Pine_marten
Active Member
- Region
- USA
With pFauci as their high priest now it will end the same way for them unfortunately. There will be no champagne room or deluxe complimentary tickets on the magic reset bus for these neo lib fools!
Instead of banning certain members...
- Thread starter Stefan Mikes
- Start date
- Status
There is help out there for this also. IMASK is the key.
Info is info.. take it for what its worth .. at some point it starts making sense... but the Data the data the data.... I know... They told you different Another of those things that make you go Hmmm
Interesting none the less
ALERT: EVIDENCE FROM THE NETHERLANDS STRONGLY SUGGESTS: THE CURRENT BA.5 OMICRON WAVE IS A CONSEQUENCE OF MASS VACCINATION! See this thread for the explanation
Another thread on a similar topic
igorchudov.substack.com
Interesting none the less
ALERT: EVIDENCE FROM THE NETHERLANDS STRONGLY SUGGESTS: THE CURRENT BA.5 OMICRON WAVE IS A CONSEQUENCE OF MASS VACCINATION! See this thread for the explanation
Another thread on a similar topic
Ba.5 is a "Variant for Boosted People"
South Africa vs. Portugal: Same Variant, Opposite Outcomes
igorchudov.substack.com
Last edited:
Pine_marten
Active Member
- Region
- USA
What happened to critical thinking?
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Tom prints out maliciously altered statements done by his "vetted fact checkers".
Nothing if not a laugh.
Mike_V
Well-Known Member
Oh you got around to Zoster vaccine that failed.
Zostavax was discontinued in the United States in November 2020. ( DID NOT WORK)
{enter new scary TV commercial}
Two shot (!)! Shingrix appears to prevent more cases of shingles than Zostavax, although side effects seem to be more frequent.
"I kind of know what it feels like to have a bad reaction to a vaccine, because I had a far worse reaction to Shingrix-- that one gave my a fever and heart palpitations that lasted around a year. And the mRNA vaccines can make people feel weird in ways that can be distinctly unsettling. The weird dreams are very strange."
Zostavax was discontinued in the United States in November 2020. ( DID NOT WORK)
{enter new scary TV commercial}
Two shot (!)! Shingrix appears to prevent more cases of shingles than Zostavax, although side effects seem to be more frequent.
"I kind of know what it feels like to have a bad reaction to a vaccine, because I had a far worse reaction to Shingrix-- that one gave my a fever and heart palpitations that lasted around a year. And the mRNA vaccines can make people feel weird in ways that can be distinctly unsettling. The weird dreams are very strange."
Guess no one reads the internet? First most people recuperates next day from drinking wine haaaa...Either way..
Not just my experience
Conclusion
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome shows 63% [52‑71%] and 83% [74‑89%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, for primary outcomes, for peer-reviewed studies, and for RCTs. Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 56 studies from 51 independent teams in 22 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (39 for primary outcomes, and 36 for the most serious outcome). Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 55 of 88 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
Ivermectin in COVID-19 - FLCCC | Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
The MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for Covid-19 is a physiologic-based combination treatment regimen created by leaders in critical care medicine.
covid19criticalcare.com
Wow who woulda thunk it... Scientific? Data? Wonder if you will understand the Data this time? OR the Science.. Probably not good enough this go round.. You guys kill me lol.
These pages contain the scientific rationale for our recommendation of the use of ivermectin in COVID-19
Fun stuff to read
India's Ivermectin Blackout - Part V: The Secret Revealed
On May 7, 2021, during the peak of India's Delta Surge, The World Health Organization reported, "Uttar Pradesh (is) going the last mile to stop COVID-19."
Little older but you get the point.. or maybe not?
Ivermectin as a multifaceted drug in COVID-19: Current insights
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study
Ivermectin was shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 replication in vitro, which has led to off-label use, but clinical efficacy has not been described previously.Does ivermectin benefit hospitalized coronavirus disease ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study - PubMed
Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Repurposing the drug, ivermectin, in COVID-19: toxicological points of view
The global COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world’s population by causing changes in behavior, such as social distancing, masking, restricting people’s movement, and evaluating existing medication as potential therapies. Many pre-existing ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro - PubMed
Although several clinical trials are now underway to test possible therapies, the worldwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been largely limited to monitoring/containment. We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Who to trust and who to believe? I believe the science and the Dr's above... AMazes me that nobody reads or searches anymore .. TV has rotted your thinking caps.
Look him up and what he did early in the pandemic..
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko MD
vladimirzelenkomd.com
Fun stuff
Attachments
tomjasz
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Minnesnowta
"The least vaccinated municipality in the country is the traditional fishing island Urk, a very traditional Christian community, where just 18% is boosted and 34% fully vaccinated."
THAT ALONE SHOULD SET OFF ALARMS
That's a big concern for us because what has happened before in Europe has happened here in the United States, and we could see here in the United States a third wave, especially from BA.4 and BA.5, which are increasing as a percentage of the variants that are circulating.
We know right now from several studies that previous infections from other variants do not provide as much immunity against Omicron and BA.4 and BA.5. Also, the vaccines are less effective in terms of preventing infection. They're still effective against severe illness and mortality for BA.4 and BA.5.
So putting these two together, we are very much concerned that we could see potentially in the United States another wave after the second wave due to BA.4, BA.5, relaxation of the mandates, increased mobility, and low mask wearing.
We will update our numbers in July, most likely the second week due to the holiday, and we will take into account all this new information about the spread of BA.4 and BA.5 in Europe, and the new studies that are showing less effect of the vaccine against BA.4 and BA.5.
THAT ALONE SHOULD SET OFF ALARMS
CASES RISING IN EUROPE
On the global level, what we are seeing right now is a rise in some European countries. We see a third wave, driven mainly by BA.4 and BA.5, and the relaxation of mandates, increased mobility, and low mask wearing. We see the third wave with an increasing number of reported cases, and we see it in France, in Germany, beginning of it in the UK, in Greece, in Israel.That's a big concern for us because what has happened before in Europe has happened here in the United States, and we could see here in the United States a third wave, especially from BA.4 and BA.5, which are increasing as a percentage of the variants that are circulating.
We know right now from several studies that previous infections from other variants do not provide as much immunity against Omicron and BA.4 and BA.5. Also, the vaccines are less effective in terms of preventing infection. They're still effective against severe illness and mortality for BA.4 and BA.5.
So putting these two together, we are very much concerned that we could see potentially in the United States another wave after the second wave due to BA.4, BA.5, relaxation of the mandates, increased mobility, and low mask wearing.
We will update our numbers in July, most likely the second week due to the holiday, and we will take into account all this new information about the spread of BA.4 and BA.5 in Europe, and the new studies that are showing less effect of the vaccine against BA.4 and BA.5.
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
If "effective" means you're more likely to get sick and hospitalized if you're boostered than if you're unvaccinated or double vaccinated. then yes, the vaccines are indeed still effective. Why? Because you're more than twice as likely to be a case in the first place than the unvaccinated are.
Last edited:
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Translation: " After we evaluate the effectiveness of blowback against this deception, we will present an update."
Pine_marten
Active Member
- Region
- USA
Just remember, positive pcr tests are not cases. Cases have positive symptoms that confirm the illness. Lots of Teachers, Nurses and Longshoremen have figured out that they can feel fine and take multiple tests until they get a false positive and get a three week vacation.
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
And not a word about increased infectivity of the virus.
Catalyzt
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
We should run through the articles listed in one of the posts here which contains links to six peer-reviewed studies, because this is actually fantastic information. Several of them actually explain-- and very clearly-- why Ivermectin should not be used in humans for COVID.
I'm sure the author is just a sweet, honest, and gentle guy who only wants the best for all of us. I'm sure that this post's resemblance-- in form and content-- to the propaganda disseminated by useful idiots and Russian spies to sow chaos and confusion is entirely coincidental.
'Its information use it or not..' 'Life is full of choices' 'Who to trust and who to believe?'
The use of language is very revealing. The idea is you're supposed to throw up your hands and say, "So much data, so much information! All of it scientific! Who knows what to believe anymore?"
But let's not do that. Let's go through these articles one by one.
1) The claims of Iverectin’s success in Uttar Pradesh have been completely debunked. The most important data point is that UP’s testing was so bad that they only detected about one case out of every hundred. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-suggests-a-causal-link-between-ivermectin-recommendation-and-the-decline-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-indian-state-of-uttar-pradesh/
2) This article explains why there is no decisive evidence demonstrating the efficacy of Ivermectin, and why it's not practical to use in humans: “While the findings by Caly et al. provide some promise, several pharmacokinetic factors limit the immediate translation of their findings, and there is no convincing evidence that the 5 μM concentration of Ivermectin used in their in-vitro study can be achieved in vivo.”
“So far, research related to Ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in indecisive evidence.”
3) This is a meta-analysis— and as we can see from article #2, there are methodological limitations in many of the studies. So simply looking at the number of studies that showed a benefit will not yield a reliable result. Right? If the studies don't demonstrate conclusively that Ivermectin is effective, it doesn't matter whether there are 4 or 400.
4) This study does not recommend Ivermectin, either, because it acknowledges that there are too many confounding factors. Also, most patients in this study were on Ivermectin for two days or less. (Note: Unless you have some kind of cognitive disability, it should be clear that this does NOT mean that Ivermectin cures COVID in less than two days!) Also note that it’s also a retrospective study: Retrospective studies are generally used to study cause and effect relationships between a disease and an outcome. They do not explain why the factors that affect these relationships exist. Experimental studies are needed to determine why a certain factor is associated with a particular outcome. Like a meta analysis, this is not a study where someone actually started with an outcome measure that demonstrated the efficacy of the drug and set out to prove whether it worked or not.
5) This is the same article as #4. Listing the same article twice doesn't make it more true.
6) This article also warns against using Ivermectin. Massive doses would be needed to see any anti-COVID effect, and those doses could be deadly to someone who has severe inflammation.
“Available evidence suggests that ivermectin levels with significant activity against SARS-CoV-2 may only be achieved with a considerable increase in its dose which could have toxic effects [84]. Although pharmacokinetic studies on healthy subjects have shown that single doses of up to 120 mg of ivermectin are safe and well-tolerated, the concentration achieved may be of an order of magnitude lower than the Cmax necessary for anti-SARS-COV-2 activity seen in vitro [32].”
7) This is an early article, from June of 2020, that notes that Ivermectin inhibits COVID 19 in the lab. Articles 2 and 6 actually describe why the same results cannot be achieved in the human body.
I'm sure the author is just a sweet, honest, and gentle guy who only wants the best for all of us. I'm sure that this post's resemblance-- in form and content-- to the propaganda disseminated by useful idiots and Russian spies to sow chaos and confusion is entirely coincidental.
'Its information use it or not..' 'Life is full of choices' 'Who to trust and who to believe?'
The use of language is very revealing. The idea is you're supposed to throw up your hands and say, "So much data, so much information! All of it scientific! Who knows what to believe anymore?"
But let's not do that. Let's go through these articles one by one.
1) The claims of Iverectin’s success in Uttar Pradesh have been completely debunked. The most important data point is that UP’s testing was so bad that they only detected about one case out of every hundred. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-suggests-a-causal-link-between-ivermectin-recommendation-and-the-decline-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-indian-state-of-uttar-pradesh/
2) This article explains why there is no decisive evidence demonstrating the efficacy of Ivermectin, and why it's not practical to use in humans: “While the findings by Caly et al. provide some promise, several pharmacokinetic factors limit the immediate translation of their findings, and there is no convincing evidence that the 5 μM concentration of Ivermectin used in their in-vitro study can be achieved in vivo.”
“So far, research related to Ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in indecisive evidence.”
3) This is a meta-analysis— and as we can see from article #2, there are methodological limitations in many of the studies. So simply looking at the number of studies that showed a benefit will not yield a reliable result. Right? If the studies don't demonstrate conclusively that Ivermectin is effective, it doesn't matter whether there are 4 or 400.
4) This study does not recommend Ivermectin, either, because it acknowledges that there are too many confounding factors. Also, most patients in this study were on Ivermectin for two days or less. (Note: Unless you have some kind of cognitive disability, it should be clear that this does NOT mean that Ivermectin cures COVID in less than two days!) Also note that it’s also a retrospective study: Retrospective studies are generally used to study cause and effect relationships between a disease and an outcome. They do not explain why the factors that affect these relationships exist. Experimental studies are needed to determine why a certain factor is associated with a particular outcome. Like a meta analysis, this is not a study where someone actually started with an outcome measure that demonstrated the efficacy of the drug and set out to prove whether it worked or not.
5) This is the same article as #4. Listing the same article twice doesn't make it more true.
6) This article also warns against using Ivermectin. Massive doses would be needed to see any anti-COVID effect, and those doses could be deadly to someone who has severe inflammation.
“Available evidence suggests that ivermectin levels with significant activity against SARS-CoV-2 may only be achieved with a considerable increase in its dose which could have toxic effects [84]. Although pharmacokinetic studies on healthy subjects have shown that single doses of up to 120 mg of ivermectin are safe and well-tolerated, the concentration achieved may be of an order of magnitude lower than the Cmax necessary for anti-SARS-COV-2 activity seen in vitro [32].”
7) This is an early article, from June of 2020, that notes that Ivermectin inhibits COVID 19 in the lab. Articles 2 and 6 actually describe why the same results cannot be achieved in the human body.
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
OK, let's see what evidence this most honest member has for the above claim.
Not evidence for the claim. In fact, the article was not even used, a "fact checker" is the source.
Not evidence for the claim
Not evidence for the claim. Further:
That is a stupid pleading; numbers do matter - that's why studies with large numbers are preferred. And that is one function of meta-analyses, as well - bringing big numbers to bear. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049418/
Not evidence for his claim, "Does not recommend" is not recommending against.
Not evidence for the claim
Not evidence for the claim unless massive doses are recommended and he has no evidence of that.
Not evidence for the claim
Last edited:
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
I think it will be nice to check these studies in attempt to find the several which Catalyzt claims "actually explain-- and very clearly-- why Ivermectin should not be used in humans for COVID."
Last edited:
Handlebars
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
This language use is very interesting. The study does not recommend Ivermectin (...) because it acknowledges that there are too many confounding factors.
The language does not say "because" there are too many confounding factors. It says "because" it acknowledges.
So that would mean it is merely the opinion of Catalyst, doesn't it?
Worth taking a look. Is this mere fantasy spun by Catalyst, or does the study actually say something like that? That "Too many confounding factors" .....
Here is what the study actually said about the INTERPRETATIONS of the findings...tempered by the POSSIBILITY
So different from what we were told:
That is not at all like
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
