Coronavirus Thread

[Filbert_Ross]

1 hour ago, pmcla26 said:

It’s funny/annoying how on the PCR test results message it says ‘it’s likely you had COVID at the time of the test’. So you can’t say for certain? That’s great for us who aren’t ill, are struggling mentally and are also missing out on pay because of it. Thanks guys. 

that's how i am. 
 

Positive PCR. nothing wrong with me. 
just spoke to my work & they won't have me back until the full 10 days is up. 
no sick pay. 
 

great. 

[z-layrex]

3 hours ago, shade said:

 

 

I can't find it at the moment, but I saw a good one that showed not just mild side effects, but serious side effects were more likely as well.

 

Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study - The Lancet Infectious Diseases

 

Previous COVID-19 infection but not Long-COVID is associated with increased adverse events following BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination | medRxiv

 

Life | Free Full-Text | Self-Reported Real-World Safety and Reactogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Vaccine Recipient Survey | HTML (mdpi.com)

Some ropey studies on self reported mild symptoms, yeah this is really worth putting yourself and others more at risk.

[shade]

7 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

Some ropey studies on self reported mild symptoms, yeah this is really worth putting yourself and others more at risk.

Slight change from:

 

"This is totally untrue. You really must stop being so totally and utterly ridiculous"

Wait until I get started on the evidence for the use of Ivermectin in early stages of infection and how it's effectiveness has been shut down from above, the scenes will be chaotic in here.

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, shade said:

Slight change from:

 

"This is totally untrue. You really must stop being so totally and utterly ridiculous"

Wait until I get started on the evidence for the use of Ivermectin in early stages of infection and how it's effectiveness has been shut down from above, the scenes will be chaotic in here.

 

Really?

 

Speaking purely for myself I'd welcome such evidence, peer reviewed and based on scientific consensus which supplies the highest quality guaranteed and most trustworthy scientific information about the current state of the world.

 

...it is both of those things, right?

[shade]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Really?

 

Speaking purely for myself I'd welcome such evidence, peer reviewed and based on scientific consensus which supplies the highest quality guaranteed and most trustworthy scientific information about the current state of the world.

 

...it is both of those things, right?

Moderate certainty evidence isn't the highest quality guarantee you're looking for, but surely it's worth not just shutting down completely. There's also a lot of observational studies showing it's efficacy.

 

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

Also an excellent watch from Dr John Campbell, who is very pro vaccine, but is open to all science....
 

 

Edited 7 January 2022 by shade

[l444ry]

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

Moderate certainty evidence isn't the highest quality guarantee you're looking for, but surely it's worth not just shutting down completely. There's also a lot of observational studies showing it's efficacy.

 

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed (nih.gov)

Having had a cursory look at that article and some related ones right away, I would agree that at least more research is certainly warranted. However, I would certainly not recommend using it as any form of mass direct replacement for a vaccination program at this time.

 

To which I would add that unfortunately policymaking involving matters of science sometimes does not consider peer-reviewed findings as its first guide. Or sometimes even its second or third. See climate change for what science says we should be doing being pretty much ignored in such a way.

[shade]

1 minute ago, l444ry said:

OI, I find that offensive, I squat to defecate, every anti vaxxer knows that sitting is bad for your bowels.

[orangecity23]

Ooh, the Ivermectin is back. Always gets me how the people so against having a vaccine under any circumstances because of potential side effects are so keen on the head louse medicine, which according to Wikipedia has no side effects - oh wait, no there is actually

Quote

Side effects, although uncommon, include fever, itching, and skin rash when taken by mouth;^[6] and red eyes, dry skin, and burning skin when used topically for head lice.^[50] It is unclear if the drug is safe for use during pregnancy, but it is probably acceptable for use during breastfeeding.^[51]

Ivermectin is considered relatively free of toxicity in standard doses (around 300 µg/kg).^[52][53] Based on the data drug safety sheet for ivermectin,^[a] side effects are uncommon. However, serious adverse events following ivermectin treatment are more common in people with very high burdens of larval Loa loa worms in their blood.^[54] Those who have over 30,000 microfilaria per milliliter of blood risk inflammation and capillary blockage due to the rapid death of the microfilaria following ivermectin treatment.^[54]

One concern is neurotoxicity after large overdoses, which in most mammalian species may manifest as central nervous system depression,^[55] ataxia, coma, and even death,^[56][57] as might be expected from potentiation of inhibitory chloride channels.^[58]

So why are these side effects acceptable, but the vaccine ones aren't in any way shape or form? And you want to take the stuff as a preventitive measure? So you are going to continuously take this, for years to come, to avoid the virus? What are the long term side effects of continuously taking Ivermectin? Or are we not worried about those side effects, just the vaccine ones?

Edited 7 January 2022 by orangecity23
speeling wrung

[Babylon]

19 minutes ago, shade said:

Moderate certainty evidence isn't the highest quality guarantee you're looking for, but surely it's worth not just shutting down completely. There's also a lot of observational studies showing it's efficacy.

 

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

Also an excellent watch from Dr John Campbell, who is very pro vaccine, but is open to all science....
 

 

We've been through all of this before, their analysis is of sub standard trials that wouldn't be accepted as evidence generally, with some trial data completely faked and many showing zero impact. I remember you posting links the other day about a testing centre leaving the samples out (thus unblinding them). But apparently faking Ivermectin data doesn't warrant a mention?

[shade]

4 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

Ooh, the Ivermectin is back. Always gets me how the people so against having a vaccine under any circumstances because of potential side effects are so keen on the head louse medicine, which according to Wikipedia has no side effects - oh wait, no there is actually (wource: Wiki)

So why are these side effects acceptable, but the vaccine ones aren't in any way shape or form? And you want to take the stuff as a preventitive measure? So you are going to continuously take this, for years to come, to avoid the virus? What are the long term side effects of continuously taking Ivermectin? Or are we not worried about those side effects, just the vaccine ones?

As well as being a "head louse medicine" it's also a 3CL protease inhibitor and has anti-viral properties. It is out of patent though so can be made for a penny a dose so say it quietly, no money can be made on it by big pharmaceutical companies.

[shade]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We've been through all of this before, their analysis is of sub standard trials that wouldn't be accepted as evidence generally, with some trial data completely faked and many showing zero impact. I remember you posting links the other day about a testing centre leaving the samples out (thus unblinding them). But apparently faking Ivermectin data doesn't warrant a mention?

It may turn out that all the emerging evidence is wrong, but we should at least question why YouTube would remove doctors, scientists and physicians just for discussing Ivermectin?

 

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy o... : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

"In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19."

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, shade said:

As well as being a "head louse medicine" it's also a 3CL protease inhibitor and has anti-viral properties. It is out of patent though so can be made for a penny a dose so say it quietly, no money can be made on it by big pharmaceutical companies.

I'm glad you're so active today, can you please respond to my requests that I've made several times now? 

 

And answer the actual questions asked in the post you've quoted? 

 

Thank you 😊 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, shade said:

It may turn out that all the emerging evidence is wrong, but we should at least question why YouTube would remove doctors, scientists and physicians just for discussing Ivermectin?

 

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy o... : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

"In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19."

We should, and the answer is as follows:

 

Without clear and above all conclusive study on the matter, YouTube perhaps don't want to leave themselves open to lawsuits regarding potentially physically harmful misinformation - similar to if they left videos up of someone, even a professional figure, arguing that not wearing a seat-belt when in a car was safer than wearing one.

 

I'm not sure what legalese YouTube have regarding being a provider of content versus being liable for that content, though.

[shade]

2 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I'm glad you're so active today, can you please respond to my requests that I've made several times now? 

 

And answer the actual questions asked in the post you've quoted? 

 

Thank you 😊 

Apologies Deb, I'll go back and look at the other questions, but I'm batting against lot of people here so might miss stuff, not wilfully (maybe sometimes lol).

 

With regards Ivermectin side effects, I personally have never taken it preventatively and I didn't take it when I got covid. I just find it interesting that even when science does seem to be pointing in one direction, it seems to be getting supressed, which speaks to what leicsmac was saying about not questioning the scientific method.

 

I'm not proposing everyone should take Ivermectin prophylactically in place of the vaccine. I think the vaccine has been helpful in getting us out of the worst of it (for now) and people should definitely get it if they want it and have given it due consideration.

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, shade said:

Apologies Deb, I'll go back and look at the other questions, but I'm batting against lot of people here so might miss stuff, not wilfully (maybe sometimes lol).

 

With regards Ivermectin side effects, I personally have never taken it preventatively and I didn't take it when I got covid. I just find it interesting that even when science does seem to be pointing in one direction, it seems to be getting supressed, which speaks to what leicsmac was saying about not questioning the scientific method.

 

I'm not proposing everyone should take Ivermectin prophylactically in place of the vaccine. I think the vaccine has been helpful in getting us out of the worst of it (for now) and people should definitely get it if they want it and have given it due consideration.

 

 

Sorry as I know you have a lot of irons in the fire here, but would you mind unpacking this a bit?

[orangecity23]

Nobody supressed Dexamethasone being used as a treatment though, and that's another cheap and old medecine? The NHS carried out as big a trial as they could and now it's being used and publicised on a widespread basis. How's Big Pharma managed to let that one slip by while they were plotting against poor ivermectin, by suppressing all these small scale studies by err, not preventing them getting into journals and being discussed freely online.

 

[FoxesDeb]

4 minutes ago, shade said:

Apologies Deb, I'll go back and look at the other questions, but I'm batting against lot of people here so might miss stuff, not wilfully (maybe sometimes lol).

 

With regards Ivermectin side effects, I personally have never taken it preventatively and I didn't take it when I got covid. I just find it interesting that even when science does seem to be pointing in one direction, it seems to be getting supressed, which speaks to what leicsmac was saying about not questioning the scientific method.

 

I'm not proposing everyone should take Ivermectin prophylactically in place of the vaccine. I think the vaccine has been helpful in getting us out of the worst of it (for now) and people should definitely get it if they want it and have given it due consideration.

 

 

Thank you. I'm always grateful for clarity backed up by reputable, peer reviewed sources, it bothers me when claims are made as fact given that for every one of us posting in this thread there are possibly dozens or even hundreds more young and impressionable people reading.

 

For what it's worth it's refreshing to be able to have a coherent conversation with someone 'from the other side', and I respect your choices even if I don't necessarily agree with them personally. 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

Nobody supressed Dexamethasone being used as a treatment though, and that's another cheap and old medecine? The NHS carried out as big a trial as they could and now it's being used and publicised on a widespread basis. How's Big Pharma managed to let that one slip by while they were plotting against poor ivermectin, by suppressing all these small scale studies by err, not preventing them getting into journals and being discussed freely online.

 

Come on @shade ....... or did they just pick on ivermectin cos trump championed it ??

[shade]

23 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Come on @shade ....... or did they just pick on ivermectin cos trump championed it ??

Wasn't that hydroxychloroquine? I don't have all the answers unfortunately.

Edited 7 January 2022 by shade

[Babylon]

35 minutes ago, shade said:

It may turn out that all the emerging evidence is wrong, but we should at least question why YouTube would remove doctors, scientists and physicians just for discussing Ivermectin?

 

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy o... : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

"In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19."

There are 1000's of videos on Youtube about it, perhaps it's WHAT they said rather than WHAT they are talking about. 

 

Your link is still using now discredited data and non standard trials. I posted you the link a while back that removed all the falsified data and trials that featured bias (ergo not really worthy).

[shade]

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

There are 1000's of videos on Youtube about it, perhaps it's WHAT they said rather than WHAT they are talking about. 

 

Your link is still using now discredited data and non standard trials. I posted you the link a while back that removed all the falsified data and trials that featured bias (ergo not really worthy).

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 73 studies (ivmmeta.com)

 

That's quite a lot of studies. Large, high quality studies are unfortunately time consuming and very costly to do.

[st albans fox]

27 minutes ago, shade said:

Wasn't that hydroxychloroquine? I don't have all the answers unfortunately.

yes it was but it doesn't change the question re demex which is v cheap and adopted as a treatment 

[shade]

37 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

yes it was but it doesn't change the question re demex which is v cheap and adopted as a treatment 

I edited the response because I don't want to risk misinformation with claims that can't be substantiated. There's a difference though between a steroid for people who are already seriously ill and a drug that may help prevent hospitalisation and be a treatment in the early stages of disease.

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, shade said:

I edited the response because I don't want to risk misinformation with claims that can't be substantiated. There's a difference though between a steroid for people who are already seriously ill and a drug that may help prevent hospitalisation and be a treatment in the early stages of disease.

unless you're suggesting potentially using ivermectin i/o vaccines, i'm not sure what your point is ??