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

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
102,921
82,104
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infec...d-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 people it was 561 per 100,000, a more than 10-fold difference. The rates of COVID-19 ICU admissions or deaths peaked in the fortnight 8 September to 21 September at 0.9 per 100,000 in 2-dose vaccinated people compared to 15.6 per 100,000 in unvaccinated people, a greater than 16-fold difference.
 
Last edited:

ShanDog

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 12, 2012
20,384
39,293
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
This is part 5 of this thread.

Part 2 is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-declared-part-2.1238728/

Part 3 is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-hcq-doesnt-work-part-3.1244122/

Part 4 is here:


---------------

Australian stats page:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grin

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 8, 2006
15,195
17,969
Port Adelaide
AFL Club
Richmond
gee dan's gonna lift the restrictions! Mr 'we go hard and we go early" has totally redefined what an idiot looks like. they went into lockdown with a few cases and will no leave lockdown with 23,000 active cases and most probably around 50,000 cases if the testing was done to a greater population size. Remember the snap lockdown we were entering and the modelling that back that up. i think that would be model no 156 that hasnt yet accurately made the right prediction in regard to covid and yet the lemmings still run back to these models as some sort of justification for their decisions. i think the saying goes 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me' what about fool me 50 times?
Unfortunately no amount of modelling can account for stupidity. A couple of thousand aggressive anti vacc crazies have made things really sh*t for everybody else.
 

AFC AFeederClub

Club Legend
Nov 23, 2018
1,516
2,270
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Unfortunately no amount of modelling can account for stupidity. A couple of thousand aggressive anti vacc crazies have made things really sh*t for everybody else.
Dont you mean ethics from shepparton, or mornington elite, or truck drivers or maybe anyone who has been to a supermarket in the last month because it's a great idea to allow everyone to go to the one place and guess what happens.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
1,894
1,854
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
What a load of sh*t.
Bangladesh aren't even diagnosing all their Covid19 deaths.
India stopped using it long ago.

More to the point why are you here promoting the crap based on dodgy articles.
What the fu** is that bullshit website that you are reading.
You realise that any dickhead can make a website and that declaring that everyone else is lying doesn't really make you more credible.

Get the vaccine idiot and stop talking about anti-parasitic drugs.
It’s amusing that you are so upset by Bangladesh and India’s stunning results in bringing down their Covid cases and deaths that you confuse a research body in India with state health authorities.

The only “dodgy articles” I am reading are the publicly available data on Google covid stats. I wasn’t aware that Google or their sources are part of a conspiracy to overplay the achievements of India and Bangladesh in combating the virus. Tell me more.

India’s cases and deaths have plummeted since May, when they were headline news. Their positive test rate has fallen from over 20% in May to under 2% currently.

Similarly for Bangladesh, whose positive test rate has fallen from over 30% in early August to under 4% currently.

Surely India and Bangladesh falsifying their data is big news. If you are going to argue that they are covering up the true figures you are going to have to come up with something better than an ABC article and dodgy AAP “fact check” that your fellow traveller contributed below. The AAP “fact check” is particularly amusing. Fancy linking India's under 4% double vax rate in early June to the collapse in cases at that time.
 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,410
4,793
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It’s amusing that you are so upset by Bangladesh and India’s stunning results in bringing down their Covid cases and deaths that you confuse a research body in India with state health authorities.

The only “dodgy articles” I am reading are the publicly available data on Google covid stats. I wasn’t aware that Google or their sources are part of a conspiracy to overplay the achievements of India and Bangladesh in combating the virus. Tell me more.

India’s cases and deaths have plummeted since May, when they were headline news. Their positive test rate has fallen from over 20% in May to under 2% currently.

Similarly for Bangladesh, whose positive test rate has fallen from over 30% in early August to under 4% currently.

Surely India and Bangladesh falsifying their data is big news. If you are going to argue that they are covering up the true figures you are going to have to come up with something better than an ABC article and dodgy AAP “fact check” that your fellow traveller contributed below. The AAP “fact check” is particularly amusing. Fancy linking India's under 4% double vax rate in early June to the collapse in cases at that time.
So let’s get this straight. Ivermectin single handedly turned around India’s delta outbreak, but India itself and the rest of the world are refusing to acknowledge this miracle drug...because?
 

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond
There are quite a few poor countries that use Ivermectin that have a high death count per capita.

Until they went directly against WHO directions and used ivermectin anyway.




None of the 20 countries exclusively using ivermectin feature anywhere near the top of recent case, hospitalisation or mortality lists.

It's also worth pointing out that some countries are only partially using ivermectin. India is a fine example - check out the daily cases in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi where they are using ivermectin and compare them with Kerala which is using remdisivir at 3100% more cost per dose with an effectiveness of 19% (from 24 studies), as the WHO wisely recommends.

Kerala has 96,670 active cases, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi have a couple of hundred after being among the worst states in the worst outbreak.


If it was a miracle cure, then a lot more doctors would use it, they arent all controlled by big Pharma and people like the Greens would be pushing it.

This article covers the reality well:

In last week’s column, we wrote about the amazing outcome many states in India like Uttar Pradesh and Delhi have attained with an ivermectin-based multidrug prevention and early treatment kits.

With a population of 241 million, more than twice that of the Philippines, Uttar Pradesh has been averaging less than 100 new COVID cases daily in the last three months, and less than 20 a day in the last three weeks. The deaths average one a day in the last six weeks. More than half of its districts or provinces have been declared COVID-free with zero active cases. One can’t possibly attribute it to its anti-COVID vaccination, because it’s one of the slowest among the Indian states in its vaccination rollout, with less than 5 percent of its population fully vaccinated.

Treatment protocol

Some Indian colleagues we exchanged ideas and clinical experiences with tell us that it’s the firm resolve of the health officials and medical community in Uttar Pradesh that became a game changer. They defied the stern warning of the World Health Organization (WHO) against the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 cases. A few months after the outbreak last year, a medical team at the state’s capital in Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, gave ivermectin to all members of its rapid response team, which was tasked with the prompt identification and isolation of diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

It was a crude experiment, but after several months, they observed that none of them got infected with COVID-19 despite their high-risk of exposure, with daily contact with their countrymen who tested positive for COVID-19.

The state’s surveillance officer, Vikssendu Agrawal, filed this report, and their health officials included ivermectin in their treatment protocol, making Uttar Pradesh the first state in the country to administer prophylactic and therapeutic ivermectin to its citizens. However, because of the WHO’s advisory, and a still strong national sentiment to toe the line, the recommendation on ivermectin was downplayed and implemented in a low-key manner.

The tipping point came when India had the big surge in late March and April. With the Indian health-care system literally clutching at straws as it tried to keep its head above water, and with patients dying by the thousands daily, the All India Institute of Medical Science and Indian Medical Research Council made its now-or-never recommendation to include ivermectin for early treatment of cases and prevention of those who were exposed to an infected person.

The WHO maintained its stand against ivermectin, but most doctors in states like Uttar Pradesh couldn’t care less what the WHO was telling them. They believed it worked for COVID-19. The “ivermectin-has-insufficient-evidence” admonition by the WHO and WHO-obedient expert societies in India lost credence, as far as the ordinary Indian practitioner was concerned.

In two weeks’ time, the cases in the ivermectin-using states started to drop by half, and in six weeks, they achieved 85- to 90-percent reduction in cases. In three months, the cases further decreased by 95 percent to 99.9 percent compared to peak levels. For several months now, many states are enjoying near-normal, pre-COVID activities.




Recent trials are still backing the same position on its use as a prophylactic:



Considering ivermectin has a three and a half decade safety record showing it is ~100X safer than aspirin, why wouldn't we be using it? The UK chief scientist has acknowledged (under sufferance) that even a 10X overdose of ivermectin is still considered 'safe.'

Could it be that ivermectin is manufactured by Merck and costs $1 a dose, while their 'new' anti-viral mulnupiravir (which is about to get Emergency Use Approval after two trials conducted by the manufacturer only) costs $700 a dose?
 

Rob R

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2009
2,950
2,966
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Until they went directly against WHO directions and used ivermectin anyway.




None of the 20 countries exclusively using ivermectin feature anywhere near the top of recent case, hospitalisation or mortality lists.

It's also worth pointing out that some countries are only partially using ivermectin. India is a fine example - check out the daily cases in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi where they are using ivermectin and compare them with Kerala which is using remdisivir at 3100% more cost per dose with an effectiveness of 19% (from 24 studies), as the WHO wisely recommends.

Kerala has 96,670 active cases, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi have a couple of hundred after being among the worst states in the worst outbreak.





This article covers the reality well:

In last week’s column, we wrote about the amazing outcome many states in India like Uttar Pradesh and Delhi have attained with an ivermectin-based multidrug prevention and early treatment kits.

With a population of 241 million, more than twice that of the Philippines, Uttar Pradesh has been averaging less than 100 new COVID cases daily in the last three months, and less than 20 a day in the last three weeks. The deaths average one a day in the last six weeks. More than half of its districts or provinces have been declared COVID-free with zero active cases. One can’t possibly attribute it to its anti-COVID vaccination, because it’s one of the slowest among the Indian states in its vaccination rollout, with less than 5 percent of its population fully vaccinated.

Treatment protocol

Some Indian colleagues we exchanged ideas and clinical experiences with tell us that it’s the firm resolve of the health officials and medical community in Uttar Pradesh that became a game changer. They defied the stern warning of the World Health Organization (WHO) against the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 cases. A few months after the outbreak last year, a medical team at the state’s capital in Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, gave ivermectin to all members of its rapid response team, which was tasked with the prompt identification and isolation of diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

It was a crude experiment, but after several months, they observed that none of them got infected with COVID-19 despite their high-risk of exposure, with daily contact with their countrymen who tested positive for COVID-19.

The state’s surveillance officer, Vikssendu Agrawal, filed this report, and their health officials included ivermectin in their treatment protocol, making Uttar Pradesh the first state in the country to administer prophylactic and therapeutic ivermectin to its citizens. However, because of the WHO’s advisory, and a still strong national sentiment to toe the line, the recommendation on ivermectin was downplayed and implemented in a low-key manner.

The tipping point came when India had the big surge in late March and April. With the Indian health-care system literally clutching at straws as it tried to keep its head above water, and with patients dying by the thousands daily, the All India Institute of Medical Science and Indian Medical Research Council made its now-or-never recommendation to include ivermectin for early treatment of cases and prevention of those who were exposed to an infected person.

The WHO maintained its stand against ivermectin, but most doctors in states like Uttar Pradesh couldn’t care less what the WHO was telling them. They believed it worked for COVID-19. The “ivermectin-has-insufficient-evidence” admonition by the WHO and WHO-obedient expert societies in India lost credence, as far as the ordinary Indian practitioner was concerned.

In two weeks’ time, the cases in the ivermectin-using states started to drop by half, and in six weeks, they achieved 85- to 90-percent reduction in cases. In three months, the cases further decreased by 95 percent to 99.9 percent compared to peak levels. For several months now, many states are enjoying near-normal, pre-COVID activities.




Recent trials are still backing the same position on its use as a prophylactic:



Considering ivermectin has a three and a half decade safety record showing it is ~100X safer than aspirin, why wouldn't we be using it? The UK chief scientist has acknowledged (under sufferance) that even a 10X overdose of ivermectin is still considered 'safe.'

Could it be that ivermectin is manufactured by Merck and costs $1 a dose, while their 'new' anti-viral mulnupiravir (which is about to get Emergency Use Approval after two trials conducted by the manufacturer only) costs $700 a dose?
Strange that the same institutes you quote have now withdrawn it after studies show no benefits.


Strange you make no mention of the commerical benefits, the Ivermectin factories in those same states have made from the alleged benefits.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond
Strange that the same institutes you quote have now withdrawn it after studies show no benefits.


Nothing "strange" at all, it's entirely consistent with all the other information you ignored and refused to engage with.

Obviously you're not aware that there's three regulatory bodies in India, the ICMR is one of those three.

They're the ones towing the WHO line and failing miserably to control cases or deaths as a result. Using remdisivir at $3120 per dose despite an efficacy showing any benefit sitting at the lowly rate of 19% from its 24 trials.


Strange you make no mention of the commerical benefits, the Ivermectin factories in those same states have made from the alleged benefits.

It's off patent at $1 a dose. Merck - the company who manufactures it - does it so cheaply they've given away billions of doses to Africa over the years.

There's nothing "strange" about me not considering an utterly ridiculous perspective.
 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,410
4,793
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Nothing "strange" at all, it's entirely consistent with all the other information you ignored and refused to engage with.
This has already been covered ad nauseum in here. The BIRD group are a self described advocacy group. They are pushing ivermectin. The meta analysis you cited was done by an advocacy group. It was a summary of extremely poor quality studies, at least one of which has been withdrawn- garbage in, garbage out.

 

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond
This has already been covered ad nauseum in here. The BIRD group are a self described advocacy group. They are pushing ivermectin. The meta analysis you cited was done by an advocacy group. It was a summary of extremely poor quality studies, at least one of which has been withdrawn- garbage in, garbage out.


The trial has been withdrawn for review after a complaint, like every single study/paper which gets a complaint about it does - whether or not the complaint is justified or found to be credible.

No complaint has been made about the other 23 in the meta-review, all showing the very positive efficacy of ivermectin in treating Covid. If they could be pulled to pieces as "extremely poor quality studies", they most certainly would have been.

If the trial which is being reviewed actually is withdrawn, it doesn't change the scientific outcome of the meta-review in the slightest.

We're about to start using mulnuprivir on the basis of two trials, done solely by a manufacturer who currently holds the record medical negligence payout to victims - US$4.5 billion - and uses tactics like these to push their products through and "destroy" all opposition to them:


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merck-...y-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/


Merck made a "hit list" of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors' names with the labels "neutralise," "neutralised" or "discredit" next to them.

According to The Australian, Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said:


We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live ...
The plaintiffs' lawyer gave this assessment:
It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders ... if (they) say things you don't like to hear, you have to neutralise them ... It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you.
The Australian:
The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.
"Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation," he wrote, ... "This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators ... I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues."
The allegations come on the heels of revelations that Merck created a fake medical journal -- the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine -- in which to publish studies about Vioxx; had pop songs commissioned about Vioxx to inspire its staff, and paid ghostwriters to draft articles about the drug.


Ivermectin advocates stand to gain nothing from promoting its use financially, they just want to save lives - as it's very clearly doing in the real world, every day.

If you want to trust Merck's track record in honesty and the two trials they've conducted as 'better science' over the 23 trials for ivermectin which are beyond all reproach and involve zero financial gain, that's entirely up to you.

As for your link, BIRD's response carries infinitely more credibility than the attack on theirs:

 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,410
4,793
AFL Club
Hawthorn
As for your link, BIRD's response carries infinitely more credibility than the attack on theirs
Hmmm... seen this style of posting before. Right down to the italics…

The BIRD groups claims carry no credibility as no ones listening. QED. No country whatever the political persuasion is advocating it over and above vaccines. It’s losing ground rather than gaining it. Where it counts, amongst those charged with decision making and the responsibility that goes with it, it’s a bust.
 
Last edited:

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
47,960
41,858
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
Kind of sad how people desperate not to be "sheeple" follow the lead of this sort of thing.
It’s amusing that you are so upset by Bangladesh and India’s stunning results in bringing down their Covid cases and deaths that you confuse a research body in India with state health authorities.

The only “dodgy articles” I am reading are the publicly available data on Google covid stats. I wasn’t aware that Google or their sources are part of a conspiracy to overplay the achievements of India and Bangladesh in combating the virus. Tell me more.

India’s cases and deaths have plummeted since May, when they were headline news. Their positive test rate has fallen from over 20% in May to under 2% currently.

Similarly for Bangladesh, whose positive test rate has fallen from over 30% in early August to under 4% currently.

Surely India and Bangladesh falsifying their data is big news. If you are going to argue that they are covering up the true figures you are going to have to come up with something better than an ABC article and dodgy AAP “fact check” that your fellow traveller contributed below. The AAP “fact check” is particularly amusing. Fancy linking India's under 4% double vax rate in early June to the collapse in cases at that time.
Big news?
Like this?

Do you know anything about the countries you are talking about?
You seriously think that the majority of people needing treatment for Covid19 in India and Bangladesh make it into hospital and are treated with ANYTHING?

If it amuses you , you are like a laughing imbecile.

How many people in Inda were treated with Ivermectin? Please don't just make up an answer.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond
Hmmm... seen this style of posting before. One last crack BlueE?

The BIRD groups claims carry no credibility as no ones listening. QED. No country whatever the political persuasion is advocating it over and above vaccines. It’s losing ground rather than gaining it. Where it counts, amongst those charged with decision making and the responsibility that goes with it, it’s a bust. You might say it’s a stone cold loser.

Seeing I've never heard of 'BluE' I am pretty certain he's not a Richmond supporter who has been posting on BF for 15 years. Pretty long bow on an 'alt account' attempt, but hardly a tactic I haven't seen before in lieu of dealing with the substance. ;)

I do agree that nobody outside of the countries already using ivermectin charged with leading the public health response is listening to the case for ivermectin.

I strongly disagree that this is evidentiary based or that this by default discredits those advocating for it.

The mistakes made by the medical industry - including the 50K Australians who are killed or seriously injured by medical negligence every year - are numerous enough to fill a dozen threads with hundreds of pages.
 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,410
4,793
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I strongly disagree that this is evidentiary based or that this by default discredits those advocating for it.
The evidence you have provided obviously doesn’t hold up to any rigorous scrutiny. You can disagree all you like, but you’ve provided no plausible reason why countries around the world have ignored this so called wonder drug. The reason is the evidence simply isn’t there.
 

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond
This is misinformation, posting a meta-analysis of cherry-picked studies. I leave it here only as an example of the type of misinformation we will thread ban people for.
The evidence you have provided obviously doesn’t hold up to any rigorous scrutiny.

You've chosen to ignore the fact that 23 of the 24 studies in the meta-analysis have been considered beyond reproach and chosen not to contradict my assertion that the 1 which hasn't has not actually been proven incorrect.

Your argument, therefore, is what does not "hold up to any rigorous scrutiny."


You can disagree all you like, but you’ve provided no plausible reason why countries around the world have ignored this so called wonder drug. The reason is the evidence simply isn’t there.

You can claim "the evidence simply isn’t there" until the cows come home, but when 23 of the 24 studies in the meta-analysis have met no challenge - because their findings are scientifically beyond reproach - it simply isn't true.

As for why it's ignored and subject to an ongoing campaign of disinformation, well it's simple.

If people knew they'd been injected with vaccines which we have no long term safety data on in preference to getting scientifically proven better prophylactic protection AND early stage treatment with a drug which is ~100X safer than aspirin (that's before we get into social and economic carnage of lockdowns), they wouldn't be that impressed with the efforts of their health authorities, would they?

The facts from the meta-analysis make ivermectin a direct prophylactic and treatment challenge to the mega billions being made from the vaccines.

In reality, there's plenty of room for using both a vaccination strategy and ivermectin - according to people's individual choice.
 

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
47,960
41,858
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
You've chosen to ignore the fact that 23 of the 24 studies in the meta-analysis have been considered beyond reproach and chosen not to contradict my assertion that the 1 which hasn't has not actually been proven incorrect.

Your argument, therefore, is what does not "hold up to any rigorous scrutiny."





You can claim "the evidence simply isn’t there" until the cows come home, but when 23 of the 24 studies in the meta-analysis have met no challenge - because their findings are scientifically beyond reproach - it simply isn't true.

As for why it's ignored and subject to an ongoing campaign of disinformation, well it's simple.

If people knew they'd been injected with vaccines which we have no long term safety data on in preference to getting scientifically proven better prophylactic protection AND early stage treatment with a drug which is ~100X safer than aspirin (that's before we get into social and economic carnage of lockdowns), they wouldn't be that impressed with the efforts of their health authorities, would they?

The facts from the meta-analysis make ivermectin a direct prophylactic and treatment challenge to the mega billions being made from the vaccines.

In reality, there's plenty of room for using both a vaccination strategy and ivermectin - according to people's individual choice.
Meta analysis


They don't make enough Ivermectin to produce the results that you claim. You've ignored this. Who has been producing all the Ivermectin to "save " India and Bangladesh?
Why didn't they add a couple of dollars per dose and make a few billion?

I seriously don't understand why people have jumped onto the false god of Ivermectin. There is not even a good theory on why Ivermectin is meant to work, other than false claims that it reduced viral load.

Meanwhile there are some pretty good anti body based treatments that work. Get your head out of facebook 2020.
 

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond
Ivermectin is produced in numbers allowing an annual dose for those prone to parasites.

Where do you wack jobs suggest all the extra cheap Ivermectin is coming from?

It's produced in quantities sufficient to have given away hundreds of millions of doses to Africa for free.

You can read all about it here:



"As much as needed, for as long as needed."

I don't think you can argue production is an issue, somehow, especially when the same corporation is currently scaling up producition on what is in all likelihood a rebadged version of ivermectin (mulnuprivir) for 700X times the retail price in huge quantities to treat Covid, starting with the $1.3 billion purchase the US has just made and the 300K doses we've ordered.

Of course, at that price, there will be no possibility of Westerners using it to prevent infection and transmission, which is the area where ivermectin is having ~87% success rate in the countries using it.
 

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
47,960
41,858
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
It's produced in quantities sufficient to have given away hundreds of millions of doses to Africa for free.

You can read all about it here:



"As much as needed, for as long as needed."

I don't think you can argue production is an issue, somehow, especially when the same corporation is currently scaling up producition on what is in all likelihood a rebadged version of ivermectin (mulnuprivir) for 700X times the retail price in huge quantities to treat Covid, starting with the $1.3 billion purchase the US has just made and the 300K doses we've ordered.

Of course, at that price, there will be no possibility of Westerners using it to prevent infection and transmission, which is the area where ivermectin is having ~87% success rate in the countries using it.
For Ivermectin to have the results you claimed a lot of it would need to have already been used.

here is your new drug.
See how you get sucked in by that bullshit you read on facebook.
Seriously ask your doctor , not your "online mates"

 

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond

It's an article, not a peer reviewed, scientific study, let alone something with the scientific credibility of a meta-analysis.

Written by a student - Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz (incorrectly posed as a doctor by mainstream media articles)

The chief scientist at a skin care company - James A. J. Heathers

A doctor who specialises in back pain imaging - Kyle A. Sheldrick

A scientist who specialises in 'Applied Positive Psychology' (whatever the hell that is) - Nicholas J. L. Brown

...and Jack M Lawrence, who I can't find any conclusive qualifications for. He may be the Jack M Lawrence who seems to specialise exclusively in dementia according to what I can ascertain from his 19 scholarly articles - if I have the correct person.


Real credible bunch of 'experts' you and the dozens of mainstream media outlets who regurgitated the story are relying on there [sarcasm fully intended].

Like the dregs dragged out to argue against Climate Change all over again.

Do you want to know the medical/scientific credentials of all the people behind the studies they're attacking, or shall we leave it there?

Hint: It won't end well.

P.S. I don't do Facebook or Twitter, but I bet you do given your apparent level of gullibility. :thumbsu:
 

Rayzorwire

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 25, 2007
8,811
11,660
FNQ
AFL Club
Richmond
For Ivermectin to have the results you claimed a lot of it would need to have already been used.

here is your new drug.
See how you get sucked in by that bullshit you read on facebook.
Seriously ask your doctor , not your "online mates"


I see nothing even vaguely resembling a single confirmable fact in that article, just a bunch of baloney like 'based on trials' (2 whole trials which were done only by the company - a company which has been busted on multiple occasions deliberately falsifying trial evidence and funding ghost written studies) and full of loaded language pretending ivermectin is only used on animals or hasn't shown efficacy in range of conditions well beyond its original usage.

All we have to go on at this stage that the composition of mulnuprivir is significantly different from ivermectin is the company's word for it. It's not like they ever let independent scientists conduct trials for it or know what is in it.

Kinda hilarious that you're calling others 'sheeple' while swallowing 'all the facts' from a bastion of credible journalism like USA Today.
 

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
47,960
41,858
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
It's an article, not a peer reviewed, scientific study, let alone something with the scientific credibility of a meta-analysis.

Written by a student - Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz (incorrectly posed as a doctor by mainstream media articles)

The chief scientist at a skin care company - James A. J. Heathers

A doctor who specialises in back pain imaging - Kyle A. Sheldrick

A scientist who specialises in 'Applied Positive Psychology' (whatever the hell that is) - Nicholas J. L. Brown

...and Jack M Lawrence, who I can't find any conclusive qualifications for. He may be the Jack M Lawrence who seems to specialise exclusively in dementia according to what I can ascertain from his 19 scholarly articles - if I have the correct person.


Real credible bunch of 'experts' you and the dozens of mainstream media outlets who regurgitated the story are relying on there [sarcasm fully intended].

Like the dregs dragged out to argue against Climate Change all over again.

Do you want to know the medical/scientific credentials of all the people behind the studies they're attacking, or shall we leave it there?

Hint: It won't end well.

P.S. I don't do Facebook or Twitter, but I bet you do given your apparent level of gullibility. :thumbsu:
Sorry i just follow the advice of my physician.
He didn't mention Ivermectin.
If yours did , i'd suggest that you shopped until you found him/her.

Gullibility Yeah.

Where did you get your medical advice. Baaaaaaaaa ( peer group pressure and your peer group isn't flash ).
 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,410
4,793
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If people knew they'd been injected with vaccines which we have no long term safety data on in preference to getting scientifically proven better prophylactic protection AND early stage treatment with a drug which is ~100X safer than aspirin (that's before we get into social and economic carnage of lockdowns), they wouldn't be that impressed with the efforts of their health authorities, would they?
Ah, so in the end it all comes back to conspiracy. And a staggeringly massive global cover up at that. All those countries’ health authorities in lock-step. Or cahoots!

Rather than the explanation that there is insufficient evidence to support ivermectin’s use, this is what you’re running with?

You need to understand how ridiculous this sounds to reasonable people.
 
Last edited:

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
17,138
21,750
AFL Club
Essendon
Ah, so in the end it all comes back to conspiracy. And a staggeringly massive global cover up at that. All those countries’ health authorities in lock-step. Or cahoots!

Rather than the explanation that there is insufficient evidence to support ivermectin’s use, this is what you’re running with?

You need to understand how ridiculous this sounds to reasonable people.
but but <insert highly questionable pro-ivermectin website filled with unevidenced articles> says Ivermectin works!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad