Who's Been Vaccinated?

roscoe

Well-known member
Or in other words, kind of like the vaccines that came later. The monoclonal antibody and convalescent plasma treatments were available and effective, if the same FDA emergency authorization that was given later to the vaccines had been given to them. I think Regeneron is still under priority review and waiting for authorization, if I'm not mistaken. I guess Regeneron didn't donate enough money to the DNC.
Those therapies were available then, but they were therapies for the infected, to prevent death. They didn't prevent infection. Lots of people on those therapies still died, because they didn't get to the hospital in time, or because they had other health conditions. And plenty of people who survived because of those drugs have lingering issues from COVID.

Vaccines prevent that whole cycle. And in cases of 'breakthrough' infections, the effects are much much less. You know - an ounce of prevention and all that.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Has someone put that up for testing in COVID infections? Someone has to do that - normally it is the manufacturer. It isn't just going to happen without someone doing it.
Yes, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the "horse worming medicine", and it is the ONLY active ingredient in it, is chemically and pharmecutically exactly the same ingredient that has been successfully tested against Covid in numerous clinical trials, as has been posted and shown elsewhere on this forum, so don't make the implication that it hasn't been tested against Covid simply because they weren't testing the actual horse deworming paste itself. Ivermectin is ivermectin, whether it's in a solid tablet or emulsified in a paste.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Yes, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the "horse worming medicine", and it is the ONLY active ingredient in it, is chemically and pharmecutically exactly the same ingredient that has been successfully tested against Covid in numerous clinical trials, as has been posted and shown elsewhere on this forum, so don't make the implication that it hasn't been tested against Covid simply because they weren't testing the actual horse deworming paste itself. Ivermectin is ivermectin, whether it's in a solid tablet or emulsified in a paste.
That is why I asked.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
It seems that even Pfizer, who has been making boatloads of money off their mRNA Covid vaccine, is now positioning themselves to abandon that sinking ship and instead jump onto the oral therapeutic anti-viral bandwagon. The trade name of their new oral anti-viral drug that has had amazing clinical trial results is "Paxlovid", and with it they did something finally really smart: Paxlovid appears to be an adaptation of the existing HIV retro-viral ritonavir to coronaviruses. Ritonavir is a drug that is safe and effective and has over 20 years of history.


Apologies for the mixed metaphors. ;)
 

roscoe

Well-known member
It seems that even Pfizer, who has been making boatloads of money off their mRNA Covid vaccine, is now positioning themselves to abandon that sinking ship and instead jump onto the oral therapeutic anti-viral bandwagon. The trade name of their new oral anti-viral drug that has had amazing clinical trial results is "Paxlovid", and with it they did something finally really smart: Paxlovid appears to be an adaptation of the existing HIV retro-viral ritonavir to coronaviruses. Ritonavir is a drug that is safe and effective and has over 20 years of history.


Apologies for the mixed metaphors. ;)
Oh, it's definitely good. But they all are therapies for people who have caught the virus. Prevention is always better. And we don't know the effect of 25 years of continuously taking ivermectin.
 

Howland937

Active member
Oh, it's definitely good. But they all are therapies for people who have caught the virus. Prevention is always better. And we don't know the effect of 25 years of continuously taking ivermectin.
...Or side effects 25 years after being vaccinated.

But, without long term side effects from various drugs to worry about, they'd have to go back to selling ads for tobacco products during MNF.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
...Or side effects 25 years after being vaccinated.

But, without long term side effects from various drugs to worry about, they'd have to go back to selling ads for tobacco products during MNF.

Well, we understand vaccines. If they are going to hurt you, it will be right away. But 25 years of regularly taking an antiviral? Maybe it is fine. Maybe it hurts the immune system after 10 years - we don't know. At least, I don't. Some drugs you do take your whole life, especially if you are missing something (thyroxin, insulin). But it certainly requires study over a long time horizon.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
.... And we don't know the effect of 25 years of continuously taking ivermectin.
Oh, yes, we do.

Given that it's been used as a prophylactic for river blindness for over 40 years and administered to over 200 million people during that time period, I think I can be pretty safe in saying that at least some of those people have been taking it for over 25 years. If extended use was unsafe I'm pretty sure it would be obvious by now. My interpretation of the research I've done is that there is no data specific to limited usage duration simply because it's so totally a non-issue.


Claiming "we don't know" is again a false all-inclusive extension of you saying "I don't know".
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
But the main point is that the new "leaky-vaccine" mRNA technology was, and still is, a bad approach. IF proven technology had been used, IF it hadn't been experimented upon the unwitting general population, and IF it hadn't been unlawfully mandated, I might not be against it. That being my case against Covid vaccines, my opinion is that safe and effective post-infection prescription oral therapeutics are a better approach. So, yes, you might get sick, same as with a cold or the flu, but your Dr. can prescribe a medicine that you pick up at the drug store and take at home, and in a week or so you're well again, with no lasting effects or complications. That's the correct and best approach. No need for any of the socially, culturally, economically and politically destructive approaches that were, and still are, being taken. Most of all, no need to be afraid either for your own health and well-being or for anyone else's. You can just be a normal person living a normal life.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
.... but can't convince myself that this administration would even pay attention to a court ruling it didn't like.
Ya, that's the really interesting part of this whole crisis. Will the Executive Branch obey the rulings of the Judicial Branch? It's already given indications it couldn't care less. What powers does SCOTUS have to enforce its will against POTUS? I don't know of any, other than POTUS' oath to the Constitution. So, if that oath is of no regard to POTUS, I'm afraid we've got a real, genuine Constitutional crisis on our hands. I'm guessing it comes down to who the DOJ serves: the Constitution, or whoever (or whatever) is pulling Biden's strings. That scenario doesn't at present give me a very good feeling for the outcome.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
From Texas: non-vaccinated 40x more likely to die of COVID than the vaccinated, across all age groups:


Now, there may be other factors. People who don't get vaccinated may be less healthy, or resistant to medicine generally, or poorer. But 40x is a BIG number.

1636484967565.png
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Any thoughts on the 5th Circuit's stay on the workplace mandate EO?

I'm pleased to see it, but can't convince myself that this administration would even pay attention to a court ruling it didn't like.
No governmental branch can ignore the courts.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Oh, yes, we do.

Given that it's been used as a prophylactic for river blindness for over 40 years and administered to over 200 million people during that time period, I think I can be pretty safe in saying that at least some of those people have been taking it for over 25 years. If extended use was unsafe I'm pretty sure it would be obvious by now. My interpretation of the research I've done is that there is no data specific to limited usage duration simply because it's so totally a non-issue.


Claiming "we don't know" is again a false all-inclusive extension of you saying "I don't know".
It is not like there aren't studies identifying issues with ivermectin:


also:

Toxic Effects from Ivermectin Use Associated with Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19

And note - the highest River Blindness dosage is a single dose every 3 months (often every 6 or 12 months). It is not a daily, or even weekly schedule. We do not know the long-term effect of a daily or weekly course of ivermectin.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
And note - the highest River Blindness dosage is a single dose every 3 months (often every 6 or 12 months). It is not a daily, or even weekly schedule. We do not know the long-term effect of a daily or weekly course of ivermectin.
The proper Covid-19 prophylactic human dose is one dose biweekly, 200 ug/kg body weight, which comes out to 19 mg for a 200 lb adult human. A more conservative regimen used in some countries is one dose per month. While it is true "we do not know the long-term effect of a daily or weekly course of ivermectin", as you state, nobody should be taking that much. It's overdosing. It's like the clinical study that found ivermectin was harmful - the study that gave near-death Covid patients ten times the proper dose. The study was designed to fail, and IMO they murdered their study patients to produce the desired outcome.
 
Last edited:
Top