Covid III: Delta Force

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

It’s really strange because they were waiting for John Jr. You can’t make this stuff up. I love my state, but it seems to be attracting some deluded people. 

I think there were a lot of people that were from other states, if that gives you peace of mind.

[Danzo]

So for those out there that are pushing for the vaccine fo everyone?  Where are we supposed to be right now to be considered compliant?

1 Shot?

2 Shots?

3 Shots?

I got the J&J in may.  How long do I have until I'm considered unvaccinated?

 

[Peacefully]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think there were a lot of people that were from other states, if that gives you peace of mind.

I’m not sure it does, lol 😂 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I’m not sure it does, lol 😂 

Oh, you're right, lol!

[bsjkki]

 

[Calm]

It makes sense to have in person now there are vaccines and most infections spreading happening in the home these days (I am assuming that is still the case).  The test to stay option seems quite useful in cutting quarantine disruption down (the on and off again…for me that would be worse than just remote).  I hope they make those available everywhere.

Test to stay would so cut down on my sister’s anxiety on trying to decide whether she should quarantine or not. She has never been infected as far as she can tell including with several tests, but keeps getting exposed and then it is a huge debate ofcdoes she get a substitute or not. Big pain making lessons, plus she prefers being in the classroom. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

In areas with vaccines and the ability (and willingness) to test regularly I agree. I am curious where this regimen is being implemented.

Allowing for temporary closures due to local outbreaks is still a good idea.

Edited November 10, 2021 by The Nehor

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am curious where this regiment is being implemented.

Not very common as of yet. Hopefully that will change. I wonder what the cost is. 
 

Quote

What to watch... the uptake on vaccines for children, and whether more school districts adopt test-to-stay measures to minimize quarantines for exposed children.

• Only four of the biggest 200 school districts are currently using test-to-stay

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Calm

[bsjkki]

 

[Tacenda]

21 hours ago, Danzo said:

So for those out there that are pushing for the vaccine fo everyone?  Where are we supposed to be right now to be considered compliant?

1 Shot?

2 Shots?

3 Shots?

I got the J&J in may.  How long do I have until I'm considered unvaccinated?

 

Maybe it's been answered but saw on this site that you will be able to get a booster soon or now, don't know of any updates.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/johnson-and-johnson-covid-booster

[pogi]

21 hours ago, Danzo said:

So for those out there that are pushing for the vaccine fo everyone?  Where are we supposed to be right now to be considered compliant?

1 Shot?

2 Shots?

3 Shots?

I got the J&J in may.  How long do I have until I'm considered unvaccinated?

 

Quote

 

“One dose is still considered a full dose series for public health purposes, but now a booster is recommended at least two months later for everyone 18 and older who has received a single Janssen dose.

“Some experts say Janssen should have been a two-dose vaccine from the beginning,” she added. “When and if Janssen receives full FDA approval, the one dose recommendation could change and possibly become two, but that has not happened yet and it may not. It will be interesting to see what happens.”

“Janssen protection is pretty stable—it doesn’t wane as much, but its vaccine effectiveness has never been up to par with mRNA vaccines,” she added. “Janssen never made it up to mRNA vaccine standards when it came to vaccine effectiveness, so the booster recommendation for everyone who received Janssen should help enhance its protection.

For adults who receive the Janssen vaccine, the time frame's different” than booster shots for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines, explained Dr. Fryhofer during an episode of the AMA COVID-19 Update” about the new mix and match strategy for boosters. “A booster is recommended at least two months after a single Janssen dose primary series. This applies to everyone 18 and older who received it."

This broad eligibility is due to Janssen's lower vaccine effectiveness as compared to mRNA vaccines. The boost can help increase Janssen vaccine effectiveness,” she added. “And to get a booster, it's still the honor system. If people say they're eligible, they can get it.

“The language CDC uses in the recommendation for the kind of booster to give is neutral and vague. … It doesn't specify what kind of booster to give, and this is not an oversight,” said Dr. Fryhofer. “The bottom line: you can boost with any authorized COVID vaccine.

“The booster doesn’t have to match the primary vaccine series type. This is called heterologous boosting,” she added. “On the other hand, boosting with the same type of vaccine as the one you originally received is called homologous boosting. Either strategy is permitted.”

 

You can read the rest of the article about J&J vaccine here:

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-johnson-johnson-vaccine

As to your question about how long you have before you are considered unvaccinated - that is yet to be determined.  As of now, you are considered fully vaccinated, but it is highly recommended to get a booster. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by pogi

[RevTestament]

Pfizer just announced a new antiviral, Paxlovid, for which they claim an 89% reduction in hospitalizations and death for covid; if given with ritonavir, a lower dose can be used. It is a protease inhibitor, which denies the virus proteins it needs to replicate. Hopefully, it will be available soon. I would rather use something like this, and get my natural immunity, than be getting continually mandated partially efficacious vaccines, of which I have had two before Biden went back on his statements/promises that he would not mandate the vaccines.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Pfizer just announced a new antiviral, Paxlovid, for which they claim an 89% reduction in hospitalizations and death for covid; if given with ritonavir, a lower dose can be used. It is a protease inhibitor, which denies the virus proteins it needs to replicate. Hopefully, it will be available soon. I would rather use something like this, and get my natural immunity, than be getting continually mandated partially efficacious vaccines, of which I have had two before Biden went back on his statements/promises that he would not mandate the vaccines.

Why would you choose this over the vaccine?  You talk down about the vaccine as being "partially efficacious", yet the vaccine is more efficacious than Paxlovid in every way.  1) Paxlovid does not prevent infection whatsoever - the vaccine can and does. 2) Paxlovid reduces hospitalization by 89% - mRNA vaccines reduce hospitalization by 96%.   You also have to consider the factor of likelihood that it will be used.  With the vaccine, you don't have to think about it.  You don't have to get a positive test before it starts working.  You don't have to schedule an appointment with your PCP to get an Rx to fill at pharmacy (which is difficult to do if you are supposed to be isolating because you are positive for Covid and all household members should be on quarantine).  You will likely have to call a friend or neighbor to pick up your Rx.  Also, if Paxlovid is like other treatments for Covid, it has to be taken really early (the first few days) in the infection when symptoms are still mild, or it will be too late to be effective.  Human behavior is predictable in that they don't usually seek treatment until they are really sick - by then it is too late.  Because Covid is usually mild, many will not seek early treatment for the sniffles and a headache.  That decision might kill them.  With the vaccine, they don't need to decide if they should go seek treatment - they are already protected.   The vaccine removes all of those variables and stumbling blocks.  

Having said that, I am happy to see more tools for providers to use against Covid.  I just don't see why anyone would think this option is more efficacious and helpful in the fight against Covid.  This treatment is not intended to replace vaccines.  It is a God send for those high-risk immunocompromised individuals who may not receive much benefit from the vaccine.  Other high risk populations might benefit from this treatment on-top of the vaccine too. 

We can do without the political jabs in this thread. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by pogi

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You can read the rest of the article about J&J vaccine here:

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-johnson-johnson-vaccine

As to your question about how long you have before you are considered unvaccinated - that is yet to be determined.  As of now, you are considered fully vaccinated, but it is highly recommended to get a booster. 

Kinda of shows the experimental nature of all of these vaccinees.

1 dose is fully vaccinated, but two doses is now recommended.  (which really means its a two dose vaccine but no one wants to say the one dose was wrong to begin with).

I got the J&J about 6 months after it was released. The fact that they didn't know after six months (Indeed almost a year) that one dose wasn't sufficient shows they are kind of shooting from the hip. 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Kinda of shows the experimental nature of all of these vaccinees.

Well, you should have been informed before receiving the vaccine that it is still an investigational medicine and only approved for use under EUA.  J&J is not yet FDA approved.

45 minutes ago, Danzo said:

1 dose is fully vaccinated, but two doses is now recommended.  (which really means its a two dose vaccine but no one wants to say the one dose was wrong to begin with).

Some of this stuff takes time to hash out via trials.  It very well may change to a 2 dose vaccine - that will be determined by the evidence.   I think big pharma is more motivated by profits than pride.  To suggest that J&J would not make it a 2 dose vaccine because of pride is really silly - a 2 dose regimen would double their profits!  This all has to be borne out by evidence - not by profits or pride - for it to be FDA approved as a single or double dose regimen.   

45 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I got the J&J about 6 months after it was released. The fact that they didn't know after six months (Indeed almost a year) that one dose wasn't sufficient shows they are kind of shooting from the hip. 

You seem determined to disparage and cast doubt on the process - making it seem all loosie goosie.  The fact is that getting a vaccine/medicine approved requires strict, large scale, peer reviewed, gold-standard processes (double blind studies) with approval of several oversight organizations including the FDA and CDC.  But initially, yes, they are kind of shooting from the hip with one dose vs two.  Before the drug is tested, they don't have any evidence to base their judgment on.  That's how science works!  You make your best guess and test it, study the results and let the evidence direct you from there with adjustments.  It can hardly be said that the process as a whole is "kind of shooting from the hip" though.  That is a mischaracterization of the process.   This idea that science is supposed to know exactly what is right before trials even begin is kind of silly.

Again, it is still an investigational medicine.  Don't be surprised if changes are made based on the evidence.   

Edited November 10, 2021 by pogi

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Well, you should have been informed before receiving the vaccine that it is still an investigational medicine and only approved for use under EUA.  J&J is not yet FDA approved.

Of course I was informed it was an experiment.   It would appear that it has been decided that the experiment is mandatory (or the government would like it to be).  Also, usually with an experiment, you need things like control groups and such to determine how effective something is.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Some of this stuff takes time to hash out via trials.  It very well may change to a 2 dose vaccine - that will be determined by the evidence. 

It would appear that it is (at least) a two dose vaccine.  Unless the official reccomdation of a second dose is just another request for "volunteers" in the ongoing J&J experiment.

It would also appear that the other vaccines are (at least) three dose vaccines right now, unless its just part of the experiment.  

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You seem determined to disparage and cast doubt on the process - making it seem all loosie goosie

You seem to feel threatened by people questioning processes. Why? Is it the process that fragile?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The fact is that getting a vaccine/medicine approved requires strict, large scale, peer reviewed, gold-standard processes (double blind studies) with approval of several oversight organizations including the FDA and CDC. 

I may be wrong, but it would appear the whole double blind, large scale thing with control groups was thrown out the window quite early. (or maybe my shot was a placebo?)

Is there still a control group out there?

If there had been a control group, shouldn't the fact that the J&J vaccine wasn't good after 2 months been detected say after 4 months? six Months? eight Months?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Pfizer just announced a new antiviral, Paxlovid, for which they claim an 89% reduction in hospitalizations and death for covid; if given with ritonavir, a lower dose can be used. It is a protease inhibitor, which denies the virus proteins it needs to replicate. Hopefully, it will be available soon. I would rather use something like this, and get my natural immunity, than be getting continually mandated partially efficacious vaccines, of which I have had two before Biden went back on his statements/promises that he would not mandate the vaccines.

You do realize the double standard when this antiviral is more experimental than the vaccine right?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Of course I was informed it was an experiment.   It would appear that it has been decided that the experiment is mandatory (or the government would like it to be).  Also, usually with an experiment, you need things like control groups and such to determine how effective something is.

How can you say that "the experiment is mandatory" when there are FDA approved vaccines to choose from?

In regards to control groups - of course control groups are needed.  The vaccine is still in clinical trials.  You should investigate what is required for FDA approval, it is pretty rigorous. 

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

It would appear that it is (at least) a two dose vaccine.  Unless the official reccomdation of a second dose is just another request for "volunteers" in the ongoing J&J experiment.

It would also appear that the other vaccines are (at least) three dose vaccines right now, unless its just part of the experiment.  

No, it is currently a one dose vaccine.  The recommendation for a second, third, fourth, etc. dose are recommendations for fully vaccinated individuals to receive booster doses.   Some primary vaccine series require 1 shot, some require 2, some require 3, some require 4 to achieve an appropriate level of immunity.  After you receive that primary series you are fully vaccinated - every thing you receive after that primary series is considered a booster dose.  What is considered a primary series for J&J is not set in stone and may change after further investigation, but as it is now - one dose is considered fully vaccinated.  

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

You seem to feel threatened by people questioning processes. Why? Is it the process that fragile?

I may be wrong, but it would appear the whole double blind, large scale thing with control groups was thrown out the window quite early. (or maybe my shot was a placebo?)

Is there still a control group out there?

If there had been a control group, shouldn't the fact that the J&J vaccine wasn't good after 2 months been detected say after 4 months? six Months? eight Months?

I am not threatened.  I love sincere questions.  You didn't ask any questions at all, let alone sincere ones.  Instead, you seem to be making uninformed and misguided assumptions about the process of clinical trials and FDA approval.   I understand how influential such comments can be on an uninformed public who are already biased, so you are only causing mistrust in the process.  I am not personally threatened, but I do believe that you are a threat to public trust in medicine and thus are a threat to the health and well-being of our communities.  Just look around, people are jaundiced with misinformation.  You are not helping by adding to the narrative that the medical community is "shooting from the hips" and are not following careful rigorous scientific processes in the development and role out of the vaccine.  

Yes, there are still active clinical trials going on.  The EUA use of the vaccine is outside of those clinical trials and was only approved for use outside of normal regulatory processes due to a state of emergency - hence the name "emergency use authorization".

You can read about the ongoing clinical trials here:

https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-authorized-by-u-s-fda-for-emergency-usefirst-single-shot-vaccine-in-fight-against-global-pandemic

Quote

The Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials.

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by pogi

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You do realize the double standard when this antiviral is more experimental than the vaccine right?

Not really. It's mode of action is the same as ivermectin, which American medicine seems bound to denounce, while thousands die. (This is a different story, but I have my suspicions that ivermectin is no longer patented, so big pharma cannot make money on it, and therefore, want to sell their patented vaccines and antivirals.) Albeit, I'm sure Paxlovid is more targeted to the specific proteins that Covid needs. Nevertheless, they are apparently both active against covid by being protease inhibitors. Protease inhibitors have been used for a long time. Ivermectin happens to block the 3CL protease activity needed by Covid to break up proteins into smaller pieces it needs.

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Why would you choose this over the vaccine?  You talk down about the vaccine as being "partially efficacious", yet the vaccine is more efficacious than Paxlovid in every way.  1) Paxlovid does not prevent infection whatsoever - the vaccine can and does.

I would rather get covid, and kill it while becoming immune,  than putting up with mandates, the continuing drama, and repeated trips to get vaccine boosters which are making us poorer, and keeping the economy in bad straights. I got the Pfizer vaccine, because I didn't want to run up a hospital bill, but if I have something that is very efficacious against covid, I'm not scared of getting the virus anymore. I had already decided not to dose the vaccine again, because I believe in ivermectin. Apparently, Ivermectin binds to the spike protein of the covid virus, which prevents it from entering our cells. I found someone to prescribe it to my mom, and she started getting better the next day, and fully recovered. There are over 64 international studies done on ivermectin which all show it has some efficacy, yet our government stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, while seeking to make people lose their jobs. It's lunacy, and bad policy.

Quote

2) Paxlovid reduces hospitalization by 89% - mRNA vaccines reduce hospitalization by 96%.   You also have to consider the factor of likelihood that it will be used.  With the vaccine, you don't have to think about it.  You don't have to get a positive test before it starts working.  You don't have to schedule an appointment with your PCP to get an Rx to fill at pharmacy (which is difficult to do if you are supposed to be isolating because you are positive for Covid and all household members should be on quarantine). 

Yeah, but the vaccine efficacy apparently wears off, making natural immunity after getting an infection rendered harmless by paxlovid superior. There are up to 40% of hospitalized covid patients who got your "preferred" vaccine - not great if you ask me. Many of those are going to be elderly, and without some kind of efficacious treatment, are at risk of dying. My mom is in her late 80s, and began to recover the next day after taking ivermectin. Yet, our government doesn't want to use it. FIne. Pay more for Paxlovid after it gets approved I guess. 

Quote

You will likely have to call a friend or neighbor to pick up your Rx.  Also, if Paxlovid is like other treatments for Covid, it has to be taken really early (the first few days) in the infection when symptoms are still mild, or it will be too late to be effective.  Human behavior is predictable in that they don't usually seek treatment until they are really sick - by then it is too late.  Because Covid is usually mild, many will not seek early treatment for the sniffles and a headache.  That decision might kill them.  With the vaccine, they don't need to decide if they should go seek treatment - they are already protected.   The vaccine removes all of those variables and stumbling blocks.  

Having said that, I am happy to see more tools for providers to use against Covid.  I just don't see why anyone would think this option is more efficacious and helpful in the fight against Covid.  This treatment is not intended to replace vaccines.  It is a God send for those high-risk immunocompromised individuals who may not receive much benefit from the vaccine.  Other high risk populations might benefit from this treatment on-top of the vaccine too. 

We can do without the political jabs in this thread. 

I'm just tired of the politicization of covid, and the turnabouts on policy. Having an efficacious treatment will hopefully get rid of at least some of that, which I am glad of, nevertheless, I feel the public was manipulated by promising something, and then reversing on it. If people aren't as scared, they will act more civil I think. If we had a vaccine which was 96% efficacious indefinitely, then yeah, I would agree with you, but that is not the case. I just don't want continuing jabs of a mRNA vaccine, for which risks of side effects will probably increase.

Edited November 11, 2021 by RevTestament

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not really. It's mode of action is the same as ivermectin, which American medicine seems bound to denounce, while thousands die. (This is a different story, but I have my suspicions that ivermectin is no longer patented, so big pharma cannot make money on it, and therefore, want to sell their patented vaccines and antivirals.) Albeit, I'm sure Paxlovid is more targeted to the specific proteins that Covid needs. Nevertheless, they are apparently both active against covid by being protease inhibitors. Protease inhibitors have been used for a long time. Ivermectin happens to block the 3CL protease activity needed by Covid to break up proteins into smaller pieces it needs.

They are not even close to the same thing.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/30/blog-posting/drug-pfizer-studying-covid-19-not-suspiciously-sim/

Some idiot sees that descriptions of two drugs use similar words and now tens of thousands of people are bleating about it all over the internet.

It is completely untrue but I am sure it will provide conspiracy fodder for years.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There are over 64 international studies done on ivermectin which all show it has some efficacy,

Some of those studies wouldn’t show it has efficacy if the highly problematic original research that is part of the calculation is removed.  You might want to read this analysis of the issue.

https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/

Quote

Grftr News has discovered that the authors of an oft-cited study purporting to show a strong benefit when using ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 may have fabricated their data and plagiarised large portions of their paper. The preprint paper had provided the most positive evidence for using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 and had been cited in several other high-profile studies. After Grftr News contacted Research Square (the company hosting the preprint) alerting them of our findings, they swiftly removed the paper citing “ethical concerns.”

The study had formed a crucial piece of evidence in the pro-ivermectin case and its removal largely destroys (the current) scientific case for using the drug in COVID-19 care. Grftr News has reached out to the paper’s authors for comment but had not received a reply by the time of publication. 

Quote

He was also keen to rerun the results of two recent meta-analyses that found an overall positive effect for ivermectin, this time without the Elgazzar data. (A meta-analysis is a type of scientific paper that summarises the existing evidence on a specific topic by aggregating the results of smaller trials). After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease. Meyerowitz-Katz later also reran the analysis while excluding an additional poor-quality study and found that after this ivermectin showed no effect in treating COVID-19.

If you are going to make a decision about the medication by choosing to rely on certain studies, you should take a close look at what those studies are.

Here is another examination:

https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602

Edited November 11, 2021 by Calm

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are not even close to the same thing.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/30/blog-posting/drug-pfizer-studying-covid-19-not-suspiciously-sim/

Some idiot sees that descriptions of two drugs use similar words and now tens of thousands of people are bleating about it all over the internet.

It is completely untrue but I am sure it will provide conspiracy fodder for years.

It is a completely different molecule than ivermectin, but still its mode of action is basically the same. A protease inhibitor is a protease inhibitor. Not a vaccine. Not an antibiotic, etc. Those are completely different modes of action. Saying these two drugs are completely different ignores this fact.

Edited November 11, 2021 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Some of those studies wouldn’t show it has efficacy if the highly problematic original research that is part of the calculation is removed.  You might want to read this analysis of the issue.

https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/

If you are going to make a decision about the medication by choosing to rely on certain studies, you should take a close look at what those studies are.

Here is another examination:

https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602

I realize there are criticisms of some of these studies. They are not double blind, randomized controlled trials published in peer reviewed articles, etc. That doesn't mean they are not scientific. Doing these types of studies don't seem real ethical when the ones taking the placebo are dying.... That's a problem. The efficacy of ivermectin was found fairly late - the preferred type of studies take lots of time and money while in the mean time thousands millions are dying. Ivermectin was being used at a time when many didn't have ANYTHING to treat this disease. A fair number of the studies are epidemiological. When tens of thousands are being studied in meta studies, at what point do we say "that is not science? I'm not going to listen to it." That seems to be what the US is doing while dozens of other countries have been using it, and seem to be reversing covid spread. Just sayin'. Even if you take out a dozen of the studies, it still leaves dozens showing ivermectin has efficacy against covid. That is to say essentially ALL the science we have available to us shows that ivermectin has efficacy against covid. I have seen it first hand in my elderly mother. Well, if you want to pour over all the studies, here is a link: https://ivmmeta.com

Personally, I have no trouble taking prescribed ivermectin if I get covid. I would probably rather take Paxlovid, but it is not available yet. As a cheap option, I strongly feel ivermectin is better than nothing, but that is not the point I was making in this thread. When we get Paxlovid, we seem to have a very efficacious treatment for this disease. I think that should lessen  everyone's fear of this disease, and hopefully bring some of the overreaching policies to an end. I do not care to live with them. I feel they are being made to placate a population that is fearful - fear is a strong motivator. I refuse to live my life under the auspices of media-driven fear. I am trying to live my life as normally as possible, and just put covid in the rear view. This new antiviral is a great step in this direction - a return to normalcy.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It is a completely different molecule than ivermectin, but still its mode of action is basically the same. A protease inhibitor is a protease inhibitor. Not a vaccine. Not an antibiotic, etc. Those are completely different modes of action. Saying these two drugs are completely different ignores this fact.

Wrong. No.

Ivermectin activates receptors in the cells of parasites which kills them. That is its primary function. That is why it is used as an anti parasitic.

The new Pfizer drug inhibits the coronavirus and is made of completely different stuff and is an inhibitor. It is not the same mechanism Ivermectin uses to kill a parasite. Ivermectin wasn’t designed to be a protease inhibitor.

Ivermectin can stop the corona virus in a Petri dish. It can do the same to a lot of viruses in a Petri dish. So can a lot of other things. However a lot of things kill things in a petri dish but don’t work in the human body. Ivermectin has been tested for how it might function as an antiviral with a lot of viruses and so far there is no evidence it treats anything.

This was made long before Covid was a thing and is a warning about being excited because something works in a petri dish:

The idea that Ivermectin is a protease inhibitor specifically is an unproven theory that most doctors reject but one paper that mentioned it was quoted to promote this “theory” even though that paper gives it only as a possible method. No one is sure why we get some results with Ivermectin in a lab and there is some debate on the mechanism.

Even if Ivermectin could kill coronavirus in the human body it would take ridiculously high concentrations. I have seen numbers like 100 times what you would get from taking the human treatment. DO NOT TAKE 100 IVERMECTIN PILLS! I can’t believe I live in a world where I feel obligated to say that.  

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scicheck-merck-pfizer-covid-19-antivirals-different-from-ivermectin/

 

So again, you are wrong. Stop defending the people who are lying to you or trying to hedge and defend them. Instead get mad! Stop listening to them! Shun them for trying to play you for a fool!

What is the use? More will come with offerings from the same source. Who can stop a liar when so many love the lie that they will abandon reason to defend it?

Lies, lies, and more lies.