Sincere Question To Liberals Why Are You So Fanatical Against Using Alternative Treatments For Covid 19

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by UNC4Me

The research to develop vaccines for Corona viruses began in 2003. Since Covid IS a Corona virus, that research was applicable to its vaccine being available quickly.

Wrong. Corona viruses have been around for a very long time. Even cats have their own feline version - which they can't find a 'vaccine' for, to this day. They do use 'AntiViral', which has been suggested by some in the medical field to also work on humans for Cov19. But, who cares about finding treatments, let's just jab everyone with an experiment. The government would never hurt you.

Anyway, back to the cats. I did find this interesting:

https://www.vet.cornell.edu/animal-h...ne-coronavirus

Most of them are asymptomatic. They might shed through their feces. Which reminded me of a study done a long time ago, as well, about how nasty people don't wash their hands, and spread their disgusting dung all over the place.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-rem...b070d8cad56edf

What if humans are 'shedding' their corona virus the same as cats? And I know you all aren't washing your hands. I'm out there every day, in restaurants and stores, picking up orders - you all touch everything, and don't wash your hands before stuffing food down your throats. Don't take my word for it, how do you think people got the Norwalk virus?

Anyway, here's the big issue with this 'vaccine'. They didn't do animal trials, because all the animals DIED when they tested on them.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavi...l-testing.html

A clinical trial for an experimental coronavirus vaccine has begun recruiting participants in Seattle, but researchers did not first show that the vaccine triggered an immune response in animals, as is normally required.

Now, biomedical ethicists are calling the shortcut into question, according to Stat News.

Typically, vaccine development can take 15 to 20 years, start to finish, Mark Feinberg, president and CEO of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, told Stat News. The lengthy process requires that scientists first give the vaccine to animals to determine whether it's safe and effective at preventing the disease in question. Only after passing through iterative tests in animal models, and being adjusted along the way, can a formulation be tested in human trials.

Do you not understand that you're the test subject?

Also, did your talking heads tell you this, last year?

https://bgr.com/science/coronavirus-...ty-prediction/

August 9th, 2020 at 9:02 AM

....[T]here’s one aspect of a vaccine that’s starting to be talked about now which represents bad news for a broad slice of the American population, and that includes the people who it’s believed a successful coronavirus vaccine won’t be able to help: The obese...

...More than 107 million Americans, according to one estimate, can be categorized as “obese,” and researchers say that we already know vaccines that offer protection against everything from influenza to tetanus and rabies are less effective when given to obese adults than to the general public. A coronavirus vaccine is likely to follow the same pattern.

“Will we have a (COVID-19) vaccine next year tailored to the obese? No way,” Raz Shaikh, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, told CNN. “Will it still work in the obese? Our prediction is no.”

Emphasis mine.

So...if someone is fat, it doesn't matter if they get the 'vaccine' or not, it doesn't really do much at all for them.

But, hey, let's get government figures out there bribing people to get the 'vaccine' with...oh! I have a great idea! GARBAGE FOOD! Yeah, that's the ticket! Give them free donuts, free burgers, free beer! To the obese!

Are any of you even paying attention? Do you not see how absurd this all is?

[ukrkoz]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant

I don't think you really understand the scientific method, research, or statistics.
A single paper with a small trial is not proof. It is evidence. Multiple trials and adequately designed experiments, where the preponderance of the results confirm the same thing, are needed to confirm that evidence. It doesn't have to be all the results, but enough for the overall finding to confirm it.
In the paper itself, it said:
"Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings"
What the NIH actually said is:
"Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."
That's an agreement with the paper-not enough to confirm or deny.
It still may end up being proven. But one paper != that proof.

That's fine and fair and sounds very scientific.
How many of "Multiple trials and adequately designed experiments, where the preponderance of the results confirm the same thing, are needed to confirm that evidence." were done for vaccines? HOW MANY? How many "small trials" from otherwise super reputable people does it take to be considered? How is it so that Scientist A opinion is considered the ultimate truth and no less titled and credentialed scientists B opinion is considered state crime worth misxing him with poop, covering in tar and feathers and leading naked, on the leash, through the City of Science streets, where everyone can spit at him? Who PERSONALLY makes such choice?


And before you answer, consider this. For EUA to have legal grounds to permit further trials on live subjects, called massive vaccination, there should be NO ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS for that disease. Basic, very basic logic says - "none were found". By blind, deaf and those, who do not want to hear.

[thinkingandwondering]

So OP has decided that "alternative" medical viewpoints are now associated with "liberals?"

The opposite of "liberals" are the awake, conscious people who revere plant-based, holistic remedies?

Fascinating.