Jump to content

AP article on Church/Covid/vaccine’s dividing members


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 by pogi
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Are you sure about that? https://ivmmeta.com/

D70046D8-59CF-417D-B3B4-1E763A4A28FA.jpeg

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.

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

A23D302F-DE0D-4DC0-BD97-CA10A3C5D9ED.jpeg

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
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...

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...