I gots the Covid.

Okhotnik

WKR
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
2,212
Location
N ID
Pointing out that you repeated two false statements about a drug is not "defending Merck. It's not ivermectin repackaged, full stop. If you want to claim big pharma repressed effective treatments, put up some evidence specific to that. So far you're0 for 2.



The irony of using the phrase "red herring" after accusing me of defending Merck is not lost on me. Now if you'd like to read past the first sentence, you'll find a series of follow-up questions, because I'm interested to know what criteria are used to assess whether it's a "true" vaccine. OF course, the J&J is available, and is not an MRNA vaccine. Less effective, but still better than nothing.


What sources and what makes them unreliable? What sources are you using to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin as an antiviral?

Ivermectin did not recieve a nobel prize. I'm not being nitpicky either, it wasn't involved. See, now I know who you're listening to, or at least I know that Alex Jones repeats their narratives or vice versa. What you're confused about is the 2015 nobel prize awarded jointly two two research teams. One half of the team was awarded for developing avermectin (a slightly different drug) and the other half for artemesin. However, you'll note neither drug is an antiviral, both are cited as *antiparasitic* drugs. Avermectin replaced ivermectin in treating the parasite that causes river blindness, artemisin as an anti-malarial drug.


So again, this is like saying we should use aspirin to treat COVID because it's been used for centuries. A successful antiparasitic drug does not mean it's a successful antiviral drug.

If you do literally any search engine search, you'll see that the FOIA request thing has already been answered. At the time the initial request was filed, the concern was over protecting Pfizer-Biontech proprietary data. Guess what, you also can't FOIA the plans for the new Boeing stealth jet. According to the article I'm reading right now, the FDA is releasing 500pages per month as they go through them all because it's a lot of data, and there's a follow-up hearing in December. Why, do you have more information on the topic?

I think everybody should be talking to their doctor and getting whatever vaccines they can. That's how we beat polio, that's why measles was mostly eradicated in the US, etc. I'm not a doctor though, I'm an accountant.

Boosters will probably continue to be necessary. I'm not a doctor. I imagine COVID is going to join the annual flu, because it keeps mutating (largely through the unvaccinated population) rather than burning out. Maybe it'll eventually just join the annual flu shot. Not my area of expertise. We could have done without a booster if we'd done it right the first time though.

Actual stats on harm are available from the FDA and the CDC. I'm not going to just repost what anyone can find themselves, that's a lot of needless typing. If you have a point, make it, and provide evidence.

Natural immunity was already covered. Best recommendations are still to get vaccinated even if you've already ahd it though, as both is stronger. If you haven't had it, seeking natural immunity means getting the disease to avoid getting the disease, which is up there with giving yourself smallpox to gain immunity to smallpox.

We don't have to trust pharmaceutical companies. There are layers of review from researchers and scientists within the government, in competing companies, in private research labs, and nonprofit labs. There are also watchdog groups. That''s how we identify the violations of law. That's how we know that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don't prevent or treat COVID. But if you distrust big pharma you better make sure you don't go to the hospital or a doctor if you get sick, as every treatment including Regeneron and Ivermectin are manufactured by Big Pharma. For comparison, I've had three doses of Pfizer-Biontech, which cost the government less than $60 to give me (total). A single dose of Regeneron monoclonal antibodies would cost $2100, not includingany other medication administered to hospitalized patients. If there was a big pharma plot to make us sick, then it would probably look more like Ron DeSantis' efforts to oppose vaccination and get everyone out and unmasked as quickly as possible, and providing Regneron to everyone. Don't look too closely at his ties to Regeneron though.

TL:DR I did my own research. I've included my references, I've repeatedly stated that I'm not a doctor. I'm waiting for literally anyone else to do the same though. So far I seem to be the only one able to provide evidence for what I'm talking about.
:ROFLMAO:
 

Okhotnik

WKR
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
2,212
Location
N ID
What's your take Dr on Pfizer's Vioxx ? It went through the rigorous review process too and of course approved by the FDA. lol

Ill take advice from frontline Dr at the FLCC who have treated thousands of Covid patients very successfully. My buddy, a very healthy 36 year old father of three, is in the hospital for the past week for a blood clot in his lungs one day after his first Pfizer jab
 

hflier

WKR
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,300
Location
Tulsa, OK
They are not. The Merck drug is Molnupiravir, previously sold as Lagevrio (brand name). It's an antiviral drug that was developed in 2014. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, not an anti-viral. \the research to use Molnupavir as a SARS-CoV2 treatment began in March of 2020, before any of the ivermectin nonsense kicked off, and it's just now getting through clinical trials, I believe a reformulation was required.


But this was all stuff that could have easily been researched before posting. I don't think you invented this stuff out of whole cloth though, someone else told you that it's repackaged ivermectin. So who told you that, and why did they lie about it?

Researched myself. Merck is the manufacturer or marketer of Ivermectin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Vandy321

WKR
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
2,424
Researched myself. Merck is the manufacturer or marketer of Ivermectin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Was, not is. The patent is expired and they longer are the sole manufacturer...thus, the need for another "cure all" to sell for enormous profits, all while discrediting the effective use of IVM simply because they don't stand to gain financially from its sale any longer.
 
Last edited:

Actual_Cryptid

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
200
Researched myself. Merck is the manufacturer or marketer of Ivermectin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Merck makes more than just ivermectin, but all their drugs aren't ivermectin. Lamborghini makes tractors and sports cars, but it doesn't make all their sports cars tractors. Thats like if someone says "All Colt revovlers are Pythons" and I point out that the colt revolver we're both staring at is in fact Trooper, and a third person says "I googled it, Colt makes the python!" You've misunderstood the conversation.

If someone's gonna claim their antiviral drug that's been in testing for more than 18 months is actually just ivermectin, some evidence to that effect might be good.
 

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
It is disheartening to see that, after many months since the last discussion on the topic, some people continue to parrot the same misinformation that has already been refuted. I can’t tell if these posters are merely suggestible or are being purposefully dishonest.
 

sveltri

WKR
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
920
Location
SALIDA
What do you think you see on that page that contradicts what I said?

If you're calling for more government funding of drug research, I'm all about it. Hell, let's just publicly fund all of it instead of making medicine and drug research a for-profit endeavor. We can also repeal the supplements act and force health supplements to undergo the same safety and efficacy standards as real medicine! That said, if you're alleging the controls and reviews are insufficient, show me some evidence.


$19.50 per shot, $2 billion deal, inked under Trump in 2020.

Mask recommendations were "don't" because early on people were buying the N95s that were in high demand in hospitals, and trying to avoid having people hoard masks that healthcare workers needed. Remember the hoarding? Then after the research supported decreased spread when using cloth masks, the recommendation was added. Following the science. Remember the recommendation was not "don't wear a mask" in the beginning either. It was "stay home, please don't buy all the N95s. Again, public record.

Show me evidence regarding the gain of function NIH language changes.

If you want me to answer all your questions, first start using paragraphs instead of vomiting up a giant block of text. you should have learned how to make readable text in gradeschool. Second, start providing evidence or citations instead of merely throwing everything at the wall tos ee what sticks. Thirdly, to show me you're operating in good faith, if I answer a question do me a favor and acknowledge it. If I'm wrong, rebut it. If I'm right, acknowledge it. When you jsut drop a point that's been responded to it gives the impression that you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

As far as long term side effects, I'll issue you a challenge. First, you have the same access to the internet I do. List for me the long-term health effects of covid, and of the vaccine, CDC or FDA will suffice. Secondly, name one vaccine which had a long-term health effect that was not initially observed within 8 weeks of the dose.

Alex Jones has been wrong about more things than I've ever been right about, from claiming there was an NWO takeover on NYE 2000 (reporting government trucks on the streets) to jade helm to the ebola scare to Obama taking my guns to FEMA death camps to claiming COVID was a Chinese bioweapon that would devastate humanity by the end of 2020 oh wait now it's just a flu oh wait now it's dangerous but only his supplements can save us oh wait now it's a flu again. he doesn't get points for being "right" when he also says the exact opposite 2 different times on the same show.
  • Note the date on the on the screen clip I provided. 21 Nov 2021 - I merely asked a question
  • Your cite is a news organization, the term "news" used very loosely - vaccine cost
    • How many Pfizer shots have been injected, I looked quickly and could not find the answer? My guess is the math doesn't work based on your provided cost.
  • NIH gain of function definition was very recently changed, likely won't find it on CNN you'll have to look elsewhere.
    • Please provide reference when Fauci denies the definition changing
  • I've provided no "information" that was not empirical, I did however ask several questions
    • I also stated my unwillingness to believe the government without transparency
  • Every "answer" you've provided is nothing more than a standard talking point provided by the government or the media, I have stated several times I do not accept those as believable sources. If you do, that's great.
  • Masks do not prevent the spread of the virus to the extent you want to believe they do, they likely would prevent two people yelling at each other and expending spittle that might be transferred from one person to another.
  • Regarding the difference in long term side effects of COVID and the vaccine, no one has stated that the virus is safe. However, everyone pushing the VAX has stated over and over how "safe it is". VAERS is all we have, and you're correct it is flawed. But, you referred me to the FDA and CDC for that information that they are not providing.
    • My question still stands. How can you tell me something is safe if you cannot tell me what the long term side effects, if any, are?
  • Lastly, I used bullet points for you. I hope its easier to understand. Also, before running your mouth on someone's grammar I would recommend checking your spelling. I believe it was a skill learned at a younger age, for those that can't spell you can just click the words underlined in red and it will give you options. Some of my bullet points lack punctuation, they're not intended to be complete sentences.
 

Actual_Cryptid

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
200
You're just repeating infowars stuff again. Rand Paul rambling accusations is not evidence. He's a politician looking to score political points. If you have evidence show me. The article I linked for cost makes the math pretty clear, just under $2B for 100MM doses. Whip out your calculator.

VAERS is not all we have. We have the testing data, the safety data, gathered over the last year, and follow-up data collection by the CDC and the manufacturers. To state that VAERS is all we have also ignore the rest of the world that exists.

If the CDC is supposedly covering something up, but VAERS is giving it away, why wouldn't they just hide the VAERS data too? The conspiracy, like so many others, dies suffocated under its own weight. The villains must be simultaneously able to trick or bribe the entire scientific and medical establishment, getting global coordination, but they leave VAERS up and accurately publish that data.
 

inyago

FNG
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
60
And biden has brought 400 million doses at what price.. Considering that trump gave them the money to
start the process of developing the muck, that needs to be counted as well..
Every country in the world using mrna junk is hiding massive amounts of adverse reactions..
In new zealand when there's an adverse reaction, some involving death, the government goes
"did you discuss this with your doctor, we are only allowed pfizer by the way..
And you prove that it is the vaccine that has caused the problem..
Here's$ 400000 sign the non disclosure document and piss off..
And you think that's okay..
 

whaack

WKR
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
762
Location
Midwest - IL
See if your doc will send you for the monoclonal antibody treatment. I was doing pretty bad. Took the treatment, immediately turned around. 36 hours later all symptoms were gone. Shit was like a miracle.

Ron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And if he/she won’t find another MD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

JDBAK

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
186
What vaccine offers 100% protection from the disease?
By what metric are they too risky to be considered vaccines? What other vaccines are you comparing against, what are the risks you're citing?
Vaccines have traditionally been understood to be highly effective at preventing infection. They are supposed to immunize. It's unrealistic to expect 100% prevention from every vaccine. That's not realistic. 99%? Sure. 98%? Ok. 95%? That's weak, but at least explain with an asterisk.

But what are we at now? 50% prevention from the Delta variant? Hard to say...it's a moving target, the virus mutates, and efficacy wanes over time. (also, which specific versions of the virus are we talking about, and after what dose, and when was it given, and to what specific population are we referring to and what are their unique health and immune system characteristics ?).
Sorry, these injections aren't worthy of being sold as a vaccines. It's deceptive, and intentionally so. Our betters are depending on the well earned positive reputation of successful traditional vaccines to promote these new interventions.

Protection is a different category. The "vaccines" (including the non mRNA vaccine J&J) are offering a non trivial to significant degree of protection. It isn't anywhere close to 100%, but it's still helpful. That's all a good thing. Let's not oversell it.


Risk is a different category. A vaccine can be highly effective at immunizing, yet still carry significant health risks outside the disease. That doesn't mean it isn't a vaccine. Those are different things. Unfortunately, there isn't much data to go off of then the VAERS system, and that has it's flaws. But it's all we've got.

FWIW, I know 2 people who had severe anaphylactic reactions (serious enough for hospitazation), and 2 others with heart problems immediately after the Pfizer and Moderna injections. I'm not alone. Sure, those are anecdotes, but if the "vaccines" were as "safe and effective" as our authorities emphatically insisted....then that shouldn't happen. If repeatable real world observations are radically out of sync with what "what the science says", then maybe there's something wrong with how we "conduct science".

As a general rule, I don't find the medical profession to be particularly adept at scientifically evaluating evidence. As for our governmental bureaucracies....that's not even a primary motivation.

That's not to say these new injections aren't worthwhile. I take a pretty libertarian approach, let people asses the costs and benefits, and give an informed consent. And yes, it's difficult assess the risk. I don't think the immediate health risks of mRNA injections are unacceptably high for everyone (but I do for my kids). Long term, I don't see a particularly strong signal...but then again we suck at anticipating the long term effects of pharmacological interventions.
I don't require 100% safety for any treatment. Weigh the pros and cons as best you can.
Informed consent....that's supposed to be a thing.
What is your background in studying vaccine efficacy and safety?
My background matters little. I'm an engineer by training for what it's worth. Whatever. I'm a guy who's unwilling to submit to Orwellian B.S. attempts at control with unsatisfying evidence just because the credentialed experts think we're too stupid and helpless to notice things that aren't true. Or that we shouldn't notice other things that do strongly appear to be true (like SOME therapeutic interventions have merit, or that natural immunity is a thing) because they are inconvenient to the narrative of "VACCINATE EVERYONE NOW, AND EVERY 6 MONTHS UNTIL FOREVER, AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T IS AN EVIL FOOL."

Tangent - The day I uncritically accept the current conventional wisdom of our medical authorities regarding ANYTHING having to do with long term health...well that's the day I give up and resign myself to the same sorry state of health as most everyone else. Walk around a hospital a minute and look at the staff. How's that working out?

I'm also 46 yr old Infantryman with no health issues, maintain an exceptionally high level of physical fitness (for any age), lean and very muscular. Nothing hurts, I almost never get sick, appear to have exemplary metabolic health, and have no complaints whatsoever. I'm a unicorn in a mass of broken people. I got that way with some luck, and also whole lot of critical thought in pursuit of the most likely path towards success, regardless of that the current expert advice is. 10 years ago, when I "trusted the experts", I was 40 lbs overweight, and enjoyed joint, skin, digestion, and lethargy problems. Since then, every time I've deviated from conventional wisdom of the experts...I was damned glad I did.

So no, I don't default to "trust the science", not because science isn't good, but because we as humans suck at it. That applies to our credentialed experts and institutions. Eventually, "science" has to make peace with observed reality, or it's bad science.
What does "leaky" mean in this context?

"Leaky" - When the average guy can name multiple people off the top of their head who've been fully vaccinated, and still got COVID, including some who have a rough time of it....then yes, it's pretty safe to say it's a leaky vaccine. I can't give a precise definition as to what % of virus escape through the net of the "vaccinated" population and infecting others constitutes leaky. But it's pretty disappointing if you were expecting a vaccine to immunize and stop transmission.


FWIW, I'm glad that we have these new COVID injections available. On balance, I think they are a good thing, and appropriate for many, many people. If Trump got nominated for the Nobel Prize for fast-tracking COVID vaccine development, well then good on him, there's been less deserving people. It would also be hilarious to watch.

The mRNA technology is encouraging. But the current mRNA injections aren't anywhere close to as good as they've been advertised, they do have risks (which that we're not supposed to notice or talk about.) They are a valuable tool, but not a panacea, and they probably aren't even the most important intervention.
The current "vaccines" are prototypes. I hope and expect they will get better.

They COVID injections are also a new intervention, being tried for the first time in a very, very complex system. Our medical system's track record at anticipating problems when trying new pharmacological interventions in the most complex system (the human body)....sucks. Beware of unnecessary medical interventions.

So far, despite all, I'm encouraged. It's a valuable intervention, and probably a good idea for those at any serious risk. And that's not to say it's easy to determine exactly who is at serious risk.

But let's not pretend we are gods now and truly know the long term impacts of new MRNA injections on the human body. Personally, I'm concerned about the long term effects on my innate and adaptive immune systems, as well as the selection pressure the mRNA treatments put on the virus. That doesn't exhaust the possibilities.


My main point of all of this is be honest.
I generally think the COVID mRNA injections are a good thing. But if you want to destroy trust as fast as possible, then oversell benefits, and ridicule and silence those who notice costs. And by all means, silence those who notice there are other paths to success (natural immunity, other therapeutics).

Don't go Orwell on us and change language like the CDC (vaccination went from providing immunity to offering protection) and expect all of us to just fall in line.
 

Actual_Cryptid

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
200
MMR, about 88% effective against mumps. When everyone has the vaccine, its very effective at keeping mumps out of the community. TDAP, 80-90%. This is part of why I asked about your background. If your understanding of vaccines is that they need to be 98% effective on every individual to be a "real" vaccine then you're dealing with a bad data set. You're infantry, great, me too. We both know what happens when you try to build a mission off bad intel.


This study is showing above 90% against the Delta variant, dunno where you're getting 50%.

Two people you know is not a repeatable real-world observation, it's an anecdote. We do have surveillance of the side-effects though. The reason for the 15 minute waiting period is because the potential for a reaction was already known from testing. It's on the materials you read over before getting the vaccine, and each time I've had one the nurse or doctor talked me through the whole list and which were most common.

I see a lack of data and a lack of real analysis in your reply, and from my perspective it looks more like someone (or some groups) are using ear and misinformation to mislead you. I don't know how you're assessing how ready the current MRNA delivery mechanism is if you're wrong about the general efficacy and current efficacy.

I'm not an engineer, I wouldn't try to tell an engineer whether they're right or wrong about engineering. If an engineer tried to tell me about tax law I'd tell them to sit down unless they demonstrated an exceptional level of knowledge on the subject. The willingness of other educated people to suddenly decide they know more than a doctor though astounds me, because I know none of us would brook that kind of shenanigans were it our field in question.

If you're going to bring up natural immunity as a path, explain how people getting the disease to avoid the disease is a feasible path. Explain what other therapeutics provide protection.
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
16,149
Location
Colorado Springs
It is disheartening to see that, after many months since the last discussion on the topic, some people continue to parrot the same misinformation that has already been refuted. I can’t tell if these posters are merely suggestible or are being purposefully dishonest.
At this point the government, the media, and pharmaceutical companies can be trusted so little, that it's not clear whether what was claimed is false.....or whether the refuting of what was claimed is false.

We've heard so many falsehoods and outright lies over the last almost two years that it's best to only use logic and reason to assess all the info anymore......and then make a probability of accuracy based on that from everything we've seen and continue to see. If you follow everything that has been said or claimed since day one, it's pretty easy to make an educated assessment of what has a higher probability of actual truth. Just saying something is true or false from some of these individuals, agencies, and corporations doesn't cut it.........or pass the logic and reason test in many cases.
 

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
There is a guy who posts on another hunting site I frequent who is a legitimate expert on this topic and he has stated that there is virtually no potential for long term health impacts from vaccines as the materials included in them are cleared from the body in a relatively short period of time. If side effects were to occur, they would likely be observed in the weeks following inoculation. That seems to line up pretty well with what has been observed to date.

He made mention that long term health impacts from drugs which so many are worried about are typically from those that are taken periodically (daily/weekly) as they build in the body over time. That is not the case with vaccines.
 

WCB

WKR
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
3,632
My wife and I along with our 2.5 year old and 6 month old have had the Vid for 10-12 days now. screwed up my elk trip is all it did. Oh and I cant taste anything right before Turkey Day. Wife is already back to work and I just worked from home.

I an tell you after this even more so than before no shot for this family.
 

CoStick

WKR
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
1,364
The long haul and other side effects from the virus are the most concerning. Be interesting to see how they impact in the future.
 
Top