Covid-19 Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 4 - Ivermectin doesn't work either.

[Chief]

Continued in Part 5:

Covid-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 5 - Get vaccinated.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/in-focus/covid-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Total Power]

As I said, its proven very safe and not a 'horse drug'. Yet the FDA puts a photo of a horse on its Ivermectin warning page. Why would they do that?

Why are we seeing, in recent days, multiple fake stories about Ivermectin being created and repeated across global media channels?

Author suggests no conflict of interest.

You consider it a research paper? really?

Their paper was removed from Frontiers recently.

Frontiers Removes Controversial Ivermectin Paper Pre-Publication

A review article containing contested claims about the tropical medicine drug as a COVID-19 treatment was listed as "provisionally accepted" on the journal's website before being removed this week.

www.the-scientist.com

During review of the article in what the journal refers to as “the provisional acceptance phase,” Fenter says in the statement, members of Frontiers’s research integrity team identified “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.”


The statement continues: “Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies. In our view, this paper does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”


Frontiers takes no position on the efficacy of ivermectin as a treatment of patients with COVID-19, however, we do take a very firm stance against unbalanced or unsupported scientific conclusions.

—Frederick Fenter, Frontiers in Pharmology.


More here


A lot of the hope that ivermectin would be a COVID-19 silver bullet arose from the findings of various meta-analyses, including the one conducted by the FLCCC, that combined the results of various observational studies and small randomized controlled trials. One of the more prominent recent ones was posted as a preprint in May by a team of British public health researchers led by the Newcastle University statistician Andrew Bryant. But other scientists have faulted that study for significant methodological failures.

Unfortunately, Ivermectin Is Not a Miracle Cure for COVID-19

Podcaster Joe Rogan took the drug after falling ill. Here's why it's not likely to help him.

reason.com

You keep telling yourself that there's no conflict of interest. This is the same as a climate change thread. Fossil fuel funded studies to prove CC isn't real. Dr Kory's metanalysis also excluded negative studies. That is not accidental; he was intentionally deceptive. He is a hack. A charlatan. A fraud.

Similarly, he is absolutely misrepresenting his evidence base. Ivermectin pharmacokinetics discussed in depth here: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine/

 

[Evolved1]

Sweden's strategy has been vindicated. Head and shoulders above Australia.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

 

[Crankyhawk]

Sweden's strategy has been vindicated. Head and shoulders above Australia.

View attachment 1233475

Except for the peaks of > 10 deaths per day (what Doherty aims to flatten death to in Australia). And what are the economic comparisons (gdp 2019 vs now)- genuine question which needs to be considered

 

[mcnulty]

Sweden screwed up so badly they had to go to parliament to enact laws to allow them to impose restrictions on their people, restrictions that they admit they were too slow on and were in place for much of 2021.

Why are people persisting with this myth?

Sweden's Parliament votes in favour of new pandemic law

The new legislation will still not allow the government to impose curfews or a domestic travel ban.

www.euronews.com

 

[Chief]

Sweden's strategy has been vindicated.

How did it differ to everyone else's?

How does it compare to countries bordering Sweden?

How does their definition of Covid death differ to other countries?

 

[Evolved1]

Sweden's total deaths accounted to covid19 are around 0.14% of the population, though they've had virtually no excess deaths over the past 18 months. The conclusion is that the vast majority who died from covid would have died anyway due to another comorbidity.

Count that against the loss of civil liberties, and I'd say they come out on top of other nations including those around them.

While their strategy may have cost them in economic terms, it's hard to argue that Australia's zero covid has been a raging success. Look at the ongoing effects on the Victorian economy, not to mention the impact of closed state and international borders. It's going to be fascinating seeing WA attempt a swing from their isolationist policy.

There's more of a mental health epidemic than a covid epidemic in Melbourne, and it was all for nought. There are signs that many people no longer believe in the strategy and are choosing to ignore health directives.

The other consideration is the views of those most at risk. Do our elderly want these restrictions or are we locking them down against their will. The risk aversive nature of social media posters doesn't reflect real world demographics in my experience.

 

[H2F]

I took AZ which was a no brainer.

One injects you with a Malaria type virus to get your immune system prepared. The others MRNA inject you with a synthetic drug that we have no longitudinal data on.

Along with people thinking this came from a wet market 100 metres from a Virology lab making Corona viruses this is my greatest mystery. Why do the masses want Pfizer over AZ? Genuine question. Likely neither have issues but one won’t and the other night long term. Bizarre.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

I took AZ which was a no brainer.

One injects you with a Malaria type virus to get your immune system prepared. The others MRNA inject you with a synthetic drug that we have no longitudinal data on.

Along with people thinking this came from a wet market 100 metres from a Virology lab making Corona viruses this is my greatest mystery. Why do the masses want Pfizer over AZ? Genuine question. Likely neither have issues but one won’t and the other night long term. Bizarre.

Because it's believed AZ has more prevalent and serious side effects than PZ. Such reports were hyper-publicised by the media.

Though Pfizer has its own set of side effects we already know about. Also interesting to think about who was sponsoring some of the anti-AZ advertising, who is profiting from AZ's reputation being maligned, which vaccines cost the most, etc...

 

[Crankyhawk]

I took AZ which was a no brainer.

One injects you with a Malaria type virus to get your immune system prepared. The others MRNA inject you with a synthetic drug that we have no longitudinal data on.

Along with people thinking this came from a wet market 100 metres from a Virology lab making Corona viruses this is my greatest mystery. Why do the masses want Pfizer over AZ? Genuine question. Likely neither have issues but one won’t and the other night long term. Bizarre.

I would have been happy to get AZ - but the random luck at the time gave me pfizer.

 

[H2F]

Because it's believed AZ has more prevalent and serious side effects than PZ. Such reports were hyper-publicised by the media.

Though Pfizer has its own set of side effects we already know about. Also interesting to think about who was sponsoring some of the anti-AZ advertising, who is profiting from AZ's reputation being maligned, which vaccines cost the most, etc...

The Pfizer PR machine is as strong as anything I’ve seen. But don’t people have the capacity to do their own homework?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Ivermectin Saved My Best Friend's Life

 

[CD Xbow]

This poor little buttercup can't get the capital to legislate because the nasty airlines are discriminating against her right to be complete tosser. Alaskan legislator says airline ban preventing her from getting to capital for votes | TheHill
You really couldn't make this up.

 

[SJ17]

View attachment 1232811

THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC HAS KILLED MORE AMERICANS THAN THE SPANISH (KANSAS) FLU

i didn't think they could do it

i mean, i didn't think they'd be dumb enough

It seems like your cheering this on. Wtf is wrong with you

 

[MrKK]

Except for the peaks of > 10 deaths per day (what Doherty aims to flatten death to in Australia). And what are the economic comparisons (gdp 2019 vs now)- genuine question which needs to be considered

We'll have our two largest cities in lockdown for most of H2 2021, so it's fair to assume they'll be smashing us economically.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

How did it differ to everyone else's?

How does it compare to countries bordering Sweden?

How does their definition of Covid death differ to other countries?

Sweden is not Australia , just like Hume is not Cardinia .
Bloody idiotic to keep comparing to them.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Because it's believed AZ has more prevalent and serious side effects than PZ. Such reports were hyper-publicised by the media.

Though Pfizer has its own set of side effects we already know about. Also interesting to think about who was sponsoring some of the anti-AZ advertising, who is profiting from AZ's reputation being maligned, which vaccines cost the most, etc...

AZ has a chance of a genetic reaction that causes blood clotting. Around 1 in a million die.
Pfizer has a chance of causing a heart inflammation less likely to die than 1 in a million.

No conspiracy.

Not sure why people are barracking for American politicians and pharmaceutical companies like the barrack for footy teams.

The Pfizer was pretty tricky to make, they essentially were able to make it in a lab , and have needed to go to mass production. Not easy.
AZ was easy to make, which is why the decision was taken to make it here. ( prior to side effects being fully known ).

 

[mcnulty]

Sweden ****ed up. They then changed their approach because they ****ed up. The result they got from that change was much better. But some still seem convinced their initial approach was right.

Bizarre.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

AZ has a chance of a genetic reaction that causes blood clotting. Around 1 in a million die.
Pfizer has a chance of causing a heart inflammation less likely to die than 1 in a million.

No conspiracy.

Not sure why people are barracking for American politicians and pharmaceutical companies like the barrack for footy teams.

The Pfizer was pretty tricky to make, they essentially were able to make it in a lab , and have needed to go to mass production. Not easy.
AZ was easy to make, which is why the decision was taken to make it here. ( prior to side effects being fully known ).

Yeah, government cheaped out on the vaccine like they cheaped out on the NBN. Funneled money into big business through JobKeeper but decided to tighten the belt when it came to necessary public health measures. Just about sums up everything with this government. Spare no expense and go to any length to help the big business that don't need it; * everyone else.

 

[SJ17]

Except for the peaks of > 10 deaths per day (what Doherty aims to flatten death to in Australia). And what are the economic comparisons (gdp 2019 vs now)- genuine question which needs to be considered

There's heaps of things to consider, not just deaths or economy. The reality is no one knows what the best approach is. The answer is most likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah, government cheaped out on the vaccine like they cheaped out on the NBN. Funneled money into big business through JobKeeper but decided to tighten the belt when it came to necessary public health measures. Just about sums up everything with this government. Spare no expense and go to any length to help the big business that don't need it; fu** everyone else.

They chose the one that was viable to be manufactured in an Australian plant, BEFORE , any side effects were fully known.

Your comment is full of political bullshit.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They chose the one that was viable to be manufactured in an Australian plant, BEFORE , any side effects were fully known.

Your comment is full of political bullshit.

not quite

hunt is on record saying they rejected J&J because it was the same tech as AZ, so they chose AZ

same with moderna. he said they rejected moderna because it was the same tech as pfizer

also terry mcrann, who is about as anti labor as someone can be, reported the other week that CSL did want to look at setting up manufacture of mRNA vaccines in Australia, but the feds were refusing to invest in them because of an "anywhere but victoria" policy the govt had

you want political bullshit. refusing to invest in a vaccine because of the city it will be made in

 

[owen87]

an "anywhere but victoria" policy

Stacks up pretty well actually. The PM for NSW would definitely do that.

 

[Deaneus!]

It seems like your cheering this on. Wtf is wrong with you

I *am* cheering this on

Read one of my posts from the other thousand times this has been brought up

 

[Hornberger]

hunt is on record saying they rejected J&J because it was the same tech as AZ, so they chose AZ

same with moderna. he said they rejected moderna because it was the same tech as pfizer

Because who could have anticipated that there might be supply issues with vaccines in the middle of a pandemic, and that it might be a good idea to have redundancy in your supply chain.