Poll, booster vs drug treatment

[cdnavater]

Already stated I’m getting the booster but I’m curious how many would prefer not to have a booster and hang there hopes on the new Pfizer drug treatment should they get Covid?

[Vaticinator]

Why not both? Get the jab (or the third jab or the monthly jab or whatever it turns out to be) but also hope for effective treatment options.

This is another thing I've never been able to understand about this. The hard core pro vax crowd are like religious zealots. The choice is binary: vaccine or doom. Even in the early days when very little was known about the virus and the vaccines, it was still the case that we must all unquestioningly accept the vaccines as our Lord and Saviour. Even the mere suggestion of a treatment that was 100% safe but of unknown efficacy with regards to covid specifically, was complete and utter heresy. I suppose now that Pfizer is in the game, it's ok now.

[cdnavater]

I was more curious about whether the hard core antivax crowd would prefer to take a new drug versus a new vaccine given the disclaimer attached for prescribing it.
“Prescribers should be aware of the potential for significant drug interactions and contraindications for use with certain drugs. In addition, Paxlovid is not recommended in patients with severe kidney or severe liver impairment. In patients with moderate renal impairment, a reduced Paxlovid dose is needed”

[TG]

Why not both? Get the jab (or the third jab or the monthly jab or whatever it turns out to be) but also hope for effective treatment options.

Same, why not both?

[photofly]

Even the mere suggestion of a treatment that was 100% safe but of unknown efficacy with regards to covid specifically, was complete and utter heresy.

You're welcome to stuff your face with as much horse dewormer as you want. What you can't do is tell everyone that it's any use against COVID, or that it takes the place of a vaccine.

By the way, how's that "horse dewormer will save the world from COVID" campaign going? Haven't heard much about it recently.

[RRJetPilot]

Even the mere suggestion of a treatment that was 100% safe but of unknown efficacy with regards to covid specifically, was complete and utter heresy.

You're welcome to stuff your face with as much horse dewormer as you want. What you can't do is tell everyone that it's any use against COVID, or that it takes the place of a vaccine.

By the way, how's that "horse dewormer will save the world from COVID" campaign going? Haven't heard much about it recently.

Lol you are crazy

[JonMom]

Even the mere suggestion of a treatment that was 100% safe but of unknown efficacy with regards to covid specifically, was complete and utter heresy.

You're welcome to stuff your face with as much horse dewormer as you want. What you can't do is tell everyone that it's any use against COVID, or that it takes the place of a vaccine.

By the way, how's that "horse dewormer will save the world from COVID" campaign going? Haven't heard much about it recently.

Have you even looked at Japan?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... try/japan/

Looks like the horse dewormer is working pretty dam good in Japan. Covid is over in Japan. Covid is 100% treatable via numerous methods that are far superior to the death shot. If only Canada would follow in Japan's footsteps it would all be over.

Insurance companies are starting to come out with data that might wake you up.
https://thecovidworld.com/insurance-com ... ges-18-64/

The shot is neither safe nor effective. If you haven't come to this conclusion yet you are not looking at the data the is being published worldwide on a daily basis.

[CpnCrunch]

Looks like the horse dewormer is working pretty dam good in Japan. Covid is over in Japan. Covid is 100% treatable via numerous methods that are far superior to the death shot. If only Canada would follow in Japan's footsteps it would all be over.

Nah, the horse dewormer was never approved for covid in Japan. The Japanese aren't as dumb as your mom looks.

[altiplano]

Why do you guys continue with "horse dewormer" statements when it clearly is a widely used, Nobel prize winning, effective drug for humans?

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... the.4.aspx

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

[Vaticinator]

You're welcome to stuff your face with as much horse dewormer as you want. What you can't do is tell everyone that it's any use against COVID, or that it takes the place of a vaccine.

You sure enjoy telling people what they can and can't do. Your pro mandate stance is making a lot of sense. Fortunately, I didn't say that it's any use against covid or takes the place of a vaccine. Phew. I'm not here to spread any false information, are you? I mean, we know you talk a ton of smack, but are generally pretty light on data. You wouldn't deny that it has been safely used in humans hundreds of millions of times around the world for decades, would you? You wouldn't deny that it has been shown to prevent replication of the sars-cov-2 virus in vitro, would you? Of course you wouldn't. That would make you a crackpot science denier, and we all know that pro vax, pro mandate people are most certainly NOT science deniers.

By the way, how's that "horse dewormer will save the world from COVID" campaign going? Haven't heard much about it recently.

Seems like it's going about as well as that "vaccines will save the world from covid" campaign, being that there are records high numbers across the globe. But I haven't heard much about it either, so I looked. (You should try looking for answers, it's great. You don't have to wait to be told them.) Anyway I found this, from a study earlier this year:

Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed that the proportion of patients at risk of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly reduced in the 5-day ivermectin group
...
It was hoped that treatment early in the course of infection would decrease the viral load, shorten the duration of illness, and halt transmission.

A 5-day course of ivermectin resulted in an earlier clearance of the virus compared to placebo (p = 0.005), thus indicating that early intervention with this agent may limit viral replication within the host. In the 5-day ivermectin group, there was a significant drop in CRP and LDH by day 7, which are indicators of disease severity.
...
First, early intervention promoted faster viral clearance during disease onset, which might have prevented significant immune system involvement and hastened the recovery. Secondly, early intervention reduced the viral load faster, thus may help block disease transmission in the general population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/

Imagine that, something that could help prevent transmission. Unfortunately, with only 72 participants in the study, the authors deemed it too small to draw any solid conclusions, but given their promising findings, recommended a larger trial. I think we should all be hopeful for successful, affordable, plentiful post infection treatment options that will help reduce virus transmission, given the low vaccination rates in many developing countries around the world, even if it is a stupid "horse dewormer". Do you disagree?

[CpnCrunch]

Why do you guys continue with "horse dewormer" statements when it clearly is a widely used, Nobel prize winning, effective drug for humans?

But not effective for covid

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... the.4.aspx

This meta-analysis is from "The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is a small U.S. organization of physicians and former journalists formed in April 2020 that has advocated for various treatments for COVID-19, most of them ineffective (e.g. the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin) and some other drugs and vitamins of dubious efficacy".

[JonMom]

Why do you guys continue with "horse dewormer" statements when it clearly is a widely used, Nobel prize winning, effective drug for humans?

But not effective for covid

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... the.4.aspx

This meta-analysis is from "The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is a small U.S. organization of physicians and former journalists formed in April 2020 that has advocated for various treatments for COVID-19, most of them ineffective (e.g. the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin) and some other drugs and vitamins of dubious efficacy".

Tell that to Japan as Covid is over in Japan due to IVM. IVM is effective against covid however many other treatment options are available that are just as good or better than IVM.

CpnCrunch if Canada modeled Japan, covid would be over in two to three weeks tops.

[CpnCrunch]

Tell that to Japan as Covid is over in Japan due to IVM. IVM is effective against covid however many other treatment options are available that are just as good or better than IVM.

CpnCrunch if Canada modeled Japan, covid would be over in two to three weeks tops.

They do seem to be over covid, but not due to IVM (which they didn't even use). Try actually checking your facts before posting out of your ass. And your false claim doesn't even make logical sense. If you look at the stats, japan's covid cases have dropped off to nothing. If they were using IVM to treat covid then they would still have cases.

[Vaticinator]

But not effective for covid

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... the.4.aspx

Did you make it to the end of the study? I haven't yet had time to read it all in depth, but the last paragraph says:

In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

. I'll reserve judgement until I read the whole thing.

[Arnie Pye]

Why do you guys continue with "horse dewormer" statements when it clearly is a widely used, Nobel prize winning, effective drug for humans?

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... the.4.aspx

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

Sure seems legit:

Areas of Uncertainty:
The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, ...

72 people in a Bangladesh "study" isn't a trial - it's a bunch of random people probably already had underlying issues with worms. I have as much evidence for this assumption as the "data" on Japan's use of Ivermectin.

As for the Japanese example:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2 ... 8eec5c2938

"No, Ivermectin Did Not Help Japan Bring Down Covid-19 Coronavirus Delta Surge
Bruce Y. Lee"

"Here’s some of the latest “say-whatever-you-want-without-real-evidence” news. There have been claims online that ivermectin somehow helped Japan conquer the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic. ,... Evidence-wise, all Kory did was include a graph of patients hospitalized for Covid-19 each day in Tokyo with a shaded portion labeled “after ivermectin recommendation.” How is this any different from attaching “after Lizzo and Cardi B released the song ‘Rumors’” to this portion?

If you look at Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency’s list of Approved Medical Products for Covid-19, you’ll find stuff like remdesivir and baricitinib but no ivermectin."

Perhaps, Japan's rate of infection mysteriously dropped in the fall time because the olympics were over and one large group of transmission vectors were no longer in the country.

[CpnCrunch]

Did you make it to the end of the study? I haven't yet had time to read it all in depth, but the last paragraph says:

It's a joke study by a bunch of quacks, so why would I bother reading it? All the other recent meta-analyses from reputable organisations like Cochrane say that it doesn't work. You've cherry picked bad science to support your weird notion.

[Vaticinator]

I didn't pick it. You did.

[CpnCrunch]

I didn't pick it. You did.

No, that was posted by JonMom. I just quoted their post.

[Vaticinator]

Ahhh I see that now. Apologies.

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight. I don't really care if it is effective or not, although it would be great if it were. But can you explain why it is a "joke study by a bunch of quacks" and save me the trouble of reading it myself? Not picking a fight, I'm genuinely curious.

[altiplano]

Posters here claim "misinformation" out of one side of their mouths while screaming "horse dewormer" out the other side.

Fact is that IMO ivermectin is really just a metaphor here for advocating for broadly treating Covid19, which we aren't doing in this country. You don't like Ivermectin, fine, there are many other treatment options being ignored and slandered by the mainstream. Monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, other anti-virals, etc. etc.

All demonstrated safe, all with acceptance in broad parts of the medical community and other jurisdictions. And you resort to calling the formerly respected doctors, researchers, and professionals names like "quacks" because they didn't just fall in line and pursued different directions than the Western corporate pharmaceutical lobby convinced the government to go.

Why are we sending early onset positive patients home with nothing more than a directive to isolate until you get sicker?

Why are we after a year and a high rate of vaccination still pursuing that along with disruption and lock down as the only strategy?

Here we are 2 years later, it's 2 weeks to flatten the curve again. Our current direction is not working. Time to listen to someone else. Try something else.

[Vaticinator]

Well said. It's very odd that questioning the obvious failure of the status quo, and advocating for exploring other avenues is considered heresy.

[Arnie Pye]

. I'll reserve judgement until I read the whole thing.

Why bother reading the whole thing when the first few paragraphs say that the study results are not repeatable and many of the studies have failed peer review?

Fact is that IMO ivermectin is really just a metaphor here for advocating for broadly treating Covid19, which we aren't doing in this country. You don't like Ivermectin, fine, there are many other treatment options being ignored and slandered by the mainstream. Monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, other anti-virals, etc. etc.

All demonstrated safe, all with acceptance in broad parts of the medical community and other jurisdictions.

Seatbelts are "considered safe" too but they also will not prevent you from getting COVID. Yes, Ivermectin is accepted in the vetrinary medical community both here and abroad.

[Vaticinator]

Oh boy...

[altiplano]

Fact is that IMO ivermectin is really just a metaphor here for advocating for broadly treating Covid19, which we aren't doing in this country. You don't like Ivermectin, fine, there are many other treatment options being ignored and slandered by the mainstream. Monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, other anti-virals, etc. etc.

All demonstrated safe, all with acceptance in broad parts of the medical community and other jurisdictions.

Seatbelts are "considered safe" too but they also will not prevent you from getting COVID. Yes, Ivermectin is accepted in the vetrinary medical community both here and abroad.

Everything you said there is non sequitur to my point.

I believe any promising, reasonable, safe, low intrusion intervention that offers low risk but potential benefit by reducing infection and mortality should be employed until results of large scale RCTs can dismiss them.

Like forget drugs for that matter... Zinc, Vitamin D, saline nasal rinse... all easy, cheap, and safe and have shown benefit in small scale trials and on the front lines but we don't hear anything about it.

Instead the establishment focuses on a single solution - more shots and mandates - and the pandemic goes on...

I'd rather see multivitamin and cleanliness mandates... maybe lose 10 lbs. mandates...

[Arnie Pye]

I have my unfinished crew water from yesterday. It may look like backwash but it's actually an infusion of minerals and vitamins. I waived a rock in front of the bottle this morning so it's now infused with my chakra too. I promise it won't kill you. There, now it's a promising treatment. Since we're friends on here, I'll give you a discount on my monthly subscription.