Local Covid Anti-Vaxxers vs Studies Spammers

[adnj]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... tates.html

[ed360123]

More false information.

Are you replying to me or someone else?

[Redman]

sorry i forgot to quote you.
Yes its directed to your comment.

whats your definition of scientific evidence?

[st7]

Remember when it turned out alot of uwi graduates cheated and payed for degrees? And many were in med science?

why you selling out urself?

[st7]

i think he agreeing with you. That's how that facebook antivaxxer logic does end up being r/selfawarewolves after a while and they really have no real points to argue when the anti-science are not being spoon-fed to them from the "sources."

they will also try to throw a bunch of sheit against a wall hoping for something to stick.

this thread today filled with that

[ed360123]

sorry i forgot to quote you.
Yes its directed to your comment.

whats your definition of scientific evidence?

Properly done trials, that have been peer reviewed and done on humans.

[st7]

That some level BS there.

How about lack in trust in institutions that lie over and over? How about being an adult with more than 2 brain cells?

Looks like someone needs a hug

6 ft apart. Apparently.


Also, tell me how the vaccine is saving ppl?

*ahem*Screenshot_20220202-173356.jpg

nah nah...doh come with that logic. vaccines are killing more unvaccinated people! ever since the vaccine drive start more unvaccinated people dying!!!!

[Redman]

sorry i forgot to quote you.
Yes its directed to your comment.

whats your definition of scientific evidence?

Properly done trials, that have been peer reviewed and done on humans.

Reasonable.

If you're interested the links in my post above will be helpful.
The Japanese document linked above referenced a peer reviewed trial in early 2020,as the first.
Good results...by your metric,scientific.

www.ivnmeta.com is a real time trials tracker

It's also helpful if you want to see additional trial results.

Let me know what you think.

[hover11]

Remember when it turned out alot of uwi graduates cheated and payed for degrees? And many were in med science?

why you selling out urself?

A Man who now started remedial English classes ,looking down on a next man typo.

Wa chubble is dis bai, what I really seeing here

[adnj]

New nanoparticle SARS-CoV-2 vaccine shows stronger, broader, and more durable protection

The first generation of COVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective, but also have limitations: their efficacy can wane without a booster shot, and they may be less effective against some variants. Now scientists at The Wistar Institute have developed a more targeted vaccine that, in animal studies, shows stronger, broader, and more durable protection in a single, low dose.

The vaccine combines three technologies – immune focusing, self-assembling nanoparticles, and DNA delivery – into a single platform for the first time. In addition to its other advantages, the vaccine could be stored at room temperature, making it potentially easier to transport to remote or developing locations than existing mRNA vaccines, which require specialized cold storage.

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/2 ... ction.aspx

[ed360123]

sorry i forgot to quote you.
Yes its directed to your comment.

whats your definition of scientific evidence?

Properly done trials, that have been peer reviewed and done on humans.

Reasonable.

If you're interested the links in my post above will be helpful.
The Japanese document linked above referenced a peer reviewed trial in early 2020,as the first.
Good results...by your metric,scientific.

http://www.ivnmeta.com is a real time trials tracker

It's also helpful if you want to see additional trial results.

Let me know what you think.

I can't find the Japan link, can you send it again?

[Redman]

The problem with WHO saying ivermectin effective or useful is that people would choose not to take the vaccine and have ivermectin on standby in case they get sick.

If ivermectin were very effective, it is in the interest of the nations that cannot acquire or distribute vaccines to use the drug.

Nearly every nation in the world with a hospital and COVID-positive people in the population should have the staff available to run a clinical study on the efficacy of ivermectin at dose.

This has been a question Ive had-
This article speaks around that-its a easy read.-essentially points to Vax Apartheid as a possible, but goes on from there.
https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnis ... -hot-topic

Meanwhile there are serious qualified people that are successfully treating people with C19.- but there is a massive reaction to any publication of this-see the Joe Rogan blow up after he got the virus.

In terms of studies-there are many done-the prudence of running with the results from a SINGLE study is debatable- The below doc goes into your question from a different angle.

This from Japanese Journal of Antibiotics
https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploa ... _44-95.pdf

Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin
in COVID-19

The publication
of the results of the first clinical trial of ivermectin for COVID-19 in the world was
an observational study conducted at four related hospitals in South Florida, USA.
The mortality rate of 173 patients in the ivermectin group was 15.0%, which was
significantly (p＝0.03) superior to 25.2% of 107 patients in the control group. This
result was published as a medRxiv preprint on the 6th of June 2020, but its value was
not recognized at the time because it had not yet been peer reviewed. Following peer
review, it was published without any changes in the prestigious journal Chest on the
13th of October.
Since then, numerous clinical trials have been conducted in various countries
around the world. As of the 30th of January 2021, a total of 91 trials in 27 countries
has been recorded at these registration sites. There are 43 trials in phase 3 and 27
trials in phase 2, along with 17 observational studies. This includes 80 trials being
conducted for therapeutic purposes and 11 for the purpose of preventing the onset of
disease in close contacts and healthcare professionals.
Furthermore, by the 27th of February, the results of 42 clinical trials, including
approximately 15,000 patients (both registered and unregistered studies) have been
subjected to a meta-analysis after exclusion of biasing factors. It was found that 83%
showed improvements with early treatment, 51% improved during late-stage
treatment, and there was an 89% prevention of onset rate noted. This confirms the
usefulness of ivermectin. Since it is a meta-analysis based on 42 test results, it is
estimated that the probability of this comprehensive judgment being a mistake is as
low as 1 in 4 trillion. In addition, two separate meta-analyses also showed the usefulness of ivermectin and their conclusions were presented to the WHO and the
US FDA with a request for an expansion of the indication of ivermectin in the
treatment of COVID-19.

[redmanjp]

the thing i see plenty antivaxxers saying on facebook is the 'not fully vaxxed' figure is ONLY those who got 1 dose, and therefore doesn't include unvaxxed. So their logic is the 1 dose ppl being hospitalized with covid and the 0 dose ppl not. so 0 doses apparently protecting u more than 1 dose.

smh.

[ed360123]

The problem with WHO saying ivermectin effective or useful is that people would choose not to take the vaccine and have ivermectin on standby in case they get sick.

If ivermectin were very effective, it is in the interest of the nations that cannot acquire or distribute vaccines to use the drug.

Nearly every nation in the world with a hospital and COVID-positive people in the population should have the staff available to run a clinical study on the efficacy of ivermectin at dose.

This has been a question Ive had-
This article speaks around that-its a easy read.-essentially points to Vax Apartheid as a possible, but goes on from there.
https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnis ... -hot-topic

Meanwhile there are serious qualified people that are successfully treating people with C19.- but there is a massive reaction to any publication of this-see the Joe Rogan blow up after he got the virus.

In terms of studies-there are many done-the prudence of running with the results from a SINGLE study is debatable- The below doc goes into your question from a different angle.

This from Japanese Journal of Antibiotics
https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploa ... _44-95.pdf

Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin
in COVID-19

The publication
of the results of the first clinical trial of ivermectin for COVID-19 in the world was
an observational study conducted at four related hospitals in South Florida, USA.
The mortality rate of 173 patients in the ivermectin group was 15.0%, which was
significantly (p＝0.03) superior to 25.2% of 107 patients in the control group. This
result was published as a medRxiv preprint on the 6th of June 2020, but its value was
not recognized at the time because it had not yet been peer reviewed. Following peer
review, it was published without any changes in the prestigious journal Chest on the
13th of October.
Since then, numerous clinical trials have been conducted in various countries
around the world. As of the 30th of January 2021, a total of 91 trials in 27 countries
has been recorded at these registration sites. There are 43 trials in phase 3 and 27
trials in phase 2, along with 17 observational studies. This includes 80 trials being
conducted for therapeutic purposes and 11 for the purpose of preventing the onset of
disease in close contacts and healthcare professionals.
Furthermore, by the 27th of February, the results of 42 clinical trials, including
approximately 15,000 patients (both registered and unregistered studies) have been
subjected to a meta-analysis after exclusion of biasing factors. It was found that 83%
showed improvements with early treatment, 51% improved during late-stage
treatment, and there was an 89% prevention of onset rate noted. This confirms the
usefulness of ivermectin. Since it is a meta-analysis based on 42 test results, it is
estimated that the probability of this comprehensive judgment being a mistake is as
low as 1 in 4 trillion. In addition, two separate meta-analyses also showed the usefulness of ivermectin and their conclusions were presented to the WHO and the
US FDA with a request for an expansion of the indication of ivermectin in the
treatment of COVID-19.

So about that Japanese article,

1) I can't seem to find the original journal source for the article, all links for it seem to come from either blogs or forums.(Edit: nvm found it)

2) It references multiple studies that have either been retracted or have been found to have bad data.

[redmanjp]

so apparently we sheit out this covid so much we can track it through wastewater. we doing that in T&T?

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/Houston-sewage-workers-finding-less-COVID-19-in-16827716.php

[pete]

We don't really have that type of waste water system in Trinidad (maybe Port of Spain?) so it would be pointless for them to attempt to do that analysis.

[Redman]

The problem with WHO saying ivermectin effective or useful is that people would choose not to take the vaccine and have ivermectin on standby in case they get sick.

If ivermectin were very effective, it is in the interest of the nations that cannot acquire or distribute vaccines to use the drug.

Nearly every nation in the world with a hospital and COVID-positive people in the population should have the staff available to run a clinical study on the efficacy of ivermectin at dose.

This has been a question Ive had-
This article speaks around that-its a easy read.-essentially points to Vax Apartheid as a possible, but goes on from there.
https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnis ... -hot-topic

Meanwhile there are serious qualified people that are successfully treating people with C19.- but there is a massive reaction to any publication of this-see the Joe Rogan blow up after he got the virus.

In terms of studies-there are many done-the prudence of running with the results from a SINGLE study is debatable- The below doc goes into your question from a different angle.

This from Japanese Journal of Antibiotics
https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploa ... _44-95.pdf

Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin
in COVID-19

The publication
of the results of the first clinical trial of ivermectin for COVID-19 in the world was
an observational study conducted at four related hospitals in South Florida, USA.
The mortality rate of 173 patients in the ivermectin group was 15.0%, which was
significantly (p＝0.03) superior to 25.2% of 107 patients in the control group. This
result was published as a medRxiv preprint on the 6th of June 2020, but its value was
not recognized at the time because it had not yet been peer reviewed. Following peer
review, it was published without any changes in the prestigious journal Chest on the
13th of October.
Since then, numerous clinical trials have been conducted in various countries
around the world. As of the 30th of January 2021, a total of 91 trials in 27 countries
has been recorded at these registration sites. There are 43 trials in phase 3 and 27
trials in phase 2, along with 17 observational studies. This includes 80 trials being
conducted for therapeutic purposes and 11 for the purpose of preventing the onset of
disease in close contacts and healthcare professionals.
Furthermore, by the 27th of February, the results of 42 clinical trials, including
approximately 15,000 patients (both registered and unregistered studies) have been
subjected to a meta-analysis after exclusion of biasing factors. It was found that 83%
showed improvements with early treatment, 51% improved during late-stage
treatment, and there was an 89% prevention of onset rate noted. This confirms the
usefulness of ivermectin. Since it is a meta-analysis based on 42 test results, it is
estimated that the probability of this comprehensive judgment being a mistake is as
low as 1 in 4 trillion. In addition, two separate meta-analyses also showed the usefulness of ivermectin and their conclusions were presented to the WHO and the
US FDA with a request for an expansion of the indication of ivermectin in the
treatment of COVID-19.

So about that Japanese article,

1) I can't seem to find the original journal source for the article, all links for it seem to come from either blogs or forums.(Edit: nvm found it)

2) It references multiple studies that have either been retracted or have been found to have bad data.

Well because of your post I went looking- the Article was retracted end of Sept 21 BECAUSE of the studies etc.
It is a pro IVM article-and the conclusion imho seemed a little hokey.
That said, it IS a single appraisal of the IVM/C 19 dance from the study-and gives a good read of both from 2020 to now.

The ivmmeta sites is supposed to track all the studies-and delineate between those peer reviewed and not.

[Chimera]

Long time now they finding it in the waste water

[SuperiorMan]

Long time now they finding it in the waste waterScreenshot_20220203-122838_Chrome.jpgScreenshot_20220203-122849_Chrome.jpg

Remember reading this last year...it was found in Barcelona in early 2019

[Redman]

so apparently we sheit out this covid so much we can track it through wastewater. we doing that in T&T?

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/Houston-sewage-workers-finding-less-COVID-19-in-16827716.php

Aint that some chit
University of Barcelona found C19 in sewage samples in March of 2019

[Chimera]

I always say that China knew about that virus from early 2019 and they were trying to control it . It spread all over the world by the time they announce it end of 2019.

[redmanjp]

it is was around since 2019 then why didn't it spread then? is it that it was hardly contagious and only evolved when it reach wuhan?

[Redman]

If we know it existed before China lost control then it could also have mutated into the initial C19 ...forcing China to confess

Maybe its the Mutation that raised the flags in China?

[MaxPower]

Hinds would be the best person to comment on the sheit water.

[Chimera]

So from your own words .....getting pfizer and sinopharm better than being unvaxxed?

You doh like religion but you being indoctrinated? What blasphemy. Religion2.0 = "Science"

What that have to do with trusting science that's been proven to help?

[st7]

So from your own words .....getting pfizer and sinopharm better than being unvaxxed?

Depends on alot of factors.
I do not agree with the blanket statement that everyone must be vaccinated.
Does vaccination provide protection from hospitalization and death? Yes

Depends on your risk factors, on your immunity to the virus.

For example if you eat sheit and have cormorbidities, then considering the vaccine is a good idea.

If you have already have had covid then your immunity is good and no need to get vaccinated. Your immunity will be even better with a vaccine on top of natural immunity but marginally so. You would be risking adverse effects for marginal protection which may not make sense to some people.

Pushing vaccines on healthy kids is dotish at best. You risk to benefit ratios would be way off.
Kids with comorbidities its an option that should be given serious thought.

i acknowledge the thought you've put into this. but i not sure if you forgot how the virus is still transmitted when you asymptomatic so you are still putting others in danger.

does natural immunity decrease the viral load of the virus?

[redmanjp]

i think recent studies show natural immunity reduces likelihood of reinfection- but that may have been pre omicron.- i.e. if u got infected with a previous strain u will still get omicron but if u get omicron u wont get omicron again. but then again the 1st gen vaccines not really having any effect on reducing spread of omicron although they reduced spread of delta etc.

if we want to reduce spread by vaccines we now need the updated vaccines targeted towards omicron - a booster dose of the current one does it but only for about 2-3 months.

[adnj]

And chaos whats your opinion on if being vaccinated curbs or prevents or lessens virus shedding? Where you spread the virus to others?

He/she cannot give a valid clinical opinion. A definitive answer would require deferring to clinical test results that are beyond the purview of his/her personal experiences.

* edited

[Mmoney607]

So allyuh saying tuner too ghetto for a doctor to be posting on the forum

[bamfo_dennis]

but ent it have a few doctors on tuner long time? you does see dem posting a set of sheit like this special ducktah who duz come here and call everybody stupid n always have time to waste and get on like dat stink man Sawh with he demeaning language and like he alone is the brightest in the whole world everybody else from the who and cdc stupid?
Ent it had a big time epidemiologist Dr.Rajiv something who post a few times here with rel info and graphs n stuff ......me eh see he talking this level of sheit. Like a man say above a doctor at the bottom of the class is still called a doctor even tho they really not sure about what is science and the meaning of medical science. dem only learn to do clinic work n feel dey have big brain like researchers and senior professors.