I was actually thinking of trying to get the J&J as a booster, rather than another mRNA.
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2022
9 points (100.0% liked)
COVID-19 Pandemic
951 readers
13 users here now
Any news or discussion around the pandemic. Anti-vaccination posts and comments will be removed, as well as personal attacks.
Relevant:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 14 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Bullshit. Ivermectin and HCQ offer far better protection. Fauci and Big Pharma did a hatchet job on these two drugs that have been used by millions of people safely for decades and are effective. And there have been many reports of injury and even death from these boosters and even more reports of people fully vaxxed up contracting and spreading Omicron.
What makes you believe ivermectin has any efficacy at all? Are you aware of some super-secret biological mechanism that the rest of us are ignorant to, that makes it effective medicine, either preventatively or therapeutically? Or did you just latch onto it months ago when everyone was panicking, and now you're engaging in magical thinking?
If you're unaware of a mechanism, that's ok. Sometimes things work and no one knows why. But we're able to prove that with large-scale double-blind studies. Please point to those that show ivermectin to be effectively either prevenatively or therapeutically.
Here is latest observational study showing efficacy of Ivermectin: https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
Not enough? Here are 75 other studies: https://ivmmeta.com/
The data is out there. It's not "magical thinking" induced by fear. If anything, I'd say people considering a 4th or 5th booster are engaging in fear induced reasoning, in my opinion, literally being coerced by the state to comply or lose their ability to provide for themselves and their family.
New study from Isreal acknowledges 4th booster is ineffective at preventing infection from omicron: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/israel-study-4th-vaccine-shows-limited-results-omicron-82312196
So now the vaccine narrative is shifting from "it will stop the pandemic" to "its llike a flu shot".
How can anyone justify denying early treatment works, reducing access to the early treatments in favor of mandating a product that does not work as promised?
We should make everything available and let patient/doctor decided, not a one-size fits all mandate and censorship of any questioning of authorities (who have been dramatically wrong over and over).
Ivermectin has small but severe incidences of side effects, and the dosage at which it would need to be administered as a covid prophylatic make those more likely, and the totality of studies is mixed.
The website you cite with 75 studies does not recommend ivermectin as a replacement for vaccines.
The news article you cite, contrary to your claims, does not claim a 4th booster is "ineffective." It says that it does indeed defend but not as effectively against omicron.
Your interpretation is "the narrative" is just a handful of vague claims being interpreted in bad faith, and ignores underlying context: there was a period when it was possible to keep the pandemic under control, and that opportunity slipped away due to a combination of antivax misinformation and public resistance, which is not the same thing as a vaccine not working.
You're an antivax crank.
Please don't call people cranks. It is a personal attack, which is disallowed by the rules. Stick to reporting misinformation and I will take care of it.
@[email protected] You're spreading misinformation. Continued promotion of Ivermectin, especially in preference to vaccines, will result in a ban.
@[email protected] It saddens me to read this accusation.
Remember when the lab leak was "conspiracy theory" and racist against Asians. Then the funding documents of the nature of the work at Wuhan comes out. Talking about lab leak was misinformation, until the evidence was overwhelming that it was a strong possibility. Isn't it in all of our interest to find out if a lab was responsible so we can fix the problem?
What happens when authorities can just say misinformation, present no evidence and silence dissent?
Why the fear of an idea? I thought this was a leftist server? I genuinely came here to have cool conversations and have been so surprised at the level of penetration that this "anti-vax" fever has gotten here.
Whats the fear? That people won't comply? How about instead of mandates they give us choice and information. Instead of censorship, they persuade us with evidence and transperancy.
I'm prepared for the moment when I come to log onto this server running Free and Open Source Software and my account has been deleted. It's sad we can't freely express ourselves. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, or harassing, or trolling and I'm certainly not engaging in personal attacks.
whyam I not allowed to question the public health policy that vaccines are the ONLY way out of this. It seems so obvious to me that that is false. There are early treatments that can be used ALONGSIDE vaccines.
I understand that vaccines may lessen severity of symptoms, but it is well doumented that they don't stop the spread or infection.
I think the vaccines are a technical marvel, we are biologically programming our cells to produce spike protein to stimulate an immune response against the virus. But why not early treatment as well?
I hope you take me at my word that I am not maliciously spreading misinformation, but genuinely inquiring and trying to reason through this crazy situation we are all in.
I wish instead of hostile responses a good faith engagement of ideas could be had. It's possible I'm wrong. It's also possible you are. How can we ever figure that out if we use the blunt instrument of censorship/banning?
I hope you don't ban me, but I'm not going to self censor. I hope you read the full thread and see that at no point did I promote Ivermectin in preference of vaccines, nor vaccines in preference of ivermection.
I figure we are all adults and can make up our individual minds and take responsibility for our own actions and should treat each other with mutual respect. I don't understand all the banning...
You are completely free to say whatever in other communities about COVID-19, Ivermectin, vaccines, etc. But in this community, I have made the moderation call that anything that smacks strongly of anti-vaccine messaging is against the rules. As for why, you may be familiar with the Camel's Nose story.
You’re an antivax crank.
It's just a difference of opinion, calm down internet friend. Let's not dehumanize one another over an opinion regarding a pharma product. I'm not advocating for anyone to be restricted from getting the vax if they want it. I'm just pointing out it doesn't stop spread or infection and early treatment exists.
The website you cite with 75 studies does not recommend ivermectin as a replacement for vaccines.
That wasn't the point. The point is that there are studies showing the IVM is effective a preventing and treating Covid infection.
The news article you cite, contrary to your claims, does not claim a 4th booster is “ineffective.”
Fair point, they do say less effective.
“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus omicron."
Nope, you're still an antivax crank, and invoking broad claims of dehumanization are rhetorical devices to insulate yourself from legitimate criticism of your verifiably false claims.
That wasn’t the point
uh-huh, lol. It was the point of the parent commenter, you praised ivermectin without qualification while criticizing getting additional shots based on misinterpretation of an article, and only after pointing out that the website doesn't recommend it as a replacement do you acknowledge it. If this were reddit you'd be sent to /r/quityourbullshit over this one alone.
Fair point, they do say less effective.
This is a fundamental misconception you are bringing to this thread. The article affirms that it protects, but to a lesser degree than previous shots and you falsely claimed without qualification that it is "ineffective", and you erroneously concluded it shouldn't be administered, and made an incorrect bad faith interpretation about "claims" associated with the promises of the vaccine that aren't attributed to real people or based on an honest accounting of cause and effect of which forces drove the pandemic.
If it's three strikes and you're out, you're at like seven strikes. You're a crank and you should be banned.
bad faith interpretation
I don't think it's constructive to assume the motives of others
you erroneously concluded it shouldn’t be administered,
That's a nice strawman you got there
*and *made an incorrect bad faith interpretation about “claims” associated with the promises of the vaccine that aren’t attributed to real people or based on an honest accounting of cause and effect of which forces drove the pandemic.
President, head of CDC, head of NIAID didn't say on tv it would prevent infection? Was that memory holed already?
You’re a crank and you should be banned.
You trying to build a safe space where no one disagrees?
I'm speaking sincerely and not in bad faith. I'm concerend by the amount of power gov is trying to get via mandates and the transfer of wealth that is happening due to shutdowns.
It's an honest diagreement, but if you want to assume I have negative motives, nothing I can do about that.
I personally don't want anyone censored and think humanity thrieves when we can have difficult conversations out in the open.
You're a crank and should be banned, and your performative claims of being "dehumanized" and insisting I need to "calm down" are indisputably in bad faith.
President, head of CDC, head of NIAID didn’t say on tv it would prevent infection? Was that memory holed already?
Vaccines are one of a number of causal forces at play in the fight to prevent covid. Vaccines are an input that does indeed prevent infection. However, people have to be vaccinated, and have to coordinate effectively to mask, avoid gatherings, and resist the spread of misinformation. Instead we had poor coordination, and open defiance of mandates.
Instead of acknowledging the positive and negative roles played by independent forces, you merge them all together and use it to suggest vaccines themselves don't prevent infection. Instead of looking at studies proving the efficacy of vaccines, you attribute unsourced vague claims that aren't specifically about vaccine efficacy in order to imply they're not effective. That's bad faith.
So you misrepresented an article about vaccine efficacy, referenced a website's research that didn't agree that ivermectin is a replacement for vaccines, made vague references to non-existent quotes to falsely suggest vaccines are ineffective, and like any typical troll, are trying to insulate yourself from criticism with grandiose claims of rights to free speech and not being dehumanized. You're a crank and you should be banned.
You’re a crank and should be banned
Interesting mantra.
Anyway, I'd say this is a complex situation and there is some validity in your point of view and mine as well. I think it was a mistake to censor, smear early treatment and fire people even if they had acquired immunity. Seems cruel to me.
I also think it is cruel to deny people early treatment due to gov edict instead of allowing doctors to treat their patients how they see fit.
I think the policy of turning people away from the hospital until symptoms worsened instead of using early treatments was a massive mistake.
I don't pretend to have absolute infallible knowledge and wouldn't advocate for censorship as the princple of free speech is precisely tested during strong disagreement.
are trying to insulate yourself from criticism with grandiose claims of rights to free speech and not being dehumanized
I personally would advise you not be so casually contemptous of those principles. I'm not trying to insulate myself from criticism. Only one of us has expressed a desire that the other be censored.