Bowsite.com

I pointed out how in Bet med we have all sorts of liberty for off label use. But regulations prevent such issues on humans.

One thing is for certain, we still do not know hardly anything about the damn mess. The data is being manipulated all the time, and corruption will likely prevent us from ever really knowing…

Gaslighting is the best way to blow your cover and prove you don't actually have an argument of your own.

That's because it's easy to figure out if you completed a basic high school education. Sorry doc's, you're not the only ones that can process and understand the data...

Do you even grasp the *concept* of 'vaccination' ? Or is the static too loud?

This

I don`t wear masks, don`t practice the mythical/ridiculous 6' social distance rule....so far so good.

This so called shot is NOT a vaccine.....mRNA using a synthetic to initiate an immune response does not meet the definition of a "vaccine". Why else would the CDC change the definition of "vaccine" last week. Don`t even get me started on which "not a vaccine" was actually approved by the FDA.

What happened to the left`s mantra....."my body my choice"?

Nothing. It's just become a popular mantra for the right now. Irony is beautiful.

Matt

You call people 'sheep' but who are the lemmings following the anti-vax preachers off a cliff? Happy landings!

“Approximately 97% of people with severe disease from the delta variant are unvaccinated,” she says. “That gives you an idea of how effective these vaccines are. I think that number is a point that cannot be overemphasized.” "

https://uihc.org/news/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-how-sick-can-you-get

I`m just glad you admit it`s not a vaccine. When was the last time you heard of someone having a mild case of Polio or Smallpox....or your dog having a mild case of rabies?

You got the jab now you have a monkey on your back for life....well done.

Gosh dang it Matt, I’ve had to many bud lights to argue about irony tonight

Here's the thing - anyone who does not get vaxxed, and dies from covid, well, the Democrats figure that's one less vote for the Republicans. (I would love to see how covid deaths break down per party affiliation...) And *they* are sitting there looking all serious while they laugh up their sleeves.

Got data to back that?

Really? BOTH sides want POWER. Both sides know HOW to get it - MONEY. And the money is in military spending. If you were paying attention last week, BOTH sides were pushing for MORE spending. Defense contractors get rich, they kick back a percentage to RE-election PACs, (yes, on BOTH sides), defense contracts get parcelled out to 'friendly' congressional districts, rinse and repeat.

Did you ever look at how many states make parts for that POS F-35?

Ike warned us about this bullshit. January 1961, Eisenhower's Farewell Address. Probably the most important document in modern history, and bet your ass it is NOT being taught in schools, regardless of which way the district swings.

Democrats. Republicans. Whores of Mammon, every one of them.

$$$$$$$$

That speaks volumes on this subject.

Matt

Nonsense. Per the FDA (see link for the official announcement): "Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older."

" The creator of the mRNA technology, Robert Malone...."

More nonsense. Malone is just one of hundreds who contributed to the development of mRNA vaccines over decades of research.

I didn't read the the rest of your rambling post, since you missed badly on your first 2 points.

Matt

Why are liability protections still in place for an approved "vaccine". "Cominarty" is not expected to be produced until late 2022-2023.

There have been legal scholars and large law firms that looked into the legal ease of the "approval" and it appears "legally" the citizens have been hoodwinked again.

Well, that’s straight up wrong.

It is an identical product with the same formulation. To suggest Cominarty has never been manufactured is misleading at a minimum. It’s the same vaccine. The only meaningful differences are how it is legally treated and how it is being marketed.

“Comirnaty has the same formulation as the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

Furthermore, since it is an identical product chemically speaking, it has been produced and studied extensively.

“Follow-up data from this ongoing clinical trial was analyzed by FDA to determine the safety and effectiveness of Comirnaty. The updated analysis to determine effectiveness for individuals 16 years of age and older included approximately 20,000 Comirnaty and 20,000 placebo recipients who did not have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through seven days after the second dose. Overall, the vaccine was 91% effective, with 77 cases of COVID-19 occurring in the vaccine group and 833 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group.

The safety was evaluated in approximately 22,000 Comirnaty and 22,000 placebo recipients 16 years of age and older. More than half of the vaccine and placebo recipients were followed for safety for at least four months after the second dose. After issuance of the EUA, participants were unblinded in a phased manner over a period of months to offer placebo participants Comirnaty. Overall, in blinded and unblinded follow-up, approximately 12,000 Comirnaty recipients have been followed for at least 6 months.”

It blows me away how misinformed some Bowsiters can be. Even after our own experts, like Ike and Mike in CT, have taken time to explain the facts, they still cling to their misinformation. And worse, they try to spread it.

Matt

I’d say I’m shocked, but unfortunately I’m not surprised. It reinforces how real the struggle is, though, when people do not even get the most basic of facts.

The shots being given ARE NOT Cominarty, they are BioNTech.....the term "interchangeable" is not a legal term.

The shots being given still fall under EUA and the makers are still under liability protection. Somehow you think that`s a small point. Large law firms have gone through this with a fine tooth comb in preparation for possible litigation. The name change from BioNTech which actually sounds like a medicine to Cominarty.....sounds like a candy bar....should tell you everything you need to know. You have been played.

It`s sad our citizenry isn`t more informed and so easily misled.

No, it isn’t. Again, people not understanding basic facts. BioNTech is a company, not a product.

It`s sad our citizenry isn`t more informed and so easily misled.

Coming from someone who doesn’t even understand BioNTech is a company that developed the vaccine with Pfizer, this is one of the most ironic of statements I’ve read.

Where to begin. BioNTech is the name of a company, and not a product. Too many of you seem to be misunderstanding this very basic point.

The whole point behind rebranding the vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech and giving it a name is the fact that it can now be legally marketed and advertised.

Continuing the EUA has everything to do about inventory management and vaccine distribution, and nothing to do with trying to pull one over on the American public.

As someone once said, “It`s sad our citizenry isn`t more informed and so easily misled.”

If you change the name of an apple, it's still an apple. Cominarty and the Pfizer vaccine are the SAME formulation, and can be used interchangably, per the FDA.

As for your liability concerns, you can thank GW Bush for that one. He signed the PREP Act into law that allows the federal government to provide liability immunity to drug manufactures in circumstances like these. Which, btw, is probably why the vaccines are free to everyone.

You see, unlike you apparently, I don't have an inherent distrust for our government, nor our medical community. I applauded Trump when he rolled out Operation Warp Speed to streamline the development, manufacturing, and distribution of the COVID vaccines. I honestly think that the record short timeline that it took to bring us the vaccines will go down as one of our medical community's greatest achievements in the last few decades.

Matt

I stand by my statement of people being "hoodwinked" and "uninformed".

The FDA receives 45% of it`s funding from fees from Big Pharma.....65% of the fees from human use medical drugs fund the FDA. Do a quick search of how many FDA officials leave the FDA and are now working for Big Pharma.

This so called "vaccine" doesn`t even have the actual virus in it....it`s a synthetic and doesn`t meet the definition of a "vaccine".

You are correct about one thing.....no I do not trust the government that funded and help create the virus that killed millions. By the time it`s all said and done, the US government will have a hand in Hitleresque death tallies. So no I do not "trust" big government.

But you probably still believe it was bat soup that created this virus...so....

They are the SAME product. The “Pfizer” vaccine was developed in conjunction with the company BioNTech. It has been produced, administered, and tested and this vaccine is now fully approved by the FDA. It has now been rebranded as the product Cominarty after extensive testing in human beings - just because the name changed doesn’t mean that it is something “different” in all the ways that matter medically speaking. This really isn’t that hard.

And yes it is a vaccine. The overall definition of what a vaccine is has not changed. It is a still a “substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases.”

Stop with the misinformation and get your damn facts right. This is just sad.

Matt

Matt

Spike, I see the same thing on both sides. I tend to believe whoever comes in with hard data. Not bluster, not arguments 'ad hominem'.

it's even worse. advil and ibuprofen can be and often are manufactured by different companies. in this case its the same company, same vaccine, they just gave it a legal name. ...same damn parents...same damn baby...now it has a legal name.

Haha, the current attempts at restricting abortion and voting suggests otherwise.

Make it easy. How are voting rights being restricted in Texas Facts only please, based on what was passed as law?

Make it easy by twisting the discussion to limit it only to bills that have been passed, only bills that relate to voting rights, and then only those passed in Texas? Given the previous comments to which we were responding , that seems to be a really intellectually dishonest question.

The GOP exists outside of Texas, the things they desire to do are not fully embodied in passed legislation, and those desires extend beyond voting rights.

Let's talk about the abortion law that Texas recently passed which, as I understand it, bans abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy (which is sooner than many women learn they are pregnant), so it could be construed as a de facto abortion ban. While I am generally pro-life, the COVID/vaccine discussion has opened my eyes to how important it is to let people to make personal decisions that affect the lives of others. As such - and I am sure you are on the same page - people should be allowed to make healthcare decisions personally without consideration of how they impact others (in this case, an unborn fetus).

Tangentially, I find it ironic that conservatives are generally both pro-life and anti-welfare - so in many cases they both want to force women to have babies they do not want/cannot afford and then desire to eliminate the social safety net that they would need.

On the voting front, the grand irony is that most legislative changes were initiated by people who have bought into Trumps lies surrounding the 2020 presidential election having been fixed (of which I have seen 0 evidence). That is flatly stupid.

Since the election, GOPD politicians in 43 states have proposed ~250 laws to change the voting process. Much of this legislation was designed to limit mail in ballots, limit early in-person and election day voting and impose stricter voter ID requirements. While I am on board with ID requirements, from an outsider's perspective much of the other proposed legislation appears to be designed to limit access to low income/minority voters. In my opinion, that is flatly un-Americans.

One only has to look at some of the aspects of Georgia's voter law that subtly makes it more difficult for some people to vote and also makes the process of evaluating any contested ballots more subject to a partisan process. Again, that seems patently un-American.

If it makes you fell better, I think Biden's comments about these efforts being "Jim Crow 2.0" are hyperbolic and inflammatory, but I think that in a subtle way he is directionally correct as to their intent.

"We support important freedoms", like the right to smoke menthol cigarettes and bike without helmets. Lah dee dah. When the _hard_ choices come down you're as authoritarian as the Taliban.

Put religious beliefs aside..a child in the womb is a person unto themselves. ..real science proves that. You have no argument other than the fact you believe we have a right to decide what class of people have no rights. Kinda like the pro slavery crowd declaring black people were not human and equal to the white race. Whether you are a Christian, athiest or whetever, natural law tells us certain things are wrong. You just dont wantvto accept it

This is why I won't debate it. You can not be for 'rights' when you casually dismiss the rights of half the population. And sorry, all the arguments you will make -next- about sex will be based on religious beliefs. So...

Not impressed when 'conservatives' adopt and then abandon libertarian principles to suit their needs.

Because while I strongly support vaccination, I prefer shaming those who oppose it to mandating it. And while I support 'abortion rights' I strongly prefer shaming women who fail to use proper birth control.

Be careful what you wish for.

Unless it's your daughter? Downs?

The law defining right versus wrong is written in the Ten Commandments. End of story. No interpretation needed.

EXACTLY what YOU are doing, putting the unborn against the already-living. And disenfranchising HER.

This whole statement is demonstrably false. Medicines, vaccines or otherwise, do not all require "years" of testing, and the fully approved Pfizer vaccine went through all the normal FDA processes, including the three phases of clinical trials.

Second, Robert Malone did indeed invent mRNA technology. The only people claiming he didn't are liberal media outlets, you know the ones you get your "facts" from.

He was one of the first and one of many, but there are others who the scientific community (not the liberal media outlets) give more credit to with respect to mRNA vaccine technology. As GG rightly points out, there were multiple players involved and he was but one.

So you might want to look in the mirror when you discuss "ignorant" and "incorrect" assertions, Dave.

What gives the gov't of Texas the authority to decide?

Look. Abortion sucks. It is not the easy choice the religious right makes it out to be. (Ask a women's health counselor about that.) But when the option of providing all women (and all men) with easy access to birth control is brought up, the religious right either comes out as anti-sex (good luck with that!) or they trot out the 'socialist medicine!' play. Either way, they get to feel good about themselves without putting any money up. I don't know which is worse, the phony piety or the plain damn cheapness.

You want to cut down on abortions? Pony up. (And sorry, no, poor women will not stop having sex with or without protection, just because it pleases you.)

The Constitution is also not an enumeration of all of the rights to which we have been endowed. And the SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution does protect the right to an abortion (citing the 9th and 14th Amendments).

Wow. I think you're a racist and want to deny minorities the right to vote and affordable health care.

A lot of things don't 'match up with the Constitution'. that's the same silly argument anti-gunners use about the 2nd and 'assault rifles.' The Constitution and BoR was never intended to be a *comprehensive* list of the rights we enjoy. The Ninth Amendment, reads as follows: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Hence the 'right to privacy' - and hence abortion - affirmed by SCOTUS in Roe v wade.

So you are supportive of mask and vaccine mandates?

It has a lot to do with them having been treated like lab rats by our government in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and others.

No wonder this country is such piss poor condition.

"No, the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells. However, fetal cell lines – cells grown in a laboratory based on aborted fetal cells collected generations ago – were used in testing during research and development of the mRNA vaccines, and during production of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. "

From my understanding, no, it's not true. They use lab grown stem cell clones that descend from fetal cells collected 50 years ago. They are called "fetal cell lines". Basically, it's like keeping a heirloom tomato strain going. The specific fetal cell line used in testing the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is called HEK 293.

Disclaimer, I'm not a scientist, doctor, nor a contagious virus expert. But, I can search and read articles from reputable sources to educate myself.

Matt

So, I guess you're against the vaccines for smallpox, rubella, Hepatitis A, and rabies, too, eh? They were all tested on viruses grown on fetal cells.

The obvious reason they test vaccines using lab grown fetal cells is because the viruses being targeted affect human cells, and not necessarily animal cells.

Matt

Speaking of brain washed and manipulated, what leads you to believe that long-terms side effects are likely from a 1 or 2 dose vaccine? We are not talking about a daily medication that builds in the body over time. Vaccine side effects generally present within ~6 weeks of being administered. There have been almost 6B doses given worldwide, so there is robust data on which side effects have been observed and their relative frequency.

In fact, I recently read an article from someone in the medical field saying that we have a more robust data set for the COVID vaccines given their broad-based administration than we get from the clinical trials done to support FDA approval of other drugs.

Just another straw man....

Who is saying "my body, my choice" only applies to abortion? If one approaches both COVID vaccination and abortion from the overarching perspective that life is sacred and should be protected, they should be logically consistent and apply that to both (or neither). Invoking it on their own behalf but rejecting other's ability to do so comes off as massively hypocritical.

"Who is saying "my body, my choice" only applies to abortion? If one approaches both COVID vaccination and abortion from the overarching perspective that life is sacred and should be protected, they should be logically consistent and apply that to both (or neither). Invoking it on their own behalf but rejecting other's ability to do so comes off as massively hypocritical. "

My body my choice for abortion in fact ends up killing 50% of the people involved in the activity. It's my body I can do what I want.

Yet when it's my body and I don't want to get a forced vaccination, you're telling me I can't do what I want...despite virus killing far less than 50% of the people involved. Like less than 1%...

Hah, that couldn't be further from the truth. I just wish you would be logically consistent, keep up with the news if you are going to post up conspiracy theories on breaking news that pretty much everyone else knew about 3 months ago, and brush up on your math skills.

Do you support the paid-informant, legal-harrassment system that Texas has put into law? Because that crap is straight out of the KGB playbook. Or the Stasi. Tyranny at its damnedest.

The people from Texas that I've 'met' on the internet here and elsewhere are good folks, but they have started a culture war that I fear is going to burn them badly. I hope I'm wrong, both for them and because it might spread worse than any physical disease.

Again, straight up wrong. Directly from the FDA website (which is hilarious that you linked to because if you spent any time looking at what was done you'd realize how far off base you are).

FDA-approved vaccines undergo the agency’s standard process for reviewing the quality, safety and effectiveness of medical products. For all vaccines, the FDA evaluates data and information included in the manufacturer’s submission of a biologics license application (BLA). A BLA is a comprehensive document that is submitted to the agency providing very specific requirements. For Comirnaty, the BLA builds on the extensive data and information previously submitted that supported the EUA, such as preclinical and clinical data and information, as well as details of the manufacturing process, vaccine testing results to ensure vaccine quality, and inspections of the sites where the vaccine is made. The agency conducts its own analyses of the information in the BLA to make sure the vaccine is safe and effective and meets the FDA’s standards for approval.

...

The first EUA, issued Dec. 11, for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for individuals 16 years of age and older was based on safety and effectiveness data from a randomized, controlled, blinded ongoing clinical trial of thousands of individuals.

To support the FDA’s approval decision today, the FDA reviewed updated data from the clinical trial which supported the EUA and included a longer duration of follow-up in a larger clinical trial population.

Specifically, in the FDA’s review for approval, the agency analyzed effectiveness data from approximately 20,000 vaccine and 20,000 placebo recipients ages 16 and older who did not have evidence of the COVID-19 virus infection within a week of receiving the second dose. The safety of Comirnaty was evaluated in approximately 22,000 people who received the vaccine and 22,000 people who received a placebo 16 years of age and older.

Based on results from the clinical trial, the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease.

More than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for at least four months after the second dose. Overall, approximately 12,000 recipients have been followed for at least 6 months.

You provide a link to the steps necessary to obtain vaccine approval, all of which were followed as required as it pertains to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The other links you provided are nothing more than opinion pieces, from some mighty dubious sources I may add (the New Eastern Outlook? LOL).

But I'll give you another chance and ask the same question others have, what specifically was done outside of the FDA guidelines/requirements as it pertained to the approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine? Posting a link to all the steps that were actually followed doesn't really help your case.

Mike in CT, who has 30 years of experience in the infectious virus field, has already explained, in depth, how the usual FDA approval process was streamlined, largely due to Trump's multi-billion dollar Project Warp Speed, to make Covid vaccines available in record time. I'm sure you'd be praising those efforts, if he were still in office.

After decades of research and development by hundreds of scientists around the world, If you still think Robert Malone was the sole inventor of the mRNA technology, there's not much I can do but shake my head and ignore you.

Matt

"[Comirnaty] is absolutely not available. So the little trick that they have done here, is [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] issued two separate letters for two separate vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine, which is what currently available is still under Emergency Use Authorization…

The product that’s licensed [by the FDA] is the BioNTech product, which is substantially similar but not necessarily identical. It’s called Comirnaty. And it’s not yet available. They haven’t started manufacturing it or labeling it."

You do realize he's walked back that statement right? He admitted he was completely wrong. Now you can go ahead and do the same. We're waiting.

"Malone quickly conceded his statement on the Bannon show was wrong. “When one is doing rapid analysis on the fly, one does not always get everything right,” he told The Fact Checker. “On this particular legal liability issue I did not hunt down the details myself, and relied on comments from a third party lawyer which were not fully correct.” He said the statements we received from Pfizer and HHS “are consistent with my current understanding.”

What was streamlined was essentially the procurement and manufacturing aspects related to vaccine rollout.

In addition, some of the testing was done in parallel steps, not sequentially as would have been typical. None of these steps related to testing or clinical trials were bypassed or shortened prior to full-FDA approval.

Matt

If I'm keeping track, the "proof" that Dave provided that we are wrong and ignorant is:

- a quote from Dr. Malone that he walked back and admitted was wrong

- a list of the steps required to obtain vaccine approval, all of which were followed by Pfizer/BioNTech

- opinion pieces published by Russian media outlets

Sad indeed.

Nor is there a need for EUA of injections if the disease is not as deadly as they claim it to be… 94% of “Covid deaths” died with it versus the 6% that died from it.

Not to mention the PCR test being run twice as many iterations as the standard test procedure and on a mixed sample baseline that doesn’t even include an isolated SARS2 (COVID-19) virus…

Suppression and censorship of information to slant the narrative and push the FEAR. Power… and Money.

This statement falls somewhere on the spectrum between: "gross misrepresentation" to "patently false."

LOL!!! Yes, he did. He literally said the following when pressed on his statements regarding Cominarty being some separate vaccine and somehow playing a trick on the public.

“When one is doing rapid analysis on the fly, one does not always get everything right,” he told The Fact Checker. “On this particular legal liability issue I did not hunt down the details myself, and relied on comments from a third party lawyer which were not fully correct.” He said the statements we received from Pfizer and HHS “are consistent with my current understanding.”

Here are the statements that Dr. Malone ADMITTED was correct.

From Pfizer: “The statement that the products are ‘legally distinct with certain differences’ refers to the differences in manufacturing information included in the respective regulatory submissions,” said Pfizer spokesperson Sharon J. Castillo in an email. “Specifically, while the products are manufactured using the same processes, they may have been manufactured at different sites or using raw materials from different approved suppliers. FDA closely reviews all manufacturing steps, and has found explicitly that the EUA and BLA [biologics license application] products are equivalent.”

“The liability protections afforded under the PREP Act are tied to the declared public health emergency and not whether the vaccine is sold under an EUA,” Castillo said. “Therefore, both Comirnaty and the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine receive the same liability protections as medical countermeasures against covid-19.”

From the HHS: “There are no liability or compensation differences between a countermeasure approved under an EUA or one that has received full FDA approval,” confirmed an HHS spokesperson."

Again, he was wrong. And he admitted it. Your links and "proof" have been debunked by the very source you are citing. Not sure why you're sticking to this story when "ya boy" Malone admitted it was BS.

a list of the steps required to obtain vaccine approval, all of which were followed by Pfizer/BioNTech NO THEY WEREN'T

Yes, they did. But I'll ask for the third time, what steps were not followed?

opinion pieces published by Russian media outlets AND, NO IT ISN'T.

The lesson here is to not cite unknown sources. I'll help you out with this one..."New Eastern Outlook, NEO, is an English-language website, managed by the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute for Oriental Studies." LOL!!

SO CRAWL BACK IN YOUR HOLE AND BRING SOME LEGITIMATE FACTS AND INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU'RE CLEARLY AN IDIOT.

See above.

I'm not just listening to pharmaceutical companies or HHS. The FDA has been pretty clear that, as it pertains to "structure, sequencing, and make-up" of the vaccines, these are equivalent products. Straight from the FDA: "Comirnaty has the same formulation as the EUA vaccine and is administered as a series of two doses, three weeks apart." So, again, you're wrong, however you want to slice it.

Suggesting these are two separate vaccines as you are doing and that they are also subject to different legal protections has been debunked on both accounts - they are the same medically speaking, and thanks to the PREP Act, they are subject to the same legal protections. Again, your hero Dr. Malone has admitted to this fact and that he was wrong.

Second, the FDA has conveniently removed the timelines from their online description of the phases of vaccine testing because it clearly showed that there was no way that the vaccines could be tested and receive FDA clearance within a year. Even Fraudci and countless other bureaucrats were saying this all along until they needed to change their narrative. Warpspeed did nothing to change this

Hard to remove something that never existed. There are rules of thumb regarding how long vaccine development takes, but there is nothing set in stone. The FDA may give some timeframes, but they have this to say on clinical trials, "As long as clinical trials are thoughtfully designed, reflect what developers know about a product, safeguard participants, and otherwise meet Federal standards, FDA allows wide latitude in clinical trial design."

Furthermore, Faucci and others were quoting what was typical, not what was capable of being done in a pandemic where there is significant federal help available. Clinical trial phases were combined, allowing for accelerated Phase I, II, and III trials. There was a multitude of case data to assess vaccine efficacy thanks to the pandemic. Lastly, manufacturing capacity was scaled up during the clinical trials because the financial risk was mitigated by federal funding thanks to Operation Warpspeed. These are undisputable FACTS, and it is indeed what allowed for an accelerated timeline of vaccine development and approval. No steps were skipped. Steps that were taken in series were taken in parallel. This is what was done, and this is what Operation Warprspeed helped enable. No steps were skipped, no corners were cut.

Again, you're flat out wrong and you show a fundamental lack of understanding around what the vaccine is, what the approval process is, and what Trump's Operation Warpspeed did to accelerate the timeline.

As far as people like me...I'm not ignorant or corrupt. I'm right.

I'm often reminded of the words of a smart man when I read these threads. He said, "never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

What's even more disturbing than how people, like Dave, cling to their misinformation is how few people are willing to call them out on it. I don't give a rat's ass what political jersey you wear. But, if you deliberately let misinformation slide just because it's coming from someone on your side of the isle, you are a complete worthless disgrace to me.

Matt

By the way, the Nobel prize was not for treatment of COVID.

I think Mike in CT said something about ivermectin preventing virus replication but you have to take it early in the infection. Earlier than you have symptoms. And that it might not be effective after symptoms and that’s the issue? Maybe Mike will jump in here.

Dave also thinks Cominarty and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are separate drugs, so…

My friends that used it did 1cc per hundred pounds, zinc, vit. D, Zpac , B12 and a steroid. Recovery was very fast. I only know about 9 people that did that but it worked for them. Probably need to expand the sample group :)

am i getting that right?

If there is an effective treatment, the Emergency Use Authorization for the injections will no longer be valid.

There appears to be a number of safe, effective prophylactics and treatments including vitamins, ivermectin, HCQ, and monoclonal antibody treatments. All being suppressed by the MSM and social media. Hell, have heard that pharmacists have refused to fill doctor’s prescriptions for ivermectin and HCQ even when they have it.

The current administration has, in the last week, precluded distribution of monoclonal antibody drugs for treatment to Red States like Texas and Florida where they have been used for treatment of both vaxed and un-vaxed.

The injections are getting pushed for reasons that do not pertain to any individual’s or group’s health…

Tavis, can you show your source for this information? Thanks.

Matt

From your above statement:

“This statement falls somewhere on the spectrum between: "gross misrepresentation" to "patently false."”

The CDC provided the data. From their own report:

“For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.9 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. Values in the table represent number of deaths that mention the condition listed and 94% of deaths mention more than one condition.”

Is this source of data on Covid wrong?

From the FDA "Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained"

"Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

That last part is important about no adequate, approved and available alternatives.

It appears that there are a number of adequate and available alternatives. The FDA has not approved them. Think it might be about money?

Many doctor's accounts and medical papers stating that there are alternative safe and effective preventative and treatment measures.

The mRNA injections have, thus far, proven to be ineffective in preventing people from catching, transmitting, being hospitalized, or dying of Covid. There have been more deaths reported from these injections than for all other vaccines since 1990. Over 675,600 adverse effects reported in the US to the VAERS system run by the CDC. And, based on a Harvard study, "Electronic Support for Public Health-Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System", less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to VAERS.

No, the data is correct. Concluding from the data that people died “with” COVID and not “from” COVID is what is somewhere between grossly misrepresented to flat out false. The reality is had these people not caught COVID, they wouldn’t have died when they did. That is why COVID is listed as what killed them.

There is no need to assume anything. I am correct.

While there may not be an "exact" timeline in the sense of months, years days etc for when a trail phase is complete, there are parameters which were not followed even closely with regards to the current vaccine testing…Anyone with half a brain could read this and look at the phases of vaccine approval and research and see there's no possible way these parameters and phases were followed.

I’ve asked you five times now to tell what parameters have not been followed. All of the clinical trial information associated with Comirnaty approval is publicly available, as is information on the broader approval timeline. You keep saying steps weren’t followed but have failed five times now to enumerate a single requirement that were skipped or single instance in which a corner was cut.

The parameters were followed. The information is out there. Case closed.

Ivermectin, HCQ and other therapeutics have been PROVEN effective at treating COVID and yet they are being denied by corrupt hospitals and the FDA for none other than corrupt and sinister reasons.

This statement here might just take the cake for the funniest of all your points. Outside of poorly designed studies and anecdotal information, there is no proof regarding ivermectin, HCQ, etc being effective in treating COVID. Clinical trials are underway for ivermectin, but are not complete. So, unlike say Comirnaty which has been tested for effectiveness for COVID and approved as such by the FDA, any “proof” of ivermectin’s effectiveness has not been validated by robust clinical trials and is akin to old wives’ tales at this stage.

Like Matt said earlier, I should be careful when engaging with idiots as outsiders may struggle to tell the difference. You’ve had ample time to provide proof to back up your wildly incorrect assertions. You haven’t. Engaging with you further is not worth the time.

...and the "scents" that it makes is that of pure horse manure.

Covidvaxexposed.com

Could be interesting….

Honestly, you'd be better off just putting another bumper sticker on your Subaru. ;-)

That’s rich. I’ve asked you multiple times to layout what parameters were not followed. You haven’t. I told you all of the Pfizer approval information is out there publicly available for BNT162b2, the vaccine now known as Comirnaty, but not surprisingly you won’t speak to it.

IND Application

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

Phase I preliminary results upon which Phase II/III was informed . Further clinical trial details available as well at the link.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-share-positive-early-data-lead-mrna

Phase II/III results which were the basis of both EUA and full FDA approval.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious

Summary basis for regulatory action upon which FDA full approval was granted, which includes summary of the above clinical trial phases.

https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download

All steps complete, all required parameters met. You are confusing vaccine approval during normal time periods with what can happen during a pandemic whereby there are significant more cases available to test the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. This leads to a much faster assessment process as loads more data is available on a much faster timeline.

I should apologize for pushing you on providing proof that these steps weren’t followed. That is impossible to do because that proof doesn’t exist. I thought maybe you’d take the chance, like your buddy Dr. Malone, to admit you’re wrong. I see I gave you too much credit.

My proof is the clinical trials conducted on tens of thousands of people, followed by the literal billions of people now being monitored as part of the vaccine rollout. It's all there in the documents. Your argument seems to be "Pfizer is lying" or "Pfizer is making up data," which again you've provided no proof to back-up (beyond unconfirmed, unsubstantiated wives' tales from questionable sources).

Do tell us how no other vaccine has ever been approved in less than 4 yrs and yet somehow this one is approved in less than 1. There is NO WAY that the parameters meeting testing can be adequately completed in less than a yr. How do you possibly evaluate for birth defects, effects on pregnancy, long-term effects not readily identifiable in less than a yr of testing? Simple. YOU CAN'T!!!

I told you, but you're too dense to comprehend. You can throw typical timelines out of the window for COVID vaccine development. Development typically takes so long because you need to ensure you have a robust data set to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a vaccine. When you are in the midst of a global pandemic with literally 100s of millions of cases occurring a year, it's A LOT easier to generate the appropriate dataset to do so. This can't be done outside of the context of a global pandemic and it's one of the main reasons they can evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine so rapidly

As for testing for long term effects, it isn't necessary for a vaccine that leaves your system in 72 hours. What remains is the antibodies, not the vaccine. Long term effects result from long term drug usage. Use smoking as an example - the risk of lung disease, etc comes from smoking cigarettes day-in, day-out for a long period of time. If you smoke a cigarette and then smoke a second cigarette a month later, you don't have to worry about contracting lung disease 50 years from now.

Worrying about long term side effects from a vaccine taken a few times over the span of months shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how medicine and our bodies work.

Why Cominarty and BionTech are likely not one and the same

Again, BioNTech is a company, not a drug. Beyond that, that link shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the vaccines being developed as well as how the clinical trials have progressed (which, again, is all contained within the links I posted). Multiple versions of the BNT162 mRNA vaccine were developed. BNT162b1 encodes a trimerized, secreted version of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, whereas BNT162b2, encodes a prefusion stabilized, full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The version carried into Phase III trials was BNT162b2, which involved ~44,000 participants. This is what is now known as Comirnaty. The link you posted on this is an absolute joke. There is no secret there were multiple versions of BNT162; no, clinical trial data was not cherry-picked; and the appropriate regulatory requirements and thresholds were met for full approval of BNT162b2 (aka, Comirnaty).

For those keeping track, I've produced at least 10 links to truthful, factual, and VERIFIABLE information proving what a lying imbecile BEG is

Well, when those links include vaccine development steps that were met, clearly false statements from so called experts who later admit they were wrong, and flawed and biased arguments coming from joke sources like "Silview Media" and random posters on "Clouthub" it doesn't really help your case. It's definitely verifiable information - verifiably false.

I would love to hear your credentials.

Aside from "Flat-Earther"

Aside from "Flat-Earther"

Seeing some of the sources he cites and links he posts, this makes a lot of sense.

Taking offers, will consider trades for moose or brown bear hunt. I know what I've got, low balls will be ignored. Beef or liver flavor.

Based on the information you're posting and your interpretation of it, that is beyond highly suspect.

The sources I cite are none other than FDA, qualified medical professionals and verifiable facts...BEG on the other hand hasn't presented a single credible source of fact or information to support his lies

LOL...that's hilarious. I literally post links directly to the FDA as well as the data being submitted to the FDA which you say is "corrupt" and "lies."

The sources you've cited include "Silviu Costinescu" whose bio reads "Jack of all trades in arts and media" and Steve Kirsch, whose medical bonafides include "the optical mouse, Internet search, desktop publishing, spam filtering, Internet acceleration, secure federated identity, open banking, and digital money." Are these those "FDA, qualified medical professionals" (whatever that even means) you speak of?

The BionTech vaccine is indeed the EUA vaccine that is being touted as one and the same as Cominarty. While Biontech might be the company associated with Pfizer, the EUA vaccine is indeed referred to as the BionTech vaccine

Jesus, I'm not really sure what is so hard for you to understand.

There were always multiple variants of the mRNA vaccine on the table as part of preclinical trials. As outlined in the Investigational New Drug Application to the FDA from Pfizer (on behalf of the companies Pfizer and BioNTech), Phase 1 involved more than one of these variants (four to be precise - BNT162a1, BNT162b1, BNT162b2, and BNT162c2) and was intended to identify the preferred vaccine candidate(s) and dose level. Based on those results, one candidate was chosen for Phase 2/3 testing. BNT162b2. Now Cominarty.

The EUA covers BNT162b2. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-submit-emergency-use-authorization

November 20, 2020: Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) announced they will submit a request today to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of their mRNA vaccine candidate, BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2, which will potentially enable use of the vaccine in high-risk populations in the U.S. by the middle to end of December 2020.

It is not named the "BionTech vaccine" anywhere.

The established name and other names listed in the EUA is "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine/ BNT162b2." It is called one of those two names everywhere it is referenced in the EUA, which can be viewed here https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download

Comirnaty is BNT162b2. It's the vaccine that was granted EUA. It's the vaccine that was granted full approval.

Anybody "guarantee[ing]" they are "more qualified" than me to provide info on these topics should understand these basic facts, which Dave clearly doesn't. Furthermore, anybody like Dave that is saying the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid Vaccine and Comirnaty are something different or that someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes based on the names being used and variants being tested is either (1) blatantly lying or (2) doesn't understand what is going on. This is really not that hard.

People who are open-minded and want the truth and facts can easily see it for themselves

I guess we'll put you in the "close-minded" camp then, Dave.

This quote, from the linked article above (which is a solid overview on the status of Ivermectin as a COVID treatment from an Australian newspaper), speaks to the “science” in the article Treeline posted.

As Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, put it: "Merely correlating news reports of Ivermectin use with later declines in mortality as if those two things are realistically connected; it's not science in any meaningful sense."

There is literally zero tracking of how many people actually took Ivermectin in Uttar Pradesh, so there is no statistically meaningful way to attribute any success to the drug. Until the results of well designed, robust clinical trials come in (which are discussed in the linked article), everything else is akin to hearsay and speculation and, for now, inconclusive as to the benefits of Ivermectin on COVID-19.

"The Turnaround On May 30, TrialSite reported an “unprecedented turnaround in Uttar Pradesh” was indeed a reality marked by a “dramatic decline in cases.” TrialSite suggested to world health leaders it was “time to smell the coffee.”"

From the linked article: "The UP government decided to grant relaxations on Saturday to the Covid curfew in Bareilly and Bulandshahr from June 7. Amid a drop in cases, UP started the unlocking process on June 1 after several weeks of restrictions amid the second wave."

Even though Uttar Pradesh was under a curfew/lock-down for a few weeks in May leading into June, it was probably the Ivermectin.

The guy just never lets being totally wrong get in the way. The sheeple misinformation train is nearly unstoppable.

Not sure how long it took Thornton to come across that photo, but for anyone that wants to see more from that Halloween, I went as a mounted deer and my wife went as a hunter.

Funny enough, I also turned that foam deer head from that costume into a decoy that I used on Kodiak and later painted it as a pronghorn to use on an antelope hunt in New Mexico. Got some miles out of that thing!

Thornton, you must have a lot of time on your hands to scour the Internet for pictures of complete strangers, but I guess when you have no other meaningful counterpoints this is what you must resort to. Wanna go ahead and clarify what your point was with your last post?

For everyone else, let it be known that just because I have an actual life and like to do things like get dressed up in costume during Halloween with my wife, it doesn’t make any of the actual facts I’ve posted untrue.

It's actually kinda creepy that Thornton would go out of his way to search for and post a picture of you.

Matt

yeah, I'll just save him the aggravation ;-)

It's clearly my looks and bowhunting skills, Matt :)

It's actually kinda creepy that Thornton would go out of his way to search for and post a picture of you.

That photo was from a post my wife made on my Facebook page for my birthday over three years ago. You'd think Thornton would have had the decency to include her caption but I guess that might have gone against his narrative. It is mega creepy, but beyond being telling of Thornton's character, it's also telling that this is apparently the best he's got in terms of rebutting anything I said.

Thornton, anything else you found out on my Facebook page you wanna share with the group, you little stalker you?

LOL! I asked that same question to a quick-witted buddy, when I met his wife the first time. Without hesitation he answered, "big feet". ;-)

Matt

Terry

And there are a lot of people who take nothing and have positive results. One person’s story in the absence of a properly controlled clinical study is just that - a story, and nothing more.

Pretty sure that is the article of ivermectin on covid from the Journal of Therapeutics. If not, someone with a computer should be able to find it. Keep in mind, I took the drug a year and a half ago after an ER physician I work with suggested I look at the study that was showing it worked in mice and petri dishes. This article came out later. Several ER RNs I work with, one of which has chased the covid pay all over the country in covid ICUs, have taken ivermectin for positive covid infections. For those of you thinking that an anti parasitic med can't work, keep in mind, many medications have multiple uses. Ivermectin has been shown to have antiviral properties. We give dozens of medications for completely different things. I give morphine in ER for pain, I also give it to reduce pre load on a heart, thus reducing the demand of oxygen on the heart. I give IV benadryl for anaphylaxis and I also give it for migraine headaches. Ketamine is known as a "horse tranquilizer". It is actually a dissociative agent we give for sedation or combative patients. It also works for pain. Pepcid helps with acid reflux, but we often give it for anaphylaxis or rashes due to its H2 histamine blocking properties. Doxycycline is a strong antibiotic often used for tick borne or pulmonary infections and it also has antinflammatory properties just like steroids. Just a few of the meds we give and their multiple uses. I'm not saying ivermectin would work for everyone, but it is documented that it has worked for some. Just like bp and heart meds dont work for everyone, and different types and dosages have to be tried until the desired outcome is achieved.

Im no doctor so I dont know the answer...yes, its true people can have positive results and it may not necessarily be attributed to Ivermectin. But, to ignore the doctors and all those, like Jason, that have had positive results its ignorant.

I think the people in the labs are trustworthy for the most part and are doing the best they can to help develope positive drugs to help people.

But, the problem a lot of people have, including myself is we dont trust Fauci. Im sure there are good people in the CDC but overall I dont trust the leadership of the CDC.

There is no denying there is a LOT of money involved in this scenario.

On August 23, the FDA issued two separate letters for two separate injections. There are now two legally distinct (Pfizer vs. BioNTech), but otherwise identical products.

Super credible and super well researched, seeing as they - like you - seem to think Pfizer and BioNTech are two different vaccines. LOL.

For like the thousandth time, there is only one vaccine - it was called BNT162b2 prior to full approval, now it is called Comirnaty. It is made by a partnership of Pfizer AND BioNTech. There is no Pfizer vs. BioNTech or Pfizer or BioNTech.

Dave, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Vaccine or no vaccine, do what you want. Covid is real but so is freedom. Vaccines have saved a lot of lives, cant argue that. For me, I dont trust Fauci but that doesnt make me a conspiracy nut. Hell, I dont trust the vast majority of politicians in DC on either side. Rand Paul is holding Fauci's feet to the fire..at least somebody up there has a pair

https://www.desmog.com/principia-scientific-international/#:~:text=Principia%20Scientific%20International%20%28%20PSI%29%20is%20an%20organisation,Dragon%3A%20Death%20of%20the%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Theory.%20%5B1%5D

This group has an agenda and it isn’t science based. Pseudoscience at best. You can drink their cool aid if you want, but you are just kidding yourself. You believe what they say because you want to believe it. And that is your right!

Here’s one example. You can click on the link above and look at all of the meeting material for the VRBPAC. You can see agendas, presentations, meeting minutes, links to the areas that would allow public comments, and links to a literal video recording of these meetings you said never happened on YouTube. There were meetings for all of the EUAs. So, for like the millionth time, you’re wrong.

All of your other points are similarly false and can be easily debunked as well, if they haven’t already been. So, again, either you’re unwilling to educate yourself, you get a kick out of lying, or you’re crazy.

As a “health professional,” I would expect you to know what Dave is posting is complete BS. Instead, you decide to post a picture that, I can only assume, you think makes me look like an idiot.

The whole episode is pretty telling of your character - it’s juvenile, it’s nonintellectual, and like plenty have said here, it’s creepy.

Show some dignity, people, and let's stop the charade.

Matt

With that said, it’s not surprising. It’s telling that no one is backing up Dave’s misinformation, a clear sign that no one wants to be associated with him (well, except for our neighborhood creeper). As they say, the silence is deafening.

Just no need to keep arguing with fence posts…

Dave: this meeting never happened!

Me: *literally posts links to a video of said meeting*

Dave: “ None of my points have been debunked other than in your own delusional world. Notice how he once again evades the questions and tries to shift the topic, claiming that they can easily be "debunked" but yet he can't do it.”

Did someone put you up to this, Dave. Is this all a joke? Where are the cameras?? You got me!!

This is EXACTLY the meeting I posted links to, which includes video of the entire meeting. Per the links I posted,

On December 10, 2020, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research’s (CBER), Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet in open session to discuss Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older.

There is a similar meeting for every vaccine granted EUA approval.

This is a microcosm of every engagement with you, Dave. Every one of your similarly clearly false points have been refuted. But you choose to either (1) not educate yourself, (2) do not have the capacity to understand what you are reading, or (3) do know you are peddling complete BS and choose to do so anyway. Whichever one it is, it’s definitely one of those three and it’s not worth my time anymore. And I never said I was a healthcare professional.

He’s not, but the second least surprising thing (beyond everyone else’s silence on this thread) is the fact that you would think so. My guess is Dave’s PM approval is just the two of you going back and forth.

1. BEG was doing a fine job responding with facts and evidence to back it up. BEG is always well informed and has well thought out posts...always. 2. Dave's response is to scream and name call...a clear sign he knows he is full of BS. 3. When Dave said it's the vaccinated spreading the virus or that the COVID vaccine is not a vaccine...that told me everything I need to know about Dave.

BEG is right. Either Dave doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't care or he is a right wing nut regurgitator, or he is a right wing nut troll. Dave should be embarrassed.

In regards to creeper McCreepy Thornton. He tries to make it sound like he is a real medical scientist or doctor. They guy has a 2 year degree from a community college and passed the RN boards. He does not direct patient care, prescribe meds, or provide any medical advice to patients. Why? Because he is a medical technician. Anyone with a 4 year degree in biology from any state college would have more science, chemistry, and microbiology than Thorton. He has admittedly taken animal ivermectin on a public forum. Think about that. You just can't fix stupid.

It would be nice if Mike in CT would come here and weigh in. But I'm sure he is tired of repeating himself over and over and over.

Science...because it is better than making s@#t up. Dave is making s@#t up or passing made up s@#t from others. Thorton is good at that too.

Ivermectin is being studied by the FDA as we speak. Good. Let the scientists tell us if it works for Covid. How ironic is it that Dave is pushing ivermectin (not sure why) that has not been approved by the FDA for COVID but won't take the COVID vaccine because he thinks it is "not approved" by the FDA. Its ironic and crazy all at the same time.

"You're just a typical ignorant libtard fraud who is incapable of providing anything of substance other than the propaganda that your party and the corrupt media spew out. You have NO CREDENTIALS OR INTEGRITY. You're just another internet f-ing expert who, in reality, knows NOTHING! "

I've stayed away from this because it's pointless to try to have a civil, reasonable discussion with anyone that is so firmly entrenched that they ignore reality. But I will say that if you aren't a virologist or epidemiologist with multiple years of work in the field your opinion is meaningless to me. If you are a physician with multiple years of experience in treating infectious diseases, I would listen to your opinion to see if it aligns with what other experts say. If you are a nurse or someone the medical field your anecdotal information would be interesting but not worth much more than a good story.

And if you are an internet expert that has no background in medicine or direct patient care and you disagree with the opinion of the majority of experts (for those of you in Rio Linda California, that means a preponderance of scientists' opinions, not just the one, two or three that right wing media can dredge up) you are either easily mislead or politically motivated. And, in either case, you are just wrong.

So, while you are welcomed to your opinion, it's not informed, it sounds politically motivated and it means nothing to me. But I'm sure there are others here that share your opinion and will chime in and maybe even start calling me names.

No they are not. Peer reviewed medical journals and proper controlled medical testing are.

"Fauci is a dr and he is also incompetent fool"

He knows a hell of a lot more about medicine, diseases, and virus than anyone on this site. Besides, just like Phil said...who cares what one doctor thinks. Look at the medical or scientific consensus. If 9 out of 10 doctors recommend a medical procedure to you it's probably a bad idea to go with the outlier...just saying.

Dave should be back any second to call us all ignorant libtard sheep...incapable of self reflection and analysis.

But as proved by the Covid vaccine thread, you can’t convince conspiracy theory people of anything using facts. So those that try are wasting their time.

As to the actual subject of this thread, I hope we get some credible research studies on ivermectin in the near future. Until then, as a veterinarian who has looked at the data so far, I will be using ivermectin if I ever catch Covid.

I did mention right wing media because those sources - Fox, Newsmax, ONA and many right ring broadcasters and podcasts seem to be the prevalent source of misinformation regarding Ivermectin, vaccines, even COVID-19 itself.

And I do agree not all doctors are correct. But it's hard to find people that have years or decades of experience in a field not coming to agreement on the best course of action. There are always outliers but you have to consider what is the outlier's agenda that he/she would go against the consensus of the majority.

"My" President doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. This is about science, not politics. That's your political bias coming out again.

What's unfortunate is that it really doesn't matter until it does. Then it's too late.

It's also really funny when you read about guys saying how it's all made up by people in the US government and how they're doing this or that for this and that end. As if this situation doesn't even exist outside the US lol. I know, it's one big cruel joke, and every hospital, every country, and every government is in on it. How they all managed to pull it off is remarkable. Because Australia wanted to keep their borders closed. Because health care systems are just pretending to collapse. Can't possibly be anything to this at all. Is it super serious to the young and healthy?

No one ever said it was.

I used to be pretty anti-anything the government told me about this. But I have had an open mind throughout and I find the actual evidence simply too overwhelming. Give yourself the benefit of an open mind, and do your best to find information from each side. But you have to honestly want to have an open mind and honestly search to find good information refuting what you believe to ever have a hope. About the only guarantee to wading into this $hitstorm is getting some on your boots. But since it was asked where the support for bigeasy was I thought I'd chime in.

Dave, post up the link the to study as I would like to read it. It might help me reconcile the claim that the vaccines are causing variants when the Delta variant - the one currently responsible for ~99% of COVID cases in the US - was first isolated in India in October 2020 which was before the vaccines were available.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant#:~:text=The%20Delta%20variant%20is%20now%20responsible%20for%20more,42%20to%2096%20percent%20for%20the%20Pfizer-BioNTech%20vaccine.

"Give yourself the benefit of an open mind, and do your best to find information from each side."

Easier said than done unfortunately. Many are too rooted in the politics to objectively evaluate scientific information that didn't come from "their" side.

Amen brother. And it doesn't give a s@#t what your politics are.

"As of 1:00 Friday afternoon, the declaration had garnered over 3,100 signatures from doctors and scientists around the world."

Well that is vague and suspecious.

Are you sure you want to trust AmericanGreatness.com. They have been known to pass on misinformation.

AmericanGreatness.com- "During the Coronavirus pandemic of 2020, they advanced misinformation such as the promotion of hydroxychloroquine Yale Professor Says Hydroxychloroquine Could Save 100,000 Lives, which has been proven to be ineffective in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care."

Maybe you should try medical journals instead of right wing news outlets.

Credentials - Wildlife Biologist with no medical training...but I can read and understand non-bias scientific methods and information. How about you Dave?

Yup, that’s me. Not a critical thinking or analytical bone in my body. Unable to think for myself, separate fact from fiction, and form my own conclusions.

Hilarious.

You’ve said multiple times you are far more qualified than me to speak to these things, so why don’t you share what those qualifications are? I would LOVE to hear them.

If you dont understand that you just dont value freedom

PS, if you drew a few map circles around the highest risk areas in eastern MA you'd see that even having some of the best hospitals in the world don't guarantee jack shite.

Heck, if I lived in rural MT, CO, WY, ND, SD, UT etc. I would probably not 'get' the urgency. But this is me, here. (And in one of the lowest-vax-rate towns in this dumbf* 'commonwealth. I sleep here and drink elsewhere.)

jyo-ymmv

My life and my family has been in the hands of an RN for close to 40 years. My wife is a Masters prepared nurse. My sister is a nurse who went on to get a PhD in psychology. My sister-in-law is a nurse. My mother-in-law is a nurse - ran the ICU in the hospital where worked in for many years. There are other nurses in our family. I have been in healthcare for nearly 40 years (not a nurse). I know as well as anyone what nurses do and are capable of and how they are never treated or compensated commensurate with the value they bring . And I know that nurses and doctors see a lot of things that sometimes defy explanation. But we cannot create policy or approve drugs and treatments based on the things a nurse or doctor sees. It takes randomized clinical studies to understand the widespread impact.

BUT, their specialty is 'patient care', not 'medical science', research, statistical analysis etc.

There ARE studies that follow data provided by a large sampling of nurses. (Not re covid, to my knowledge.) This is entirely different from 'anecdotal evidence' gathered by talking with a few or a few dozen care-givers.

Bless the nurses, but take their individual testimony with a grain of salt.

https://welovetrump.com/2021/09/30/pfizermectin-is-pfizer-rebranding-ivermectin-to-use-to-treat-covid-19/

Terry

They literally can't - won't answer the question - very odd don't you think?

Why isnt there an ACCURATE antibody test available!?

We've had a year and a half and 10's, 100's of million of test samples to study, test , develop. There is endless amounts of money to throw at this - so thats not the problem.

Wouldn't testing for natural immunity literally be the second thing you want to know about after getting vaccine's developed if you were the smart folks in charge??

I mean literally almost all the issues and problems would go away over night. If natural immunity is as good or better than a vaccine - and we can accurately test for those antibodies - then we would be well past herd immunity. No more lockdowns, no more freedoms lost, no more paying people to stay home, no more business's lost, borders opened...

Moreover, the vast majority of the nurses would not lose their job - because most have had Covid - seems to me they are the ones smart enough to follow the science. Why get a vaccine that could potentially harm you when you have natural immunity?

'Nother clown-spiracy...

No. There are many protease inhibitors on the market. Protease inhibitors have been very successful in treating HIV. Pfizer is developing one aimed at COVID. It is not ivermectin. That, as has been pointed out, isn’t even Pfizer’s drug.

Just because a medication works in a similar fashion or treats similar symptoms, doesn’t mean they are the same drug. Not all painkillers are ibuprofen. And saying Pfizer is rebranding Merck’s drug ivermectin to treat COVID is like saying Ford is rebranding Tesla’s Model 3 in response to the energy transition. It makes absolutely no sense.

They are completely different drugs than ivermectin. Posting a link saying ivermectin is being “rebranded” shows a fundamental lack of understanding of not only the science, but of the commercial and legal aspects to the equation as well.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering and also an MBA. I’d say I’m fairly well versed with a lot of topics germane to this conversation and have demonstrated that in my education and my 20 year career working as an engineer - things like statistics, chemistry, the scientific method, analytics, critical thinking, reading comprehension, yada yada yada. If you want to find more about my educational and professional background, I’m not hard to find online - but might I suggest my LinkedIn profile rather than my Facebook page. Go ahead, your turn Dave.

I'm just a lowly architect by education who had a successful business in residential development that allowed me to comfortably retire at 45. I had my hand in a few other cookie jars along the way, but none of them were medical or science related. So clearly I'm just an "ignorant moron" who isn't capable of critical thinking with an open mind.

Your turn, Dave.

Matt

Used to be people understood that 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure', but the dumbing down of today's public continues apace.

The vast majority of people who catch COVID have mild cases and recover pretty quickly. Should we really be that surprised if people who take Ivermectin do so as well? My sense is that people want to attribute their recovery to the drug, when in reality they would likely have had a similar outcome without it.

There have been quite a few trials to determine Ivermectin's effectiveness in treating COVID and none that I have looked at has found a statistically significant benefit.

Exactly how I feel about the “vaccine”.

There are mountains of data demonstrating the COVID vaccines are effective at preventing serious disease and death and provide protection from catching the disease. One only has to look at hospitalization rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated for the benefits to be evident.

The idea behind a controlled study is you do exactly that. You generate enough data to evaluate the effect of individuals that got the medication against a group of individuals that didn’t. You randomize who gets what drug and you ensure you have a meaningful sample size to account for other potential biases in the study. When it is said and done, you analyze the results - which group got sick, how sick did they get, etc etc. This is how we know beyond a statistical shadow of a doubt that the COVID vaccines are extremely safe and they’re also extremely effective at preventing and mitigating the disease.

Newbow...thats exactly my point.. how do we know the real data?

Again, see above. If you’re suggesting that the data is faked or falsified, I’d say that’s highly, highly unlikely. These studies are scrutinized, both by the government and by watchdogs outside of the government. Any nefarious actions are liable to result in consequences these companies want to ensure they avoid. It’s highly unlikely the data and the conclusions derived from it are anything but the truth.

I’d say six patients isn’t a drastically significant dataset. I’d want to know what other risk factors were present. I’d want to know when and what type of vaccine these patients had. Did all of them go into sepsis? What kind of treatment did they all require? What were there outcomes? How does this compare to the unvaccinated patients you are seeing? You yourself admit that there are far more unvaccinated patients seen. In our local hospitals, that ratio is about 10 to 1 unvaxed vs vaxed for ER visits, and it’s about 100 to 1 for trips to the ICU. What is it in your hospital? How is the overall case rate trending? What is the vaccination rate in the community you treat?

Nobody is saying vaccines are 100% effective, so we expect some level of breakthrough cases. But without answering those questions and providing more context saying you saw six vaccinated patients in a week in your ER doesn’t really say or mean much statistically speaking.

While it is true we can't say how any one vaccinated individual would handle COVID absent he vaccine, we have ample data on how populations (vaccinated and unvaccinated) are responding. The evidence is clear to any person approaching this with an open mind that the vaccines are effective at protecting against COVID, and even more so to protect against severe disease, hospitalization, and death.

It is no accident that most states are reporting that ~90% of those hospitalized with COVID are unvaccinated, even in states like New York (see link) where ~65% of adults are vaccinated. To put that in more direct terms, in NY ~35% of adults are unvaccinated but the unvaccinated represent ~90% of hospitalizations.

What Thornton (and a few others) states is why I don't trust small sample sizes. I don't trust Biden either, but he isn't the one conducting these COVID studies.

If a friend or family member was actually dying of covid what do you have to lose at this point? Your pride? A proven safe drug of 40 years, won a noble prize, over 4 billion doses given and rising rapidly?

It seems that it’s, narrative at all cost. Vaccination at all cost...which seems to be a dud. (We’ve had 6 relatives fully vaccinated get severe covid, one hospitalized 2 weeks.)

But just keep on fighting it fellas, it’s what you’re good at. The purpose of this thread was to let people know that ivermectin is not just horse wormer...something the media spent millions in airtime having you believe.

The original link was from a pharmacist that felt obligated to share it after seeing the media campaign against it.

Happy Hunting Fellas

But I also have ivermectin on my shelf and will be using it if I ever come down with Covid. Every vet I know that has gotten Covid has used Ivermectin

Just offering up the science,...... and countering the paid influencers pimping the FOX narrative.

Ivermectin inhibits replication of certain viruses in vitro (in a petri dish) but has not been shown to have the same effect in vivo (in the body) and from what I have read cannot be safely dosed to replicate the in vitro concentration.

The 2017 article cited in the OP referenced Ivermectin's prospective effectiveness as an anti-viral against Dengue Fever, HIV, and encephalitis. Last I checked Ivermectin hasn't cured the world of any of those viruses, nor do I find any constructive follow-up studies to lend additional credence to the hypothesis.

And any answers to the questions I put forward above in reference to the six vaccinated patients who showed up in the ER?

If Ivermectin proves successful in robustly conducted clinical trials, great! The more effective tools to battle COVID, the better. But it hasn’t, and anyone that thinks there is some conspiracy - either in promoting vaccines or suppressing drugs like Ivermectin - is clearly pushing politics over science.

It doesn’t.

I have a choice to make sense the co I work far is giving me a choice of either getting vaccinated or finding another job. But, what bothers me more is the fact that this incompetent leader we have is doing a very good job at destroying everything he touches...dang, Bush n Obama was bad enough but this clown is worse. I know he's just the puppet but he still has a choice to say no to the ones pullinbthe strings

Seeing as molnupiravir is a patented compound, even if you could produce it, you aren’t going to be profiting off of it.

What was the Trump administration’s agenda when they authorized Operation Warp Speed? How was Trump any different than Biden when he said, "The Vaccine and the Vaccine rollout are getting the best of reviews. Moving along really well. Get those ‘shots’ everyone!"

I'm guessing that 50 years of being a politician built up a closet full of skeletons and deals that mean the choice to say "no" to bad policy that's put on his desk by the folks behind the curtain (even if he wanted to) isn't really an option.

I am in agreement with you on the question around natural immunity, but it seems like there is still too much debate in terms of the level of protection provided versus the vaccines for that to be accepted in lieu of vaccination.

There are studies that suggest natural immunity provides better protection than the vaccines (see link, quote below):

"This study from Israel, available as a preprint and thus not yet peer reviewed, found that the rates of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, while very low (highest rate = 1.5%), were significantly higher than the rates of reinfection and hospitalization in previously infected individuals. "

But I have also seen studies which suggests the vaccines provide greater protection against infection/re-infection (article URL below, quote below).

"In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections."

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

I take Vitamin D every day too! :-)

In what regard? Not sure I agree with that. There have been 6.3 billion doses of the various COVID vaccines administered globally. I doubt one could point to any drug in modern times for which we have that much data.

Usually there are. But when you have a global pandemic ongoing and the case counts that we have, you can test a vaccine much quicker - which is why the COVID vaccine didn’t need years of testing.

The Pfizer phase III clinical trial of the vaccine that became Comirnaty included 44,000 participants (half got the drug, half got the placebo). Primary efficacy was assessed after a few months when ultimately around 170 cases of COVID occurred across the test subjects (8 from the Comirnaty group, 162 from the placebo group). Again, this case count and data was generated in months. Most vaccine tests involve far fewer test subjects and take much, much longer to generate an acceptable level of cases to measure efficacy.

You shouldn’t be astounded. There have been nearly 100 different COVID vaccines tested in clinical trials. It is not surprising that a few of them would be stopped due to potential safety concerns. None of the mRNA vaccine trials were paused. The high profile trials that were paused were J&J’s, AstraZeneca’s, and Eli Lilly’s.

Wish I had copied the link but it made what Biden has been saying " this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated" ...not to be the case. A look at Israel's latest stats seem to say the same..and I think Israel is 70% vaccinated? But then I dont pay much attention to what that clown says..Fauci either.

I have read from a few reliable sources that vaccines are cleared from the system quickly and side effects generally occur in the first 6-8 weeks following vaccination, so long term study is not necessarily beneficial. Drugs that are taken daily/weekly build in the body over time and take a longer period to assess.

"I distinctly remember mainstream media announcements stating the vaccine trials were halted due to high numbers of adverse reactions and a few deaths. I was astounded when 2 weeks later, they announced the vaccine was safe."

It was the J&J vaccine. The clinical trial was halted in 4/21 due to 28 cases and 3 deaths of TTS (blood clotting disorder). That was out of 7M doses administered (TTS rate of 0.0004%). The trial was resumed 2 weeks later as the benefit was deemed to outweigh the risk.

NewBow, if only the OAN is reporting it, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest it is not true. EDIT: not sure the quality of this source (looks like a local news channel) but it speaks to lockdowns, testing and contact tracing as the basis for the reduction in COVID cases. It also calls into question the "COVID-free" claim by OAN.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/uttar-pradesh-sets-new-record-becomes-first-state-to-cross-7-5-crore-covid-tests-4199399.html

Only if you get *enough* sunshine. Winter, folks in the northern parts of the country are D-deficient. A simple blood test can tell you. Vitamins are inexpensive enough that being deficient in any of them is easily avoided. Yeah, you'll excrete what you don't need. So what? Same goes for coffee.

do you or your family every use tylenol, ibuprofen, aspirin, sudafed, tums, pepto bismol, benadryl, claratin, sudafed, or maalox?

Matt

Could you post links to your "peer reviewed journal articles and studies".

Thanks,

Matt

LOL you just so happen to be an expert and hold degrees in all the fields related to the conversation we’ve been having, yet you fail to understand fundamental facts around the COVID vaccine and you have zero footprint anywhere around these fields online? Where did you get your degrees? What city and what clinic did you practice medicine? I’m gonna go out on a limb and call BS on all of that.

Like GG said, if you have peer reviewed journal articles, you should be able to post links to them. We would all love to read them.

Don’t worry about it, I’m sure they don’t exist and we won’t be seeing them. But thanks for giving me such a good laugh this morning, Dave.

Oh sorry. I guess it's over 3000 now. And that's only the ones who have signed the declaration. I can guarantee you the number is much, much higher who believe the same and haven't signed the declaration.

Oh man, a declaration signed by .08% of the doctors in the world, most of whom probably have little to no experience with virology or immunology beyond a few hours of lecture in med school. I hope they wrote and signed this on Charmin, because then it would actually be useful for something.

You aren't suggesting that people might pretend to be something they aren't on the internet? Crazy talk....

As you both surmised due to both an extremely busy schedule and the inescapable reality that there will always be those who will deny the facts I've stayed away from the bulk of these threads. Much of what has been posited as undeniable facts to the contrary have been thoroughly exposed (as both of you have pointed out) as misinformation, some coming very sadly from those who should clearly know better.

When anyone disputes that agents which clearly meet every accepted definition of what constitutes a vaccine aren't that pretty much precludes their adding anything of value to the discussion. When they clearly do not understand that what is involved in gaining 510k (FDA) clearance are demonstrable safety & efficacy and that time is not a prerequisite, but what had once been simply an unavoidable reality in acquiring the necessary data it's clear that they're interested in argument, not discussion.

When anyone who alleges to have a background in virology fails to understand the inherent nature of RNA viruses to mutate and suggests this only occurs when a vaccination campaign is underway is staggeringly ignorant of basic principles of virology.

The understanding of viral loads relative to the vaccinated and unvaccinated is equally perplexing given the alleged credentials as well; they do not remain static in the vaccinated, they decline rapidly to levels where infectivity is no longer likely, contrary to the unvaccinated where they continue to rise until such time as that persons natural immunity (assuming immunocompetency) allows for recovery.

To argue that the greater percentage of hospitalizations and ICU bed occupancy lies with the vaccinated population is demonstrably untrue. Jason has posted statistics from hospitals in his home state that show this to be untrue. For anyone interested google Hackensack-Meridian Heath (the largest health system in NJ) and you'll see similar numbers. The list of hospitals and hospital systems with similar statistics is readily accessible as well.

I have had some productive discussions with some who were unconvinced; I'll always have those regardless of the demands on my time as there is no worthier cause than the search for understanding.

Stay well people.

For those that don’t know him, Mike is highly likely to be the most qualified individual to comment on these COVID threads - and unlike some posters on here, that is easily verifiable. He is a go to source for me on these matters, and I encourage everyone to pay attention when he weighs in.

My guess is we won’t hear anymore from Dave the MD/immunologist/epidemiologist/microbiologist/physiologist/surgeon. Or if we do it’ll be something to the effect of “more lies from the ignorant and unqualified here on Bowsite,” and we won’t get to hear where he got his degrees or we he practiced medicine. I was really looking forward to those peer reviewed papers too.

Much respect, Mike, and thanks for sharing your TRUE expertise on this subject.

Matt

What about those that have been vaccinated and then have a breakthrough infection?

Also, it appears as those who have had natural infections, whether mild or more severe, exhibit loss of grey matter according to comparisons of brain scans by UK Biobank.

Are those who have had breakthrough infections after being vaccinated showing similar degrees of loss of grey matter?

Those who had COVID and recovered have acquired natural immunity; in addition to an effective antibody response they have the added benefit of establishing a cell-mediated immune (CMI) response to the virus. I have advised those who are sure they had COVID to get a reliable antibody test as they may have a high titer and would not need to be vaccinated. Given the possible adverse reactions (though minimal) if you have an effective antibody titer why take the risk?

Will it help? Yes, in much the same way as a "booster" shot can help in the vaccinated population. As with any medical decision arm yourself with all the facts and if you have a trusted family physician, consult them.

Breakthrough infections in the vaccinated population have by and large tended to be mildly symptomatic; having antibodies will quickly bring the new infection under control quickly. What we've seen to date in this regard speaks again to the effectiveness of the vaccines in minimizing severe infections and hospitalizations.

The UK study from my perusal of it does seem to have been well designed; I agree with the consensus that further studies are needed to both conclusively link this to the virus and to assess whether this will be short term or permanent loss of brain cells.

Link is some good information regarding an assessment of the aforementioned study.

At least part of the reluctance to accept adequate levels of antibody are touched on in the link Jason provided; I agree that the lack of standardization among tests is an issue but would counter that there are some very reliable tests to determine antibody titer in individuals.

I'll provide a link that describes a potential path to assess effective levels of neutralizing antibodies. This certainly can be done in the US and a reliable assessment tool should preclude the need for any person with an effective level of neutralizing antibody to get a vaccination. It's a bit involved but I'm certain this crowd will get this.

I respect your knowledge and opinions. My curiosity stems from friends and family members outside of my household. Some who have had COVID and then been vaccinated, following the advice of their doctor and some who have been vaccinated and then became infected with a breakthrough infection.

I’ve looked at that UK Biobank study and several articles that addressed it, but haven’t come across anything addressing whether or not this apparent loss of grey matter is occurring at the same level in those who have been vaccinated.

I have a hunting buddy who has been struggling with “Long Haul” issues after becoming infected last Thanksgiving.

His experience has me wondering/concerned about long term ramifications that my kids might encounter if they acquire a breakthrough infection.

Is this loss of grey matter long term? Permanent? What’s the potential impact of that long term?

I’ve read some things that one theory with regard to the malaise that “Long Haulers” experience may be due to microscopic clots that can block the smallest branches of capillaries and create tiny pockets of damage.

I am curious as to whether the vaccine helps to reduce that in a breakthrough infection.

I recognize that there may not be any real answers to my questions yet. And I also recognize that there’s little that can be done to mitigate any risk without adopting unrealistic measures that have very detrimental impacts.

We are not adopting any extreme measures out of paranoia. We’re pretty much simply following grandma’s advice. Eat nutritious meals, get adequate sleep, exercise, wash hands and because they are of Scandinavian descent and Vitamin D deficient, take the Vitamin D supplements that their doctor prescribed well before COVID.

As of today, Israel's number of serious Covid cases is at a 2 month low. 75% of those cases are unvaccinated, even though the unvaccinated represent only 15% of the population. That's a clear indication that the vaccines are working.

Matt

Your concern is understandable given how poorly communicated certain realities are. To begin with too often I see reports that do not speak adequately to underlying comorbidities, notably the recent spike in cases in Israel. Add to that the fact that most of the hospitalized patients in this spike are also over 60 years old and it becomes more understandable what is driving this "spike" in cases.

What we need to bear in mind is that the immune systems efficiency wanes over time, the degree to which is predicated upon the individual involved. Absent any comorbidities this waning may be gradual and not become serious (lack of immunocompetency) until well into their 70's if not 80's. In some segment of the population the decreased efficiency may not be gradual but more like falling off of a cliff; in either case these populations may range in response to vaccination, from an adequate response to minimal response to, sadly, no response (no production of protective antibodies).

Add comorbidities (diabetes, respiratory issues, cardiovascular conditions) and the response to the vaccine is further eroded. It's my opinion that we have been grossly underserved by our public health officials in making these realities clear so that the alarm (panic in some cases) over breakthrough cases and spikes such as the one you reference could be placed in proper context.

This is why attention to details is critical. First, your graph only goes thru Sept. 9. The information I posted is as of today. Second, your graph shows total Covid cases, which are clearly on a downward trend. The information I posted was for "serious cases", meaning hospitalizations. Again, that trend is spiraling downward, and are at 2 month lows.

When 15% of your population is unvaccinated, yet they represent 75% of the hospitalizations as of today, I can't think of a more definitive argument for the efficacy of the vaccines.

Matt

I'm sorry that your first instinct is to resort to invectives and making charges that you never seem to get around to supporting with actual facts. I'm fine with anyone questioning anything I've posted when they do so in a respectful matter and offer contrary evidence for me to consider. That's all part of the ongoing learning process; you seem to eschew this avenue and try argument from authority as if authority confers expertise absent human failings. The arrogance required to hold this world view is truly staggering.

As to articles you've peer-reviewed you should really research your defenses better before offering ones that are easily shown to be lies. Yes, access to a full article does require membership but those not having membership can access an abstract; access to the full article can be purchased (one time on-line or a larger fee can be paid for broader access-I've posted a link to demonstrate this fact).

I have to admit I did get a chuckle out of your comment about "hundreds of thousands of physicians disagree...."; surely you realize this is not the entirety of physicians and you must be equally aware that the vast bulk of the remainder not only agree with what I've posted, they've been making the same claims throughout the course of the pandemic. Surely someone who's peer-reviewed papers could easily confirm this as well. Speaking of which, your claim about no method of proving peer-review is also misinformed; papers that are peer-reviewed elicit feedback to the authors; a simple phone call to any published author would provide the ability, if they are willing to obtain a full listing of all reviewers. How do I know this? I know this because I spoke with a reviewer of an article I had submitted as he had some questions involving the methodology employed and about the sample pool.

Your comportment also casts doubts on the validity of your credentials to be quite blunt; I have worked and am currently working with cardiothoracic surgeons, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, epidemiologists, immunologists and virologists who have the credentials they claim and something you sorely lack; humility.

Now I'm sure you'll not go gently into that good night so prior to any further diatribe let me assure you I have seen more than my share of bullies over the years and sadly, in the internet age more than my share of pretenders. This is the only response I have for you and any similarly afflicted; you may go now.

Let me translate this again for the rest of the forum...1% of the physicians of the world disagree with Mike.

For the idiots who are requesting links to my articles that I have peer reviewed, this is just another shining example of your ignorance. First, since reading comprehension is obviously not your strong point, I never said I reviewed studies relevant to COVID and I fail to see how studies I reviewed 15 yrs ago in the field of surgery are relevant here other than to deflect from the truth

I never assumed you reviewed studies relevant to COVID. What I did say is I don't for one second believe you're a doctor or a surgeon based on the simple facts you get wrong, the way you engage in dialogue, and the fact that you (if David Castro is your name) have zero footprint online related to any of the fields you say you contributed professionally - and on the off chance that you are indeed one, you are a very, very bad one. Posting stuff that you did publish or review, regardless of the specific subject, can provide you some level of credibility, which you have about zero of right now.

Again, where did you go to school? Where did you practice medicine? What type of surgeon were you?

Now, back to the ignorance at hand and this will be my last post here as it's clear I can't fix "stupid." But, I leave you with one last link showing Ivermectin as an ACCEPTED treatment option for COVID. Of course, this was posted by none other than the NIH and I'm sure BEG will somehow claim that they are not a reputable source or it is Russian propaganda because that's what he does every time his ignorance is exposed.

No, this table is indeed straight from the NIH. But as a self-proclaimed expert on these things, you would think you'd realize that Ivermectin is not approved. The table you posted to is a list of antiviral agents approved OR under evaluation, the key word here being or. As has been pointed out, ivermectin is being studied (ie, under evaluation) via multiple clinical trials. The word "accepted" has no clinical meaning (something you should know) - what is germane is the drug has not been approved or authorized by the FDA, but it is being studied. Again, basic facts that you fail to understand. Your ignorance is astounding.

For anyone that would like to see what the NIH recommended course of clinical care looks like for various patients (ie, hospitalized, non-hospitalized, critical care, etc), you can find summaries on the same website at the link below. You will notice ivermectin (not surprisingly) shows up nowhere.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/

I'll issue a challenge to GG and BEG. I'll post a photo of my medical license proving my credentials and if I do, you agree to leave this forum for good and spread your propaganda elsewhere.

I'm not going to leave the forum, but feel free to provide more compelling proof of your credentials, because right now it's not looking good for you.

You said, " I have peer reviewed journal articles and studies". First, that implies they were your articles and studies that were peer reviewed, and were accepted for publication. Second, if they were actually articles and studies done by others that you simply reviewed, as you are now claiming, and they aren't relevant to the discussion, why did you mention them as part of your credentials?

IMO, you are a fraud of the worst kind. A guy posing as a medical expert, while spreading potentially dangerous misinformation to gullible people, like a pedophile dishing out candy to kids.

As for your silly challenge, I think I'll pass. I've been a member here for over 2 decades. I'm not going to let a newcomer, who has demonstrated he's not capable of honest and civil discussion, goad me into anything. Simply put, you aren't worth any more of my time or consideration.

Matt

The article says exactly that: 'Dr. Ana Carolina Antonio, who works at a government hospital in Porto Alegre, Brazil, told Insider many of her ICU patients took ivermectin in the spring - some trying to prevent COVID-19, others "to early treat their first symptoms."'

What I really don't understand - is why is he pushing so hard? What does he have to gain? Why the frantic spouting of lies? Is it just like some weird ego deal and he just wants to be listened to? So strange.

So, in summation: the vaccines work really well (the unvaccinated represent 96.4% of COVID positives and 100% of those in the ICU and on a vent per your stats), but not as well as Biden says. Is that the implication?

EDIT: researched the 1 in 5,000 stat and came back to post but BEG beat me to it. I now see that the conclusions are that the vaccines work really well and, while I still think Biden is an idiot, his mental deficiency is not the issue here.

It gets better, Matt. I hadn’t heard the 1 in 5,000 quote so I looked it up after I made my last post. Biden (who is still an idiot) was speaking to the breakthrough infection rate (1 in 5,000 vaccinated individuals get infected each day). That statistic may or may not be true, but posting the breakdown of hospital cases by vaxed vs unvaxed has nothing to do with the 1 in 5,000 statistic. Apples and oranges.

Matt

Essentially there are three categories of truth:

Personal truth - the truth that you believe whether it's true or not

Political truth - the truth that you voice to advance a political agenda - whether you personally believe it or not

Objective truth - which is true no matter what

All of us are susceptible to bias. Search engines on the internet are the epitome of confirmation bias.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not.

A proper skeptic questions what they're unsure of but recognizes when VALID evidence is presented to change their mind."

Quotes from Neil deGrasse Tyson

“Science is an iterative process that attempts to remove opinion from the dialog by developing and accepting theories that best explain observation and experiment. Science is constantly seeking the truth, but it can not, by definition, prove anything to be true. Those who have an opinion that a theory is false have the burden of providing observation or experiment to falsify a theory, and the scientific method then demands that a better theory be developed that explains the new observations.”

“Once science has been established, once a scientific truth emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way of the world...What I’m saying is, when different experiments give you the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion. That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.”

By survival rate, I'm assuming you mean the rate of people who survive after contracting a disease. There is plenty of data out there to ascertain this. The link above is a CDC estimate of the cumulative burden estimates for the 2019-2020 season (which prior to COVID control measures was fairly representative). You can see there is an estimate of something like 39-56 mln cases and 24-62k deaths. Therefore the mortality rate is something like .04-.15%. Compare that with global COVID cases. We are around 5 mln deaths out of 240 mln cases (give or take). That's puts you around 1.6%. That is across all cases - it should be noted for certain demographics and accounting for certain risk factors, the disparity is even higher.

So COVID is 10 times as deadly as the flu when contracted. With that said, there is also evidential data that COVID is far more transmissible than the flu. Look to the previous year, when we implemented COVID control measures like social distancing, shutdowns, hygiene, disinfecting, etc. We had 300,000 COVID deaths with these control measures in place, yet we only had something like 700 flu deaths (compared to the 30-50k deaths on average).

So to say COVID is 10 times as deadly based on the mortality rate of cases is only part of the story. If it infects 10 times as many people, that needs to be accounted for too.

I know a lot of people that have had it (both with and without the injection) and only my mother-in-law went to the hospital. Had TB and lung damage as a kid and ended up with pneumonia. Put her on steroids, ivermectin, azithromycin, and O2 mask and she was out in 3 days.

Based on the only closed test observations on the cruise ships at the beginning of this insanity, about 50% have no symptoms and have existing immunity. Of the 50% that had symptoms, over 80% had minor symptoms. Of the 10% of the total with more serious symptoms, less than 1% died. That was before there was any treatment for the “new” virus. And the average age on those cruise ships was over 70.

Which stats? I’m fairly confident those are estimated total case counts both for the flu and for COVID, not hospitalizations.

The flu data comes from the CDC link which is definitely more than just hospitalizations (which is also included in the link).

The COVID cases are also total cases, not just hospitalizations. They include reported positive cases and government estimates. To my knowledge, there really isn’t a reliable dataset on COVID hospitalizations due to inconsistent reporting requirements.

Einstein’s theory of relativity did not make Newtons laws untrue. Einstein expanded on them and furthered our understanding. It did not make them completely false.

That’s how science works. It is built into the system. It’s better than making s#%t up.

No offense intended, but you must not be looking very hard. The various severe side effects from the COVID vaccines are reported on the CDC website (see link) and a quick Google search turns up tens of article discussing them (https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine+side+effects&sxsrf=AOaemvKYl7BvazbaHuxJ1kdllZkSMm5gMA:1633453448142&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7gqKk4LPzAhVH6p4KHaGAAi4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1536&bih=722&dpr=1.25).

When I last did a very simplistic, back-of-the-napkin comparison of COVID versus serious side effects of the vaccines , the math suggested you are roughly ~950x more likely to die from the disease than have a severe side effect from the vaccines.

tell that to the folks who make ivermectin. they profit from the sale of every dose. theyd like nothing more than to massively expand their market all over the planet. same with the folks that make hydroxychloroquine, vitamin d and zink supplements, monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir and everything else thought to successfully treat covid19.

I've never understood the "no money in Ivermectin" argument, either. Do these people think Merck has made and distributed Ivermectin to the world for over 40 years for free, out of the goodness in their hearts?

FYI, Merck's estimated annual sales of Ivermectin is $250-300 million. As you stated, I'm sure Merck would love nothing more than to have Ivermectin found to be an effective and approved treatment for Covid. Yet, their own scientists have concluded:

- No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

- No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;

- A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

That's from Merck's own online statement dated Feb 4, 2021. (see link)

Matt

Clearly that's not how it works, Matt. What they want to do is spend millions, if not billions, of dollars more to research, test, and scale up production on a new drug that may never find it's way to market. The last thing they want to do expand the market and increase sales of a drug that would require no development and that they're already set-up to produce.

And for anyone that can't tell, everything written above is dripping in sarcasm.

Seems like a pretty good deal considering:

" In January, the U.S. government agreed to pay $2.63 billion for 1.25 million doses of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody cocktail, which works out to $2,100 per dose, and Gilead’s remdesivir can cost $3,100 for a 5-day course of treatment."

And to think, every US citizen can get vaccinated for free.

Matt

Matt

And if you're tasked with making smart economic decisions, would you want to sell a drug that you've already developed and have set-up infrastructure to produce or would you want to sell one that is going to require significantly more development, investment, and associated risk? Sure, incentives matter. But your economic model is a gross oversimplification of the decisions pharmaceuticals companies face and the factors that matter when making those decisions.

Expected discounted free cash flow, not profits, are what determines share price.

I would choose a product that has no risk of development, that I can sell for zero investment, and returns a billion in profit in the next year over one that has only a 50% chance of passing trials, requires a billion dollars in CAPEX to deliver production, but I expect to deliver two billion in profit a year from now.

Cash flow comes from (and goes to) a lot of different things, unlike profit which includes non-cash items and minimizes capital costs associated with businesses.

At the stage of the game Merck is right now the CEO knows exactly what the chances of FDA approval are...As CEO I have no reason to shoot an $700 solution in the head if I already know Ivermectin is not a solution.

That, I feel is, is much closer to the reality and it has little to do with the relative costs of the drugs viewed in a vacuum. They probably have a good sense that Ivermectin is a crap drug regarding COVID treatment and to remain competitive and actually take market share they need something far more effective. Hence, molnupiravir.

And at the end of the day, they're going to need to price it competitively as it appears there are plenty of other antivirals coming to market that can easily take margin.

Estimated annual sales revenue to Merck for Ivermectin is $250-300 million, not "billions". I never thought you'd resort to hyperbole.

And I understood your point perfectly. And I still disagree. Merck is selling their new treatment for what the free market will bear, which is apparently $700 per treatment. Isn't capitalism wonderful?

Matt

“And I still disagree. Merck is selling their new treatment for what the free market will bear, which is apparently $700 per treatment. Isn't capitalism wonderful?l And that wasn’t the point. The point was questioning motivation to not push an $8 solution.

Matt

But that’s a different issue !

Who is trying to kill a $8 treatment?

Matt

What is Einstein's definition of insanity?

For those how live in a cave, per Einstein: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

You could also look at the results they had in Brazil where many used Ivermectin both as a prophylactic and a treatment for COVID.

Spoiler alert: of countries over 10M in population Brazil is #3 in the world in deaths/1M population.

How about something preventative like an effective vaccine.

Maybe I got well because I took the livestock dose?

Fixed it. Hint, there IS one - it's called a 'VACCINE'.

"I took it and I got better" proves *nothing* - unless you can't understand 'post hoc fallacy'.

"The failure of this vaccine to prevent disease and at times death in certain vaccinated individuals and its apparent inability to reduce the number of carriers clearly indicate that polio will not be "wiped out" by this vaccine."

Does that sound familiar?

Now fast forward to 1961, the vaccine had reduced the number of polio cases in the US from nearly 30,000 in 1955 to only 161. Today, we haven't had a single polio case in the US for 30 years, all due to a vaccine with a initial clinical efficacy similar to the Covid vaccines

"History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

Matt

Because they understand that vaccines increase resistance but they don't make you bullet-proof. Still...

Ok, but the first is a *political* choice, not a *health* choice, and the second is uncertain. I've had the 'flu' but I don't think it gave me any 'natural immunity'. I get the flu shot every year. Some years I have a mild 'reaction' but that beats ten days of hell. I had 'chicken pox' as a kid and years later had a 'shingles' eruption. Bet on it, I got the shot for that!

While I respect the political theory, it's not always easy to square 'personal choice' with 'public good'. One thing I feel confident in ids that the more people who do get vaccinated, even if we never reach 100%, the sooner we'll all be safe*R*. I did my part, and it seems that the holdouts are sometimes grasping at scientific-sounding straws or searching out anecdotal evidence to rationalize their choice, rather than suck it up and just get the dam' shot. And like all rationalization, it gets *tiresome*.

Obviously you have given up your freedom, willingly, for the “promise” of “safety” by those in power.

Perhaps a review of how well that kind of misplaced faith works out for people throughout history would be worthwhile.

There still remain people in this country who cherish their God Given Rights and Constitutionally protected freedom from oppressive government. They are not driven by the FEAR to willingly give up those Rights and Freedoms.

Yep what about them??

Antibiotics kill people every year. What about them?

Anesthesia kills people every year. What about them?

Driving a car kills people every year. What about them?

Skiing kills people every year. What about them?

Covid kills at least 1 per 100 infections. Vaccine kills maybe 1 in a million.

You can do the math. The vaccine is a “calculated risk” just like every time you get behind the wheel

But I absolutely believe in the right of each person to make their own choices. I can’t change that and in our free society, I support that right. That is why some of us succeed while others fail. That is why some of us live while others die.

I am heading out today to take a young friend hunting who is seeking solace in the woods. You see, his unvaccinated father just died of Covid. Guess what he told his son before he died?

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/mercolacom-llc-607133-02182021