Salute The Marines said:

---

Or many of us realize that neither masks nor ivermectin work.

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Or many of us realize that neither masks nor ivermectin work.

---

But you think the 'vaccines' - that don't prevent you from contracting the virus or spreading it - work?

---

Gordo14 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

curry97 said:

---

Took Ivermectin, but still ended up in the hospital with Covid pneumonia.

---

Sorry that happened, that sucks. The same can be said for people who got the vaccine and ended up in the hospital. Nothing is 100%, and covid is wildly different for different people. I'm just totally against mandating the covid vaccines. Everybody should be totally free to choose how they battle covid.

---

Except we have an abundance of data that the vaccine is very effective at preventing hospitalization... And outside of countries with endemic parasites the data for ivermectin suggests it has no effect on hospitalization.

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Not everyone is in perfect health and for those people it can be a life saver

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Or many of us realize that neither masks nor ivermectin work.

---

But you think the 'vaccines' - that don't prevent you from contracting the virus or spreading it - work?

---

Yes, and so do most off the physicians on this board.

---

AgBandsman said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Or many of us realize that neither masks nor ivermectin work.

---

But you think the 'vaccines' - that don't prevent you from contracting the virus or spreading it - work?

---

Yes, and so do most off the physicians on this board.

---

Most physicians are blindly following CDC guidelines that are written to sell as many vaccines as possible.

The ones that aren't get silenced from social media or risk losing their jobs.

"Follow the science," really just means, "let an all powerful central government take care of you and don't ask any questions."

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Or many of us realize that neither masks nor ivermectin work.

---

But you think the 'vaccines' - that don't prevent you from contracting the virus or spreading it - work?

---

Yes, and so do most off the physicians on this board.

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Octavarium said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Went skiing last week with the family. Started developing sore throat and low energy on or about Thursday, Decemeber 30th. Sore throat persisted and developed congestion along with brief bout of boarderline nausea on Sun, Jan 2nd. Returned home Mon Jan 3. Tested positive for Covid evening of Jan 3. Quarantined and took 54 mg of Ivermectin (200lb male) the morning of Jan 4. By evening of Jan 4, felt ever so slightly better. Repeated 54 mg of Ivermectin for five more days while quarantined - the morning of Jan 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Today is evening of Jan 9. Zero remaining symptoms. No sore throat, no congestion, energy back to normal.

Oh, and I took the J&J jab back on 8/27/21, not bc I wanted to but bc I had to travel to NY for a business mtg. So the 'vaccine' doesn't prevent you from contracting the virus. But Ivermectin sure helped me get over it.

Edit to add: The cost of my 54mg of Ivermectin for six days was ~$26.00.

The math:
I purchased 150 12mg tablets back in September of 2021 for $145 including shipping.
150 x 12 = 1800mg
$145 / 1800mg = $0.0805 / mg
6 days x 54 mg x $0.0805 = ~$26.10

---

This is your logical reasoning? Majority of cases are asymptomatic. What you are describing is a fully expected outcome for about 99% of population without ivermectin.

---

So why have a vaccine for it?

---

Quote:

---

Unvaccinated people are about six times more likely to test positive than vaccinated people, nine times more likely to be hospitalized, and 14 times more likely to die from COVID-related complications

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Or many of us realize that neither masks nor ivermectin work.

---

But you think the 'vaccines' - that don't prevent you from contracting the virus or spreading it - work?

---

Yes, and so do most off the physicians on this board.

---

So just to make sure I understand your logic:

You think the 'vaccine' works - despite countless documented cases of the vaccinated and boosted (myself included) contracting and spreading the virus - becaused doctors on this board think the vaccine works.

Yet, on the other hand you don't think Ivermectin works, despite doctors, and heads of medicine from Japan and India treating Covid with Ivermectin (see links below) not to mention first hand accounts of Ivermectin's effectiveness from posters on TexAgs (myself included).

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-the-media-lied-about-japan-not-using-ivermectin-for-coronavirus/

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/breaking-japanese-medical-association-chairman-tells-doctors-to-prescribe-ivermectin-for-covid/

https://newsrescue.com/the-undeniable-ivermectin-miracle-indias-240m-populated-largest-state-uttar-pradesh-horowitz/

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-v-the-secret-revealed/article_9a37d9a8-1fb2-11ec-a94b-47343582647b.html

Sound reasoning there, Salute the Vaccine.

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

A lot of people being purposely obtuse regarding how the vaccine fared against the first round of covid that it was designed for.

There's plenty to be justifiably argumentative about in regards to if we should still be pushing the vaccine with the new variants, work mandates, etc, etc...

But when you start questioning if the original vaccine was effective or not you look really ignorant.

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

A lot of people being purposely obtuse regarding how the vaccine fared against the first round of covid that it was designed for.

There's plenty to be justifiably argumentative about in regards to if we should still be pushing the vaccine with the new variants, work mandates, etc, etc...

But when you start questioning if the original vaccine was effective or not you look really ignorant.

---

Interesting perspective, if not goal tending.

From my perspective those saying the 'vaccine' works - even though it doesn't actually prevent you from contracting the virus, nor does it prevent you from spreading the virus - are the ones who look ignorant. Or obstinately obtuse. But either way, it's a head scratcher.

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

A lot of people being purposely obtuse regarding how the vaccine fared against the first round of covid that it was designed for.

There's plenty to be justifiably argumentative about in regards to if we should still be pushing the vaccine with the new variants, work mandates, etc, etc...

But when you start questioning if the original vaccine was effective or not you look really ignorant.

---

Interesting perspective, if not goal tending.

From my perspective those saying the 'vaccine' works - even though it doesn't actually prevent you from contracting the virus, nor does it prevent you from spreading the virus - are the ones who look ignorant. Or obstinately obtuse. But either way, it's a head scratcher.

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

A lot of people being purposely obtuse regarding how the vaccine fared against the first round of covid that it was designed for.

There's plenty to be justifiably argumentative about in regards to if we should still be pushing the vaccine with the new variants, work mandates, etc, etc...

But when you start questioning if the original vaccine was effective or not you look really ignorant.

---

Interesting perspective, if not goal tending.

From my perspective those saying the 'vaccine' works - even though it doesn't actually prevent you from contracting the virus, nor does it prevent you from spreading the virus - are the ones who look ignorant. Or obstinately obtuse. But either way, it's a head scratcher.

---

There's mounds and mounds of data that show how effective the vaccine was at keeping people out of the hospital.

Now, if you want to subset that out with "well people under 40" or "well non-immunocompromised" or "well omicron" in order to try and make a case that it wasn't effective at all.... well, I guess that would pair well with your logic that after vaccination and 10 days of covid that you now feel better so it must have been the ivermectin and no one can tell you otherwise.

Some of you get so caught up in trying to prove or refute a point that no one (or very few people) are actively making.

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

A lot of people being purposely obtuse regarding how the vaccine fared against the first round of covid that it was designed for.

There's plenty to be justifiably argumentative about in regards to if we should still be pushing the vaccine with the new variants, work mandates, etc, etc...

But when you start questioning if the original vaccine was effective or not you look really ignorant.

---

Interesting perspective, if not goal tending.

From my perspective those saying the 'vaccine' works - even though it doesn't actually prevent you from contracting the virus, nor does it prevent you from spreading the virus - are the ones who look ignorant. Or obstinately obtuse. But either way, it's a head scratcher.

---

The primary efficacy endpoint wasn't meant to prevent infection or spread. It was simply to prevent symptomatic covid with the original variant. And it did.

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

A lot of people being purposely obtuse regarding how the vaccine fared against the first round of covid that it was designed for.

There's plenty to be justifiably argumentative about in regards to if we should still be pushing the vaccine with the new variants, work mandates, etc, etc...

But when you start questioning if the original vaccine was effective or not you look really ignorant.

---

Interesting perspective, if not goal tending.

From my perspective those saying the 'vaccine' works - even though it doesn't actually prevent you from contracting the virus, nor does it prevent you from spreading the virus - are the ones who look ignorant. Or obstinately obtuse. But either way, it's a head scratcher.

---

The primary efficacy endpoint wasn't meant to prevent infection or spread. It was simply to prevent symptomatic covid with the original variant. And it did.

---

Wrong. The vaccine was absolutely originally prevent infection or spread.

But nice movement of the goal posts.

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I mean, here's just one:

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf


Now that's not me blaming the unvaccinated. That's not me saying this wouldn't have been a pandemic if it weren't for the unvaccinated. I honestly do not give a **** one way or the other if you are unvaccinated and very much subscribe to the "your body, your choice" stance.

But if you're trying to take the stance that the vaccine didn't keep a ton of people out of the hospital then you are ignorant.

But ultimately I'm really not interested in going down the rabbit hole with you - it's clear from your posting history (and really your OP) that your intention is to get in a back-and-forth about it and there's much better forums (or even just topics in this forum) for that. It's like certain posters on certain forums don't have anyone to battle with in their echo-chamber so they go elsewhere (often times other opposing echo chambers) to pick a pointless message board back-and-forth battle.

Get a hobby.

---

Quote:

---

The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose in participants who had been without serologic or virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 7 days after the second dose; the second primary end point was efficacy in participants with and participants without evidence of prior infection. Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplificationbased testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test).

Major secondary end points included the efficacy of BNT162b2 against severe Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 is defined by the FDA as confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Details are provided in the protocol.

---

Quote:

---

The primary end point was the efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in preventing a first occurrence of symptomatic Covid-19 with onset at least 14days after the second injection in the per-protocol population, among participants who were seronegative at baseline. End points were judged by an independent adjudication committee that was unaware of group assignment. Covid-19 cases were defined as occurring in participants who had at least two of the following symptoms: fever (temperature 38C), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, or new olfactory or taste disorder, or as occurring in those who had at least one respiratory sign or symptom (including cough, shortness of breath, or clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia) and at least one nasopharyngeal swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if the participant was hospitalized) that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse-transcriptasepolymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) test. Participants were assessed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2binding antibodies specific to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (Roche Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics International) and had a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing (Viracor, Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics) before each injection. SARS-CoV-2infected volunteers were followed daily, to assess symptom severity, for 14 days or until symptoms resolved, whichever was longer. A nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR testing and a blood sample for identifying serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection were collected from participants with symptoms of Covid-19.

The consistency of vaccine efficacy at the primary end point was evaluated across various subgroups, including age groups (18 to <65 years of age and 65 years), age and health risk for severe disease (18 to <65 years and not at risk; 18 to <65 years and at risk; and 65 years), sex (female or male), race and ethnic group, and risk for severe Covid-19 illness. If the number of participants in a subgroup was too small, it was combined with other subgroups for the subgroup analyses.

A secondary end point was the efficacy of mRNA-1273 in the prevention of severe Covid-19 as defined by one of the following criteria: respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute; heart rate at or exceeding 125 beats per minute; oxygen saturation at 93% or less while the participant was breathing ambient air at sea level or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen below 300 mm Hg; respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome; evidence of shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mm Hg, or a need for vasopressors); clinically significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Additional secondary end points included the efficacy of the vaccine at preventing Covid-19 after a single dose or at preventing Covid-19 according to a secondary (CDC), less restrictive case definition: having any symptom of Covid-19 and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test by RT-PCR.

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Does it matter how effective the vaccine was a year ago?

---