Treatment versus Vaccine

[Goosecat]

Fair enough....if you don't trust science and scientists, I can't force you to.

I hope for your daughter's sake that enough believe and trust the science of vaccination to provide enough herd immunity for her.

LOL. Don't put words in my mouth. I trust science and scientists ( though perhaps not those trustworthy scientists working on Corona viruses in Wuhan Labs) who aren't afraid of scrutiny and know there is far more in this universe we don't know than we know. Plenty of good scientists have that kind of genuine belief set. I'm not sure you're one of them, you appear to be an ideologue, the type that forms lightning rods for oppositions to gather around and attack due to your dogmatic approach. It's a somewhat short sighted, counter productive approach IMHO, even for your own ends, but perhaps beyond your comprehension.
All you had to do was take a genuine non dogmatic approach to the positives of seeking treatment options to go along with Vaccines, as we do for everything by the way, including the flu, because it is always going to be part of a holistic approach, but you couldn't.
When people like yourself can't take the genuine reality road, you set that example for the "public" to rally against. Everyone knows in their heart there will be further research and development of more options that aid in treatment. That doesn't alter the need for vaccination as part of the mitigation toolkit, nor does it halt the requirement for constant evaluation and re-evaluation of all newly developed products. Just stop with the I'm a scientist I know everything crap. You don't and only dangerously short sighted "scientists" portray themselves as such.

"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know" Albert Einstein.

 

[Goosecat]

Some more Ivermectin Info.

Ivermectin and COVID-19

Is ivermectin a potential treatment for COVID-19? NPS MedicineWise looks at the evidence so far

www.nps.org.au

Some more trial studies info:

ClinicalTrials.gov

clinicaltrials.gov

 

[HPKS]

TGA approves new COVID-19 treatment for use in Australia

Australians with COVID-19 who are at risk of hospitalisation will now have access to an additional antibody treatment, as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced today it has granted provisional approval for sotrovimab to be used in Australia.

www.health.gov.au

 

[Goosecat]

TGA approves new COVID-19 treatment for use in Australia

Australians with COVID-19 who are at risk of hospitalisation will now have access to an additional antibody treatment, as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced today it has granted provisional approval for sotrovimab to be used in Australia.

www.health.gov.au

Some in depth detail on it's (edit; Monoclonal Abs) development;

Science | AAAS

stm.sciencemag.org

 

[DERIBERATE]

LOL. Don't put words in my mouth. I trust science and scientists ( though perhaps not those trustworthy scientists working on Corona viruses in Wuhan Labs) who aren't afraid of scrutiny and know there is far more in this universe we don't know than we know. Plenty of good scientists have that kind of genuine belief set. I'm not sure you're one of them, you appear to be an ideologue, the type that forms lightning rods for oppositions to gather around and attack due to your dogmatic approach. It's a somewhat short sighted, counter productive approach IMHO, even for your own ends, but perhaps beyond your comprehension.
All you had to do was take a genuine non dogmatic approach to the positives of seeking treatment options to go along with Vaccines, as we do for everything by the way, including the flu, because it is always going to be part of a holistic approach, but you couldn't.
When people like yourself can't take the genuine reality road, you set that example for the "public" to rally against. Everyone knows in their heart there will be further research and development of more options that aid in treatment. That doesn't alter the need for vaccination as part of the mitigation toolkit, nor does it halt the requirement for constant evaluation and re-evaluation of all newly developed products. Just stop with the I'm a scientist I know everything crap. You don't and only dangerously short sighted "scientists" portray themselves as such.

"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know" Albert Einstein.

anti vax crap

 

[kingswood71]

Some in depth detail on it's development;

Science | AAAS

stm.sciencemag.org

Different monoclonal Ab I think....

 

[Goosecat]

Different monoclonal Ab I think....

Apologies, I've edited the post to better reflect what I meant.

 

[Goosecat]

​

[TD valign="top"]

What some don't realise regarding this Ivermectin and other treatment possibles issue is just how strong the financial incentives are for discrediting ANY existing options. The guidelines and legislature regarding the whole Emergency Use Authorisation that opens up the millions and even billions of dollars grants and earnings floodgates have a very important section often overlooked. There must be NO ALTERNATIVES EXISTING. One can understand why that is in place but one should also understand how important it then becomes to DISCREDIT ANY EXISTING ALTERNATIVES by pharmaceutical companies looking to jump aboard the financial express.

Now there are obviously plenty of half baked, dangerous alternatives thrown around in the current circumstances, however there are definitely some that are immediately falsely portrayed as such and anyone with a half decent intelligence level should consider why that may be the case.
Using Ivermectin as an example case, the product has clearly been portrayed by many as the product suggestion of idiots and conspiratorial imbeciles. However the reality is this product, as an example only, has plenty of genuine, professorial and expert interest. Notice I didn't say support necessarily, but genuine interest. Enough for Oxford University to have run a pilot study which showed some positive signs and now be undertaking a much larger study. Enough interest from real experts in the field to have in reality run numerous studies already and numbers still running, at least some of which have shown promise. This product, whether it turns out to be truly useful or not most certainly does not fit into the category or belong in the domain of useless, dangerous, imbecilic, conspiracy grouping. There are simply too many genuine, intelligent experts interested for that to be true.

Therefore you have to ask yourself some genuine questions if you are at all interested in factual context and growth. Knowing Ivermectin does not belong in such groupings, what does that say about ANY individuals or groups who insist and have insisted from the very start that the product does?
The harsh reality is, even for those on this site who believe themselves to be of a certain intelligence level, on this topic at least, they themselves are the misguided.​

[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"] Back to top [/TD]
[TD valign="bottom"]

​

[/TD]

 

[The 747]

​

[TD valign="top"]

What some don't realise regarding this Ivermectin and other treatment possibles issue is just how strong the financial incentives are for discrediting ANY existing options. The guidelines and legislature regarding the whole Emergency Use Authorisation that opens up the millions and even billions of dollars grants and earnings floodgates have a very important section often overlooked. There must be NO ALTERNATIVES EXISTING. One can understand why that is in place but one should also understand how important it then becomes to DISCREDIT ANY EXISTING ALTERNATIVES by pharmaceutical companies looking to jump aboard the financial express.

Now there are obviously plenty of half baked, dangerous alternatives thrown around in the current circumstances, however there are definitely some that are immediately falsely portrayed as such and anyone with a half decent intelligence level should consider why that may be the case.
Using Ivermectin as an example case, the product has clearly been portrayed by many as the product suggestion of idiots and conspiratorial imbeciles. However the reality is this product, as an example only, has plenty of genuine, professorial and expert interest. Notice I didn't say support necessarily, but genuine interest. Enough for Oxford University to have run a pilot study which showed some positive signs and now be undertaking a much larger study. Enough interest from real experts in the field to have in reality run numerous studies already and numbers still running, at least some of which have shown promise. This product, whether it turns out to be truly useful or not most certainly does not fit into the category or belong in the domain of useless, dangerous, imbecilic, conspiracy grouping. There are simply too many genuine, intelligent experts interested for that to be true.

Therefore you have to ask yourself some genuine questions if you are at all interested in factual context and growth. Knowing Ivermectin does not belong in such groupings, what does that say about ANY individuals or groups who insist and have insisted from the very start that the product does?
The harsh reality is, even for those on this site who believe themselves to be of a certain intelligence level, on this topic at least, they themselves are the misguided.​

[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"] Back to top [/TD]
[TD valign="bottom"]

​

[/TD]

You may think you are being subtle Goosecat but I see you

 

[Goosecat]

The Centre for Digestive Diseases issued today a press release titled “Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol for COVID-19 Released to Australian GPs for Infected Elderly and Frontline Workers.”

This early treatment protocol combines ivermectin with doxycycline and zinc.

“Triple therapy specialist Professor Thomas Borody, famous for curing peptic ulcers using a triple antibiotic therapy saving millions of lives, today released the COVID-19 treatment protocol to Australian GPs, who can legally prescribe it to their COVID-19 positive patients. They can also prescribe it as a preventative medication. Borody says this could be the fastest and safest way to end the pandemic in Australia within 6-8 weeks.”

Link

Australian National Review - Australian GPs Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol — Professor Thomas Borody

Australian GPs Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol — Professor Thomas Borody. By COVEXIT The Centre for Digestive Diseases issued today a press release titled “Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol for COVID-19 Released to Australian GPs for Infected Elderly and Frontline...

www.australiannationalreview.com

 

[The 747]

The Centre for Digestive Diseases issued today a press release titled “Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol for COVID-19 Released to Australian GPs for Infected Elderly and Frontline Workers.”

This early treatment protocol combines ivermectin with doxycycline and zinc.

“Triple therapy specialist Professor Thomas Borody, famous for curing peptic ulcers using a triple antibiotic therapy saving millions of lives, today released the COVID-19 treatment protocol to Australian GPs, who can legally prescribe it to their COVID-19 positive patients. They can also prescribe it as a preventative medication. Borody says this could be the fastest and safest way to end the pandemic in Australia within 6-8 weeks.”

Link

Australian National Review - Australian GPs Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol — Professor Thomas Borody

Australian GPs Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol — Professor Thomas Borody. By COVEXIT The Centre for Digestive Diseases issued today a press release titled “Ivermectin Triple Therapy Protocol for COVID-19 Released to Australian GPs for Infected Elderly and Frontline...

www.australiannationalreview.com

Very credible site that one. Keep on shilling!

 

[Goosecat]

Very credible site that one. Keep on shilling!

OK

NEWS Ivermectin Works - Meta Analysis paper - British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group

AUTHORS | MEDIA INFO | SUBSCRIBE HEADLINES: Official: Ivermectin Prevents and Treats Covid. Peer-Reviewed Analysis Published in the ‘American Journal of Therapeutics’ Joint Statement: Urging Indonesia to use ivermectin Indian Bar Association serves legal notice on WHO for ‘disinformation’ LATEST...

bird-group.org

The strength of evidence for ivermectin has this week been supercharged by publication of a gold standard review of 24 randomised trials conducted in 15 countries among more than 3400 people worldwide proving infections fall and deaths are dramatically reduced when ivermectin is administered. Published in the American Journal of Therapeutics the most rigorous statistical standards were applied by world-leading researchers biostatistician Mr Andrew Bryant and medical doctor and researcher Dr. Tess Lawrie.
Regarding the news of the UK trial Dr. Lawrie is exasperated: “Contrary to the mainstream media reports, the evidence is that Ivermectin is clearly proven to work against covid. In fact, there is more evidence on ivermectin than on any other treatment option for covid, and far more safety data than any of the novel therapies.”
“More placebo-controlled clinical trials of ivermectin are unethical and are definitely not needed. We know Ivermectin saves lives. The investigators of the PRINCIPLE trial also know this, as we informed them months ago. We remain open to assisting them in understanding the available evidence.”
”We trust that the MHRA will facilitate rapid approval of this low cost, effective and safe generic medicine, and that ivermectin will be made widely available, so that covid is beaten, the economy can recover, and the faith of the British public is restored.”

We should follow the science. The evidence is clear; ivermectin works
Dr Tess Lawrie

Ivermectin is a Nobel prize-winning medication, originally developed in the 1980s to treat parasitic infections. With its impeccable safety record, over 40 years and 4 billion doses, it has been so successful that it is listed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of its ‘essential’ medicines. Ivermectin’s potent anti-viral properties work powerfully against Covid-19 by blocking spike proteins, inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication, and reducing inflammation. Ivermectin also works against variants of the virus and is showing promise against long-covid.
Dr Lawrie, founder of Bath-based Evidence Based Medical Consultancy, which analyses medical data for governments and NGOs, including WHO themselves, is determined overcome these barriers. “Our report is built on rock solid evidence from internationally respected medical professionals, and it proves that ivermectin is a solution to the covid health emergency. It is ready and waiting to save and improve millions of lives. Governments can no longer ignore it. It is everyone’s right to have access to this safe and effective treatment.“
Joining together with many other concerned doctors and medical professionals earlier in the year, Dr Lawrie helped establish the not-for-profit BIRD Group (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) to specifically research and assess ivermectin and alleviate suffering. It has a fast-growing supporter base of affiliates and thousands of individuals.
Dr Lawrie is a most unlikely campaigner. “All my life I have been a doctor, dedicated to improving people’s health above all else. In taking the Hippocratic oath I swore to protect patients and I find that, now, I also need to become a campaigner to ensure that the truth about ivermectin is heard and lives are saved. We should follow the science. The evidence is clear; ivermectin works”.

 

[HPKS]

Health officials warn people not to treat Covid with a drug meant for livestock. (Published 2021)

“You are not a horse,” the Food and Drug Administration said. “Stop it.”

www.google.com.au

 

[Goosecat]

Health officials warn people not to treat Covid with a drug meant for livestock. (Published 2021)

“You are not a horse,” the Food and Drug Administration said. “Stop it.”

www.google.com.au

What some don't realise regarding this Ivermectin and other treatment possibles issue is just how strong the financial incentives are for discrediting ANY existing options. The guidelines and legislature regarding the whole Emergency Use Authorisation that opens up the millions and even billions of dollars grants and earnings floodgates have a very important section often overlooked. There must be NO ALTERNATIVES EXISTING. One can understand why that is in place but one should also understand how important it then becomes to DISCREDIT ANY EXISTING ALTERNATIVES by pharmaceutical companies looking to jump aboard the financial express.

Now there are obviously plenty of half baked, dangerous alternatives thrown around in the current circumstances, however there are definitely some that are immediately falsely portrayed as such and anyone with a half decent intelligence level should consider why that may be the case.
Using Ivermectin as an example case, the product has clearly been portrayed by many as the product suggestion of idiots and conspiratorial imbeciles. However the reality is this product, as an example only, has plenty of genuine, professorial and expert interest. Notice I didn't say support necessarily, but genuine interest. Enough for Oxford University to have run a pilot study which showed some positive signs and now be undertaking a much larger study. Enough interest from real experts in the field to have in reality run numerous studies already and numbers still running, at least some of which have shown promise. This product, whether it turns out to be truly useful or not most certainly does not fit into the category or belong in the domain of useless, dangerous, imbecilic, conspiracy grouping. There are simply too many genuine, intelligent experts interested for that to be true.

Therefore you have to ask yourself some genuine questions if you are at all interested in factual context and growth. Knowing Ivermectin does not belong in such groupings, what does that say about ANY individuals or groups who insist and have insisted from the very start that the product does?
The harsh reality is, even for those on this site who believe themselves to be of a certain intelligence level, on this topic at least, they themselves are the misguided.

 

[HPKS]

What some don't realise regarding this Ivermectin and other treatment possibles issue is just how strong the financial incentives are for discrediting ANY existing options. The guidelines and legislature regarding the whole Emergency Use Authorisation that opens up the millions and even billions of dollars grants and earnings floodgates have a very important section often overlooked. There must be NO ALTERNATIVES EXISTING. One can understand why that is in place but one should also understand how important it then becomes to DISCREDIT ANY EXISTING ALTERNATIVES by pharmaceutical companies looking to jump aboard the financial express.

Now there are obviously plenty of half baked, dangerous alternatives thrown around in the current circumstances, however there are definitely some that are immediately falsely portrayed as such and anyone with a half decent intelligence level should consider why that may be the case.
Using Ivermectin as an example case, the product has clearly been portrayed by many as the product suggestion of idiots and conspiratorial imbeciles. However the reality is this product, as an example only, has plenty of genuine, professorial and expert interest. Notice I didn't say support necessarily, but genuine interest. Enough for Oxford University to have run a pilot study which showed some positive signs and now be undertaking a much larger study. Enough interest from real experts in the field to have in reality run numerous studies already and numbers still running, at least some of which have shown promise. This product, whether it turns out to be truly useful or not most certainly does not fit into the category or belong in the domain of useless, dangerous, imbecilic, conspiracy grouping. There are simply too many genuine, intelligent experts interested for that to be true.

Therefore you have to ask yourself some genuine questions if you are at all interested in factual context and growth. Knowing Ivermectin does not belong in such groupings, what does that say about ANY individuals or groups who insist and have insisted from the very start that the product does?
The harsh reality is, even for those on this site who believe themselves to be of a certain intelligence level, on this topic at least, they themselves are the misguided.

So your the new Shannon M.

 

[The 747]

Yay another copypaste shill

 

[Goosecat]

Further to the above is the exasperated governments and scientists around the world struggling to understand Vaccine hesitancy. They still can't grasp how continual evidence of the abusive nature and exorbitant cost impost placed on the public by disingenuous companies playing games with peoples lives for profit, apparently supported by governments and institutions, effects peoples will to readily "Jump" whenever some new Vaccine proponent says jump. There is a massive lack of trust regarding our leaders and institutions and yet those same currently short-sighted lower IQ leaders can't quite ascertain a public hesitancy.
There will be existing products that can help, that's just mathematical probability, period. The vociferous efforts to immediately discredit ANYTHING existing is too obvious to much of the public. The knowledge around there needing to be no existing products available in order to be granted access to all the income trains is a self perpetuating issue regarding financial incentivisation to discredit anything existing. It doesn't matter whether it is Ivermection or any other drug frankly.

So your the new Shannon M.

You're

 

[Goosecat]

Expert scientists welcome the news of UK Government-funded research into Ivermectin for Covid-19 but questions its merit.
A just-published, peer-reviewed study clearly shows that Ivermectin prevents and treats Covid-19 and has the potential to save and improve countless lives in the UK and worldwide right now.
https://bird-group.org/meta-analysis-paper/

Mr. Andrew Bryant
Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Mr. Bryant (MSc) is a Biostatistician with experience in clinical trials and systematic review methodology based at Newcastle University, UK. He has published a vast number of systematic reviews and final study reports. His expertise in systematic reviews broadens the expertise in the Biostatistics Research Group in Population Health Sciences Institute at Newcastle University. He is also statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecological and Neurological Cancer Review Group. Alongside his latest Covid related research, he is completing his PhD doctorate on primary surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. He has an array of impressive academic metrics, including his peer-reviewed work being cited well in excess of 4000 times. He has complete equipoise and has never declared any conflicts of interest in any of his academic research.
.


Dr Tess Lawrie
Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd
Tess is the Director of E-BMC Ltd, and EbMCsquared, a community interest research company. She is committed to improving the quality of healthcare through rigorous research. Her range of research expertise, based on research experience in both developing and developed countries, uniquely positions her to evaluate and design research for a variety of healthcare settings. Tess is a frequent member of technical teams responsible for developing international guidelines. Her peer-reviewed publications have received in excess of 3000 citations and her ResearchGate score is among the top 5% of ResearchGate members
Other Authors
Tony C. Tham MD FRCP
Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
Edmund J. Fordham PhD
Evidence-Medicine consultancy Ltd, Bath, UK
Sarah R. Hill PhD
Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Therese Dowswell PhD
Evidence-Medicine consultancy Ltd, Bath, UK
Scott Mitchell MBChB MRCS
Emergency Department, Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Guernsey, UK

 

[foxdog50]

Look only asking a question... In UK there were a bit over 32,000 cases on the 21 of August, and the number look like rising up week by week, there was a bit over 100 deaths as well, once again the numbers look to rise week by week.. and there ment to have over 80% or vaccinated ? With all sporting games back to 100%
So the question I'm asking, as there ment to rise over coming weeks and get larger more amounts of cases and deaths how is it getting better?
As personally I'm not against getting the jab, but I'm not for it either....
just asking a curious question

 

[The 747]

Clicked on the Invermectin link it provided and the first thing I got was a pop up asking for money.......

 

[Goosecat]

Clicked on the Invermectin link it provided and the first thing I got was a pop up asking for money.......

Clicked on almost anything nowadays and got asked for money, gee.
Laughably hopeless.

 

[Harlequin Dream]

Look only asking a question... In UK there were a bit over 32,000 cases on the 21 of August, and the number look like rising up week by week, there was a bit over 100 deaths as well, once again the numbers look to rise week by week.. and there ment to have over 80% or vaccinated ? With all sporting games back to 100%
So the question I'm asking, as there ment to rise over coming weeks and get larger more amounts of cases and deaths how is it getting better?
As personally I'm not against getting the jab, but I'm not for it either....
just asking a curious question

The UK had a CFR of 3% before the vaccine. If that was still true, the 30,000 cases a day they have been seeing would lead to about 900 deaths and not 100.

This is backed up by the fact that the rate of death (for over 50s) is 16x higher in the unvaccinated population than the vaccinated population.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Just grab some from your local Sheep farmer, no script required. At 0.8g/litre Ivermectin active ingredient the dose is roughly 2.5ml per 5kg body weight. (This is a joke by the way, go and get it from your doctor). Dosage rates of pure Ivermection in human oral form is much smaller and measured in mcg, your doctor will let you know.
Is it safe? Yes, used all around the world, including Australia, in humans treating various parasites and won it's discoverers the Nobel prize for medicine.
Not saying it is or isn't proven effective but I do buy into the thought process that a world genuinely wanting as many people as possible "immune" to this disease and it's symptomatic spread, will require a composite of all possible solutions and all human groupings covered. If you are in that group that can't be vaccinated or even if you are in the group that refuses due to all the unknowns, it wont hurt to have this very safe drug, with long, well known usage and safety data, sitting in your armoury.
Despite the way such a view might be attacked by ideologues it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

But if it doesn't work, then why?

 

[foxdog50]

The UK had a CFR of 3% before the vaccine. If that was still true, the 30,000 cases a day they have been seeing would lead to about 900 deaths and not 100.

This is backed up by the fact that the rate of death (for over 50s) is 16x higher in the unvaccinated population than the vaccinated population.

Cheers for that... the only reason I'm holding of is, as me and my wife trying for a baby, and a Doc of ours said just don't get the jab until you guys have had the baby... As they said especially of USA there been more of a higher % of deformity, and health concerns of baby's ever since of having the covid jab.. But they can't publish that to everyone as he said its not a good look..
But I'm not telling people to not get the jab, it's just going to wait until we had the baby..

 

[deck]

Look only asking a question... In UK there were a bit over 32,000 cases on the 21 of August, and the number look like rising up week by week, there was a bit over 100 deaths as well, once again the numbers look to rise week by week.. and there ment to have over 80% or vaccinated ? With all sporting games back to 100%
So the question I'm asking, as there ment to rise over coming weeks and get larger more amounts of cases and deaths how is it getting better?
As personally I'm not against getting the jab, but I'm not for it either....
just asking a curious question

And Hospitalisation is way down on the outbreak late last year and the start of this year. In January they peaked at 59,000 cases a day over a 7 day avg. 2 weeks after this they peaked at 38,000 people in hospital with 4000 in ICU. Now after the reopen they had a peak of 47,000 cases a day as a 7 day average. We are 1 month past that peak and they have 6000 people in hospital followed by 900 in ICU.

Back in January before the strict lockdown started they had other restrictions in place including no crowds at at sporting or no big events. They may have had restrictions around pubs and restaurants also in place. As of July 19 they have no restrictions in place.

Now we may not have enough info or big enough sample size right now to get a conclusive answer. But based on those numbers the vaccine does appear to be working and doing a good job of keeping people out of hospital.