DannyDuberstein said:

---

ea1060 said:

---

Im a 19 month covid long hauler, and ivermectin was the only medicine that relieved my daily symptoms out of the dozen or so other prescriptions/antibiotics/vitamins/medicines I took lol.

---

Waiting for someone to tell this guy that it's all in his head. I mean, he risked stomach upset to feel better. Let's hear how he doesn't understand stats and data

---

I would rather leave anecdotal stories to the politics board and rely on peer reviewed statistical data here.

Except no one (that I've seen) has told him that. So why not get mad about the stuff that actually gets said instead of the things I guess you think certain posters are assuming?

Wait, I thought that this thread was about whether ivermectin works or not, not whether we should have a vaccine mandate. Aren't those two separate issues?

Jabin said:

---

Wait, I thought that this thread was about whether ivermectin works or not, not whether we should have a vaccine mandate. Aren't those two separate issues?

---

"Ivermectin works cuz [insert anecdotes, wordpress conspiracy sites, and Twitter]"

"Anecdotes are not stats and those sites are clickbait scam farming you and all those countries have dropped Ivermectin from their covid guidelines"

"Oh yeah? Vaccines are totally anecdotal too because [insert anecdotes, wordpress conspiracy sites, and Twitter]"

"Well no because in multiple large scale phase 3 randomized placebo controlled double blind studies that have gone through rigorous peer reviews [insert multiple papers and publications]"

"... You're just sheep that [insert segway into 'woke' mandates]"

"Sigh"

Thus is the usual progress of almost every thread on f84

I have no opinion of Ivermectin and hope it actually works. The problem is when people say its an effective alternative to vaccination.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

ea1060 said:

---

Im a 19 month covid long hauler, and ivermectin was the only medicine that relieved my daily symptoms out of the dozen or so other prescriptions/antibiotics/vitamins/medicines I took lol.

---

Waiting for someone to tell this guy that it's all in his head. I mean, he risked stomach upset to feel better. Let's hear how he doesn't understand stats and data

---

I would rather leave anecdotal stories to the politics board and rely on peer reviewed statistical data here.

---

I agree. So please, show me the science and statistics that definitively report the number of people the vaccine kept from 1) contracting the virus. Or 2) spreading the virus. Or 3) Prevented hospitalization.

---

Here's a graphical presentation of some data showing the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing severe disease:

ICNARC have updated their analysis of COVID patients in critical care in England, Wales and NI. They now show boosted patients as well.
They are shown in green.
Yes, I've put them on the chart.
You have to squint. pic.twitter.com/51nVHbxl6s

— Paul Mainwood (@PaulMainwood) January 7, 2022

The only "narrative" that matters is the efficacy studies used as the basis for their approval.

Do you ever get tired of moving the goal posts?

Who's more of a sheep, the person that read and understood the clinical trial or the person who was confused by a media narrative?

Zobel said:

---

Who's more of a sheep, the person that read and understood the clinical trial or the person who was confused by a media narrative?

---

The person who mindlessly regurgitates the government's position (that ignores the science) aka: mask up! Social distance! 2 weeks to ' Flatten the curve'! 'Vaccinations to prevent infection! Vaccinate to prevent spread! Ivermectin SUCKS!! Now boost to prevent contracting it! Now boost to prevent spread! Boost more! Vaccinate &boost or lose your job!! (Pfizer releases Pfizermectin!!)

The only person mindlessly regurgitating anything on this thread is you. When faced with the ignorance and misunderstanding of your positions you resort to banal insults and straw men. Tsk.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Who's more of a sheep, the person that read and understood the clinical trial or the person who was confused by a media narrative?

---

The person who mindlessly regurgitates the government's position (that ignores the science) aka: mask up! Social distance! 2 weeks to ' Flatten the curve'! 'Vaccinations to prevent infection! Vaccinate to prevent spread! Ivermectin SUCKS!! Now boost to prevent contracting it! Now boost to prevent spread! Boost more! Vaccinate &boost or lose your job!! (Pfizer releases Pfizermectin!!)

---

I've made none of these arguments. The cold hard truth is that the efficacy studies presented for approval did not use infection or spread prevention as a metric. You can cry all you want but nothing will change that fact. Anyone arguing against that fact is either misinformed or a liar.

Zobel said:

---

The only person mindlessly regurgitating anything on this thread is you. When faced with the ignorance and misunderstanding of your positions you resort to banal insults and straw men. Tsk.

---

What am I wrong about?

Was the government's position to mask up?? Does masking prevent the spread of Covid?? What science can you show me that says masking will prevent the spread of Covid?

How about 2 weeks to flatten the curve? Wasn't that the government's position? What science supported that decision? Did that flatten the curve?

What about shut it down and social distance. Where's the science to support that decision? Did it prevent the spread or just drive small businesses into the ground?

Or the vaccines? Did they work? Haven't we just seen huge spikes despite having the highest vaccination rates ever?

What is banal about this??

I'll tell you what's banal. Mindlessly going along with, "muh bc Fauci said".

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Who's more of a sheep, the person that read and understood the clinical trial or the person who was confused by a media narrative?

---

The person who mindlessly regurgitates the government's position (that ignores the science) aka: mask up! Social distance! 2 weeks to ' Flatten the curve'! 'Vaccinations to prevent infection! Vaccinate to prevent spread! Ivermectin SUCKS!! Now boost to prevent contracting it! Now boost to prevent spread! Boost more! Vaccinate &boost or lose your job!! (Pfizer releases Pfizermectin!!)

---

I've made none of these arguments. The cold hard truth is that the efficacy studies presented for approval did not use infection or spread prevention as a metric. You can cry all you want but nothing will change that fact. Anyone arguing against that fact is either misinformed or a liar.

---

Salute The Vaccine, you have tirelessly defended the vaccine and boosters and absolutely adopted the government's narrative that if you're not vaccinated, you're dangerous to those who are vaccinated. In fact, you bragged about encouraging the men in your unit to get vaccinated (despite that apparently being something of a no-no in the service).

This not the politics board. Please stick to real information and relevant data.

I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were ignorant and suffering from misunderstanding. This is evinced by your op and your claims about vaccine efficacy. In particular your misunderstanding of the efficacy numbers used in the clinical trials, and your ignorance of the ongoing efficacy of the vaccines at preventing severe disease and hospitalization.

Your banal insults were resorting to call people sheep. Your entire post is evidence of your straw manning, as no one has brought up or defended any of the positions you're now attacking because you've been hopelessly embarrassed in the rest of your posts.

Salute The Marines said:

---

This not the politics board. Please stick to real information and relevant data.

---

I've asked you for data supporting your position countless times. Not once have you provided data.

1) Show me the data supporting masking to stop the spread of Covid.
2) Show me the data supporting 2 weeks to flatten the curve.
2) Show me the data supporting social distancing to stop the spread of Covid.
3) Show me the data supporting shut down/lock down to stop the spread of Covid.
4) Show me the data that shows the 'vaccine' prevents contracting Covid.
5) Show me the data that shows the 'vaccine' prevents the spread of Covid.

And while your head is spinning trying to create data that does not exist, I'll share an interesting data point:

CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky:
"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with."

Yet there's a crusade to vaccinate children. Vaccinate teens. Vaccinate the young, the healthy. Vaccinate EVERYONE. VACCINATE OR ELSE LOSE YOUR JOB.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The only person mindlessly regurgitating anything on this thread is you. When faced with the ignorance and misunderstanding of your positions you resort to banal insults and straw men. Tsk.

---

What am I wrong about?

Was the government's position to mask up?? Does masking prevent the spread of Covid?? What science can you show me that says masking will prevent the spread of Covid?

How about 2 weeks to flatten the curve? Wasn't that the government's position? What science supported that decision? Did that flatten the curve?

What about shut it down and social distance. Where's the science to support that decision? Did it prevent the spread or just drive small businesses into the ground?

Or the vaccines? Did they work? Haven't we just seen huge spikes despite having the highest vaccination rates ever?

What is banal about this??

I'll tell you what's banal. Mindlessly going along with, "muh bc Fauci said".

---

Out of curiosity, what did you study during your time at College Station?

CSTXAg92 said:

---

CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky:
"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with."

Yet there's a crusade to vaccinate children. Vaccinate teens. Vaccinate the young, the healthy. Vaccinate EVERYONE. VACCINATE OR ELSE LOSE YOUR JOB.

---

Zobel said:

---

I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were ignorant and suffering from misunderstanding. This is evinced by your op and your claims about vaccine efficacy. In particular your misunderstanding of the efficacy numbers used in the clinical trials, and your ignorance of the ongoing efficacy of the vaccines at preventing severe disease and hospitalization.

Your banal insults were resorting to call people sheep. Your entire post is evidence of your straw manning, as no one has brought up or defended any of the positions you're now attacking because you've been hopelessly embarrassed in the rest of your posts.

---

Zobel - What do I misunderstand? In my OP, based on my experience, Ivermectin works. Medical leaders in other countries have effectively treated Covid with Ivermectin. Posters here on TexAgs have effectively treated Covid with Ivermectin.

Regarding vaccine efficacy, the American people were ABSOLUTELY sold the notion that getting the "vaccine" would prevent you from getting and spreading the virus. You can obscure this reality all you want by hand waving about my lack of understanding the, "efficacy numbers used in the clinical trials, and your ignorance of the ongoing efficacy of the vaccines at preventing severe disease and hospitalization...". But that's simply a distraction from the point. The point is the "vaccine" doesn't keep you from getting Covid, and the "vaccine" doesn't prevent you from spreading the virus. If you still contend I misundertand, I'll need you to explain why back in June of '20, researchers and public leaders began to characterize those who were fully vaccinated, yet still contracted Covid as, "breakthrough cases".

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

This not the politics board. Please stick to real information and relevant data.

---

I've asked you for data supporting your position countless times. Not once have you provided data.

1) Show me the data supporting masking to stop the spread of Covid.
2) Show me the data supporting 2 weeks to flatten the curve.
2) Show me the data supporting social distancing to stop the spread of Covid.
3) Show me the data supporting shut down/lock down to stop the spread of Covid.
4) Show me the data that shows the 'vaccine' prevents contracting Covid.
5) Show me the data that shows the 'vaccine' prevents the spread of Covid.

And while your head is spinning trying to create data that does not exist, I'll share an interesting data point:

CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky:
"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with."

Yet there's a crusade to vaccinate children. Vaccinate teens. Vaccinate the young, the healthy. Vaccinate EVERYONE. VACCINATE OR ELSE LOSE YOUR JOB.

---

What does any of this have to do with the original intent of the vaccines?

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

This not the politics board. Please stick to real information and relevant data.

---

I've asked you for data supporting your position countless times. Not once have you provided data.

1) Show me the data supporting masking to stop the spread of Covid.
2) Show me the data supporting 2 weeks to flatten the curve.
2) Show me the data supporting social distancing to stop the spread of Covid.
3) Show me the data supporting shut down/lock down to stop the spread of Covid.
4) Show me the data that shows the 'vaccine' prevents contracting Covid.
5) Show me the data that shows the 'vaccine' prevents the spread of Covid.

And while your head is spinning trying to create data that does not exist, I'll share an interesting data point:

CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky:
"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with."

Yet there's a crusade to vaccinate children. Vaccinate teens. Vaccinate the young, the healthy. Vaccinate EVERYONE. VACCINATE OR ELSE LOSE YOUR JOB.

---

What does any of this have to do with the original intent of the vaccines?

---

Data is used to reach logical conclusions.

1) Do we have data supporting masking to stop the spread of Covid? No? Then why did we mask?
2) Do we have data supporting 2 weeks to flatten the curve? ? No? Then why did we shut everything down?
3) Do we have data supporting social distancing to stop the spread of Covid? No? Then why was social distancing enforced?
4) Do we have data supporting shut down/lock down to stop the spread of Covid? No? Then why did we shut down/lock down?
5) Do we have data that shows vaccination prevents contracting Covid? No? Then why does everyone need to vaccinate?
6) Do we have data that shows vaccination prevents the spread of Covid? No? Then why does everyone need to vaccinate?

And finally - and maybe most importantly - if the data tells us, "The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities..." then why are our leaders touting vaccinate everyone - and if you don't vax, you lose your job.

Sure, I don't mind explaining what I mean. You seem to not understand how medical evidence works. The placebo effect is real, so you don't judge whether or not a medicine works based on a sample of one, or without a control group. Different people react to diseases and medicines differently, so you used randomization between the control group and the study group to even the differences out. You also try to randomize for comorbidities and other confounders between the two groups. And, for the best standard, you double-blind the study so the people running the study and the patients don't know who is getting what drugs. This is for bias and the placebo effect. You also should do a bunch of other things, like have large sample sizes to ensure you can statistically measure the effect you're looking for, and pre-register your end points to prevent p-hacking or changing end points to match results. So your experience of ivermectin working is - in medical evidence terms - completely useless. Other posters on here have the same problem. Not to mention the fact that several posters who were taking ivermectin for prophylaxis ended up getting sick, and others who took it as a therapeutic ended up having a severe course of the disease. At any rate, you had an average course of disease that would have been expected had you done nothing, so even on an anecdotal basis your evidence is not very compelling.

I can't speak to what the American people were sold. That's pretty difficult to confirm. What is easy to confirm is what the vaccines were designed to do. You can see that in how they structured the clinical trials, which I linked earlier. What they tested for was prevention of symptomatic disease - not infection. They also tested for severe disease and hospitalization. Local infection, like tested for by a nose swab, is pretty difficult to prevent. Vaccines that provide complete immunity give what is called "sterilizing immunity". These are pretty rare, and may not exist at all.

This is a really good article that covers the basics of vaccines. Its from 2010, so you can trust it if recent changes worry you. If you like, read only the "General Principles" portion and the "Viruses that infect the Mucosae" sections.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897268/

What you'll find is that the efficacy of a vaccine is a *significantly* more complicated subject than "works/doesnt work" based on a nose swab. There's also several layers of immune defense - cellular immunity and humoral immunity are two parts of the adaptive immune system. Different vaccines stimulate these systems in different ways - which produce different amounts of protection.

If you do further research you'll also find that it's very common for vaccines to produce waning immunity over time, and that depending on the type of illness you're vaccinating for the efficacy of a vaccine and how long it lasts is all over the map. You'll also find that most of the vaccines we take today require multiple doses - three or four is not uncommon.

At any rate, when studies have been done that do random surveillance of people who have been given a vaccine vs people who haven't, they have actually found that the vaccines do in fact reduce the chance of getting infected. I linked a study to that effect earlier. You can read it here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7

It isn't perfect protection - but then, the fact is no vaccine offers perfect protection, and respiratory viruses are not good candidates for sterilizing immunity. The fact that the virus has mutated in a way that evades the specific target of the mRNA vaccines makes the situation worse.

However, because of the different layers of the immune system, even as one layer (antibodies) seems to fade over time and also be less effective against different variants, the other layer (cellular response) seems to be very robust. The result is that people have local or minor infections but avoid the systemic and severe end of the spectrum at a high rate.

Public policy is a bit of a moving target. Reducing total infections is great, but at the end of the day infections aren't really relevant. Even minor illness doesn't matter. The real target is preventing severe disease - hospitalizations. I think intuitively everyone agrees with this, but the communication by public health officials has been pretty bad throughout the pandemic. To be sure if you reduce the number of total infections (which the vaccines absolutely do, even if imperfectly) you reduce the number of hospitalizations. But these vaccines also absolutely reduce the proportion of infections which go on to become symptomatic and severe, which also reduce hospitalizations. This is why vaccines are so important. Even now with Omicron significantly reducing the efficacy of the vaccines, the odds ratio of hospitalization for people who have had two rounds of mRNA vaccines vs people who have not is 70%. Meaning if you vaccinate half of a large group of people at random and 100 people end up in the hospital, 30 will be vaccinated and 70 will not. Against delta the number was in the 90s.

Hope that clarifies my comments.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

And while your head is spinning trying to create data that does not exist, I'll share an interesting data point:

CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky:
"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with."

---

That quote was referencing a study of vaccinated people. In other words - 75% of the vaccinated people who died had 4 comorbidities:

"Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020October 2021, severe COVID-19associated outcomes (0.015%) or death (0.0033%) were rare. Risk factors for severe outcomes included age 65 years, immunosuppressed, and six other underlying conditions. All persons with severe outcomes had at least one risk factor; 78% of persons who died had at least four," the CDC study released Friday said."

Glad someone pointed that out. The Walensky quote - rather than supporting the "why vax" argument - is actually very strong support for vaccination, especially if you read the results of the study to which she referred.

The misuse of the quote by the earlier poster is a classic example of the seemingly willful ignorance that is characteristic of the conspiracy crowd.

We attended a dinner party on 12/23. Total of 18 people (13 adult, 5 kids) in attendance. One person had the 'sniffles', then came down with a fever the next day, tested positive. All 18 of us ended up with covid (n=18). All the adults had at least two shots, with both of the high risk individuals being boosted.

Myself, my wife, and my mother (she's high risk, 3 comorbidities) all developed symptoms on 12/26, got on the Dr. Coates supplement treatment plan, including ivermectin.

For all three of us, we were symptom free within three days.

The other high risk person in attendance didn't take anything (was given the take tylenol, stay home, call us if it gets bad Rx) developed pneumonia and spent four days in the hospital. They got monoclonal antibodies and improved and are now home, though still fighting a cough and periodic vertigo.

All the adults that were there did nothing but tylenol, vitamin D, vitamin C, and hydrate thing. All were sick at least a week, and two are still sick but conditions haven't worsened to where they have had to go to the hospital, but are unable to work.

It's a high probability we all had the same strain, so you can control for that with this.

As mentioned, we had one high risk individual take the FLCCC combo, and they sailed through this while the other high risker ended up in the hospital and needing MCAs, despite both being vaxed and boosted.

Was it the ivermectin for the three of us? Or the combo of the FLCCC treatment plan? I'm not sure, but we'll tell anyone who listens to get on the FLCCC plan if they get sick, and a couple of those who were sick but didn't listen to us wish they had.

TulsAg said:

---

Glad someone pointed that out. The Walensky quote - rather than supporting the "why vax" argument - is actually very strong support for vaccination, especially if you read the results of the study to which she referred.

The misuse of the quote by the earlier poster is a classic example of the seemingly willful ignorance that is characteristic of the conspiracy crowd.

---

Indeed. An interesting case study in the difference between truth (what somebody actually said in this case) and what we wish to be true. If only the 2 were the same more often (especially in the case of the professional sports teams I follow).

One thing highlighted in all this is that most people don't care about the source, the methodology, data, etc., all they care about is the message. If the message is one they agree with they'll run to the internet to post it, if it's not, they'll trash it and the source all day long, even if the source is the same.

AG 2000' said:

---

We attended a dinner party on 12/23. Total of 18 people (13 adult, 5 kids) in attendance. One person had the 'sniffles', then came down with a fever the next day, tested positive. All 18 of us ended up with covid (n=18). All the adults had at least two shots, with both of the high risk individuals being boosted.

Myself, my wife, and my mother (she's high risk, 3 comorbidities) all developed symptoms on 12/26, got on the Dr. Coates supplement treatment plan, including ivermectin.

For all three of us, we were symptom free within three days.

The other high risk person in attendance didn't take anything (was given the take tylenol, stay home, call us if it gets bad Rx) developed pneumonia and spent four days in the hospital. They got monoclonal antibodies and improved and are now home, though still fighting a cough and periodic vertigo.

All the adults that were there did nothing but tylenol, vitamin D, vitamin C, and hydrate thing. All were sick at least a week, and two are still sick but conditions haven't worsened to where they have had to go to the hospital, but are unable to work.

It's a high probability we all had the same strain, so you can control for that with this.

As mentioned, we had one high risk individual take the FLCCC combo, and they sailed through this while the other high risker ended up in the hospital and needing MCAs, despite both being vaxed and boosted.

Was it the ivermectin for the three of us? Or the combo of the FLCCC treatment plan? I'm not sure, but we'll tell anyone who listens to get on the FLCCC plan if they get sick, and a couple of those who were sick but didn't listen to us wish they had.

---

Stories like this should not be ignored. Anecdotal, yes, but still meaningful. Absolutely ridiculous to just ignore these results.

And these...

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/testimonials/