Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Basically", the vaccine went through 3 trial phases like they always do! Here is how it's done. It's technical, and therefore, nearly everyone on this forum could not follow along. Some might need to watch it a few hundred times even after they re-take their stats classes and re-fail them just like they did in HS and college.
Yes, and those phases are done over several years...not a few months...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
Origionally and before the Omicron mutation, several vaccines' efficacy was in the 95% range. Because this isn't about arguing but rather being balanced, today the efficacy is terrible. And a "whopping" 58(ish) percent. But, the terminology is now degraded to "preventing hospitalization". https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/co...lent%20vaccine.
Sorry even after they had to redefine what a "vaccine" was, the FDA still had to give up on that a couple of months into the vaccine being rolled out and well before Omicron because it was obvious that they were nowhere near that magical 95%
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
It's about risk-reward. Post Omicron, I would never contemplate getting the vaccine. I'm 58. In a decade, I'll look into it and I probably will. Just as I currently get the flu vaccine (which might reduce the flu by 50%)...
That's great that you decided to not to get it..and I guess you should be happy you were never in a position where the Government forced you to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
Sorry, ivermectin is a POS antiviral (now pay attention) for COVID. It's statistically insignificant. Here you go https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869 On the other hand, PAXLOVID efficacy for ending up in the hospital (so long as you take it earlier) is 89% https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/13...lovid-covid-19 I've used it twice. For me, it worked like a champ! Last summer and after taking PAXLOVID 1 day after testing positive, I walked 11 miles with minimum symptom impact. I tested positive for 4 days longer. I didn't get the rebound as some people do with PAXLOVID. People who have comprehension skills and are technical understand ivermectin for COVID was a waste of time.
And for you, your personal experience is nothing but anecdotal...because you only took one of the drugs(the more expensive and more profitable one). I counter that with people who took ivermectin and had the same results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
I'm not sure why people need to non-stop exaggerate on this forum!?
Parasites are what ivermectin is FOR. I am unaware of anyone saying ivermectin is dangerous on its own. The issue is whether it is the evidence-supported response for the stated problem. Giving someone water can be dangerous in certain situations.
There were early studies suggesting it had anti-viral properties.
Government shut that one down hard pretty early on.
It was effective in mice infected with swine fever, mice infected with dengue fever and mice infected with the West Nile virus.
That was back in 2020.
It was a real study...I'm sure you'll find it somewhere in PubMed or NIH databases.
That campaign was designed for non-technical people. Yes, ivermectin is is used to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis. So is thiabendazole. The FDA horse add was intentially dummied down for dummies.
FDA vaccine advisers ‘disappointed’ and ‘angry’ that early data about new Covid-19 booster shot wasn’t presented for review last year...... This infection data was far from complete. The number of study subjects who became infected was very small, and both the patients and the researchers were aware of who was getting the original shot and who was getting the new booster.
“It’s not a group of children. We understand how to interpret these results,” said Dr. Eric Rubin, a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee...."
So it's smart to be suspicious and not blindly listen to what someone says. Especially when money is involved. At the same token, just because people desperately wanted IVM to work doesn't mean the "evil FDA" was in on some sort of conspiracy. Think deeper.
Apparently you know nothing about how drug companies are in the business to make money. Maybe you should watch "Dopesick" or the new movie that is out about Purdue Pharmaceuticals that told millions that Oxicotin is not addictive.
But that’s so they could sell more. What would a drug company have to gain by saying that their product doesn’t work on an illness? It’s pretty much the opposite actually.
Ivermectin is a wonder drug, used by people all over the world for decades.
It might have some benefits with viral infections. India went with it and they seemed to have had results. Of course this will likely take years to analyze before we can say one way or another if it had any effect on the viral symptoms/outcomes of cases with the CCP Virus from Wuhan.
Ivermectin is a wonder drug, used by people all over the world for decades.
It might have some benefits with viral infections. India went with it and they seemed to have had results. Of course this will likely take years to analyze before we can say one way or another if it had any effect on the viral symptoms/outcomes of cases with the CCP Virus from Wuhan.
And researchers are finding more uses for it with studies.
BUT...it wouldn't have made Pfizer a very, very rich company.
There were some docs/protocols recommending IVM as a prophylaxis, see FLCC/Dr Pierre Kory. I always found that strategy to be odd (requiring you to take low doses of a drug for the rest of your when all safety data is on short term use) even if there was evidence that it worked.
Anyways, you and your husband had mild symptoms likely independent of IVM as COVID is mild in 90+% of people and I’m thinking the original strain.
Our doctor did say it might not be a BAD idea to take ivermectin after a known EXPOSURE during the pandemic when cases were high, but not every day forever, that would be silly. And again, not to kill the virus, to reduce symptoms caused from these "spike proteins"
Yes, and those phases are done over several years...not a few months...
Sorry even after they had to redefine what a "vaccine" was, the FDA still had to give up on that a couple of months into the vaccine being rolled out and well before Omicron because it was obvious that they were nowhere near that magical 95%
That's great that you decided to not to get it..and I guess you should be happy you were never in a position where the Government forced you to get it.
And for you, your personal experience is nothing but anecdotal...because you only took one of the drugs(the more expensive and more profitable one). I counter that with people who took ivermectin and had the same results.
Oh, the Irony...
Let's stay on topic. The vaccine USE to work well. Now it is a POS vaccine because of a mutation with the cold virus https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...us-2021-12-03/ . And IVM never E-V-E-R worked for COVID-19. Ever! Like always, vaccines have side effects. Some were severe. And a ton of other illnesses were blamed on the vaccine.
But that’s so they could sell more. What would a drug company have to gain by saying that their product doesn’t work on an illness? It’s pretty much the opposite actually.
Um, no it isn't. Ivermectin is like $.50 per pill. The US government paid $530 per course (5 days) for Paxlovid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Origionally and before the Omicron mutation, several vaccines' efficacy was in the 95% range. Because this isn't about arguing but rather being balanced, today the efficacy is terrible. And a "whopping" 58(ish) percent. But, the terminology is now degraded to "preventing hospitalization". 
Especially if I was a healthy young male. 
