Popular Post Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Popular Post Posted September 1, 2021 1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said: No. They will ensure the media blames the unvaccinated Blaming the intentionally unvaccinated for being hospitalized with an innoculable illness seems like pretty sound reasoning. 7
Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I strongly feel that regardless of ones position, there can be no doubt that the Lord is very unhappy with the division that this has caused with members. We really have a long way to go before Zion can be established. COVID has exposed a lot of rot in the Church that needs to be solved. I agree with this assessment.
Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said: The letter from the First Presidency was, IMHO, opinion, counsel, not doctrine. The word you aren't using here is direction. 4
stelf Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 8 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I found this one interesting. https://salthillstatistics.com/posts/110 Agreed, I am in strong favor of vaccines but I take the studies quite seriously. I have prepared many safety reports dealing with adverse and serious adverse events. Whenever we are dealing with a very rare outcome (as in the case of severe COVID in children) it can become tricky. 4
Robert J Anderson Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 Just now, Chum said: Not at all. Masking and social distancing are widely accepted among folks, who trust consensus of qualified experts. Repurposing drugs like horse dewormer for Covid - those are indeed mistakes. Fortunately, medical science isn't responsible for that misinformation. The horse dewormer calls to poison control centers resulted from folks who listened to discredited, manipulative outliers, who convinced them to mistrust the broad consensus of credible, qualified experts. I think this might be a mistake to follow the anti ivermectin crowd. Sure, it is a horse dewormer. But it also is prescribed for humans and has been for years. In fact, the scientist that discovered it won the nobel prize in 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/ It competes with the vaccine and the emergency authorization of the vaccines is dependent on there not being any viable alternatives. So, perhaps that is why there is a lot of vocal/written content that is against ivermectin? There are doctors that support it as a treatment against covid and so I wouldn't fall for the horse dewormer meme so fast. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ The FDA might be compromised by the pharmaceutical industry so it may not be remarkable that it is vocal against the competition. https://www.dmlawfirm.com/fda-compromised-drug-industry/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-fda-is-broken-its-controversial-approval-of-an-ineffective-new-alzheimers-drug-proves-the-agency-puts-profit-over-public-health/ar-AALuNKY -1
Robert J Anderson Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 14 minutes ago, Chum said: Blaming the intentionally unvaccinated for being hospitalized with an innoculable illness seems like pretty sound reasoning. There are vaccinated individuals who end up in the hospital too. Should the vaccine be blamed for not working for these?
The Nehor Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 31 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said: I think this might be a mistake to follow the anti ivermectin crowd. Sure, it is a horse dewormer. But it also is prescribed for humans and has been for years. In fact, the scientist that discovered it won the nobel prize in 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/ It competes with the vaccine and the emergency authorization of the vaccines is dependent on there not being any viable alternatives. So, perhaps that is why there is a lot of vocal/written content that is against ivermectin? There are doctors that support it as a treatment against covid and so I wouldn't fall for the horse dewormer meme so fast. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ The FDA might be compromised by the pharmaceutical industry so it may not be remarkable that it is vocal against the competition. https://www.dmlawfirm.com/fda-compromised-drug-industry/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-fda-is-broken-its-controversial-approval-of-an-ineffective-new-alzheimers-drug-proves-the-agency-puts-profit-over-public-health/ar-AALuNKY It is a good medication for its intended use if prescribed by COMPETENT medical professionals and is reasonably safe. What we have in reality are people buying the livestock versions and dosing themselves or getting quacks to give them prescriptions and taking it for purposes it has not proven effective for. There are states now where over half the poison control calls are now about Ivermectin overdosing. This is also being done in lieu of getting real treatment. There are doctors saying that it is useful against Covid. The studies collectively do not back that conclusion. Follow the science. Saying the FDA is compromised ignores the reality that the FDA does not control the world. Studies involving Ivermectin are not limited to the US. The FDA would be hard-pressed to shut down studies in Germany or Britain or Australia. The FDA can be incredibly incompetent and can also be corrupt. Currently there is some spat going on between them and the CDC and possibly the White House. Someone just stepped down. No idea what is behind it all though and reports are very vague. All that being said the FDA is not part of a global cabal keeping down Ivermectin just like it wasn’t keeping down hydroxy(however that stuff is spelled). The irony is that people keep insisting we need to be skeptical of government institutions (good) but these crystal healers over here with online alternative medicine degrees should be believed. I mean, look at all this data they put on their website…….so what if it is all faulty? 2
The Nehor Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 39 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said: There are vaccinated individuals who end up in the hospital too. Should the vaccine be blamed for not working for these? If everyone were vaccinated there would not be an ICU shortage. It is a numbers game. Whining that being unvaccinated is not bad because there are still cases amongst the vaccinated is witch-doctor level thinking. Stop it. 3
bsjkki Posted September 1, 2021 Author Posted September 1, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The studies collectively do not back that conclusion. Follow the science. Are you sure about that? https://ivmmeta.com/ Edited September 1, 2021 by bsjkki
Popular Post pogi Posted September 1, 2021 Popular Post Posted September 1, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: The letter from the First Presidency was, IMHO, opinion, counsel, not doctrine. Agreed. It was counsel and direction from the First Presidency, but the principle behind it is doctrine i.e. the second great commandment. See Elder Renlund's remarks on masks/vaccines in relation to the second great commandment: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CIgFFddDr7K/ 4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: One letter, to me, does not equal a concert of clarity (Elder Bednar, Oct 2020 General COnf: "The consistency of prophetic counsel over time creates a powerful concert of clarity and a warning volume far louder than solo performances can ever produce.") I see an overwhelming and undeniable concert of clarity. It has been far more than one letter: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/8/12/22622244/timeline-church-leader-actions-and-statements-on-wearing-masks-covid-19-vaccination-lds 4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: I seem to recall Elder Ballard - maybe others - in General COnference encouraging members to seek professinal medical advice and healthcare from licensed physicians. So, no I don't think the FIrst Presidency wants people to ignore their doctors' recommendations. What is your doctor's recommendation on Covid vaccination? 4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: The effectiveness of masks:https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/ Sigh... This has been addressed a dozen times on here. You can't assess the efficacy of masks by cherry picking. BYU and CDC studies have done careful nationwide studies demonstrated that mask mandates have worded to reduce spread (that doesn't mean that spikes wont happen). Besides, this is only looking at mask mandates, and not at compliance rates, etc. We know from countless studies that masks work when worn properly. 4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: I'm not getting vaccinated and have no problem w/ my faith. If other do, that is their decision not mine. Why are you not going to be vaccinated? Just curious. Have you done a risk vs. benefit analysis? If so, do you mind sharing? 4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: Relatedly: Anthony Fauci has been on the inside of coronavirus vaccine development for decades. Fauci’s history with HIV and AIDS, letting millions die after treatments were available, so he could get public funding: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IDEUXca6LWYj/ Vaccines seem to be less effective in combating the delta variant. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/vaccines-not-as-effective-against-delta-variant-says-cdc-data Therefore, we should engage in another shutdown while waiting for another vaccine? Ineffectiveness of masks: https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/ Knowing this, the goal of masking then is what, increased spread Another lockdown? 1/3 of people in the US already contracted COVID. 50% of the US is fully vaccinated. Herd immunity's goalpost was 60% but has been moved to what now 70%, 80%, 100%? Then we'll need to reach herd immunity via additional vaccien for Delta and Lambda or 5 month boosters for each variant? NIH data modeling vs. research based on people: https://townhall.com/columnists/tednoel/2021/08/30/critical-thinking-091-n2594955 thirteen effective protocols for at-home therapy of COVID A 20X INCREASE IN ENDOMETRIAL CANCER, VACCINES DROPPING CD8 IMMUNE CELLS: https://www.bitchute.com/video/wGKbPz19ju3V/ Nice ad hominem attack on Fauci (as if Fauci is the sole voice in vaccine and mask recommendations). Do you disagree that there is overwhelming consensus on masks and vaccines in the medical field? Take Fauci out of the picture and it wouldn't change the consensus. "Thirteen effective protocols" vs 2 shots - which would win in reducing severity of disease, hospitalization, and death? Lets take a look at hospitals and compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated and see what is happening there... There is undeniable evidence that vaccines effectively keep people out of hospitals and alive. Not so much evidence for your 13 protocols that no one seems to be implementing. Effective protocols to reduce severity of Covid require super early intervention (as in before someone gets really sick), people don't work that way. They wait until they get very sick before seeking medical attention. By then it is too late. Prevention is always more effective and cheaper than treatment. People are not horses, people please stop taking horse deworming pills instead of getting vaccinated. As to the endometrial cancer nonsense: Quote Dr. Ryan Cole claims mRNA vaccines cause cancer and autoimmune diseases, but the lead author of the paper on which Cole based that claim told us there is no evidence mRNA vaccines cause those ailments. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/scicheck-idaho-doctor-makes-baseless-claims-about-safety-of-covid-19-vaccines/ I got curious to see if there really has been a 20 fold increase in endometrial cancer during the pandemic. Quite the opposite: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2020/10000/Endometrial_Cancer_Detection_During_the.31.aspx https://doctorsatkaisertpmg.com/2020/07/31/fewer-endometrial-cancer-diagnoses-made-covid-19-pandemic/ If this doctor is seeing more endometrial cancer cases lately, it is not surprising. It is not likely that endometrial cancer cases just dropped miraculously during the pandemic. The more likely scenario is that people stopped getting routine checkups during the pandemic, and now the cancer is catching up with them. This would cause an artificial dip in cancer cases, followed by an artificial spike. There is the whole correlation and causation thing one must consider. In my own clinic, I am seeing a 10 fold increase in rabies exposure cases since our clinic re-opened not long ago. I guess we should blame the vaccine for that too since the timing seems right. PULSES OVER POLITICS Edited September 1, 2021 by pogi 6
pogi Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said: There are vaccinated individuals who end up in the hospital too. Should the vaccine be blamed for not working for these? If everyone wore their seatbelts, some people would still die. No we won't blame seat belts, but neither will we stop recommending and wearing them. Edited September 1, 2021 by pogi 1
The Nehor Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 7 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Are you sure about that? https://ivmmeta.com/ Yes, that website is complete garbage. Don’t believe what it says. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 Quote Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36 Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow.37–39 The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials. 2
Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 59 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said: I think this might be a mistake to follow the anti ivermectin crowd. By crowd, I think you mean a broad consensus of the most qualified people on earth to make that determination. Nah. No mistake there. As an alternative, one could follow the pro-ivermectin crowd and add to the calls jamming up poison control centers. 3
bsjkki Posted September 1, 2021 Author Posted September 1, 2021 (edited) 57 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Yes, that website is complete garbage. Don’t believe what it says. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 This is from Feb 2021 and looked at studies in high dose critically ill patients. That is not the protocol most pro ivermectin doctors recommend or what the double blind study out of Israel used. I would say the the treatment needs more study but it is a safe drug when used properly in the proper dosages. I also do not recommend people buy the animal version and try and figure it out. That is stupid. Edited September 1, 2021 by bsjkki
Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 19 minutes ago, pogi said: If everyone wore their seatbelts, some people would still die. No we won't blame seat belts, but neither will we stop recommending and wearing them. I have long had brakes and other safety tech in my car. I have had accidents anyway. Ergo...
Robert J Anderson Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 I think the correct way to characterize this is that the seatbelts in this scenario aren't that effective over time and perhaps need to be recalled or boosted in some way.
Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 1 minute ago, Robert J Anderson said: I think the correct way to characterize this is that the seatbelts in this scenario aren't that effective over time and perhaps need to be recalled or boosted in some way. Seatbelt analogy is a refutation to the notion that having 90%+ efficacy in vaccines is no better than having 0% efficacy. 1
Rain Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said: I wonder how many of the severely affected/hospitalized have other health problems and/or are obese? The simpson paradox data/discussion didn't mention this. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html What does it matter that a high percentage or obese or high risk? That they are acceptable loss? That we should shut them away for the rest of their lives? That if we should not accept them at hospitals? That we can blame them? Serious question: I mean really, why do people like to keep pointing out that the obese and high risk are the majority of those with more complications? What do they hope to happen from doing that? 3
Bob Crockett Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: He is a prophet. I don't see that he is qualified on this topic other than being a physician himself. Don't get me wrong. I fully support vaccination, masks etc. But we would not ascribe common sense and good faith advice with something coming directly from God.
Robert J Anderson Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 12 minutes ago, Chum said: Seatbelt analogy is a refutation to the notion that having 90%+ efficacy in vaccines is no better than having 0% efficacy. I have the vaccine but the 90% + efficacy claim isn't true for the delta variant and probably won't be for the other new variants that are sure to come. I think the vaccines are looking more and more like the flu shot where below 50% effectiveness is common year over year. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-vaccine-39percent-effective-in-israel-prevents-severe-illness.html
Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said: I have the vaccine but the 90% + efficacy claim isn't true for the delta variant and probably won't be for the other new variants that are sure to come. I think the vaccines are looking more and more like the flu shot where below 50% effectiveness is common year over year. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-vaccine-39percent-effective-in-israel-prevents-severe-illness.html The inference that vaccines aren't effective was a blatant falsehood at 95% efficacy . That inference is equally crap at 74% efficacy. One wonders why utter crap feels so embracable to some folks.
Robert J Anderson Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, Rain said: What does it matter that a high percentage or obese or high risk? That they are acceptable loss? That we should shut them away for the rest of their lives? That if we should not accept them at hospitals? That we can blame them? Serious question: I mean really, why do people like to keep pointing out that the obese and high risk are the majority of those with more complications? What do they hope to happen from doing that? The idea is to get all of the facts in front of us so we can make good decisions. If masks don't work, then why wear them? If they do work, then let's wear them. If covid primarily affects a certain population but doesn't affect the rest of the population that much, then perhaps the blanket strategy of requiring all to do something isn't the correct one or at least requiring healthy people to do this or that isn't necessary. I got the vaccine primarily because I suffer from another illness that might be complicated by covid and I didn't want to risk it. However, a healthy person might not need the vaccine and we are finding out that the vaccines themselves don't work as well as advertised.
pogi Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said: I think this might be a mistake to follow the anti ivermectin crowd. Sure, it is a horse dewormer. But it also is prescribed for humans and has been for years. In fact, the scientist that discovered it won the nobel prize in 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/ It competes with the vaccine and the emergency authorization of the vaccines is dependent on there not being any viable alternatives. So, perhaps that is why there is a lot of vocal/written content that is against ivermectin? There are doctors that support it as a treatment against covid and so I wouldn't fall for the horse dewormer meme so fast. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ The FDA might be compromised by the pharmaceutical industry so it may not be remarkable that it is vocal against the competition. https://www.dmlawfirm.com/fda-compromised-drug-industry/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-fda-is-broken-its-controversial-approval-of-an-ineffective-new-alzheimers-drug-proves-the-agency-puts-profit-over-public-health/ar-AALuNKY https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 The competition? Ivermectin is a pharmaceutical. Ivermectin for humans is different than Ivermectin for horses, FYI. Good luck finding a doctor that will prescribe you Ivermectin for Covid with the limited research. People are using horse meds because they don't need a prescription. The FDA is still studying Ivermectin for use in Covid. There is a process, you know... From the link you provided: Quote The trial included 72 hospitalized patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh, who were assigned to one of three groups: oral ivermectin alone (12 mg once daily for 5 days), oral ivermectin in combination with doxycycline (12 mg ivermectin single dose and 200 mg doxycycline on day 1, followed by 100 mg every 12 h for the next 4 days), and a placebo control group. Clinical symptoms of fever, cough, and sore throat were comparable among the three groups. Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm when compared to the placebo group (9.7 days vs 12.7 days; p = 0.02), but this was not the case for the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; p = 0.27). There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study. A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19. Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings. A trial of 72 in Bangladesh for "mild VOVID-19". Do you really want to compare that against the data and known efficacy of vaccines against severe Covid? If the pharmaceutical company who produces Ivermectin wants FDA approval, it has to pay for and perform the studies, not the FDA! It appears that "preliminary studies are underway... https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 2
Chum Posted September 1, 2021 Posted September 1, 2021 1 minute ago, Robert J Anderson said: If covid primarily affects a certain population but doesn't affect the rest of the population that much, Covid affects about 100% of the population. Covid kills some groups more and it kills some folks less but dead is dead. The ones it can't kill it uses as a vector to transmit to the ones it can - while potentially ruining their bodies and lives as a bonus. Everyone reading this already knows the above. Of that group, those trying to hide and falsely discredit the above are liars. 1
Recommended Posts