At the end of the day, I don't care if someone is vaccinated or not. I also don't care if they're going to choose to wear a mask or not. Just as long as they leave me the hell alone.
Printable View
At the end of the day, I don't care if someone is vaccinated or not. I also don't care if they're going to choose to wear a mask or not. Just as long as they leave me the hell alone.
[QUOTE=mdonnelly80;1646689653]At the end of the day, I don't care if someone is vaccinated or not. I also don't care if they're going to choose to wear a mask or not. Just as long as they leave me the hell alone.[/QUOTE]
Yep
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1646689353]Thanks for the enlightenment Pocahontas, maybe you shouldn't waste time on us boyos and head right on over to the medical/science community and share your expertise with them.[/QUOTE]
The medical and science community you speak of cherry picks their data and then silences the real scientists and doctors that disagree with them.
Just sayin'.
[QUOTE=sy2502;1646617633]I don't have the faintest idea, but as I said, I am not just going to assume it was all about good solid data. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
All I can tell you is that I know several people who work in medical startups, some have tried to get their product FDA approved for TEN YEARS, with the FDA sending their documentation back for any possible trivial reason they could find, so do I find the Pfizer approval suspicious? You bet your azz I do. And let's face it the medical establishment (and by that I mean FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO, etc) has done nothing to win my trust in the last year and a half.[/QUOTE]
I work and have worked directly with the FDA on various therapy launches, NDAs, trial designs in the inflammation space. I also regularly attend the FDA review panels. Believe what you want, but the objectivity and thoroughness in their process is unparalleled. We have gotten refuse-to-file letters from them because we didn't report plasma levels of a completely inert metabolite. They are also generally extremely conservative regarding the therapeutic window (adequate efficacy with good safety) of therapies under review.
[QUOTE=Cantplankwell;1646688053]Case count low here due to high compliance to health authority directives, I think 76% of the population in our health catchment area are fully vaccinated.
It is rising though..but mostly among those who are not vaccinated..(and probably ignore the other directives) These are the ones that are showing up in the hospitals from what I am hearing.
Agree on one thing, its not going away anytime soon, trick is to not overload the health system so some unfortunate person can get necessary unrelated surgery, or cancer treatment.
Stay safe[/QUOTE]
If healthcare systems truly cared about our health, then they should promote a healthy lifestyle, especially regarding covid, but they don't. Then we wouldn't be at capacity all the time for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. But they're a for-profit business just like any other corporation. Even the non-profits are profit driven.
[QUOTE=pondus_levo;1646690893]The medical and science community you speak of cherry picks their data and then silences the real scientists and doctors that disagree with them.
Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Our lead epidemiologist was asked a question regarding Ivermectin in a family forum and he stated it simply doesn't work. So either he's mis-read, not up to date on information or is cherry picking data.
Today, I did learn we have a very close relationship with the government regarding various topics including boosters. Instead of doing our own research like we should and are capable of doing, we are waiting on what the government wants to do and wait for their guidance. Which was my suspicion all along. So likely they have input on mandates as well and how everything has been handled so far including forced vaccinations.
[b] United Airlines to put workers excused from COVID-19 shot for religious reasons on unpaid leave[/b]
United Airlines is giving five more weeks to employees who sought, but were denied, a company exemption from getting vaccinated against COVID-19 on religious or medical grounds. After that, they could be fired or put on unpaid leave.
The airline's 67,000 U.S.-based workers face a September 27 deadline to get their shots. United says more than half its employees who weren't vaccinated last month have done so since the company announced that vaccine requirements.
Requests for medical exemptions at United are judged by medical staffers including nurses, while requests for waivers based on religious beliefs are handled by personnel-office employees, according to the carrier.
[QUOTE=_zman;1646691703]Agreed. Our lead epidemiologist was asked a question regarding Ivermectin in a family forum and he stated it simply doesn't work. So either he's mis-read, not up to date on information or is cherry picking data.[/QUOTE]
Or he knows how to review a study. I can't find any well designed studies that showed in vivo efficacy. Just a couple that warranted more testing. The more recent studies that I find say it's useless. Nice hypothesis on how it could work, but no significant improvement when tested.
The funny part is that anyone thinks there's a conspiracy to keep a cheap medication that works away from patients that could benefit from it.
PS) I did look at several of the studies listed in this: [url]https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx[/url]
and at this:
[url]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389[/url]
and a couple of others that looked promising, but you can't find their data yet and their status wasn't closed in clinical trials. It would be nice if those show some efficacy, but it's not looking promising. Kind of like hydroxychloroquine, but possibly a little bit safer.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1646695763]Or he knows how to review a study. I can't find any well designed studies that showed in vivo efficacy. Just a couple that warranted more testing. The more recent studies that I find say it's useless. Nice hypothesis on how it could work, but no significant improvement when tested.
The funny part is that anyone thinks there's a conspiracy to keep a cheap medication that works away from patients that could benefit from it.
PS) I did look at several of the studies listed in this: [url]https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx[/url]
and at this:
[url]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389[/url]
and a couple of others that looked promising, but you can't find their data yet and their status wasn't closed in clinical trials. It would be nice if those show some efficacy, but it's not looking promising. Kind of like hydroxychloroquine, but possibly a little bit safer.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Dexamethasone is a cheap-ass generic that's part of COVID standard of care. The conspiracy argument is beyond retarded at this point.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1646688243]I wasn't criticizing Ben. I just replied because the word "Dumb" gets used a lot when we talk about other peoples choices. I understand you weren't trying to imply the decision was dumb.
Peppered seems like a good term for some new shooters' targets at the range. They do look like someone randomly sprinkled pepper on a piece of paper.[/QUOTE]
I didn't take it as criticism,we are good.
[QUOTE=_zman;1646691703]
Agreed. Our lead epidemiologist was asked a question regarding Ivermectin in a family forum and he stated it simply doesn't work. So either he's mis-read, not up to date on information or is cherry picking data.
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe he's going off what the manufacture said with regards to its effectiveness against C19:
[url]https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/[/url]
[quote]Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
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.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.[/quote]
This was written back in Feb so maybe there has been some reliable studies done to show this is no longer true but I have yet to see them. It isn't FDA approved as a treatment for C19 which I thought was the excuse why many didn't want to get a vax.
But Alex Jones says they work...
Ok this is getting a little extreme, yes she showed poor judgment...
[url]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973587/Woman-coughed-grocery-store-customer-viral-video-gets-FIRED-job.html[/url]
[QUOTE=x-trainer ben;1646705033]Ok this is getting a little extreme, yes she showed poor judgment...
[url]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973587/Woman-coughed-grocery-store-customer-viral-video-gets-FIRED-job.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I was just imagining in my mind how this would have gone down if this woman was following Bodyhard and his wife around the grocery store with these antics. :D
I'm not one to hit women for any reason except self defense, but I'm thinking if this lady did that crap to me and my family, I'd tell my SO to knock the shiit out of her.
[QUOTE=x-trainer ben;1646705033]Ok this is getting a little extreme, yes she showed poor judgment...
[url]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973587/Woman-coughed-grocery-store-customer-viral-video-gets-FIRED-job.html[/url][/QUOTE]
She should have worn a mask
[QUOTE=z4v4;1646689633]No need to be salty when someone points out the obvious.[/QUOTE]
When have you ever not been salty?
[QUOTE=pondus_levo;1646685273]Just want to remind you boyos that its day 617 of the pandemic and the vaccine does not work.[/QUOTE]
I would’ve said check your facts but man, a whole family I know who was vaccinated but the kids got covid.
One of them is a medical doctor in a covid ICU unit (his daughter brought it home from school apparently)
Regardless they all recovered and only this doc guy got sick the most.
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1646701723]Or maybe he's going off what the manufacture said with regards to its effectiveness against C19:
[url]https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/[/url]
This was written back in Feb so maybe there has been some reliable studies done to show this is no longer true but I have yet to see them. It isn't FDA approved as a treatment for C19 which I thought was the excuse why many didn't want to get a vax.
But Alex Jones says they work...[/QUOTE]
I'm going off of what other doctors have told me. The ones that don't rely on government funding. They're saying Ivermectin is effective.
I did a quick online search and this was my first result: [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/[/url]
Idk how something cheap and effective is becoming a controversy. It's like people don't want a cure and want mandates and vaccines. I've never seen propaganda like this. We're reaching a whole new level of effective propaganda.
If you don't think Ivermectin works, you can find articles saying that as well. I'll remain open minded.
[QUOTE=_zman;1646747413]I'm going off of what other doctors have told me. The ones that don't rely on government funding. They're saying Ivermectin is effective. [/QUOTE]
Conspiracy time.
[QUOTE]
I did a quick online search and this was my first result: [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/[/url]
Idk how something cheap and effective is becoming a controversy. It's like people don't want a cure and want mandates and vaccines. I've never seen propaganda like this. We're reaching a whole new level of effective propaganda.[/QUOTE]
Right? Vaccines are free and effective yet here we are draped in controversy. It's like people don't want a cure or help fighting the the virus they want unproven drugs pushed by far right nut jobs like Alex fukn Jones. We're reaching a whole new level of effective propaganda.
Ivermectin is effective - for what it was designed to do. But according to the [U][B]drug maker[/B][/U] they have seen no sign of efficacy for C19.
[QUOTE]
If you don't think Ivermectin works, you can find articles saying that as well. I'll remain open minded.[/QUOTE]
It's one thing to be open minded. Its a far different thing to ignore the data and say you're remaining open minded because you want to believe or because you've drawn a line in the sand and refuse to cross it.
Just for chits and giggles can any of you medical pros define what healthy is?
Is it simply the absence of disease?
I ask this because everyone is claiming they are young and healthy, but no one has an exact definition of healthy.
[QUOTE=_zman;1646747413]I did a quick online search and this was my first result: [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
I think I gave the direct link to that review in one of my posts. It's important to look at the actual studies they reviewed, and to look at the weight they gave to each one. They had given the largest study about 15% weight, but after it was reviewed there were huge issues found with the data. Some of the subjects were dead before they were on the study, parts of the study text was plagiarized, and it appears to have been manipulated. Other studies they felt were important had far less than 100 subjects and the methods were questionable. There's also a lot of profit for the people publishing positive studies in some of the locations, and there's variability in the actual products used. In many cases it's not just Ivermectin. The guy in charge of that one is doing his best, but you have to work with what's available and I don't think the quality of the studies is very good. There's another doc in the UK who also thinks it works and her company tries to find the data for people to review. Pretty sure she's an obstetrician. I wasn't impressed with the rigor of the data she was referencing either, but the reality is, if she has no good data, she has to sell her ability to find bad data, and whether you want to believe it's accurate despite the methods and warning signs is up to you.
I haven't seen anything that would convince me to take it unless I was someplace where the water wasn't great or strongyloides or other parasites was a risk. Some of the benefit you see in the studies I'd question were done in more severely ill populations is in countries where putting someone on high dose steroids can have other significant risks. The jury is out, but the best controlled studies I've seen have not shown any benefit unless you look at mice or hamsters, and some of those used different viruses. The efficacy is MUCH lower than that of any of the vaccines, even in the study that appears to have manipulated data, so you do your research and you make your choices.
You might like Carlos Chaccour. I found this a little while ago: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzHG0rpOrc[/url] This is out of date now, but he seems like one of the more reasonable people in the pro Ivermectin camp. I think he did the hamster study I read when trying to find information. Maybe you can find something more up to date than this and see what he thinks now.
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1646748243]Conspiracy time.
Right? Vaccines are free and effective yet here we are draped in controversy. It's like people don't want a cure or help fighting the the virus they want unproven drugs pushed by far right nut jobs like Alex fukn Jones. We're reaching a whole new level of effective propaganda.
Ivermectin is effective - for what it was designed to do. But according to the [U][B]drug maker[/B][/U] they have seen no sign of efficacy for C19.
It's one thing to be open minded. Its a far different thing to ignore the data and say you're remaining open minded because you want to believe or because you've drawn a line in the sand and refuse to cross it.[/QUOTE]
On spread. :)
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1646750113]I think I gave the direct link to that review in one of my posts. It's important to look at the actual studies they reviewed, and to look at the weight they gave to each one. They had given the largest study about 15% weight, but after it was reviewed there were huge issues found with the data. Some of the subjects were dead before they were on the study, parts of the study text was plagiarized, and it appears to have been manipulated. Other studies they felt were important had far less than 100 subjects and the methods were questionable. There's also a lot of profit for the people publishing positive studies in some of the locations, and there's variability in the actual products used. In many cases it's not just Ivermectin. The guy in charge of that one is doing his best, but you have to work with what's available and I don't think the quality of the studies is very good. There's another doc in the UK who also thinks it works and her company tries to find the data for people to review. Pretty sure she's an obstetrician. I wasn't impressed with the rigor of the data she was referencing either, but the reality is, if she has no good data, she has to sell her ability to find bad data, and whether you want to believe it's accurate despite the methods and warning signs is up to you.
I haven't seen anything that would convince me to take it unless I was someplace where the water wasn't great or strongyloides or other parasites was a risk. Some of the benefit you see in the studies I'd question were done in more severely ill populations is in countries where putting someone on high dose steroids can have other significant risks. The jury is out, but the best controlled studies I've seen have not shown any benefit unless you look at mice or hamsters, and some of those used different viruses. The efficacy is MUCH lower than that of any of the vaccines, even in the study that appears to have manipulated data, so you do your research and you make your choices.
You might like Carlos Chaccour. I found this a little while ago: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzHG0rpOrc[/url] This is out of date now, but he seems like one of the more reasonable people in the pro Ivermectin camp. I think he did the hamster study I read when trying to find information. Maybe you can find something more up to date than this and see what he thinks now.[/QUOTE]
Solid post
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1646750113]I think I gave the direct link to that review in one of my posts. It's important to look at the actual studies they reviewed, and to look at the weight they gave to each one. They had given the largest study about 15% weight, but after it was reviewed there were huge issues found with the data. Some of the subjects were dead before they were on the study, parts of the study text was plagiarized, and it appears to have been manipulated. Other studies they felt were important had far less than 100 subjects and the methods were questionable. There's also a lot of profit for the people publishing positive studies in some of the locations, and there's variability in the actual products used. In many cases it's not just Ivermectin. The guy in charge of that one is doing his best, but you have to work with what's available and I don't think the quality of the studies is very good. There's another doc in the UK who also thinks it works and her company tries to find the data for people to review. Pretty sure she's an obstetrician. I wasn't impressed with the rigor of the data she was referencing either, but the reality is, if she has no good data, she has to sell her ability to find bad data, and whether you want to believe it's accurate despite the methods and warning signs is up to you.
I haven't seen anything that would convince me to take it unless I was someplace where the water wasn't great or strongyloides or other parasites was a risk. Some of the benefit you see in the studies I'd question were done in more severely ill populations is in countries where putting someone on high dose steroids can have other significant risks. The jury is out, but the best controlled studies I've seen have not shown any benefit unless you look at mice or hamsters, and some of those used different viruses. The efficacy is MUCH lower than that of any of the vaccines, even in the study that appears to have manipulated data, so you do your research and you make your choices.
You might like Carlos Chaccour. I found this a little while ago: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzHG0rpOrc[/url] This is out of date now, but he seems like one of the more reasonable people in the pro Ivermectin camp. I think he did the hamster study I read when trying to find information. Maybe you can find something more up to date than this and see what he thinks now.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info.
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1646748243]Conspiracy time.
Right? Vaccines are free and effective yet here we are draped in controversy. It's like people don't want a cure or help fighting the the virus they want unproven drugs pushed by far right nut jobs like Alex fukn Jones. We're reaching a whole new level of effective propaganda.
Ivermectin is effective - for what it was designed to do. But according to the [U][B]drug maker[/B][/U] they have seen no sign of efficacy for C19.
It's one thing to be open minded. Its a far different thing to ignore the data and say you're remaining open minded because you want to believe or because you've drawn a line in the sand and refuse to cross it.[/QUOTE]
The vaccines aren't free, nothing is. And they're showing to be less effective as time goes on. I'm remaining open minded because I've heard from several people that the studies aren't so good, yet I know doctors prescribing it. If it's safe to take, then why not try it. It's safer than the vaccines.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1646750113]I think I gave the direct link to that review in one of my posts. It's important to look at the actual studies they reviewed, and to look at the weight they gave to each one. They had given the largest study about 15% weight, but after it was reviewed there were huge issues found with the data. Some of the subjects were dead before they were on the study, parts of the study text was plagiarized, and it appears to have been manipulated. Other studies they felt were important had far less than 100 subjects and the methods were questionable. There's also a lot of profit for the people publishing positive studies in some of the locations, and there's variability in the actual products used. In many cases it's not just Ivermectin. The guy in charge of that one is doing his best, but you have to work with what's available and I don't think the quality of the studies is very good. There's another doc in the UK who also thinks it works and her company tries to find the data for people to review. Pretty sure she's an obstetrician. I wasn't impressed with the rigor of the data she was referencing either, but the reality is, if she has no good data, she has to sell her ability to find bad data, and whether you want to believe it's accurate despite the methods and warning signs is up to you.
I haven't seen anything that would convince me to take it unless I was someplace where the water wasn't great or strongyloides or other parasites was a risk. Some of the benefit you see in the studies I'd question were done in more severely ill populations is in countries where putting someone on high dose steroids can have other significant risks. The jury is out, but the best controlled studies I've seen have not shown any benefit unless you look at mice or hamsters, and some of those used different viruses. The efficacy is MUCH lower than that of any of the vaccines, even in the study that appears to have manipulated data, so you do your research and you make your choices.
You might like Carlos Chaccour. I found this a little while ago: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzHG0rpOrc[/url] This is out of date now, but he seems like one of the more reasonable people in the pro Ivermectin camp. I think he did the hamster study I read when trying to find information. Maybe you can find something more up to date than this and see what he thinks now.[/QUOTE]
The problem is we have this group of people who are anti-vax who want something like ivermectin to be an answer. And those people aren't as educated or in some cases as intelligent as someone like yourself. They see a link or an infographic supporting what they want to be truth and it starts spreading between these like-minded people. It's sad but it's misinformation being fed to the people who are must vulnerable to misinformation by the people who are most vulnerable to misinformation.
[QUOTE=mgftp;1646752463]The problem is we have this group of people who are anti-vax who want something like ivermectin to be an answer. [/QUOTE]
anything that gets you over the virus is the answer. logic of peace.
[QUOTE=mgftp;1646752463]The problem is we have this group of people who are anti-vax who want something like ivermectin to be an answer. And those people aren't as educated or in some cases as intelligent as someone like yourself. They see a link or an infographic supporting what they want to be truth and it starts spreading between these like-minded people. It's sad but it's misinformation being fed to the people who are must vulnerable to misinformation by the people who are most vulnerable to misinformation.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there's a lot of validity to that, but doesn't it seems like we have a lot more people who are anti-covid vaccines than who are anti-vaccines in general.
I'm not going to say that education doesn't have a big impact, but it shouldn't require an MD plus a bunch of research and data review experience to sort the wheat from the chaff. Right now, it kind of feels like it does because even I have to search and read very carefully.
Also, I'd love it if Ivermectin could be part of the solution to bad outcomes from COVID. I was hoping hydroxychloroquine would be too, although I had even more skepticism about that one panning out.
[QUOTE=z4v4;1646689633]No need to be salty when someone points out the obvious.[/QUOTE]
Feel free to be Captain Obvious, but don't get salty if people don't find your obvious insights particularly enlightening.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/IucGRgn.jpg?1[/img]
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1646756373]I'm sure there's a lot of validity to that, but doesn't it seems like we have a lot more people who are anti-covid vaccines than who are anti-vaccines in general.
I'm not going to say that education doesn't have a big impact, but it shouldn't require an MD plus a bunch of research and data review experience to sort the wheat from the chaff. Right now, it kind of feels like it does because even I have to search and read very carefully.
Also, I'd love it if Ivermectin could be part of the solution to bad outcomes from COVID. I was hoping hydroxychloroquine would be too, although I had even more skepticism about that one panning out.[/QUOTE]
It is a bad situation because some of these things can be pretty convincing, and on top of that I think many people that want to believe something aren't putting in the effort to question if what they want to believe is valid.
[QUOTE=mgftp;1646752463]The problem is we have this group of people who are anti-vax who want something like ivermectin to be an answer. And those people aren't as educated or in some cases as intelligent as someone like yourself. They see a link or an infographic supporting what they want to be truth and it starts spreading between these like-minded people. It's sad but it's misinformation being fed to the people who are must vulnerable to misinformation by the people who are most vulnerable to misinformation.[/QUOTE]
[img]https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/image-8-1.png[/img]
80% have at least some college. 24% are doctors. These people are not stupid.
Such a lib thing to say. "vulnerable to misinformation." When you don't even do 1/3 of the research they do.
**** you and your superiority complex.
[QUOTE=pondus_levo;1646760283][img]https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/image-8-1.png[/img]
80% have at least some college. 24% are doctors. These people are not stupid.
Such a lib thing to say. "vulnerable to misinformation." When you don't even do 1/3 of the research they do.[/QUOTE]
"I wear a mask out of respect to other people"
also
"You are all morons"
I guess "respect" means something different to a lib.