptible to reinfection than if u didnt take the jab?
#cdc

Alltuh selling dreams... Lol

27 is a made-up number.
Increased susceptibility to infection because of vaccination is a lie.

Just like how you lied or made up the fact that Influenza and RSV mutate at the same rate as Covid?

What was posted: Influenza, RSV and COVID have a similar mutation rate.

If you want to risk getting granular, although all RNA viruses mutate at approximately the same rate as a consequence of the number of replications and nucleotides, SARS-CoV-2 has about 30k nucleotides and Influenza A has about 14k.

Influenza A is likely to experience a functional change more rapidly than SARS-CoV-2, all other things being equal.

IIRC, all tracked influenza pandemics in the last century or so have been a consequence of Influenza A.

But because a virus mutates so very rapidly, there can never be a vaccination for it. You posted that.

Hmmph.

Further lies ... Please provide the quotes where I said exactly this? That there can never be a vaccination for it.

Continuously lying, just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Looking forward to the next whimsical falsehood you try to respond to this with.

[adnj]

Further lies ... Please provide the quotes where I said exactly this? That there can never be a vaccination for it.

Continuously lying, just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Looking forward to the next whimsical falsehood you try to respond to this with.

My error. I believe your exact turn of phrase was "making it near impossible to make a vaccine that works."
I suppose that what you are saying is that that it is "near impossible" to make a COVID-19 "vaccine that works", that it is "near impossible" to make a influenza "vaccine that works", and that it is "near impossible" to make an RSV "vaccine that works".

But since there actually are vaccines for those infections, those vaccines must not be "working." I believe that is the fallacy that you have been struggling to prove all along.

[drchaos]

Further lies ... Please provide the quotes where I said exactly this? That there can never be a vaccination for it.

Continuously lying, just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Looking forward to the next whimsical falsehood you try to respond to this with.

My error. I believe your exact turn of phrase was "making it near impossible to make a vaccine that works."
I suppose that what you are saying is that that it is "near impossible" to make a COVID-19 "vaccine that works", that it is "near impossible" to make a influenza "vaccine that works", and that it is "near impossible" to make an RSV "vaccine that works".

But since there actually are vaccines for those infections, those vaccines must not be "working." I believe that is the fallacy that you have been struggling to prove all along.

You see you finally admit you were wrong ... Then you go down digging a hole again with more lies via the "I suppose" route.
I was talking about Covid vaccines and you start lying by adding in RSV and Influenza vaccines in the mix.

Just stop lying ... Why is it so hard??? That way you dont have to keep admitting you are wrong.

[adnj]

Further lies ... Please provide the quotes where I said exactly this? That there can never be a vaccination for it.

Continuously lying, just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Looking forward to the next whimsical falsehood you try to respond to this with.

My error. I believe your exact turn of phrase was "making it near impossible to make a vaccine that works."
I suppose that what you are saying is that that it is "near impossible" to make a COVID-19 "vaccine that works", that it is "near impossible" to make a influenza "vaccine that works", and that it is "near impossible" to make an RSV "vaccine that works".

But since there actually are vaccines for those infections, those vaccines must not be "working." I believe that is the fallacy that you have been struggling to prove all along.

You see you finally admit you were wrong ... Then you go down digging a hole again with more lies via the "I suppose" route.
I was talking about Covid vaccines and you start lying by adding in RSV and Influenza vaccines in the mix.

Just stop lying ... Why is it so hard??? That way you dont have to keep admitting you are wrong.

So now you're saying that COVID, RSV and influenza vaccines do work.

[Dohplaydat]

Ivermectin more effective than originally thought, interesting

[adnj]

x3m4kbeks7mb1.jpg

Ivermectin more effective than originally thought, interesting

Ivermectin is less effective than currently desired.



Medical experts say the data affirming ivermectin’s use for COVID-19 is insignificant compared to the amount indicating it’s useless. A previous review of 14 ivermectin studies concluded these studies were small and “few are considered high quality.” The researchers say they’re uncertain about the efficacy and safety of the drug and that “reliable evidence” doesn’t support using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment outside of well-designed randomized trials. Meanwhile, a February 2023 review in Future Virology of some ivermectin-affirming studies explained that some used too-small pools of participants, were rushed, and ignored limitations around how ivermectin is absorbed in the body.

“It must be acknowledged that some of these studies were possibly intentionally designed to yield predetermined findings,” write the researchers.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/iverm ... -says/amp/

[Dohplaydat]

x3m4kbeks7mb1.jpg

Ivermectin more effective than originally thought, interesting

Ivermectin is less effective than currently desired.



Medical experts say the data affirming ivermectin’s use for COVID-19 is insignificant compared to the amount indicating it’s useless. A previous review of 14 ivermectin studies concluded these studies were small and “few are considered high quality.” The researchers say they’re uncertain about the efficacy and safety of the drug and that “reliable evidence” doesn’t support using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment outside of well-designed randomized trials. Meanwhile, a February 2023 review in Future Virology of some ivermectin-affirming studies explained that some used too-small pools of participants, were rushed, and ignored limitations around how ivermectin is absorbed in the body.

“It must be acknowledged that some of these studies were possibly intentionally designed to yield predetermined findings,” write the researchers.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/iverm ... -says/amp/

Still ended up being more effective than not taking it.

Just goes to show there was a definite campaign to discredit it and the mainstream media, even most scientists, helped push that.

[adnj]

Still ended up being more effective than not taking it.

Just goes to show there was a definite campaign to discredit it and the mainstream media, even most scientists, helped push that.

Ivermectin proved to be as effective as a placebo. Take an aspirin or a dinner mint - same results as taking ivermectin.

-------------

Among many most recent studies are a Journal of the American Medical Association-published randomized ivermectin vs. placebo clinical trial which concluded there was no support for ivermectin use for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A February 2023 Duke University researcher-led randomized clinical trial upped the dosage from the previous ivermectin vs. placebo clinical trial — finding there was no difference in efficacy even at a higher dosage.

Other major health organizations advising against use of ivermectin for COVID-19 include: the World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Additionally, pharmaceutical company Merck, a manufacturer of ivermectin, says there’s “no meaningful evidence” to support its use in this way.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/iverm ... -says/amp/

[sMASH]

Significant enough that i havent gotten a virus since August 2021...

[sMASH]

A foul wind blows...

[paid_influencer]

i gone through airport and all kinda crowded place overseas whole week on vacation and not a sniffle from me when i come back - covid done

[alfa]

i gone through airport and all kinda crowded place overseas whole week on vacation and not a sniffle from me when i come back - covid done

I still waiting for it to start.
I may have gotten it and didn't even know cuz I took the vax and where I work is a safe zone so I didn't bother to test. Was a nasty flu for a few days and then back to normal. Needless to say I've had worse.

[drchaos]

Still ended up being more effective than not taking it.

Just goes to show there was a definite campaign to discredit it and the mainstream media, even most scientists, helped push that.

Ivermectin proved to be as effective as a placebo. Take an aspirin or a dinner mint - same results as taking ivermectin.

-------------

Among many most recent studies are a Journal of the American Medical Association-published randomized ivermectin vs. placebo clinical trial which concluded there was no support for ivermectin use for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A February 2023 Duke University researcher-led randomized clinical trial upped the dosage from the previous ivermectin vs. placebo clinical trial — finding there was no difference in efficacy even at a higher dosage.

Other major health organizations advising against use of ivermectin for COVID-19 include: the World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Additionally, pharmaceutical company Merck, a manufacturer of ivermectin, says there’s “no meaningful evidence” to support its use in this way.

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/iverm ... -says/amp/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8556685/
"The use of aspirin was significantly associated with a reduced risk of mortality among patients with COVID-19"

adnj saying Ivermectin is as effective as taking Aspirin for Covid and Aspirin works for covid ...
SO he is finally admitting that Ivermectin works for COVID 19

[adnj]

"The use of aspirin was significantly associated with a reduced risk of mortality among patients with COVID-19"

adnj saying Ivermectin is as effective as taking Aspirin for Covid and Aspirin works for covid ...
SO he is finally admitting that Ivermectin works for COVID 19

Aspirin Is Related to Worse Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19


Aspirin use before COVID-19 was related to an increased death rate and aspirin use after COVID-19 was related to a higher risk of the conventional oxygen therapy. Conclusion: Aspirin use was associated with adverse effects in COVID-19 patients.

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/9/931

[alfa]

So the studies can't even decide if aspirin is beneficial or detrimental to the fight against COVID but they want me to trust in a vaccine that just came out? Righttttttt

[aaron17]

Money hadda make elsewhere