COVID-19/Coronavirus Talk - Part II

[KirkOut]

This is a dumb comment. Ivermectin has been around for decades and the discoverers of it won a Nobel Prize, not for saving animals, but for saving millions of humans around the world. It's a safe drug.

As to your last comment, do you tell fat people, smokers, drug users, or those engaging in risky behavior to "have the decency" to not take a hospital bed from someone else?

Kind of bizarre tribal thinking on your part.

I mean, I literally said I don’t care what you do as long as you are vaccinated. So again, no judgment if you want to take horse dewormer to supplement your vaccine. And no I wouldn’t tell any of those other groups to stay home because hospitals have never become unable to treat car accident/stroke/heart attack patients because the beds are all occupied by smokers or fat people

 

[AjaxManifesto]

I have no skin in the game with ivermectin. If it works, great. Let people take it.

They should also take the vaccine, which has a proven track record backed up by mountains of data.

What people find so baffling is that people are so quick to be distrustful of a vaccine, yet are so quick to embrace things like ivermectin. This is what is frustrating. We all want this thing to be over with. We're all working like hell to end this thing as quickly as possible and with as little life lost as possible and it feels like so many people are acting in opposition to that goal.

Ivermectin has been out there for decades. The COVID vaccines are less than 2 years in development, testing, and application. All looks good thus far with the vaccines sans some short term side effects. EB22 made the case that the compressed development timelines make sense and that no corners were cut. He said that we don't need long term studies or that we are looking at them now in real time with people having been vaccinated late last year. I'm still hesitant about this, but I will eventually get vaccinated as more conventional delivery mechanism come online (there are other vaccines being developed as we speak).

As to end "end this thing as quickly as possible" when is that? And by what mechanism? Do you think we can eliminate COVID world-wide?

 

[AjaxManifesto]

I mean, I literally said I don’t care what you do as long as you are vaccinated. So again, no judgment if you want to take horse dewormer to supplement your vaccine. And no I wouldn’t tell any of those other groups to stay home because hospitals have never become unable to treat car accident/stroke/heart attack patients because the beds are all occupied by smokers or fat people

You keep saying horse dewormer. You know the Rolling Stones article about Oklahoma was fake news, right?

 

[AjaxManifesto]

I don’t know that article because I don’t read rolling stone. I generally consume more factual outlets such as AP and BBC news

I believe it starts with one outlet and they all run with it. Does it mean that people aren't misusing Ivermectin for horses? No, I bet you there are some people who are, but it's not in the numbers that the media is portraying. In fact, I've heard you can get it in Mexico for human consumption (and no, not a tube of horse paste). They are using it all over the world for other diseases and its being used to treat COVID in different countries as well. Is it effective in the eyes of the FDA for COVID? The jury is out on that. I'm less shocked about its use and more shocked about the US seeming to have a "one solution to this problem" strategy...at least that's the vibe I get from politicians, the media, and the CDC.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015

"These two discoveries have provided humankind with powerful new means to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually. The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable."​

 

[KirkOut]

I believe it starts with one outlet and they all run with it. Does it mean that people aren't misusing Ivermectin for horses? No, I bet you there are some people who are, but it's not in the numbers that the media is portraying. In fact, I've heard you can get it in Mexico for human consumption (and no, not a tube of horse paste). They are using it all over the world for other diseases and its being used to treat COVID in different countries as well. Is it effective in the eyes of the FDA for COVID? The jury is out on that. I'm less shocked about its use and more shocked about the US seeming to have a "one solution to this problem" strategy...at least that's the vibe I get from politicians, the media, and the CDC.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015

"These two discoveries have provided humankind with powerful new means to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually. The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable."​

Ok

 

[ort]

I believe it starts with one outlet and they all run with it. Does it mean that people aren't misusing Ivermectin for horses? No, I bet you there are some people who are, but it's not in the numbers that the media is portraying. In fact, I've heard you can get it in Mexico for human consumption (and no, not a tube of horse paste). They are using it all over the world for other diseases and its being used to treat COVID in different countries as well. Is it effective in the eyes of the FDA for COVID? The jury is out on that. I'm less shocked about its use and more shocked about the US seeming to have a "one solution to this problem" strategy...at least that's the vibe I get from politicians, the media, and the CDC.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015

"These two discoveries have provided humankind with powerful new means to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually. The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable."​

There isn't one solution. They have lots of successful methods for keeping people with bad cases of COVID alive. We're way way way better at it today than we were a year ago.

The simplest answer is the vaccines. They do help. They are free and readily available and will keep you alive. They will help you not spread it to other people. They will help.

I don't understand this current obsession with ivermectin. Do we think there is some sort of conspiracy at play? If it was super effective at combating the virus, why aren't they using it? My understanding is that there is very little actual proof that it does much of anything.

I'm not a doctor or a scientist and it's not my job to research these things. As a member of society, I have to rely on others who know way more than I. It's not my job to know everything about everything. I spent my life getting good at my trade while others have done the same in theirs We all rely on each other. We all can't know everything about everything. I have as much healthy distrust in some of these establishments as the next guy, but at the end of the day, we're all in this together and you either have faith in your fellow man to do the right thing, or you don't. And if you don't, maybe you should be living off the grid in a cabin somewhere. I don't know what to tell you.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

There isn't one solution. They have lots of successful methods for keeping people with bad cases of COVID alive. We're way way way better at it today than we were a year ago.

The simplest answer is the vaccines. They do help. They are free and readily available and will keep you alive. They will help you not spread it to other people. They will help.

I don't understand this current obsession with ivermectin. Do we think there is some sort of conspiracy at play? If it was super effective at combating the virus, why aren't they using it? My understanding is that there is very little actual proof that it does much of anything.

I'm not a doctor or a scientist and it's not my job to research these things. As a member of society, I have to rely on others who know way more than I. It's not my job to know everything about everything. I spent my life getting good at my trade while others have done the same in theirs We all rely on each other. We all can't know everything about everything. I have as much healthy distrust in some of these establishments as the next guy, but at the end of the day, we're all in this together and you either have faith in your fellow man to do the right thing, or you don't. And if you don't, maybe you should be living off the grid in a cabin somewhere. I don't know what to tell you.

As I've said, getting vaccinated is in my future. I've been vaccinated for a whole bunch of other diseases. I'm waiting for more options. And BTW, some of the new strains may challenge the efficacy of the current vaccines and you can still spread it (reference Israel, they are starting 4th shots for certain people).

In 3rd world countries they don't have the cold storage needed for some of the current vaccines. They have limited resources. In fact, the WHO is getting upset with the US talking about vaccine boosters when people in the 3rd world have none.

When was the last time I heard the CDC talk about getting exercise, eating right, and going outside? The data I've seen is that obese people are very susceptible to having a very negative reaction to COVID. I never hear them talk about lifestyle choices. It's always "get the jab, use a mask".

 

[ort]

I'm pretty sure the entire medical community has been on a pretty hardline eat right and exercise kick for decades now.

CDC Overweight & Obesity

Two clicks from the homepage gets you there.

Obesity, Race/Ethnicity, and COVID-19 | Overweight & Obesity | CDC

 

[Xerloris]

New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

1854... interesting... Yes, sure, there are numerous examples of a lone voice being correct. Just like there are hundreds of thousands of times through history where the consensus was completely correct.

It is not near certain that the virus came from a lab, nor is any of the willful gain-of-function stuff a certainty. We just don't know.

I am not going to get sucked back into this thread, but I doubt you’re including the most recent information in this statement. Federal medical officials baldly lied about funding this type of research. I suppose China deleting the genome from their medical websites, suppressing the local medical reports, having the military take charge of the lab and persisting in refusing to cooperate with any international body investigating the source of Covid-19 is just an unfortunate coincidence. FOI reports confirm that this type of work WAS being performed and supported by US funding, and the most recent analysis (from sources that don’t have a conflict of incriminating themselves by admitting they funded work of this nature like say, the CDC leadership) show evidence of probable human manipulation of the genome.

I’ll step out of this thread again. It’s easy enough to find this information if desired. More often people are choosing the reality they prefer and only reading sources that confirm this.

My larger point isn’t about the certainty of the Wuhan Virology lab being the source, but that it’s a strong enough possibility that it deserves serious investigation. Yet a year ago scientists who suggested this were systematically ostracized and silenced or discredited. That is political, period. It’s unscientific. When you see political manipulation of processes like this, it’s a pretty good time to question the consensus more seriously. A consensus based on scientific inquiry will stand on its own, without the need for strong-arm tactics. And if the data are lacking, the consensus isn’t worth a damn.

 

[ort]

I mean, yes, but I fail to see it as some huge gotcha. The NIH gives out like 40 billion dollars a year in the form of like 50,000 grants to researchers all over the world. Finding out that $600,000 of one grant from 6 years ago (that went through a completely different organization) wound up at the Wuhan lab doesn't really feel like some sort of scandalous smoking gun.

These new articles posted on all these new finding that came out today are just like all of the others in the past... a lot of salacious headlines followed by no actual new information or smoking guns. It's just word salad of scary sounding stuff with no actual new information or details.

I don't trust the Chinese government at all. I think there is a very very good chance that the virus did leak out from that lab. It's really the most likely scenario. I don't think it was leaked on purpose and I'm not convinced that COVID-19 was the result of manmade gain-of-function. I don't really know, I'm not a virologist, but China has nothing to gain from releasing this to the world. I also don't think the US was involved in any way. I can completely see China covering it up even if it was an accident. If it leaked out from the lab, the last thing in the world they want is for that to be confirmed.

The most likely scenario in my head is that they were studying this virus, like they are studying thousands of other viruses and it got out and spread like wildfire. It's much much more likely that this can be attributed to incompetence or bad luck than it can be attributed to malice or taking dangerous risks.

Do I know? No, I do not. I'm not a virologist, I'm not an international investigator. I don't know.

All I do know, is that many of the voices pushing these narratives frequently opine on other things I know much more about, and I find their opinion on these other topics to be a giant mountain of untrustworthy bad faith nonsense, so it's hard for me to take anything they say too seriously.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Israel’s Covid Surge Shows the World What’s Coming Next

 

[ort]

That article says their vaccination rate is only 61%? I thought the narrative was that they were completely vaccinated and an example of how vaccines don't work?

 

[AjaxManifesto]

That article says their vaccination rate is only 61%? I thought the narrative was that they were completely vaccinated and an example of how vaccines don't work?

Interesting. They are also the first to go to the 4th jab.

 

[ort]

That's the exact "new" information I was referencing above. It actually provides no new information at all. It's a whole lot of nothing. A lot of nothing we already knew.

Let's break it down further. 6 years ago, .0018% of all grant moneys provided by the NIH went to the Wuhan lab... not even directly, but as a portion of funds given to another research company. People who really really really want to find a smoking gun in these papers have poured over them repeatedly but found nothing. There is documentation in the grants warning against using any of the funds to do gain-of-function research. It's clearly spelled out.

The NIH gives out 50,000 grants every year. The odds that Fauci even knew this existed or heard a whisper of it are basically 0%. What is even the controversy here?

It makes for a good article for people to skim and get angry about, but if there was any "there" there, we would be hearing about it. There are people who are highly motivated to turn this into a big scandal. If they could, they would. Instead we just get more of the talking in circles nonsense and scary sounding headlines. Give me some details, If this is something to be upset about, explain why.

I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I have a really good bullshit detector and I know how stories like this get spun for maximum impact. This reads to me like a classic nonsensical spin job. It's a nothing story designed to rile up people looking to get riled up.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab

 

[simon IC]

New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab

The same article was posted on this page by Xerloris 7 posts up. Scroll up half a page.

 

[EastonBlues22]

HERE's a summary of a number of the currently referenced studies regarding Ivermectin, as well as proposed mechanisms of action, some clinical considerations, etc.

Personally, I find it odd that the people who tend to be most receptive to the use of this medication also tend to be more skeptical of the use of vaccines. The vaccines are either currently approved, or are pending approval under EUAs, and are recommended by pretty much every authoritative body with any credibility whatsoever.

Ivermectin, to the best of my knowledge, not currently recommended as a treatment for Covid by the FDA, the NIH, the WHO, the Infectious Disease Society of America, or pretty much any authoritative body. Additional studies are currently ongoing, but the current body of evidence is less than compelling...and certainly far less compelling that the data supporting the efficacy of the vaccines.

In addition, Ivermectin is traditionally given as a single dose treatment for parasitic infestations. HERE is a list of some potential side effects when used for that indication. For Covid dosing the drug is given at higher concentrations and for longer durations...both of which could potentially effect the frequency and/or severity of any side effects. Outside of the limited trials thus far, we don't have much in the way of data for how those might be affected at Covid dosing levels. We have much, much more safety data for the vaccines at this point.

Worse, if the drug is misused, The Food and Drug Administration warned that an ivermectin "overdose can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death." Overdoses rates are skyrocketing, so this is a real concern connected to the promotion of Ivermectin as a treatment alternative when not under the direct supervision of healthcare professionals.

 

[Xerloris]

HERE's a summary of a number of the currently referenced studies regarding Ivermectin, as well as proposed mechanisms of action, some clinical considerations, etc.

Personally, I find it odd that the people who tend to be most receptive to the use of this medication also tend to be more skeptical of the use of vaccines. The vaccines are either currently approved, or are pending approval under EUAs, and are recommended by pretty much every authoritative body with any credibility whatsoever.

Ivermectin, to the best of my knowledge, not currently recommended as a treatment for Covid by the FDA, the NIH, the WHO, the Infectious Disease Society of America, or pretty much any authoritative body. Additional studies are currently ongoing, but the current body of evidence is less than compelling...and certainly far less compelling that the data supporting the efficacy of the vaccines.

In addition, Ivermectin is traditionally given as a single dose treatment for parasitic infestations. HERE is a list of some potential side effects when used for that indication. For Covid dosing the drug is given at higher concentrations and for longer durations...both of which could potentially effect the frequency and/or severity of any side effects. Outside of the limited trials thus far, we don't have much in the way of data for how those might be affected at Covid dosing levels. We have much, much more safety data for the vaccines at this point.

Worse, if the drug is misused, The Food and Drug Administration warned that an ivermectin "overdose can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death." Overdoses rates are skyrocketing, so this is a real concern connected to the promotion of Ivermectin as a treatment alternative when not under the direct supervision of healthcare professionals.

I want to add that I know I come off as a dick a lot of times but that's not my intention, at least not in this thread anyway.


You're seriously wondering why people are more receptive to a drug that's been around for 5 decades compared to a brand new vaccine that has killed enough people to be recalled but still remains under EUA?

You are correct though, the terrible increase in overdoses is terrifying. 1,143 ivermectin exposure cases were reported between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31 and that's 163% increase. I guess that could be because previously Americans had no reason to use ivermectin because we're not a 3rd world country. So with need comes exposure, this is to be expected and I would be more concerned with doctors and pharmacies refusing to prescribe and fill ivermectin which leads to people using the livestock version. Your little overdose article quotes "In Mississippi, which has one of the lowest rates of vaccination against the coronavirus, the state Department of Health issued an alert about the surge in calls to poison control in August. The department said that at least 70% of recent calls to the state poison control center were related to people who ingested a version of the drug meant for livestock. " which was corrected. 2% of the calls are about ivermectin and of that 2%, 70% of those are about the livestock version. I guess the article decided to stick to the false report because it was scarier.

To end, I have seen worse side effects listed for erectile dysfunction medication on late night TV.

https://i.ibb.co/8ds2s08/phizer.png

Here's a direct link so you dont need to type it in

Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach

I guess we'll all sit around and die while we wait for pfizermectin to be available so they can make money off of it.

 

[EastonBlues22]

You're seriously wondering why people are more receptive to a drug that's been around for 5 decades compared to a brand new vaccine that has killed enough people to be recalled but still remains under EUA?

Yes, when the mechanism for that drug "helping" is unknown/unproven, the dosing is experimental, and the benefit/side effect profiles are not established. It's an FDA approved drug, but not for this, and not at these doses. The italicized matters...a lot.

It can be obfuscated however opponents want, but the science and the math both favor the use of vaccines. That isn't just my opinion. That is currently the consensus opinion of every authoritative body with any relevance...a truly inconvenient fact for anyone wanting to have a fact based discussion.

 

[ort]

I think the big Pharma companies suck as much as the next guy, but the idea that ivermectin could be a real help right now and isn't being used because it won't make Pfizer money is just simply not plausible. The entire medical community, all of the worlds governments and all of the media all across the planet are in on this conspiracy?

 

[bluesfan94]

I am not going to get sucked back into this thread, but I doubt you’re including the most recent information in this statement. Federal medical officials baldly lied about funding this type of research. I suppose China deleting the genome from their medical websites, suppressing the local medical reports, having the military take charge of the lab and persisting in refusing to cooperate with any international body investigating the source of Covid-19 is just an unfortunate coincidence. FOI reports confirm that this type of work WAS being performed and supported by US funding, and the most recent analysis (from sources that don’t have a conflict of incriminating themselves by admitting they funded work of this nature like say, the CDC leadership) show evidence of probable human manipulation of the genome.

I’ll step out of this thread again. It’s easy enough to find this information if desired. More often people are choosing the reality they prefer and only reading sources that confirm this.

My larger point isn’t about the certainty of the Wuhan Virology lab being the source, but that it’s a strong enough possibility that it deserves serious investigation. Yet a year ago scientists who suggested this were systematically ostracized and silenced or discredited. That is political, period. It’s unscientific. When you see political manipulation of processes like this, it’s a pretty good time to question the consensus more seriously. A consensus based on scientific inquiry will stand on its own, without the need for strong-arm tactics. And if the data are lacking, the consensus isn’t worth a damn.

So brave of you to come into the thread, post a bunch of crap, and then step out of the thread. But at least the bolded proves that irony lives.

 

[bluesfan94]

Yes, when the mechanism for that drug "helping" is unknown/unproven, the dosing is experimental, and the benefit/side effect profiles are not established. It's an FDA approved drug, but not for this, and not at these doses. The italicized matters...a lot.

It can be obfuscated however opponents want, but the science and the math both favor the use of vaccines. That isn't just my opinion. That is currently the consensus opinion of every authoritative body with any relevance...a truly inconvenient fact for anyone wanting to have a fact based discussion.

Especially because a lot of people are taking a different formulation of it because doctors are refusing to prescribe a dewormer based on the advice of Joe Rogan and their kooky second cousin on Facebook, so people are instead taking versions meant for horses and dogs.

 

[Oh Baby!]

Name one mRNA based FDA approved drug before the two we have now.

Both vaccines were developed in about 6-9 months and approved in about as much time.

Show me the long term data for both.


I can also show you a list of FDA approved drugs that were pulled from the market once people started using them and effects were recorded over a long period.

... Is it effective in the eyes of the FDA ...

Does that actually matter to you?

...I'm waiting for more options...

You don't trust anything new and unproven, so you are waiting for something new...

 

[Oh Baby!]

Read THIS article for an idea of how time was saved without cutting corners.

I already explained that "long term safety data" is functionally scaled to a few months for vaccines, not to years. The vaccine itself degrades in the body fairly quickly. It's not present in the body even a month, much less multiple years, down the line to cause future complications. Nor will the immune system spontaneously start doing something different (besides, perhaps, having its effectiveness wane) many months/years down the line in response to a stimulus that's no longer there.

We are 5+ billion doses given into this thing, with about 375 million of those being given in the USA, and the first doses were given to people (in testing trials) about a year and a half ago. We have the long term safety data.


The timeline is because of how our immune response works. The delivery system itself (active, inactive, mRNA, whatever) is relatively meaningless. You introduce the foreign substance to the body, the immune response begins, the substance quickly degrades...and that's it. All that's left is the continuation of the immune response, and that's something we understand both the timing and the mechanism of very well.

If you're asking if there is anything about an mRNA delivery system that suggests there might be cause for concern extending well beyond the usual established timeline, or that might significantly alter the usual immune response timeline in some way, and the answer is no...no, there is not.


[Edited: My apologies. - EB]

I've already addressed a lot of these statements, but suffice to say that I think your underlying premise here has some faults.

If you built a bridge and told me it was safe, and I told you that a bridge had never been built in this spot before so we have no idea if it is safe, and that I wasn't going to use that bridge until there was some "long term safety data" to prove that it was, how would you respond as an engineer?

You would probably have quite a few reasons for believing it to be safe based on your knowledge of how the bridge was specifically constructed, your understanding of the underlying theories supporting those choices, and your general expertise in the field...and you would almost certainly be right. But you would still be unable to satisfy my relatively ignorant and misguided demand for "long term data" that doesn't exist and doesn't prove...well, much of anything, really. No expert would justify his opinion that a bridge was sound/safe solely on whether or not it was still standing a few years later. They would confidently formulate that opinion up front before they ever let people on the darn thing based upon their knowledge of a whole host of relevant factors specific to the situation.


I know that the answer is irrelevant if your risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from Covid (regardless of how small) is a lot higher than your risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from the vaccine. To the best of my knowledge, there has been a literal handful of deaths directly linked to the Covid vaccine thus far (from J&J blood clots) after billions of doses given. Compare that to 4.5+ million deaths from Coronavirus out of millions of confirmed cases...

Just how bad are these potential "future safety issues," in your mind, to be an alternative that you fear more than the reality you are actually facing?

This is a fantastic response and where I was heading. The fact is was so easily dismissed with-- "there are folks who know even more than you about these vaccines who have a wait and see approach. So you are not the be all, end all in this." is telling.

I really need to stick to the hockey threads.

Good luck everyone