The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[snk123]

Setting aside your ridiculous moving of the goalposts (2 billion patients a year initially was the claim ), the whole point is that it has no impact on COVID when used at safe dosages, so if it's used at high doses then the previous safety profile is completely irrelevant.

Hey, we're not using snapchat. Our posts don't disappear. 2 billion since it's discovery was the claim which is 40 years. It's not ridiculous to suggest that and I've posted over a dozen articles citing that.

First resorting to ridiculing a drug and it's creators, then saying you know more than Merck, people at Oxford etc., then lying... and you're apparently from the medical fraternity. Excellent! Thank you for settling the debate!

 

[snk123]

You suggesting tens of millions and several billions are even in the same fcuking ballpark tells me all I need to know.

I'm not suggesting that. I was merely agreeing with the poster for the sake of argument. Ivermectin has been used by billions of people since it was discovered. Prove me wrong. (without plucking sources from your collective arses)

There is literally no room for an alternate point of view here even when you give official sources, links and articles. Everyone's minds are made up already

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Hey, we're not using snapchat. Our posts don't disappear. 2 billion since it's discovery was the claim which is 40 years. It's not ridiculous to suggest that and I've posted over a dozen articles citing that.

First resorting to ridiculing a drug and it's creators, then saying you know more than Merck, people at Oxford etc., then lying... and you're apparently from the medical fraternity. Excellent! Thank you for settling the debate!

So you think on average 50 million patients are being prescribed ivermectin every year for the past 40 years? Statins are the most prescribed class of drug, and are taken by about 200 million people per year. You genuinely think that ivermectin is taken by only 4 times fewer people than statins?

You are just digging yourself a bigger hole. Also I thought you were (blissfully) done with this thread, guess that's another thing you've been wrong about!

 

[snk123]

Honestly, thank feck.

I understand the point you were trying to make but a drug that has not been clinically tested sufficiently for the specific purpose of treating CV19 infection, irrespective of the fact that it has been used at appropriate dosages to treat other conditions, but being advocated strongly as a treatment for said illness by prominent non medical media celebrities resulting in people literally taking doses of the drug designed for the veterinary treatment of an animal that is considerably more massive is a bad thing.

This does not mean Ivermectin is not safe for human use at appropriate dosages for certain conditions (which has been medically tested, proven and the side effects understood - somewhat like the vaccine as an aside) and Seth fecking Rogan may have taken a sensible dosage to treat the disease he has contracted (and let's not even go into his positions on this matter) but that changes absolutely none of the above paragraph.

So, yes, laughing at Rogan for being a (dangerous) idiot is entirely appropriate as he is doing something far more risky than taking the vaccine he is so sceptical about and the fact that humans have used Ivermectin for other purposes is, literally, fecking irrelevant.

I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.
You don't reach out to the anti vax idiots by "not" telling the truth. The messaging should have been: Ivermectin is being trialed and results are awaited - however vaccination is absolutely necessary because Delta is on the rise.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.
You don't reach out to the anti vax idiots by "not" telling the truth. The messaging should have been: Ivermectin is being trialed and results are awaited - however vaccination is absolutely necessary because Delta is on the rise.

There's no point in reaching out to them. Triage them appropriately and de-prioritise them for beds and other resources.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.
You don't reach out to the anti vax idiots by "not" telling the truth. The messaging should have been: Ivermectin is being trialed and results are awaited - however vaccination is absolutely necessary because Delta is on the rise.

I think the kicking you’ve got in this thread is a little harsh. And I agree with this post. With the one proviso that vaccination was necessary long before delta came on the scene.

 

[do.ob]

I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.
You don't reach out to the anti vax idiots by "not" telling the truth. The messaging should have been: Ivermectin is being trialed and results are awaited - however vaccination is absolutely necessary because Delta is on the rise.

Well that sentence is a bit paradox.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well that sentence is a bit paradox.

Not really. If you try to push back against antivaxxers with demonstrably untrue implications (ivermectin is a medicine only used on horses) it just makes them feel even more vindicated and superior to the “sheeple” who “aren’t doing their research”

EDIT: Although this only matters if you can actually change the mind of strangers who argue about this shit online all day. I’m inclined to think that’s not possible.

 

[do.ob]

Not really. If you try to push back against antivaxxers with demonstrably untrue implications (ivermectin is a medicine only used on horses) it just makes them feel even more vindicated and superior to the “sheeple” who “aren’t doing their research”

EDIT: Although this only matters if you can actually change the mind of strangers who argue about this shit online all day. I’m inclined to think that’s not possible.

Well that was kind of my point: people who have subscribed to their own reality won't accept anything from the regular channels, no matter how accurate. Trump's ramblings outweigh a million scientists.

 

[Beans]

Rolling Stones is leaving the article up, just adding the refutation after the title introduction.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/

 

[Beans]

You’re linking us to a refuted paper.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...ersial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

Exactly.

Add the medium article someone posted said, removing that study lowered the efficacy from 62% to 52%. It only works in the first two days of infection, so all these studies looking at giving it to very sick people are wasting their time and muddying the waters, throw a bunch of very sick people not getting well on top of the good results and it will look like it’s barely working.

I’ve been following all this over YouTube, so I don’t have a bunch of links handy, but I’ll spend some time looking at the Peak Prosperity videos and see if I can find some of the data showing it works of given early.

 

[Beans]

Here’s something in Nature about Ivermectin being effective:

Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

 

[Carolina Red]

It only works in the first two days of infection

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Carolina Red]

Here’s something in Nature about Ivermectin being effective:

Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

At the top of that article, you can see that it’s conclusions are also in dispute.

“22 June 2021 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues.”

And it is probably because all studies of ivermectin have either been inconclusive, fundamentally flawed, or have shown no benefit.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/

 

[berbatrick]

Here’s something in Nature about Ivermectin being effective:

Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

This is the Journal of Antibiotics, not Nature. Doesn't make the article any better/worse, but Nature is famous even to non-science people and the name itself carries some weight.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I'll have to look into it more, the claims are complicated, but I do take exception with this:

"The problem is, if you look at those large, aggregate models, and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses almost all of its purported benefit. Take the recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al. that has been all over the news — they found a 62% reduction in risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin compared to controls when combining randomized trials.

However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide"

First of all, no one had ever said it works on people with severe COVID, it's a prophylactic, it prevents the infection from taking place, it can't fight an infection that's already there.

Second, 52% is a big deal to me, I don't understand why they're saying 62% is amazing but 52% is equal to "loses almost all of its purported benefit."

But I'll check the rest out. I haven't paid attention to all this for a while so I don't have everything to hand, but if I can muster the energy I'll check out some of the old Peak Prosperity videos on the info and studies that have come out and post the data.

As I recall, you really have to take it in the first 48 hours to get the benefit, and it doesn't work once you're quite sick. That's always been the case, and any study that only tests people already 2 days into symptoms will find little benefit. As I recall, it binds to the site that COVID wants to bind to, I think that's it.

Because in addition to going from 62 to 52 it increases the variance a lot, almost reaches statistical insignificance, and does reach it when including newer studies.

 

[mav_9me]

Here’s something in Nature about Ivermectin being effective:

Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

What do you make of this statement by Merck the makers of Ivermectin?

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

 

[Wibble]

What do you make of this statement by Merck the makers of Ivermectin?

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

I'm going to suspect it does feck all for Covid as we already know and may be dangerous.

An Aussie satrirical site - The Chase - recently ran this "news article" but the best bit was a throwaway quote at the end,

While Martin-Donald celebrates, however, the run on Ivermectin has not been without its victims. Horse Red Excalibur said, “I’ve got a terribly itchy arse but people with Don’t Tread On Me car stickers have eaten all my medicine.”

 

[Revan]

That is an absolute joke of a study and is completely meaningless mate. First of all, they didn't do this in a double-blinded fashion - if you want to show an impact, you have to do so vs. placebo. Furthermore, they didn't age, gender, or role-match their participants and are comparing cohorts of completely different sizes AND did nothing to control for prior COVID infection. The impact factor of the journal it's been published in is 1.15 - this is pretty much Facebook-tier nonsense.

1.15 is right there with ‘write an article with automatically generated text, submit it, and see it accepted’.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Add the medium article someone posted said, removing that study lowered the efficacy from 62% to 52%. It only works in the first two days of infection, so all these studies looking at giving it to very sick people are wasting their time and muddying the waters, throw a bunch of very sick people not getting well on top of the good results and it will look like it’s barely working.

I’ve been following all this over YouTube, so I don’t have a bunch of links handy, but I’ll spend some time looking at the Peak Prosperity videos and see if I can find some of the data showing it works of given early.

If we assume what you say there is true (which is an enormous “if”) how many people are diagnosed before the first two days of infection have passed? Basically none.

We know it usually takes at least a day or two to become symptomatic after initial infection. Plus the early symptoms are so mild it could take another day after that for the individual to try and book a test. Then they get the test. Then they wait for the result. At which point they’re already well past the window where ivermectin would be a useful therapy, according to what you’re telling us about it.

All of which means that even if the best case scenario for efficacy is true ivermectin is essentially useless as a treatment. So why the hell are we all talking about it?!?

 

[Revan]

Is Ivermectin the new hydroxychloroquine? Why do the right wing people feel the need to glorify a completely useless drug (for covid purposes, not in general) every few months?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Is Ivermectin the new hydroxychloroquine? Why do the right wing people feel the need to glorify a completely useless drug (for covid purposes, not in general) every few months?

It’s very strange.

I think it’s more a conspiracy theory mindset than right wing politics. The common theme is that pharma companies don’t want the secret getting out that cheap, off patent treatments are available for covid. So they can continue to make millions from flogging vaccines. You’d expect right wingers to be on the side of big business here.

There’s also a libertarian twist to it as well. We don’t want the government and the regulators telling us what medicines we can and can’t take. We know what’s best for our own health. We do our own research. Blah blah blah.

 

[jojojo]

It’s very strange.

I think it’s more a conspiracy theory mindset than right wing politics. The common theme is that pharma companies don’t want the secret getting out that cheap, off patent treatments are available for covid. So they can continue to make millions from flogging vaccines. You’d expect right wingers to be on the side of big business here.

There’s also a libertarian twist to it as well. We don’t want the government and the regulators telling us what medicines we can and can’t take. We know what’s best for our own health. We do our own research. Blah blah blah.

People do like the idea of secret knowledge, of knowing things that the experts don't. Plus they like the idea of self care, of having their own solution - whether that's a vegan diet, a healthy chakra, no-comorbidities (they know about) or access to a pill that covers the rest of the risk.

I understand the initial response, particularly for individual doctors under pressure to "do something". Sometimes random fortune plays a role - with the observation that the only member of a household who didn't catch covid is taking an asthma drug, or an anti-parasitic. In that situation, why not try it on fifty people who want to try it - and publish your results if they look good.

It's a difficult thing to trial of course. If it relies on being taken early - you ignore failure because they took it too late. Most people don't end up in hospital anyway, and if you're healthy and under 50 - you're very unlikely to die of it. It's easy to find a cohort who gets cured 100%. Especially if the ones who become more seriously ill then get treated with oxygen and steroids and the other conventional solutions.

The power of the idea of special knowledge is so strong that people can end up taking a cocktail of vitamins and drugs, including expensive novelties like monoclonal antibodies and brag about beating it in a few days. So much for cheap solutions that big pharma want to hide from you.

My 78 year old family member beat it in four days with the occasional paracetamol and plenty of cups of tea. That isn't a cure either.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Add the medium article someone posted said, removing that study lowered the efficacy from 62% to 52%. It only works in the first two days of infection, so all these studies looking at giving it to very sick people are wasting their time and muddying the waters, throw a bunch of very sick people not getting well on top of the good results and it will look like it’s barely working.

I’ve been following all this over YouTube, so I don’t have a bunch of links handy, but I’ll spend some time looking at the Peak Prosperity videos and see if I can find some of the data showing it works of given early.

Christ on a bike

1.15 is right there with ‘write an article with automatically generated text, submit it, and see it accepted’.

The whole ivermectin thing is like a mad lib to me - "(Insert group of wealthy people) don't want YOU to know about this new treatment for COVID - it's used in humans and (insert other species) in order to (insert irrelevant physiological effect)! It's (insert ludicrously high number) times more effective than (insert proven treatment / vaccine), and (insert idiotic thing found on social media) PROVES that it works!"

 

[Revan]

It’s very strange.

I think it’s more a conspiracy theory mindset than right wing politics. The common theme is that pharma companies don’t want the secret getting out that cheap, off patent treatments are available for covid. So they can continue to make millions from flogging vaccines. You’d expect right wingers to be on the side of big business here.

There’s also a libertarian twist to it as well. We don’t want the government and the regulators telling us what medicines we can and can’t take. We know what’s best for our own health. We do our own research. Blah blah blah.

True. Though I think that these groups highly intersect with each other.

 

[Beans]

I posted this in the SARS thread a bit ago:
Peer reviewed study from India:
Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

 

[F-Red]

I posted this in the SARS thread a bit ago:
Peer reviewed study from India:

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

Cureus as a truly peer reviewed platform is pretty useless to hang any hat on, and lacks credibility.

 

[jojojo]

Because I have a vested interest, I have to mention:


Unfortunately I fear international agreement on vaccine passports has bigger fish to fry than just the triallist issue - though it's nice of the UK to ask
Just looking at G20 countries we have different policies on:
- age group eligibility
- mixed vaccines (AZ first dose, Pfizer second)
- assumed protection period
- single or double dose policy following past infection
- vaccine types that are fully approved vary between countries
- boosters
- option to use recent negative test as an alternative
- option to use recovery following a PCR positive test as an option
- use of quarantine with vaxxed travellers v test regime for the vaxxed
etc etc etc...

 

[Revan]

I posted this in the SARS thread a bit ago:
Peer reviewed study from India:
Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

Posted before that the impact factor of the journal is right there with Facebook nonsense and just publishing there would be seen as a negative for good scientists.

 

[jojojo]

I posted this in the SARS thread a bit ago:
Peer reviewed study from India:
Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

I've just done a quick read through so I'll give my first impressions on the study. It was conducted in October 2020, and everyone in the world was looking for solutions. The doctors involved in the study felt they had one, one so popular that it was already in short supply in their area.

They offered it to a group with a high risk of infection but a low risk of serious disease, and with high odds of having no/minor symptoms. Average age of the participants = 30. There was no placebo group, just a group who chose not to take it. Testing followed self-reported symptoms.

The results could be entirely down to placebo effects, or to behavioural or other differences between the two groups - we can't tell if they are or not. People desperate for a solution, for anything they could do to help, can hope the results are meaningful. But we don't know.

The trial lasted one month. The proposal contained in the report was to dose again after one month. The report doesn't contain what happened in subsequent months. Was efficacy maintained? Did the drug still show minimal side-effects when used in repeat doses (unlike it's normal usage). Did it work against serious disease, and does it offer the elderly - that is, those most at risk of serious disease/death - any significant protection.

In other words, it's an interesting result and a promising one - it may work and that's good news for all those people who've been buying it (often along with a bunch of other drugs/vitamins) for months. Unfortunately it's now 10 months later and we still don't know if it means anything. Which is why people still talk about needing evidence.

 

[golden_blunder]

Been a real crappy week with regards to covid.

Have two friends. One had the AZ a while back and has been in hospital with suspected stroke. Months since he had the AZ. Don't know if linked. He is in early 40's. Being investigated for blood clots etc.

Another friend early 30's hospitalized due to covid. Seemed to be pulling through now in coma and critical. Don't think will pull through. Absolutely brilliant lad. Very fit and active. No underlying conditions.

I’m very sorry to hear that. Was your younger friend vaxxed at all?

 

[golden_blunder]

I got my second yesterday and I had a really weird side effect. It's not really an issue, it doesn't hurt and it isn't even really uncomfortable, but my eyes have blown up to the extent that if it worsens just a little bit I can't see. It looks like an allergic reaction, but I've gotten reactions like this before several times (15-20 years ago all of them) and they were always itchy, I don't feel this at all. In my very unprofessional opinion it just looks like fluid buildup of some sort. I'm not worried or anything, but considering what people sung about Diego Costo I'll stay inside for a couple of days.

(Seeing as it looks like an allergic reaction I've had several times before it's not at all certain that it has anything to do with the vaccine. It would be a weird coincidence, both because it hasn't happened for a very long time and because it didn't itch, but coincidences do happen. And if it was because of the vaccince then it's not really a problem, it's just weird and I already have improved from Diego Costa to someone who just got his face punched in.)

edit: I've talked to a doctor just in case, they said to chug anti-histamines just because, stay upright because fluilds, and get in contact again if it either gets worse or stays the same for a long time. They didn't seem too worried, so I'm sure it's fine. I look proper weird, though.

Hope you get better soon.

coincidentally I was talking to someone the other day and he said that he thought he had an eye infection, left it for a few days then decided to go to a clinic. Long story short; he diagnosed with a rare disease that causes buildup behind the eyes pushing them out. He had to have emergency surgery to give him some space for the eyes. He is prescribed something to keep them in check but he has been told that it’s a matter of time before he’s blind. He drives a taxi for a living.

look after your eyes

 

[golden_blunder]

Because I have a vested interest, I have to mention:


Unfortunately I fear international agreement on vaccine passports has bigger fish to fry than just the triallist issue - though it's nice of the UK to ask
Just looking at G20 countries we have different policies on:
- age group eligibility
- mixed vaccines (AZ first dose, Pfizer second)
- assumed protection period
- single or double dose policy following past infection
- vaccine types that are fully approved vary between countries
- boosters
- option to use recent negative test as an alternative
- option to use recovery following a PCR positive test as an option
- use of quarantine with vaxxed travellers v test regime for the vaxxed
etc etc etc...

Up until very recently I worked for a company that was in the digital health passes for travel marketplace. Pretty much everything you list almost always caused a rejection which travellers couldn’t understand, especially double vaxxed but with different vaccines. What’s good for one destination was a strict no for another.
Different COVID tests, time between doses, travellers not realising that that place you just got vaccinated spelled your name wrong, it doesn’t match your travel documents, etc
It’s a minefield at the moment, they really need some consistency across the board

 

[Roane]

I’m very sorry to hear that. Was your younger friend vaxxed at all?

Not 100% sure but I think not. Wasn't anti vaxx or anything.

He has passed away since I initially posted. His wife had given birth to a son whilst he was in a coma. Gutted as he was such a nice and humble guy.

Regarding the vaccine, AZ in particular, there is a radio personality who died after having it. I mentioned another guy who has had a stroke and blood clots and my own mother passed away 6 months ago from stroke after the AZ jab.

 

[golden_blunder]

Not 100% sure but I think not. Wasn't anti vaxx or anything.

He has passed away since I initially posted. His wife had given birth to a son whilst he was in a coma. Gutted as he was such a nice and humble guy.

Regarding the vaccine, AZ in particular, there is a radio personality who died after having it. I mentioned another guy who has had a stroke and blood clots and my own mother passed away 6 months ago from stroke after the AZ jab.

Very sorry to hear that, gutting for his young family.

 

[prateik]

Got my second dose yesterday. AZ.

All good.. The standard sore arm (still got it) and headache last night... but the headache might be because of my fecked up sleep schedule.. didnt sleep much on Sunday night..

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Made me laugh

 

[One Night Only]

Made me laugh

 

[NotThatSoph]

Hope you get better soon.

coincidentally I was talking to someone the other day and he said that he thought he had an eye infection, left it for a few days then decided to go to a clinic. Long story short; he diagnosed with a rare disease that causes buildup behind the eyes pushing them out. He had to have emergency surgery to give him some space for the eyes. He is prescribed something to keep them in check but he has been told that it’s a matter of time before he’s blind. He drives a taxi for a living.

look after your eyes

I'm completely fine again, thank you for asking.

The thing that got me bewildered is that I'm very familiar with allergic reactions, and I have experienced my eyes balooning several times before. Thing is, it hasn't happened for at least 15 years (was pretty regular before then, I'm medicated now), and when it did it itched like something crazy. It's hard to overstate how bad it was. This time I didn't feel a thing, I just looked like the Elephant Man (or Diego Costa, if we are to listen to the crowds), which is what weirded me out. If it was a "normal" allergic reaction then I would know what I was in for, but because it wasn't I was slightly worried.

Turned out to be nothing, though, so all good. Got a day off with full pay and everything.

Pretty much my whole family have shit eyes as well, so I do pay attention. Nearsightedness, farsightedness, glaucoma, etc. I'm literally the only person with perfect vision. My brother can't read but he doesn't read anyway, my father just did Lasik, my mother has like five pairs of glasses depending on what she's doing, my grandmother gets injections every second week to not go blind. Meanwhile I'm fecking Hawkeye.

 

[11101]

Made me laugh

I am coming across more and more people like this lately.

People who have died despite being vaccinated. People who have survived with one vaccine whilst a partner has died with another. People who have been seriously ill after the vaccine. With billions of people there are bound to be some coincidences, and some genuine cases. Its hard explain it all away to those who see it as a reason to avoid the vaccine, but those cases all pale in comparison to the people who caught the actual virus.