Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Funny thing is that Merck was the original developer of Ivermectin, but this patent has expired. Wonder if Molnupiravir was one of the candidate drugs for the same role of Ivermectin that was rejected during research because Ivermectin was better.

Also, Ivermectin safety in humans is thoroughly proven, Molnupiravir's not so much.

The really hilarious thing about this is that you haven't even got the right drug.

Molnupiravir is a nucleoside analogue, somewhat similar to remdesivir in its method of action. Basically it gets itself into viral RNA as it is being assembled inside an infected cell and disrupts its chemical structure.

The one that people are mistaking for the horse paste is an experimental drug which only has a code from Pfizer, PF-07321332. This is a protease inhibitor which attempts to inhibit an enzyme which is used by the virus to help it replicate. It's also the one which has gotten the horse paste cultists all worked up because the word "protease" is also associated with Ivermectin, leading people to wrongly conclude they are the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sunday said:

That's not what that data shows and that website is (possibly deliberately) misrepresenting the data.

First up, here's the report, which the site at least had the decency to link to.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf

If you scroll to page 10, it has a graph which shows the vaccination rate by age group for the UK population. We'll also look at this graph which was presented on the website you linked to but was also taken from the report.

VE-graph-211015.jpg?w=616&ssl=1

What this is claimed to show is that more people in a number of age brackets are getting covid if they are unvaccinated than if they are, presumably because the bar is higher on the graph.

OK

Let's go back to page 10 of the .pdf document. If you look, it says that roughly 72% of adults between 40 and 45 and 78% of adults between 45 and 50 have received two doses of the vaccine. Let's split the difference and say that roughly 75% of all adults in the UK between the ages of 40 and 50 have received two doses of a covid vaccine.

Now, back to the graph above again. The rate is given as being per 100,000 people, so presumably that means that if you took a sufficiently randomised sample of 100,000 people from the UK, approximately 1,400 people would be vaccinated with 2 doses and would have covid and maybe 700 would be unvaccinated and have covid.

What the report fails to consider is that the number of people in this age group who are vaccinated with two doses is 3 times the size of the number of people who are unvaccinated. To compare the two, you would need to divide the number for the fully vaccinated group by 3 which would then give a number substantially smaller than the unvaccinated group (1400 / 3 gives around 467 cases for a sample group the same size as the unvaccinated group).

In other words, it appears to show that the vaccine works.

The data also makes no mention of severity of infection. Happily this can be found on pages 10 and 11, and here there is absolutely no contest, even before taking into account the relative difference in sample sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dyscalculia is, sadly, a widely spread phenomenon, most visible when it comes to statistics. It's further compounded by a lazy System II which, as soon as data seem to support an already accepted position, will gladly stop further investigation. Admittedly, this can affect everyone in a moment of weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/ivermectin_the_elephant_in_the_room.html

Quote

The response to the COVID pandemic has produced a number of distressing and questionable policies: mandates, lockdowns, threatening people's jobs, and contributing to the psychological effects of uncertainty and increasing authoritarianism.  The response to COVID has been associated with its own detriments, even if one wishes to assume that these were unavoidable or, on balance, necessary.  Given these costs, however, the dismissal of potential therapies on grounds of "no evidence," coupled with refusal to investigate such evidence, suggests that the priorities in COVID policy do not begin with public health.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a bunch of large scale clinical trials running right now investigating the effectiveness of Ivermectin and to say that there's some kind of weird conspiracy against it is simply untrue. Here's one which took a whole 10 seconds to find, being funded by the British government and carried out by Oxford University.

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/ivermectin-principle-trial-covid/

Here are more studies of varying sizes:

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

Look if it does turn out that there is some actual benefit to this stuff then that's great but so far the evidence is not promising. I don't understand the weird obsession that some parts of the internet seem to have with it, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Adam_S said:

I don't understand the weird obsession that some parts of the internet seem to have with it, either.

I don't understand the weird obsession authoritarians have with mocking, denigrating, and vilifying treatments not specifically approved by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 1:18 PM, rmgill said:

So it's no socioeconomics?

Where one falls on that ladder simply highlights how much is in one's control.  Thus someone working two jobs, living in a food desert, who has had no education (and wouldn't know where to begin) on nutrition outside of what they may hear occasionally on the news/internet/from friends is going to have a harder time being healthy than those wealthy folks around here who work that one job (maybe even live in a household still where only one person needs to work) have plenty of time (if they chose to use it to get healthy), have decent healthy grocery stores/markets, and can afford all manners of nutritionists/health coaches/trainers/etc.  Those differences likely explain why Blacks have worse numbers since as a group they're the lowest on the SES.  That doesn't excuse them... it's still possible.  Just harder.

On 10/5/2021 at 1:18 PM, rmgill said:

Us outcomes will be different than European Outcomes vis a vis covid due to the co-morbidities factor. Obesity being one of them.

So... your whole point was agreeing with Der Zeitgeist and myself?  You have an odd way of going about that.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

I don't understand the weird obsession authoritarians have with mocking, denigrating, and vilifying treatments not specifically approved by them.

If they let disinformation slide, they will be accused of complacency.

If they actively try to combat disinformation, it's a cover-up.

 

Either way, those spreading the false information win in internet debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can cook your own pretty healthy food with a minimum effort of time and money. Ordering takeout, eating TV dinners, eating large amounts of fast food are choices, usually coming not from the lack of education, but from the laziness. Plus most of those are actually more expensive than cooking your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 10:15 PM, Der Zeitgeist said:

Yes, I'm sure you do. 😅

U63OPrS.gif

The best had to be sunday's exchanges with nitflegal in recent weeks where the former was picking out the tidbits to fit his agenda while the latter has made several statements stating he believes the data clearly shows the vaccine is safe for adults, that alternative treatments have been investigated, and that the support for most of them is still weak or nonexistent.

And sunday has the gall to say what he has about others in the last two years... 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 10:37 PM, lucklucky said:

Video say Amish despite staying open have no more excess deaths.

Some quick googlefu last night seemed to indicate that the Amish are much healthier than the American population as a whole.  Given their lifestyle that seems understandable.

Going back, again, to that quote from Dr Osterholm way back at the start of this thread the concern with COVID for the US was we're a nation of unhealthy people.  The Amish aren't in that group and thus likely explains why they had better results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DKTanker said:

"It's just like the flu" was first stated by His Highness Lord Doctor Fauci.

So was this why you were trumpeting the same thing at the start of the pandemic?

Actually, I'd love a source on this claimed Fauci quote.  I tried last night to find a source and the best I came across was a local news interview with Fauci shortly after we had our first official COVID cases in the US.  In that interview Fauci stated that he believed COVID would be contained with the protocols they had in place (supposed testing, tracing, and isolation... that bit certainly hasn't aged well).  He said the flu was a bigger concern because that was actually out in the population and so many Americans blow it off.  Two completely different things if that's where you might be getting this from.  I wouldn't be surprised since so much of what Fauci has said has been twisted and manipulated by his detractors since this all started (and then there's still the question of why anyone has negative feelings about the guy... FFS...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

And sunday has the gall to say what he has about others in the last two years... 🙄

Well, if you check his post right above yours at this point he's either trolling or simply stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Adam_S said:

The really hilarious thing about this is that you haven't even got the right drug.

Molnupiravir is a nucleoside analogue, somewhat similar to remdesivir in its method of action. Basically it gets itself into viral RNA as it is being assembled inside an infected cell and disrupts its chemical structure.

The one that people are mistaking for the horse paste is an experimental drug which only has a code from Pfizer, PF-07321332. This is a protease inhibitor which attempts to inhibit an enzyme which is used by the virus to help it replicate. It's also the one which has gotten the horse paste cultists all worked up because the word "protease" is also associated with Ivermectin, leading people to wrongly conclude they are the same thing.

Thanks for that Adam, it's nice with you and Nitflegal actually referencing knowledge. It's invaluable, just don't expect facts to carry any weight around here. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Adam_S said:

.

The one that people are mistaking for the horse paste is

If you’re going to get picky about function don’t be such a lying ass as to call it horse paste. You know its an anti-parasitic used by millions and the subject of a Nobel prize for its discovery. 

Even the paste angle is bloody ignorant as compounding and dosage sizing for critters is different than for humans because of the body mass range. Easier with a paste than with pills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adam_S said:

There are a bunch of large scale clinical trials running right now investigating the effectiveness of Ivermectin and to say that there's some kind of weird conspiracy against it is simply untrue.

 

Theres just dunderheads calling it horse paste and censorious scolds preventing articles being published online via google and such. So all kinds of normal and not a problem. Maybe if moderator deleted half your posts just at random you'd consider that fine? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Stasi, Mini-Truth wannabes, get bent. If you're throwing out "Disinformation" Or "horse paste", this means you.

For those that believe that you're arguing from a position of integrity, you cannot ignore the fact that there has been clear efforts at censorship by big tech across a variety of fronts that does not help your side's positions. Your dancing around that censorship doesn't help. If you're actively disputing it's not happening, stop. You may as well be telling us that 3.7 Roentgens is fine. 

Again, when you have discussions on something OTHER than big media of the issues and the videos/podcasts are deleted, you must admit that that looks bad. If the issue cannot be discussed by anyone other than the vetted officialdom, you've fallen off the map of what's reasonable and you must be prepared for backlash and obstreperous rejection of your position. Anything handed down from a "TRUST THE EXPERTS OR WE'LL MAKE YOU" is not going to work. Certainly not in the US. So just stop trying with that nonsense. And when you see it, know that it's doomed to failure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Anything handed down from a "TRUST THE EXPERTS OR WE'LL MAKE YOU" is not going to work.

It worked well enough with Warmism to wreck several power generating sectors, raise a lot of "environmental taxes", and move most manufacturing industry to such underdeveloped countries -but with nuclear weapons- as China and India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...