Treatment versus Vaccine

[Lavender Bushranger]

LV: Wastes his time on the internet trolling and putting people down for kicks.

Also LV: Wonders why he's not learning anything.

I'm not intentionally putting people down.

I'm absolutely being critical of the arguments presented though, but that's almost solely due to the fact that I'm so disappointed that nothing has been raised that is any good.

 

[jle101]

So you also blaming an engineer who creates aeroplanes for a poor pilot who stuffs up and crashes their plane?

Like I say, what difference is there? You're either defending an inept institution or and inept industry.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

From the Nobel prize winning scientist and many others:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Satoshi-Omura-Global-trends-in-clinical-studies-of-ivermectin-in-COVID-19-Japanese-Journal-of-Antibiotics-March-10-2021.pdf

He invented ivermectin didn't he?

 

[faible]

Hmm, not sure about this one, but you know; medical studies and all.

https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on-pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf

Isn't Classen an anti-vaxxer? The one who said COVID-19 vaccines caused Alzheimer's but couldn't provide any proof?

Fact Check-No evidence that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine causes Alzheimer’s disease | Reuters

 

[MisterMarcus]

Hmm, not sure about this one, but you know; medical studies and all. I really do hope we find better treatment options.

https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on-pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf

Interesting that 'Trends in Internal Medicine' is part of the SciVision publishing. Seems like SciVision is regarded in many quarters as a predatory journal.

Predatory publishing (also write-only publishing[1][2] or deceptive publishing[3]) is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy, and without providing editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not. The phenomenon of "open access predatory publishers" was first noticed by Jeffrey Beall, when he described "publishers that are ready to publish any article for payment".[4]

Note that Beall himself lists SciVision on his list of predatory journals.

Plus, you can easily tell by the tone and language of the article: this is not how a real scientist writes a professional scientific paper.

 

[faible]

Not sure, don't have that detail. This was sent to me by an MD though who is certainly not anti vax so to speak. He is from the US however and does have an opinion on these particular vaccines though.

Classen appears to have some interesting views on vaccines. I'm not sure I'd be taking statements he makes on them at face value.

 

[Goosecat]

I think there's a growing number questioning a number of details surrounding these particular vaccines. That was always going to happen as we slowly gathered more data on what has been an acknowledged rushed development and release without any medium or long term studies.
There is some concern, at some very well qualified levels, around just what these particular vaccines are doing. It would be nice if we happened to find equivalent or near equivalent hospitalisation reduction options for treatment from well studied existing possibles.

“Vaccine-Induced Covid-19 Mimicry” Syndrome:Splice reactions within the SARS-CoV-2 Spike open reading frame result in Spike protein variants that may cause thromboembolic events in patients immunized with vector-based vaccines

During the last months many countries have started the immunization of millions of people by using vector-based vaccines. Unfortunately, severe side effects became overt during these vaccination campaigns: cerebral venous sinus thromboses (CVST), absolutely rare under norma...

www.researchsquare.com

 

[MisterMarcus]

I think there's a growing number questioning a number of details surrounding these particular vaccines. That was always going to happen as we slowly gathered more data on what has been an acknowledged rushed development and release without any medium or long term studies.
There is some concern, at some very well qualified levels around just what these particular vaccines are doing. It would be nice if we happened to find equivalent or near equivalent options for treatment from well studied existing pharmaceuticals.

“Vaccine-Induced Covid-19 Mimicry” Syndrome:Splice reactions within the SARS-CoV-2 Spike open reading frame result in Spike protein variants that may cause thromboembolic events in patients immunized with vector-based vaccines

During the last months many countries have started the immunization of millions of people by using vector-based vaccines. Unfortunately, severe side effects became overt during these vaccination campaigns: cerebral venous sinus thromboses (CVST), absolutely rare under norma...

www.researchsquare.com

Research Square is a multidisciplinary preprint platform developed and operated by a company of the same name. The platform allows researchers to share their work early, gain feedback, and improve a paper before submission to a journal. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review.

For someone who's "not anti-vax" you sure have made some very unlucky choices in the articles you select. Known associates of anti-vaxxers, predatory journals, non peer-reviewed papers.......

 

[MisterMarcus]

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics

mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were...

journals.lww.com

Now this article appears to be a meta-analysis, summarising and collating data from other papers. Okay, fair enough.

Except....

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.

www.nature.com

In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths4, the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect.

The Elgazzar paper was withdrawn from publication due to allegation of plagiarism, data manipulation, and "ethical concerns".

I'm not saying the AJT paper itself is ethically dishonest, but it's a summary of the literature, and one paper it takes significant data from is the withdrawn and apparently discredited Elgazzar paper.

You really have had some shocking luck with your article selection. You might want to check up on these people who keep forwarding them to you.

 

[faible]

psychological invalidation

Interesting take on the below comment;

The Elgazzar paper was withdrawn

 

[MisterMarcus]

From the Nobel prize winning scientist and many others:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Satoshi-Omura-Global-trends-in-clinical-studies-of-ivermectin-in-COVID-19-Japanese-Journal-of-Antibiotics-March-10-2021.pdf

Another one.

ABOVE: © ISTOCK.COM,
BEIJINGSTORY

The editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology have taken down an article about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. The paper, which was written by members of an organization called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), had been provisionally accepted and posted in abstract form by the journal in January, but was ultimately rejected this Monday (March 1). The editors determined that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies.

Not sure these are the guys I'd be trusting to quote Satoshi Omura accurately or correctly interpret any study he did, given they've been outed several times for false and misleading claims.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Ah psychological invalidation. It really is simpler to avoid learning things you may not wish to consider by simplistic grouping rather than actually genuinely weighing any single content. I think the really intelligent can analyse actual content and not fall into the lower IQ inabilities of group identity dismissal.

You're the one posting all these dodgy papers, not me. Perhaps you should try to 'analyse actual content'?

At the very least, do a 2 minute google search to confirm these papers aren't all being withdrawn, removed for lack of scientific integrity, not saying what you claim them to say, or being published in predatory non-peer reviewed journals.

 

[faible]

For some it doesn't matter what data, information or expert qualification exists. None will suffice unless it corresponds with their existing ideology and psychological invalidation.

Maybe stop sourcing questionable studies, from questionable sources?

Question; Oxford University is doing a trial on Ivermection. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world.

Why are the FLCCC who are extremely pro Ivermectin, against the trial?

 

[MisterMarcus]

For some it doesn't matter what data, information or expert qualification exists. None will suffice unless it corresponds with their existing ideology and psychological invalidation.

I agree.

I suggest the people forwarding you these papers may indeed have an existing ideology and psychological invalidation that they need to correct. I'd be starting to seriously ask them some questions if I were you.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Isn't Classen an anti-vaxxer? The one who said COVID-19 vaccines caused Alzheimer's but couldn't provide any proof?

Fact Check-No evidence that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine causes Alzheimer’s disease | Reuters

Of all the conflicts of interest in this; The Reuters one doesn’t sit well with me at all.



Regardless of the outcome. These guys must understand how untrustworthy they all seem and how hard it is ascertain the good actors.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Merck’s COVID-19 pill cuts risk of death, hospitalisation by half in study

Experts have hailed is as a potential breakthrough in the treatment of the disease, although the study has not been peer reviewed and is yet to be approved for use.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Merck’s COVID-19 pill cuts risk of death, hospitalisation by half in study

Experts have hailed is as a potential breakthrough in the treatment of the disease, although the study has not been peer reviewed and is yet to be approved for use.

www.theage.com.au

In world first, Britain approves Merck’s COVID-19 pill

The drug has been closely watched since data last month showed it could halve the chances of dying or being hospitalised for those most at risk of developing severe COVID-19 when given early in the illness.

www.theage.com.au

 

[HTT]

In world first, Britain approves Merck’s COVID-19 pill

The drug has been closely watched since data last month showed it could halve the chances of dying or being hospitalised for those most at risk of developing severe COVID-19 when given early in the illness.

www.theage.com.au

But I thought big pharma were blocking treatments???

 

[The 747]

But I thought big pharma were blocking treatments???

Pfft invermectin is proven to kill COVID quickly and effectively*

*Also kills patient

 

[Roby]

I wonder of Joe Rogan will mention the new anti-virus pills from Merck and Pfizer.

 

[azlou]

I wonder of Joe Rogan will mention the new anti-virus pills from Merck and Pfizer.

Only if the republicans endorse it

 

[azlou]

Maybe stop sourcing questionable studies, from questionable sources?

Question; Oxford University is doing a trial on Ivermection. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world.

Why are the FLCCC who are extremely pro Ivermectin, against the trial?

What is happening with that trial that was the one I was interested in
There just doesn’t seem like there is a definitive answer on dosage other than you need to take a ridiculously high amount to have a benefit
But I was hoping the Oxford trial might clear it up

 

[freddy mercury]

So effectiveness going from 90% to 64% is a good thing, how?

You know you can concede the vaccine isn’t doing as well as predicted and still see them as a valuable tool.

Imagine when we get our 685th booster shot, I reckon those numbers will skyrocket.

 

[iameviljez]

Imagine when we get our 685th booster shot, I reckon those numbers will skyrocket.

I don't think that a booster every six to twelve months while COVID is a global pandemic is the big scary thing you think it is.

 

[freddy mercury]

I don't think that a booster every six to twelve months while COVID is a global pandemic is the big scary thing you think it is.

So you're willing to get jabbed as many times as they say