Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

planoaggie123 said:

---

I will not pretend to fully grasp all that and you are 100% the doctor and I am not.

However, I think i found your survey and it seems, though could be wrong, the entire population for the study is people admitted to the hospital which sort of lends itself to limited benefits as it relates to the antibody treatment.

The benefits of this treatment are BEFORE hospital, right? Like 3 - 5 days after symptoms start and before oxygen is needed....

---

This or those that have not developed antibodies. Most of the COVID patients that come to an ER are typically a week into their symptoms, which is much too late in the disease course to receive monoclonal antibody therapy. There appears to be legitimate benefit to early treatment with monoclonals, but it is certainly not a cure, and should not take the place of getting vaccinated.

Edit: But yes, you are correct that the above information from the RECOVERY trial's RCT are in hospitalized patients.

---

I know in my system we are pushing for infusions ASAP. The order form does not ask vaccine status and my gut tells me that they likely don't need the infusion if they are vaccinated. I've been combing through my ER visits to pick up 12+ with any risk factors and getting them infused ASAP if not vaccinated.

snowdog90 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Most people rightly listen to their doctor over rumble.com.

---

Watch the video.

---

I tend to fine videos to be less persuasive than the written word. As such, a video is unlikely to convince me of anything.

With a video, it is going by at its own pace. Sure, we can pause it to check the accuracy of what it said, but that can be difficult to do. Put it in print, instead, and we have something that we can go through at our own pace and check each claim as we go.

It was like this in classes, too. If I had already read the material in advance and was ready to ask any questions you didn't understand in class, I got more out of the class. I could still get something out of class by listening to the lecture and then reading the material, but not as much. Just listening to the lecture without doing the reading and study was hardly any better than going to drink a beer.

If it comes down to watching the video, I'd rather go drink a beer.

1876er said:

---

Sandman98 said:

---

Lots of people around here say "listen to your doctor" but they don't really mean it. They say it because it sounds "sciency" but they really only want you to listen to your doctor if he/she says what they think he should say.

---

No, we say it because almost everybody'sPCP will tell them ivermectin doesn't help with Covid. Despite that people still believe Rumble videos over their doctor and buy horse paste because they have discovered the"real" truth.

---

Clearly, if you take Ivermectin and recover, then Ivermectin clearly helped -- even if you would have recovered without it.

When I had covid, I had a very mild case in spite of a couple of major risk factors (age and weight). It took all I could do to not give full credit to the Vitamin D which I've been taking daily for years. With such a mild case and zero input from the doctors about what to do, it would be all to easy to claim it was the Vitamin D, but I really don't know if that actually helped or not.

The only way we will ever have any real knowledge of whether Ivermectin is effective on covid (or whether Vitamin D is effective on covid) is through rigorous medical testing.

Every drug ever tried in humans has a plausible mechanism of action, or some in vitro result, or some animal result, or all three. And yet 95% of new drugs don't pan out.

In vitro data is trash, especially when the in vitro mechanism requires concentrations that are not attainable in the body.

You continue to be one of the board's largest critics of Ivermectin.

What do you think of Oxford adding it as a researched drug? What do you say about these quotes:
Ivermectin to be investigated as a possible treatment for COVID-19 in Oxford's PRINCIPLE trial

Quote:

---

Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections.

---

Quote:

---

With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies.

---

Quote:

---

Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19.

---

Quote:

---

Professor Chris Butler, from the University Oxford's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Joint Chief Investigator of the PRINCIPLE trial, said, 'Ivermectin is readily available globally, has been in wide use for many other infectious conditions so it's a well-known medicine with a good safety profile, and because of the early promising results in some studies it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries.

---

All of the above is BS? You don't sound very impartial when you don't seem to be willing to listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

Zobel said:

---

Most viruses have no treatment.

Prescribing medications that don't work is at best the same as doing nothing, at worst carries additional hazard.

For most people, there is no medication that's going to help. But that's ok, because for most people a full recovery is certain.

---

Huh?

Something as simple as aspirin could be considered treatment.

There are treatments for the flu (Tamiflu), HIV, Cold sores (Valtrex), RSV, common cold, etc. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

aggierogue said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Most viruses have no treatment.

Prescribing medications that don't work is at best the same as doing nothing, at worst carries additional hazard.

For most people, there is no medication that's going to help. But that's ok, because for most people a full recovery is certain.

---

Huh?

Something as simple as aspirin could be considered treatment.

There are treatments for the flu (Tamiflu), HIV, Cold sores (Valtrex), RSV, common cold, etc. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

---

Most of those treat the symptoms more than they treat the virus itself. Antibiotics are very effective for bacteria, but viruses in general are substantially harder to treat without your immune systems help.

aggierogue said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Most viruses have no treatment.

Prescribing medications that don't work is at best the same as doing nothing, at worst carries additional hazard.

For most people, there is no medication that's going to help. But that's ok, because for most people a full recovery is certain.

---

Huh?

Something as simple as aspirin could be considered treatment.

There are treatments for the flu (Tamiflu), HIV, Cold sores (Valtrex), RSV, common cold, etc. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

---

Most of those treat the symptoms more than they treat the virus itself. Antibiotics are very effective for bacteria, but viruses in general are substantially harder to treat without your immune systems help.

---

Sure I get that. But we're talking about symptoms right? Much like the current vaccine, if you could find a drug that would treat the symptoms of Covid and get you to wellness, that would be great news right? Currently the vaccine is not treating the virus. It is treating the symptoms by making them less severe. Tell me where I'm wrong?

---

The point of a perfect vaccine is to keep you from getting the virus in the first place. For example:

Polio vaccine? Yep. Down to pockets in about 4 countries. They get oral immunizations yearly. It's close to being eradicated.
Smallpox? Yep. The vaccine eradicated the disease.

Or kill the virus once you have been exposed. For example: Rabies.

Not every vaccine is perfect. The yearly flu vaccine being a good example.

I would say that the current vaccine is doing a pretty decent job based on the numbers hospitals are reporting. Yes there are breakthroughs but the overwhelming majority of cases are in the unvaccinated class. And those that are breaking through seem less severe.

I know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs in my circle. All three had multiple kids at home (unvaccinated) that tested positive first. I know of more than a dozen unvaccinated that have gotten it in the last two months. I know two hundred (friends, family, my large rotary club, coworkers) that are vaccinated and all have stayed clear since their vaccine.

Aren't anecdotal numbers fun?

I'm not a critic of ivermectin, I'm a proponent of evidenced based opinions. That seems like criticism because so many people on this forum are convinced it works. Their belief is probably unfalsifiable, much like those who still believe HCQ works, even though it doesn't.

I think Oxford adding it as a drug is great. It's a large trial (one of 34?) that will tell the tale.

Quote:

---

All of the above is BS? You don't sound very impartial when you don't seem to be willing to listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

---

Not BS at all. But I think when you read that, you see different things than I do.

Ivermectin's known antiviral properties are all in vitro. There has been no clinical antiviral benefit with ivermectin. Most recently (May) it failed to show efficacy against dengue fever. The replication in lab studies they mention is in vitro, as mentioned previously in this thread. Results in test tubes rarely translate to results in humans.

The small pilot studies have shown that it can reduce viral load, yes. However, much like HCQ before it, small studies can be misleading or underpowered when trying to measure efficacy with a disease that has full recovery the vast majority of the time.

There's been a problem of fraudulent results in the ivermectin research which have cast a pall over the whole thing. You can read about that here: part 1, part 2, part 3.

So what's more impartial? Saying - there's been a significant credibility issue with the largest studies, so we should wait for more information before making up our minds? Or saying - everyone should take this drug no matter what, and if you can't get a prescription take the livestock version, and if you do that you don't need to take a vaccine?

Which of the two approaches do you think has the potential for more harm?

This doctor says the latter. And he left the FLCCC because of it. Is that impartial?

As answered there is a difference between treating a disease and treating symptoms of the disease. Yes, you can take medication to reduce body aches and fever, or suppress cough, or whatever. Sorry I wasn't clear - I was talking about direct effect treatment.

There's nothing you can do for most viruses, as has been mentioned. There is no treatment for RSV or the common cold. Tamiflu is one of the loosest cases for efficacy, for what its worth. Ask a doc, it's not generally highly regarded. It probably reduces symptom duration, but it probably doesn't prevent severe disease. Ivermectin may do something like that.

Quote:

---

Currently the vaccine is not treating the virus. It is treating the symptoms by making them less severe. Tell me where I'm wrong?

---

The vaccines aren't treatment. They do absolutely nothing for you if you take them after you've been infected. What it they all do is prime your immune system by showing it the same spike proteins the virus has on it (pre-delta, womp womp) so that when the immune system encounters the virus it can rapidly make antibodies and mount a cellular response (T cells etc) to clear it. It also does some stuff to your innate immune system which isn't really clear, that may help reduce severe cases by preventing infection.

This means you're less likely to get sick at all, and you're much less likely to go on to a severe case. You get a big head start on fighting it.

The reason it works so well is because your immune system already works really, really well. It just trains it for this specific virus.

As for Israel - determining vaccine efficacy is difficult. The last time they published numbers was in July. At that time they gave it 40% for symptomatic covid, 88% for hospitalization, 91% for severe covid. That number is an odds ratio, it means it decreases your risk vs an unvaccinated person, all things being equal. So, all things being equal if everyone is vaccinated total hospitalization load is decreased by 88% vs not. The weakness of this study was that it was observational based on surveillance of people seeking medical care.

The UK did a different kind of study, random surveillance where they tested people at intervals rather than simply observe. This was also done during the delta period. This has some advantages vs the study from Israel as you remove some sources of bias in who might and might not present for medical care. They found much better numbers for efficacy vs infection. They didn't find an impact from dosing interval, but the UK had a very different vaccine rollout (much longer between doses) so it makes you wonder if that doesn't explain some of what they found.

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

I know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs in my circle. All three had multiple kids at home (unvaccinated) that tested positive first. I know of more than a dozen unvaccinated that have gotten it in the last two months. I know two hundred (friends, family, my large rotary club, coworkers) that are vaccinated and all have stayed clear since their vaccine.

Aren't anecdotal numbers fun?

---

The fact that you know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs should be evidence that the vaccine is not stopping the spread. Curbing? Sure. Better than being unvaccinated? Sure. I never argued otherwise. I'm simply saying that there are too many people getting breakthrough cases to pretend that you're going to be protected by being vaccinated.

---

People use condoms and take oral birth control medication and still have babies. That doesn't make them bad or ineffective. But if you don't want children would you rather use them or go commando and take your chances?

Nah, if your doctor prescribes it go for it. What's bordering on idiotic is taking it in lieu of a vaccine. That's a really bad bet.

aggierogue said:

---

You continue to be one of the board's largest critics of Ivermectin.

What do you think of Oxford adding it as a researched drug? What do you say about these quotes:
Ivermectin to be investigated as a possible treatment for COVID-19 in Oxford's PRINCIPLE trial

Quote:

---

Ivermectin is a safe, broad spectrum antiparasitic drug which is in wide use globally to treat parasitic infections.

---

Quote:

---

With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies.

---

Quote:

---

Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19.

---

Quote:

---

Professor Chris Butler, from the University Oxford's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Joint Chief Investigator of the PRINCIPLE trial, said, 'Ivermectin is readily available globally, has been in wide use for many other infectious conditions so it's a well-known medicine with a good safety profile, and because of the early promising results in some studies it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries.

---

All of the above is BS? You don't sound very impartial when you don't seem to be willing to listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

---

No its not BS. That is how medicine is supposed to work. You do studies that prove it does something. You don't make wild claims that there is a cure because 3rd world counties aren't reporting many covid deaths. There have been studies already, some show that if you take it early it might help a bit. The problem is the misinformation campaign that "proves" there is a cure is that it leads to more people skipping the best option we have right now and ultimately getting sicker than they need to be.

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

I know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs in my circle. All three had multiple kids at home (unvaccinated) that tested positive first. I know of more than a dozen unvaccinated that have gotten it in the last two months. I know two hundred (friends, family, my large rotary club, coworkers) that are vaccinated and all have stayed clear since their vaccine.

Aren't anecdotal numbers fun?

---

The fact that you know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs should be evidence that the vaccine is not stopping the spread. Curbing? Sure. Better than being unvaccinated? Sure. I never argued otherwise. I'm simply saying that there are too many people getting breakthrough cases to pretend that you're going to be protected by being vaccinated.

---

People use condoms and take oral birth control medication and still have babies. That doesn't make them bad or ineffective. But if you don't want children would you rather use them or go commando and take your chances?

---

That's your argument for a vaccine that has about 60 percent protection after 3 months?

---

I give up. If you honestly believe that the safest thing you can do is to choose to not get vaccinated you go for it. Roll those dice. Or maybe spend some time reading the thread on this board telling the stories of the three people who rolled the dice and spent weeks in the hospital.

And depending on your age thank your parents or grandparents for being brave enough to take that experimental polio and new and improved smallpox vaccine in the 50's.

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

I know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs in my circle. All three had multiple kids at home (unvaccinated) that tested positive first. I know of more than a dozen unvaccinated that have gotten it in the last two months. I know two hundred (friends, family, my large rotary club, coworkers) that are vaccinated and all have stayed clear since their vaccine.

Aren't anecdotal numbers fun?

---

The fact that you know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs should be evidence that the vaccine is not stopping the spread. Curbing? Sure. Better than being unvaccinated? Sure. I never argued otherwise. I'm simply saying that there are too many people getting breakthrough cases to pretend that you're going to be protected by being vaccinated.

---

People use condoms and take oral birth control medication and still have babies. That doesn't make them bad or ineffective. But if you don't want children would you rather use them or go commando and take your chances?

---

That's your argument for a vaccine that has about 60 percent protection after 3 months?

---

I give up. If you honestly believe that the safest thing you can do is to choose to not get vaccinated you go for it. Roll those dice. Or maybe spend some time reading the thread on this board telling the stories of the three people who rolled the dice and spent weeks in the hospital.

And depending on your age thank your parents or grandparents for being brave enough to take that experimental polio and new and improved smallpox vaccine in the 50's.

---

We all knew debating here wouldn't change anyone's mind. Only thread that ever changed maybe anyones mind was the one where 4 good folks not vaccinated ended up in the hospital but thankfully recovered, all saying they will get vaccinated asap.

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

I know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs in my circle. All three had multiple kids at home (unvaccinated) that tested positive first. I know of more than a dozen unvaccinated that have gotten it in the last two months. I know two hundred (friends, family, my large rotary club, coworkers) that are vaccinated and all have stayed clear since their vaccine.

Aren't anecdotal numbers fun?

---

The fact that you know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs should be evidence that the vaccine is not stopping the spread. Curbing? Sure. Better than being unvaccinated? Sure. I never argued otherwise. I'm simply saying that there are too many people getting breakthrough cases to pretend that you're going to be protected by being vaccinated.

---

People use condoms and take oral birth control medication and still have babies. That doesn't make them bad or ineffective. But if you don't want children would you rather use them or go commando and take your chances?

---

That's your argument for a vaccine that has about 60 percent protection after 3 months?

---

I give up. If you honestly believe that the safest thing you can do is to choose to not get vaccinated you go for it. Roll those dice. Or maybe spend some time reading the thread on this board telling the stories of the three people who rolled the dice and spent weeks in the hospital.

And depending on your age thank your parents or grandparents for being brave enough to take that experimental polio and new and improved smallpox vaccine in the 50's.

---

We all knew debating here wouldn't change anyone's mind. Only thread that ever changed maybe anyones mind was the one where 4 good folks not vaccinated ended up in the hospital but thankfully recovered, all saying they will get vaccinated asap.

---

You are picking 4 people. Do you really think 4 random stories out of a country of 330 million people changes minds. People know their own health and can evaluate the risks. Stories aren't told of ones that have mild Covid recover and are fine but that is the vast majority of people. Those stories aren't interesting or frightening though.

---

It appears that anecdotal evidence is only relevant if if fits the narrative.

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

I know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs in my circle. All three had multiple kids at home (unvaccinated) that tested positive first. I know of more than a dozen unvaccinated that have gotten it in the last two months. I know two hundred (friends, family, my large rotary club, coworkers) that are vaccinated and all have stayed clear since their vaccine.

Aren't anecdotal numbers fun?

---

The fact that you know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs should be evidence that the vaccine is not stopping the spread. Curbing? Sure. Better than being unvaccinated? Sure. I never argued otherwise. I'm simply saying that there are too many people getting breakthrough cases to pretend that you're going to be protected by being vaccinated.

---

People use condoms and take oral birth control medication and still have babies. That doesn't make them bad or ineffective. But if you don't want children would you rather use them or go commando and take your chances?

---

That's your argument for a vaccine that has about 60 percent protection after 3 months?

---

I give up. If you honestly believe that the safest thing you can do is to choose to not get vaccinated you go for it. Roll those dice. Or maybe spend some time reading the thread on this board telling the stories of the three people who rolled the dice and spent weeks in the hospital.

And depending on your age thank your parents or grandparents for being brave enough to take that experimental polio and new and improved smallpox vaccine in the 50's.

---

We all knew debating here wouldn't change anyone's mind. Only thread that ever changed maybe anyones mind was the one where 4 good folks not vaccinated ended up in the hospital but thankfully recovered, all saying they will get vaccinated asap.

---

You are picking 4 people. Do you really think 4 random stories out of a country of 330 million people changes minds. People know their own health and can evaluate the risks. Stories aren't told of ones that have mild Covid recover and are fine but that is the vast majority of people. Those stories aren't interesting or frightening though.

---

At least 3 of them were in B/CS

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

I know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs in my circle. All three had multiple kids at home (unvaccinated) that tested positive first. I know of more than a dozen unvaccinated that have gotten it in the last two months. I know two hundred (friends, family, my large rotary club, coworkers) that are vaccinated and all have stayed clear since their vaccine.

Aren't anecdotal numbers fun?

---

The fact that you know 3 vaccinated breakthroughs should be evidence that the vaccine is not stopping the spread. Curbing? Sure. Better than being unvaccinated? Sure. I never argued otherwise. I'm simply saying that there are too many people getting breakthrough cases to pretend that you're going to be protected by being vaccinated.

---

People use condoms and take oral birth control medication and still have babies. That doesn't make them bad or ineffective. But if you don't want children would you rather use them or go commando and take your chances?

---

That's your argument for a vaccine that has about 60 percent protection after 3 months?

---

I give up. If you honestly believe that the safest thing you can do is to choose to not get vaccinated you go for it. Roll those dice. Or maybe spend some time reading the thread on this board telling the stories of the three people who rolled the dice and spent weeks in the hospital.

And depending on your age thank your parents or grandparents for being brave enough to take that experimental polio and new and improved smallpox vaccine in the 50's.

---

We all knew debating here wouldn't change anyone's mind. Only thread that ever changed maybe anyones mind was the one where 4 good folks not vaccinated ended up in the hospital but thankfully recovered, all saying they will get vaccinated asap.

---

You are picking 4 people. Do you really think 4 random stories out of a country of 330 million people changes minds. People know their own health and can evaluate the risks. Stories aren't told of ones that have mild Covid recover and are fine but that is the vast majority of people. Those stories aren't interesting or frightening though.

---

It appears that anecdotal evidence is only relevant if if fits the narrative.

---

Have nothing to say so falling back on 'narrative' eh? Also 99% recovery rate means nothing if you're the 1%. Do a seach on facebook for 'covid vent' and you'll see thousands of posts in the last 24 hours of desperate family.

---

I'm not sure why my stance is so upsetting to some of you. I'm in my forties, not overweight, and eat healthier than 99 percent of people I know. So I think my chances are greater than 99 percent. But the fact that I've also seen very healthy people get very sick is not lost on me. I'm also perfectly aware that I could be in that group that ends up regretting my decision. I certainly don't think I'm bulletproof.

I just have to be convinced that there aren't long term dangers to this vaccine. You're going to tell me there is zero risk in taking the vaccine. Plenty of people would disagree.

The longer the vaccines are available to public with no long term side effects, the more I will trust them.

The more the efficacy drops with the vaccines in terms of protecting from Covid or keeping people out of the hospital, the less use I have for them as well.

I wish I was less of a skeptic sometimes. Life would be easier. But I don't trust the government. I don't trust many of the medical governing bodies or the shareholders of big pharma as well.

I think you'd have to be a fool to not acknowledge that politics are heavily embedded on the vaccine issue.

So here I am at the crossroads.