Don't BS, Yen! You know I can easily see through that! It's unlike you, btw... Very FEW docs' observations = anecdotal "evidence"!!! Do you have ALL the front-line doc's papers, then? C'mon, man, pull yourself together... I have and it's vacuous! Especially the IVM paper! It says nothing in particular, too many variables! Why are you doing the "whataboutery" BS? FCOL, man, it's such an unscientific thing to do! If those vaccines are not 100% OK - it's no wonder, we had to act quickly... But it's in unprecedent time of need and given those limitations it's quite an achievement! Oh, I do - but you now do not WANT to understand, so you are pulling these "fast ones" out of a hat... But I ain't fallin' for it! I never said I believed it 100% - you implied it! So, thanx for nothing! YOU said that Pfizer's was one of the 2 of the best ones! You also said other good things about it and Moderna's vaccines! But now... WTF is this? Seriously, pull yourself together, man... You're now all over the floor...
I am not over the floor. I still stick to my opinion Pfizer vaccine is 2nd best compared within available covid vaccines. And I still stick to my opinion that Novavax is best for posted reasons. (It looks that way so far, has not got EUA yet). Look, my point of arguing is not either vaccine OR conventional drugs such as IVM. My dad (cancer patient and almost 80) wanted to be vaccinated. I respected his decision (as I respect yours) suggesting to use Pfizer. He did it, got his 2 jabs. NO further issues. My mom (one year younger) will get vaccinated tomorrow. I also suggested Pfizer (Moderna is not available). Fingers crossed.... I argue for IVM (and those mentioned drugs) as additional treatment for people who either cannot get vaccinated / want to be for several reasons AND for people who get sick by COVID despite of the vaccination. What can be wrong about to have an additional opportunity to reduce suffer of any kind, and to have additional ways of a prophylaxis?! At worst case they do nothing since they are considered to be very safe.
DR. BRYAM BRIDLE: WE MADE A BIG MISTAKE CREATING THE "COVID-19 VACCINES" https://www.bitchute.com/video/tDviHlA52Uyr/
Wouldn't it be great if... https://www.indiatoday.in/world/sto...ne-effective-against-covid-1817832-2021-06-22 Cuba says three-shot Abdala vaccine 92.28% effective against Covid-19 On Monday, Cuba said its three-shot Abdala vaccine has proven to be 92.28 per cent effective against Covid-19 in the last stage of clinical trials. Reuters Havana The announcement came from state-run biopharmaceutical corporation BioCubaFarma, which oversees Finlay, the maker of Soberana 2, and the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, the producer of Abdala. Both vaccines are expected to be granted emergency authority by local regulators shortly. Cuba, whose biotech sector has exported vaccines for decades, has five coronavirus vaccine candidates. The Caribbean's largest island is facing its worst Covid-19 outbreak since the start of the pandemic following the arrival of more contagious variants, setting new records for daily coronavirus cases. The Communist-run country has opted not to import foreign vaccines but to rely on its own. Some experts said it was a risky bet but it appears to have paid off, putting Cuba in position to burnish its scientific reputation, generate much-needed hard currency through exports and strengthen the vaccination drive worldwide. Several countries from Argentina and Jamaica to Mexico, Vietnam and Venezuela have expressed an interest in buying Cuba's vaccines. Iran started producing Soberana 2 earlier this year as part of late-phase clinical trials. Cuba's authorities have already started administering the experimental vaccines en masse as part of "intervention studies" they hope will slow the spread of the virus. About a million of the country's 11.2 million residents have been fully vaccinated to date. Daily cases have halved in the capital, Havana, since the start of the vaccination campaign a month ago, using Abdala, according to official data. Cuba has reported a total of 169,365 Covid-19 cases and 1,170 deaths.
Show me where exactly, by which magic, do you see that I advocate something to the contrary, please...?!? Yes, I am questioning the claim, like any other claim - "where is the evidence?!?" is the natural thing to do for me...
Yen: I'd like your opinion of the attached articles regarding vaccines and the elderly. It's my understanding that vaccine effectiveness fall off as people get older. Unfortunately it's exactly these people that need it most when it comes to Covid-19. =============================================== The first trial that Pfizer conducted had only 15 people over 65 years of age out of the 60,000 people in the study: Johnson & Johnson said the trial should finish by the end of the year or the beginning of 2021. While the results thus far have been promising, an area of concern voiced by researchers is whether or not the vaccine will be effective in the elderly. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-johnson-johnson-jab-162930796.html =============================================== Some interesting information from the CDC regarding the flu vaccine: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies.htm And finally, a pretty good in depth discussion of vaccines in the elderly: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1044532318300678 .
Yes sure, but you did it still after I have posted sources like this: Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 And then you spoke about 'variables' without naming them. I mean you do not accept their evidences found. This is a peer-reviewed scientific article! You should disqualify it by content, not by opinion about. The article is not a single study. It is a meta analyses of more than 20 studies! You would have to go through any study and point to errors on claiming evidence. For instance control is not representative because.....or drug group is not representative, because... And that for any study named there. But you just say where is the evidence? I can simply say...and I speak from my own experiences. We had own designed drugs in clinical research, products out of plants also...familiar with it more than 15 years. If we would have got SUCH an evidence we would be impressed!!! 'Nuf said. I got your answer like saying there is no evidence for efficacy of IVM therefore EUA is not or not yet justified. By that you are AGAINST a recommendation that comes from an authority. And I told you why this is important. Mainstream doctors without intuition, without the will to doctor and to heal, without the will to be at the front-line and up to date with them DO rely on authorities alone and do NOT prescribe IVM then. And those are the majority! And some who do anyway get consequences by losing their jobs!!! People decide for self-medication and do probably make mistakes due to lack of medical knowledge! Why all that? This is a mess. People die which could still live because of the suppression of conventional drugs, this is fact! Even if the efficacy would be very low it would safe some lives and has no safety concern! We are in a pandemic. For a conventional drug that is established for decades, which is one of the safest drugs we have at all it should be like this: An ICU doctor reports of observational benefits at 100reds of own patients a second independent one can confirm : GO approve it immediately, there is nothing to lose! And IVM has far more that those 2 doctors! And while time is passing and people die from coviod which could have been saved by IVM Something for the slow uptakers and delayers I know already that it works! How many more studies do we need? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/06/23/oxford-coronavirus-ivermectin-trial/
This is a comprehensive matter. Without reading your sources first I already don't know where to start. I list some points to get a sort of a thread. The development of the immune system during a lifetime is that we fist have the innate arm alone. Kids get frequently sick, but usually not severe. By that they develop the adaptive arm, an arm that can have an immune memory and cross immunity. This usually happens the way that the cells that belong to the innate immune system present the pathogens to the adaptive arm (naive t cells). Then TH1 and TH2 pathways are engaged which then build specific memory cells.T and b-cells which are able to recall the pathogen within 24hours at reinfection. THIS is btw way a major reason we should NOT vaccinate the kids HERE for covid! Their innate arm can handle it very well and by presenting the pathogen to the adaptive arm their immune-system learns NATURALLY and builds up a natural widely spread and lasting defence. The immune system of kids is in natural learning phase and still develops quickly. Nobody can know what the vaccines will change there and into what direction! Keyword TLR Toll like receptors! Kids have a very active innate arm and that seems to be the reason why they rarely get severe at COVID. Their NTKs (natural killer cells) are very active. At flu it is here very different. Flu is very dangerous for young kids, here it seems the adaptive arm is needed much more to fight it. And learning at flu by natural infection (adaptive arm) is actually useless since the influenza virus does mutate really fast... I mean really..not such little mutations of the variants of SARS-CoV-2! When getting older, adult the adaptive arm develops further and gets a performance peak so to say while the innate arm continues to lose activity compared to it. Finally at the elderly the adaptive arm is then also not that much active anymore. Yes it is true that an immune response generally, natural infection or vaccine is lower compared to younger people. But anything depends on many factors, this is a general description. The reason why in such studies are not much elderly people is that they naturally develop a lower response and the vaccine makers want to have good significance, so they keep them out. Also the risks of co-morbidities and side effects is usually higher, which is also not wanted. The joke then was the govts advised to vaccinate even those people first which are not or only rarely presented in their studies. I posted that already here. Anyway there is reactogenicity (Effects caused by the immune answer itself) and side effect. At elderly people the former can be even lower, because of a weaker immune response. So if reactogenicity prevails at younger people their overall impression can be worse. (experienced as more and stronger effects) Another point we have 2 new technologies. It seems that the mRNA tech causes a good immune response in elderly people anyways. For the 2nd one the vector vaccines it seems they follow the traditional vaccines -inactivated pathogen-, means they lose efficacy at elderly people. Both are new and results should be taken with care. But there is also to consider: How to measure and how to determine what is a good immune response? And to that topic I have learned that antibody levels do nothing say about immunity against SARS-CoV-2. But ab levels are still used to argue about immunity. Maybe reply one more time to tell in which direction my further reply should go. The detailed answers depend on type of vaccine / and type of disease. And what we define as sufficient immune answer. But generally spoken the immune system's defence firstly learns during lifetime and gets stronger by recalling pathogens and finally loses power when we get older. Since vaccines provoke an immune response this applies to them as well. A second effect when we get older is the inflammation system. This system usually reacts in a much stronger way when we get older by releasing more cytokines. Which means the elderly usually suffer more from inflammation. There is no immune response without an inflammatory response. But the ratio changes during lifetime. Actually people do not die because of the virus SARS-COV-2, they die from a cytokine storm induced by mad macrophages. This storm then causes heavy inflammation and destroying of tissue and organ barriers. By that the viral debris is in free float so to say and then actually can be found spread all over the body post-mortem. For special vaccines I have posted already for instance J&J" https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/coronavirus-discussion.81224/page-108#post-1648048 I always was worried about J&J. It shouldn't have got EUA. The same applies to AZ IMHO. I'll read the articles ASAP.
Yen, have you seen how many other factors were included in that "study"? Many studies, no overall methodology, plenty of variables - I rest my case... As in "it works" - sure, it should be studied ON THIS VIRUS and if it is effective - superb, you won't get any argument from me, for sure. But that is beside the point and you know it. It ought to be scrutinised properly, not done in "blind faith mode" because a few docs say so, much as that could be a good reason to push to study its efficacy... Look, in the meantime, to all you "Oh-it's-nothing-storytellers", this is how you would have been playing with people's lives (not that any of you would take any notice but it is better somebody WARNS OTHERS of the consequences of your would-have-been-actions, were you in power and were you formulating Public Health Policies [god forbid]): https://www.theguardian.com/society...-have-had-long-covid-for-over-12-weeks-study? "More than 2 million adults in England have experienced coronavirus symptoms lasting over 12 weeks, government data suggests – double the previous estimate for long Covid. The study, one of the largest to date, found that people with ongoing symptoms tended to fall into two categories: those with respiratory symptoms, who often experienced more severe illness when they first got sick, and a second group with fatigue-related symptoms. Like previous studies, it found that women were more commonly affected and that the prevalence of ongoing symptoms increased with age. Researchers described the findings as “alarming”. The React-2 study is a government-funded population surveillance study that uses finger-prick antibody tests from randomly selected adults in England to assess how far coronavirus has spread. Between September and February, 508,707 participants were also asked whether they thought they had had Covid and about the presence and duration of 29 different symptoms. The research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, found that 37.7% of those who had symptomatic Covid experienced at least one symptom lasting 12 weeks or more – equivalent to 2 million people – while 14.8% experienced three or more persistent symptoms. “The scale of the problem is quite alarming,” said Prof Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University. “The results can’t tell us clearly how serious those symptoms were in terms of their effects on the patients’ lives. Some may not be very serious, but some of them certainly are, and these results clearly point out how vital it is to understand them properly and to provide adequate treatment and support services for the people involved.” In May the Office National Statistics (ONS) estimated that 1 million people in the UK were experiencing self-reported long Covid. A key difference is that React-2 did not ask if people had long Covid, only about ongoing symptoms. “Many people may not consider they’ve got long Covid, they just have a persistent slight shortness of breath, or their loss of sense of taste has persisted for many, many months,” said Helen Ward, professor of public health at Imperial College London, who co-led the study. McConway said the ONS research estimated the number of people who had symptoms lasting at least 12 weeks on a particular date (2 May), while React-2 measured how many have ever had long Covid between September and February. Meanwhile, a separate study of 312 Norwegian patients published in Nature Medicine on Wednesday found that 61% were still experiencing persistent symptoms at six months – including 52% of 16-30-year-olds. The most common symptoms they reported were loss of taste and/or smell and tiredness. McConway said: “The lack of clarity on exactly how many people are affected shouldn’t draw attention away from the fact that the lowest estimates still show a huge amount of largely unmet need.” The React-2 study also found that the prevalence of persistent symptoms increased with age, with a 3.5% increase in the likelihood of developing long Covid for each decade of life. Women were 1.5 times more likely to experience ongoing symptoms than men, and people who were overweight, smoked, lived in deprived areas or had been admitted to hospital were also at greater risk. However, persistent symptoms were less common among Asian ethnic groups. It also suggested that certain symptoms often cluster together. “About a third of people had what you might think of as more physiological symptoms, like shortness of breath, tightness in the chest, chest pain, and the others had a more post-viral type of syndrome dominated by tiredness,” said study co-leader Prof Paul Elliott, chair in epidemiology and public health medicine at Imperial College. “And it so happens that the people who reported more severe illness at the beginning, there were more of them in the respiratory-type cluster than in the post-viral tiredness-type cluster.”"
@Yen, I tried finding that link again - but failed to do so, sorry... Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes, i.e. of different things? Anyhow, I remembered this one, as well, mentioning IVM alongside other and plentiful "remedies" to be used: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...s-–-A-Guide-to-the-Management-of-COVID-19.pdf All plausible - but which one does what and how efficient is it etc. etc.?!?
Maybe the reason for that that you consider that to me it is just a 'blind faith mode' is that I have many more infos about IVM. I am close to what is going on at the front line doctors. Those are not single persons. They are Professors, doctors leading entire medical institutions / hospitals. Most of them such as Dr. Andrew Hill did own studies. They are experts in developing treatment protocols and are spread all over the world. There are panels such as the BIRD panel US, GB, Israel, Argentina, Mexico,Belgium... The protocol they develop and a study for IVM are completely different things. When making a trial one clearly has to declare what the treatment group gets administered.The propose is not to fight COVID, (just like the protocol's purpose) the purpose is to find differences compared to control. You clearly have to define the endpoints of the study IN ADVANCE so you later cannot just cherry pick whatever results you like. A protocol always consist of different drugs. It's because the pathology of COVID is complex and has several states. Also they use supplements such as vitamin D and C. Their protocols get updated from time to time to reflect recent gain of knowledge. What I cannot get, though is that for instance..lets do now all the studies away....you see those 3 videos in which a NY judge had to order the use of IVM for single elderly individuals which were hospitalized due to severe COVID. All three got immediately better after the first dose of IVM already while they without it before quickly deteriorated. How high is the chance that this was random? After a week they could leave the hospital. This fact alone would make me that much curious that I would start do do my own research. But this is me, you are different. I started this way, but not with those videos. It has started with hearing doctors which are just talking about their job...then one very emotional 'beg' in front of the US senate...it's been Dr Kory. From there on I started to read studies. It works with a high efficacy at prophylaxis and severe covid and has benefits at long haul state which recently gets explored more and more. Either way. The good thing we will see what will happen with IVM in the future.
A new one, brand new: https://bird-group.org/meta-analysis-paper/ https://journals.lww.com/americanth...in_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx "In fact, there is more evidence on ivermectin than on any other treatment option for covid, and far more safety data than any of the novel therapies." I concur! Nice that people come to the same results as I did. This is btw the reason @gorski why I asked you why did you swallow the results from the vaccines while not seeing what's about IVM. No other reason, no polarisation.