Now that the FDA has approved the vaccine has it changed your mind?

[Unveiled Artist]

Why 10 years? Where did you come up with that number? I keep seeing certain people throw that number out, and I have no idea where it's coming from.

Do you remember when I pointed out to you that long-term effects of vaccines show up within 8 weeks after administration?

Can't remember which site. This one says about 5-10 year trial for breast cancer. I don't know the shortest clinical trial but I do find it valuable for meds and vaccines to have a good bout of trial and error without it being rushed to trust it. It's not my personal reasoning, but I understand why others find it important.

If the replies are lagged I forget my points. I'd have to go back but most likely I have.

What's your point?

How Long Are Clinical Trials?

 

[We Never Know]

1. Some of us are-it depends if we have COVID or not, not because we're not vaccinated.

2. No. Stats and facts aren't magic mind-changers. What does that mean to me when I'm never going to take the vaccine?

3. Whoever symptoms are worse and life threatening will get the bed first.

The unvaccinated have always been at risk of infection. Nothing new no matter how much media and government emphasis it repetitively to get people to take the vaccine.

My wife was talking with one of her friends today. Her friend told my wife that her son who is 33 yrs old is on his forth quarantine/isolation period.
Evidently since March last year he has had/tested positive for covid 4 times now. After several weeks(3-4) he will get tested again and its negative so he goes on about his normal life. She said this time, like the last three he really hasn't even felt sick or had symptoms. The reason he would go and get tested was because he had found out he has been in close contact with someone who tested positive.
I do not know if he has had the vaccine or not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My wife was talking with one of her friends today. Her friend told my wife that her son who is 33 yrs old is on his forth quarantine/isolation period.
Evidently since March last year he has had/tested positive for covid 4 times now. After several weeks(3-4) he will get tested again and its negative so he goes on about his normal life. She said this time, like the last three he really hasn't even felt sick or had symptoms. The reason he would go and get tested was because he had found out he has been in close contact with someone who tested positive.
I do not know if he has had the vaccine or not.

I "guess" one can argue he may not have since he tested positive 4 times. That or maybe he got it after the third time so he didn't feel sick or had symptoms. Do you know how old he is?

 

[We Never Know]

I "guess" one can argue he may not have since he tested positive 4 times. That or maybe he got it after the third time so he didn't feel sick or had symptoms. Do you know how old he is?

Yeah he is 33 yrs old as stated in the second sentence of my post.

 

[Friend of Mara]

So, it's all opinion.

So facts don't matter and they are opinions anyway?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So facts don't matter and they are opinions anyway?

I didn't say that.

Here's an opinion of yours.

"Just something almost cathartic about someone admitting it isn't information or logic that will convince them."

This isn't based on fact and I don't take it as such unless you can support what you say by evidence.

It it's just drawing conclusions on what you think I "meant" it's an opinion. If you drew conclusion on what you know I said, it is a fact (once shown).

Opinions can be things like unvax deserve no hospital beds. This isn't a fact. It's a side based on whatever news (true or biased) and they form opinions off if that.

Also, if we only discussed facts emotions wouldn't be involved. Opinions are tied to emotions.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Also, if we only discussed facts emotions wouldn't be involved. Opinions are tied to emotions.

But facts are not magical mind changers remember? So why not try a new approach ?

 

[Revoltingest]

But facts are not magical mind changers remember?

So far, your poll shows this.
When one anti-vax "fact" evaporates,
another stands ready to take its place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

BREAKING: Japanese medical association chairman tells doctors to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID
These treatments were known early on and the information suppressed.

Nah.

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial | BMC Infectious Diseases | Full Text
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

 

[SkepticThinker]

And making it illegal to prescribe when these treatments work and have been in use for many years and approved for other uses and effective for Covid with other ingredients like Zinc. Why would they is is good question. I’m waiting for time and for people to see that the Frontline Doctors were right all along.

So you can't think of a reason why they would? You just feel it or something?

Perhaps it is the case that they are not then, huh?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can't remember which site. This one says about 5-10 year trial for breast cancer. I don't know the shortest clinical trial but I do find it valuable for meds and vaccines to have a good bout of trial and error without it being rushed to trust it. It's not my personal reasoning, but I understand why others find it important.

If the replies are lagged I forget my points. I'd have to go back but most likely I have.

What's your point?

How Long Are Clinical Trials?

Sorry but I don't know how this related to my post or the discussion at hand.

 

[ecco]

I go to any nuerologist I don't know and he tells me take dilantin it will save your (and others) lives. ... But right now all you guys are thousands of miles away from me. So, it's all opinion.

No nuerologist who doesn't know the patient, would prescribe dilantin or any other drug. So, right off the bat, your attempt at analogy fails completely.

Second, if you don't understand the difference between a drug designed to treat a symptom and a vaccine designed to prevent serious infection, your ignorance of medicine is abysmal. If you do know the difference, you were intentionally being duplicitous. I don't know which is worse.

 

[Ponder This]

Engineering is indeed science...applied science.

Bridge design is a science.

Were you correct, then U of Mich got it wrong with a
couple degrees in "Science, Mechanical Engineering".
Nah, they got it right.

hmm, "Science, Mechanical Engineering"? Sounds right to me!
"Applied Science" is probably acceptable, but flirting with danger!

A person who doesn't trust a particular bridge built using "science" isn't necessarily anti-science. There are reasons a person might not trust a particular bridge that has nothing to do with disbelieving Newton's Laws of Motion.

Moreover, we know that some people might not want to be vaccinated for reasons aside from disbelieving the science that makes vaccinations possible. They may fully believe that it was created with mRNA and that it used fetal cell lines. So it seems to me that because of the careless way I see the term "science" being thrown around in these discussions, this has become an important distinction to highlight. People are not necessarily opposed to science when they object to vaccination.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why 10 years? Where did you come up with that number?

You asked this and I said I can't remember the site. The one I posted was about ten years for breast cancer but I assume each is just about the same.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No nuerologist who doesn't know the patient, would prescribe dilantin or any other drug. So, right off the bat, your attempt at analogy fails completely.

Second, if you don't understand the difference between a drug designed to treat a symptom and a vaccine designed to prevent serious infection, your ignorance of medicine is abysmal. If you do know the difference, you were intentionally being duplicitous. I don't know which is worse.

If you cut it with the insults and address the points you're rebuttal can be taken seriously.

If you do get the point and context without picking out little details it's easier to have a conversation.

Most people who disagree with me have civil talks. A couple of you don't. It messes up you guys points whether I agree or not.

 

[ecco]

If you do get the point and context without picking out little details it's easier to have a conversation.

Sure. Skip the details.

The difference between ignorance and knowledge is in the details. Details like getting information from reliable websites instead of blogs and OAN.

Most people who disagree with me have civil talks. A couple of you don't. It messes up you guys points whether I agree or not.

Sorry if you feel my pointing out nonsense is being uncivil.

If you cut it with the insults and address the points you're rebuttal can be taken seriously.

I did address the points you made. I pointed out that a treatment from a neurologist was not comparable to getting a vaccine.

Perhaps the problem is in the validity of the points you are trying to make. If the points are not valid, there can be no reasonable discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

hmm, "Science, Mechanical Engineering"? Sounds right to me!
"Applied Science" is probably acceptable, but flirting with danger!

But never with Carlos Danger.

A person who doesn't trust a particular bridge built using "science" isn't necessarily anti-science. There are reasons a person might not trust a particular bridge that has nothing to do with disbelieving Newton's Laws of Motion.

Moreover, we know that some people might not want to be vaccinated for reasons aside from disbelieving the science that makes vaccinations possible. They may fully believe that it was created with mRNA and that it used fetal cell lines. So it seems to me that because of the careless way I see the term "science" being thrown around in these discussions, this has become an important distinction to highlight. People are not necessarily opposed to science when they object to vaccination.

I observe that anti-vaxers have the most unscientific
arguments...they'll use scientific terms, but without
understanding how they're cromulently used.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Nah.

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies
Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial | BMC Infectious Diseases | Full Text
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

stolen. Bookmarked these. Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry if you feel my pointing out nonsense is being uncivil.

Sarcasm turns me off. It deluded your points regardless my opinions.

It's a habit you have with multiple posters who challenge your opinions with their own. To be called out on it makes it worse.

 

[InChrist]

How on earth is it you believe livestock de-wormers are more effective against a virus than all of the combined effort of the world's finest medical scientists crafted vaccine?

There is basically no evidence showing that it even works and taking it can be extremely harmful to people.

If it was effective why wouldn't the brightest medical minds in the world be prescribing it? Why is it only disenfranchised and bunk people are trying to push it? Why do you think the FDA is actively telling people to not take it?
.

Are you insinuating that Africans and many thousands upon thousands of people of color in other nations who have been helped by ivermectin are ... livestock?

It is an FDA approved drug for humans...and it used to be readily available in pill form for human use.
Why aren’t they prescribing it now?
I would say because it’s an inexpensive, generic drug in contrast to the millions and millions to be made on vaccines, especially by Bill Gates who is heavily invested in Pfizer and other vaccine producers, as well as being the primary funder the WHO (4.1 billion dollars) and UK health agencies and the FDA in the US. Conflict of interest is a reality.

4 Coronavirus Vaccine Stocks the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Is Betting On

Gates' charity shifts policy



“Billions of humans around the world have taken ivermectin (approved by the FDA and considered an "essential medicine" by the World Health Organization) under mass distribution programs to eradicate onchocerciasis (river blindness) and other tropical diseases. Ivermectin has also been shown to inhibit a broad range of viruses in laboratory studies, including HIV, influenza, West Nile virus and other RNA viruses. In 2018, more than 130,000 patients in the U.S. were prescribed the drug. It is a human drug, no matter how many times the mad cows in the media try to fear-monger you into believing otherwise.“

“-A systematic review of ivermectin's antiviral effects published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature found that it "could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses."

“- A study in the peer-reviewed journal Chest found statistically significant lower mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients prescribed ivermectin (along with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both), compared with patients without ivermectin in Broward County, Fla.

You can find more related studies on ivermectin and COVID-19 in PubMed, the federal scientific database, and weigh all the costs and benefits for you and your families. Remember: "Misinformation" simply means information that the powers that be want you to miss.“
Michelle Malkin: Ivermectin: Horse Hockey Versus Truth