851–860 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh? It only links to dozens of peer-reviewed journals and studies. Totally suspect. Can't win all the jab religion followers, it seems ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well the authors could start by giving their names instead of running an anonymous page online. Then they could actually use a methodology that makes sense.
I hope this proves to be real going forward. The vaccination route seems to be hitting a deadend as a way to end the pandemic. The pill will have to be cheap and available over the counter, it makes no sense not to subsidize this.
I do think early treatments are important and that we have strong case studies to support the effectiveness of Ivermectin and high dosage of Vitamin D intake. https://c19early.com/
There's enormous amounts of evidence that ivermectin doesn't work. If did work, we wouldn't have over 600,000 dead here in Brazil. A sizeable portion of the population, encouraged by our goverment, made use of ivermectin as a so-called preventive treatment. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands died despite it. The only thing that is actually working is the advance of the vaccination campaign. While it started la…
I seriously think those people are heartless. So many died because of those ineffective treatments and they keep advocating for them, with higher (and more dangerous) dosages while linking to random papers as if all of them are trustworthy (like a certain senator here). Worse, they consider those who use the right tool for the job (vaccines) the equivalent of religious nutjobs.
Most of their theories don't even make sense when you consider the wide picture: For example, even if the "evil big pharma" wasn't interested on cheap treatments, governments would have done anything to avoid lockdowns that heavily damaged their economies. It is a sick joke all the way down and a disgrace to all who died before a proper treatment was available.
I'm deadly sure that if they had lived through a collapse of public and private healthcare systems and/or had lost someone over it, they wouldn't be talking BS all the time.
In related news, Merck's molnupiravir has been approved in the UK as well.
I hope this proves to be real going forward. The vaccination route seems to be hitting a deadend as a way to end the pandemic. The pill will have to be cheap and available over the counter, it makes no sense not to subsidize this.
There is catch for antiviral drugs - like antibacterial drugs, they can lead to selection of resistant strains. Therefore, we can't just give it away to everyone without any control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, it's the opposite. Anti-Vaxx people seem to absolutely love non-vax treatments. I don't know if the rationalization is sound, but I'm not sure it's really that. The anti-vaxx stigma pre-COVID I think has had it's toll. The notion of 'government pushing you to take something' as well. Whereas, 'you get sick, you take a pill' is an easy concept. My fear is that a lot of people won't bother with a vax if…
> My fear is that a lot of people won't bother with a vax if they think there's a 'cure'. Interesting. Indeed, should people bother with a vax if there's a highly effective cure? Is it worth all the teeth-gnashing and hair pulling on the part of the medical establishment, political establishment and media about people who would rather get COVID than get the vaccine? IMO this cure (once it starts rolling out ofc) is a…
Yes. COVID danger is it's virality, not it's lethality.
100% vaccinated population even at only 85% effectiveness means R0 is well below 1 and COVID cannot spread.
100% of COVID patients treated at 85% effectiveness of antiviral therapy means probably well over 1/2 the population still gets COVID, that's devastating.
If this were about a non-communicable disease, then probably the vaccine would be a slightly better idea, but due to virality there's no doubt vaxxes are better.
The best is to have both.
Finally, the vaxx is $20, antiviral is $700, which is material.
That said, if the 'cure' were 100% perfect, no side effects, cost $1 and could be given at any time after infection and prevents any further adverse effects, then we could probably just settle on that if we had to.
I don't suspect we're going to hear a lot about this in the press, because the 'narrative' still needs to be 'get vaccinated'. What will happen is the CFR will come down to to this and other measures behind the scenes so to speak.
Unless this thing comes down to $50 and is something any doctor can prescribe willy-nilly easy-peasy in which case I think there would be a big media campaign to 'inform us'.
> [...] patients who received Paxlovid within five days of symptom onset [...] I wonder how well it will do on people who are farther along in their COVID infection? There are a lot of people who don't get vaccinated, don't take precautions to avoid COVID, dismiss their early symptoms either because they believe COVID isn't worse than a typical cold or flu or because they think that is probably what they have, just t…
Why not just treat it at home with ivermectin if it works? It did for me for long covid.
On top of this you refer to 'long covid' which has nothing to do with the covid virus itself. Long covid is the syndrome after a person gets over a covid infection. They're not entirely sure what causes it, but damage to internal organs and the venous system have been observed[3]. At this point there is no active viral infection in your system, inhibiting viral replication is basically irrelevant. There is absolutely zero reason, even according to the logic of ivermectin-for-covid, that ivermectin would treat that damage.
1- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7129059/
2- http://dicyt.uto.edu.bo/observatorio/wp-content/uploads/2020...
3- https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...
> Pfizer used data on patients who were treated within three days of symptom onset as the headline finding in its press release > There were six hospitalizations and no deaths among the 607 patients who received Paxlovid within five days of symptom onset, compared to 41 hospitalizations and 10 deaths in the placebo cohort. > Like Merck, Pfizer excluded people vaccinated against COVID-19 from its late-phase study. No…
Medical ethics are confusing. Maybe this field needs more oversight. Especially on the corporate level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had one vaccine dose with severe issues. So maybe I'm skeptical, I won't get a second or third dose. Most people in this camp will just use ivermectin. Including myself, it works and is safe.
The antiviral mechanism of Ivermectin involves the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1 in the host. It can and has lead to death when improperly dosed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The mRNA vaccines do not, and never have, reduce the spread of the virus from one infected person to someone else That's simply not correct.
Do you have a source for that? "fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts." [1] [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...