Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

I love it when people call things conspiracies, while refuting nothing at the same time. Please, if you can, dispute anything I've said. I think I've been about as candid as I could. I've not posted a falsehood and perhaps that's what gives you a reason to dismiss.

So that´s the logic you want to use. Make claims. Don´t provide any evidence for them. Ask others to do the work and expose them. I will go into detail on the one claim that bothers me the most and might be the most dangerous. Most of them aren´t even worth the time and are easy to refute. This one is at least interesting.

Ivermectin works and is proven to work. Limiting Doctors from prescribing it is allowing more people to die when they don't have to. It's their JOB to prescribe the best medication for the task, and that shouldn't be up to the gov't or some pharmacists to determine. If you want to talk about experts, you have no discussion here.

Mindblowing. You are complaining about the lack of research and longterm studies when it comes to vaccines but are supporting the use of Ivermectin. In case of the latter we have less research, studies and data. With no clear results. Looking at the latest studies the trend is not looking good. As of now the evidence does not support the use of Ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID infections. Obviously still need more data. The only thing that was proven in australian and japanese labs is the effect of a toxic dosis of Ivermectin in vitro.
But it gets even better. You complained about the flawed peer review system and scientific process. It seems like it is doing the job just fine in this case. The Lancet had to retract a pre print (not peer reviewed) of a study that suggested a positive impact of Ivermectin. The analysis company (Surgisphere) refused to allow independent researchers to verify the data and violated patient data laws in multiple countries.

Now the worst part. And for that I am going to quote the FDA. "You are not a horse". Poison control centers around the country are reporting a large uptick in calls about Ivermectin poisoning. People are taking livestock dewormers that have a way higher (potential toxic) dosis of Ivermectin. Even if future studies negate the current data and support the use of Ivermectin those products aren´t an option.

I also understand that a lot of people are in a desperate situation. Drug costs in the US are a big problem. Treatments should be available/affordable for all people. But taking unapproved drugs or even worse animal drugs is not the solution.

For people that want to do their own research:

Review of nearly all ongoing studies
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi....pub2/full

Links to individual studies
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resul...rch=Search

[Jannemann2]

Mindblowing. You are complaining about the lack of research and longterm studies when it comes to vaccines but are supporting the use of Ivermectin. In case of the latter we have less research, studies and data. With no clear results.

Wanted to emphasize exactly the same thing but totally got lost in trying to answer the 20 point list ... We just have so much more and better data on the currently available vaccines - and while these aren't completely stopping transmission, they do work tremendously to avoid severe cases and deaths.

[luka_skywalker_77]

So that´s the logic you want to use. Make claims. Don´t provide any evidence for them. Ask others to do the work and expose them. I will go into detail on the one claim that bothers me the most and might be the most dangerous. Most of them aren´t even worth the time and are easy to refute. This one is at least interesting.

Ivermectin works and is proven to work. Limiting Doctors from prescribing it is allowing more people to die when they don't have to. It's their JOB to prescribe the best medication for the task, and that shouldn't be up to the gov't or some pharmacists to determine. If you want to talk about experts, you have no discussion here.

Mindblowing. You are complaining about the lack of research and longterm studies when it comes to vaccines but are supporting the use of Ivermectin. In case of the latter we have less research, studies and data. With no clear results. Looking at the latest studies the trend is not looking good. As of now the evidence does not support the use of Ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID infections. Obviously still need more data. The only thing that was proven in australian and japanese labs is the effect of a toxic dosis of Ivermectin in vitro.
But it gets even better. You complained about the flawed peer review system and scientific process. It seems like it is doing the job just fine in this case. The Lancet had to retract a pre print (not peer reviewed) of a study that suggested a positive impact of Ivermectin. The analysis company (Surgisphere) refused to allow independent researchers to verify the data and violated patient data laws in multiple countries.

Now the worst part. And for that I am going to quote the FDA. "You are not a horse". Poison control centers around the country are reporting a large uptick in calls about Ivermectin poisoning. People are taking livestock dewormers that have a way higher (potential toxic) dosis of Ivermectin. Even if future studies negate the current data and support the use of Ivermectin those products aren´t an option.

I also understand that a lot of people are in a desperate situation. Drug costs in the US are a big problem. Treatments should be available/affordable for all people. But taking unapproved drugs or even worse animal drugs is not the solution.

For people that want to do their own research:

Review of nearly all ongoing studies
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi....pub2/full

Links to individual studies
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resul...rch=Search

1. Sorry, I posted a link to over 100 studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin. https://c19ivermectin.com/. I didn't leave you without breadcrumbs. Each of those describe specific cases of IVM usage and its efficacy from scientists/doctors etc. It's being used throughout the country to treat covid effectively. 

“An antiviral drug would be useful in limiting the severity of disease in people who are not vaccinated or contract a variant not covered by a particular vaccine.” Josh Bloom, Ph.D
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/07/cou...d-19-15646

2. Second, Ivermectin has been used in humans for decades. Guess I was lying there. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/. Want to keep calling it horse de-wormer? Go ahead. it's your credibility you're attacking. Calling it such without realizing the full spectrum of uses for it only shows how limited your knowledge of it is--and I'm not claiming to be a IVM but I'd stop calling it something it isn't. This is where you're wrong. 

More studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

In short, medicines are repurposed/used off label every second of every day. IVM use is no different. Why would you be upset over doctors treating their patients off label with medications that actually work and are cheap? It's none of your business? If people go out and take the wrong medications because they chose to thin the heard personally, not anyone's problem. Kids have been eating tide pods for months before common sense clicked in. In any case, it's an option worth considering seriously and one that should be left to the discretion of the patient and the doctor, EOS. No one is saying it's a silver bullet, but for a demonstrably safe drug that's been used for decades, everyone has the right to pursue options that work. The only issue the FDA has, is that they fear people would avoid the vaccine and self treat--which is also why the gov't limited the use of monoclonal antibodies in red states ...

And by the way: "Although the FDA approves all prescription drugs sold in the United States, the agency can't limit how doctors prescribe drugs after they're on the market. Doctors often direct patients to take medications for conditions that have not been approved by the FDA. This is called off-label drug use."

As shown, there's plenty of reason to believe it's use is effective but the FDA isn’t just not-approving, it’s aggressively disapproving, and its acting head has said there is “no evidence” of ivermectin’s efficacy. This is extremist behavior.  It’s saying that ivermectin should not be prescribed, but only be used in clinical trials (oh and the Cochrane library isn't a source I'd be posting considering how iffy their research is). I find it hilarious that the use of a drug off label requires such high standards, when all standards were inexplicably removed/modified to push through this "vaccine". 

[luka_skywalker_77]

Wanted to emphasize exactly the same thing but totally got lost in trying to answer the 20 point list ... We just have so much more and better data on the currently available vaccines - and while these aren't completely stopping transmission, they do work tremendously to avoid severe cases and deaths.

We have more cases this year than last year without a vaccine and more people are entering the hospitals and are dying that have been vaccinated. Israel is a precursor to what will happen here since they are ahead of the curve. We are worse off this year than we were last year, WITH a vaccine. Extreme case mitigation, I don't know. I think it works on some level, but extreme cases weren't the normal anyway. The new variant isn't deadlier but its more infectious and people are getting higher viral loads and more cases but the data is a bit inconsistent.

[michaeltex]

We have more cases this year than last year without a vaccine and more people are entering the hospitals and are dying that have been vaccinated. Israel is a precursor to what will happen here since they are ahead of the curve. We are worse off this year than we were last year, WITH a vaccine. Extreme case mitigation, I don't know. I think it works on some level, but extreme cases weren't the normal anyway. The new variant isn't deadlier but its more infectious and people are getting higher viral loads and more cases but the data is a bit inconsistent.

Poor statement that lacks context.

All time peak case rate was in Feb 2021, following holiday gatherings and just after emergency use approval of Pfizer vaccine in late December, 2020. January and February were focused on vaccinating those most vulnerable, elderly and immune-suppressed. Case rate fell sharply though spring and summer to the point that COVID support facilities were shut down.

However, the improved infectivity Delta variant in the US went from almost nothing in early summer to 99+% by mid-September. Vaccinated were still infected, but the ICUs are by far mostly filled with unvaccinated patients. 

So, yes more cases in 2021 than 2020, but early peak was a holdover from pre-vaccine 2020 activities. Later peak has been due to increased infectivity with vaccinated still less affected than non-vaccinated in both disease acquisition and severity.

Personally, if a person wants to fly without a net, go for it. We'll see if Darwin really knows what he's talking about. I know that's a little judgmental there.

My biggest gripe is how these "personal choices" have clogged the emergency and intensive care medical systems. I know the philosophy is first come, first served, but no capacity to handle non-covid injury and disease is a problem. 

Also, a lot of statements over the last few pages fail to acknowledge that this has been a dynamic situation in both response to the virus and effects from the virus. Learnings 18 months ago may or may not be still valid just because we've learned more since and we can't cherry pick old vs new and claim that nothing is valid.

OK. I'm going back in my cave now.

[luka_skywalker_77]

Poor statement that lacks context.

All time peak case rate was in Feb 2021, following holiday gatherings and just after emergency use approval of Pfizer vaccine in late December, 2020. January and February were focused on vaccinating those most vulnerable, elderly and immune-suppressed. Case rate fell sharply though spring and summer to the point that COVID support facilities were shut down.

However, the improved infectivity Delta variant in the US went from almost nothing in early summer to 99+% by mid-September. Vaccinated were still infected, but the ICUs are by far mostly filled with unvaccinated patients. 

So, yes more cases in 2021 than 2020, but early peak was a holdover from pre-vaccine 2020 activities. Later peak has been due to increased infectivity with vaccinated still less affected than non-vaccinated in both disease acquisition and severity.

Personally, if a person wants to fly without a net, go for it. We'll see if Darwin really knows what he's talking about. I know that's a little judgmental there.

My biggest gripe is how these "personal choices" have clogged the emergency and intensive care medical systems. I know the philosophy is first come, first served, but no capacity to handle non-covid injury and disease is a problem. 

Also, a lot of statements over the last few pages fail to acknowledge that this has been a dynamic situation in both response to the virus and effects from the virus. Learnings 18 months ago may or may not be still valid just because we've learned more since and we can't cherry pick old vs new and claim that nothing is valid.

OK. I'm going back in my cave now.

Yes, take it seriously. Get a vaccine if you need it. If you don't, you can roll the dice but the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. 

I find it interesting that in some states (ahead of the epidemiological curve) are receiving an hospitalization case count for the vaccinated--like maine. https://bangordailynews.com/2021/09/30/n...tion-rate/

[dirkfansince1998]

1. Sorry, I posted a link to over 100 studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin. https://c19ivermectin.com/. I didn't leave you without breadcrumbs. Each of those describe specific cases of IVM usage and its efficacy from scientists/doctors etc. It's being used throughout the country to treat covid effectively. 

Well. Just skipping through this took some time.
If you are going by the information in the link. Only 65 of the mentioned studies gave results that apply for the specific use of IVM in the scenario you just described. Not to mention that they are including retracted studies. Not to mention quit a few that most likely will be retracted in the future (Carvallo, Elgazzar).
The Elgazzar case was so bad that they actually removed it from the meta-analysis (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w)
Sadly that seems to be a trend. Especially when we are looking at the studies from south america.

Also excluding quit a few studies that can be found in the links I posted or the second link you posted. I wonder why. Outside of that I am seeing a lot of support for the FLCCC and meta-analysis of selected studies and sample sizes. I guess that´s why the "unbiased" work is standing outside the scientific process. Has nothing to do with the fact that methods and data selection wouldn´t survive a peer review. That´s by the way not the case when it comes to the mentioned cochrane link.

I actually support more research and don´t have any bias when it comes to any kind of treatment but if you look past the fancy numbers it is easy to understand why Ivermectin isn´t included in the COVID treatment guidelines.

Thing is that cult like support or rejection of a given treatment aren´t helping.  It actually hurts and politicizes the process. I actually agree that the current political climate is hurting the reputation of Ivermectin. It´s not like a drug like this can be good or evil.

Second, Ivermectin has been used in humans for decades. Guess I was lying there. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/. Want to keep calling it horse de-wormer? Go ahead. it's your credibility you're attacking. Calling it such without realizing the full spectrum of uses for it only shows how limited your knowledge of it is--and I'm not claiming to be a IVM but I'd stop calling it something it isn't. This is where you're wrong. 

Not sure where I disputed that or called you a liar. I am aware of off-label use of drugs. I am aware of the role it can play as a antiparasitic drug for humans. I guess I should have mentioned that in my post. The important part that I wanted to highlight still applies. Looking at the mentioned data about poisoning calls it needed to be said. The dosis of the often used and openly available animal drug is potentially toxic for humans. Do not take it.
As of now the "human dosis" is not available. You might not like it but I really hope that we can agree that self medication with animal drugs is not an option. Even for supporters of Ivermectin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

Another good database. Make sure to look through all available Ivermectin research. Not just the one that supports your opinion.

As shown, there's plenty of reason to believe it's use is effective but the FDA isn’t just not-approving, it’s aggressively disapproving, and its acting head has said there is “no evidence” of ivermectin’s efficacy. This is extremist behavior.  It’s saying that ivermectin should not be prescribed, but only be used in clinical trials (oh and the Cochrane library isn't a source I'd be posting considering how iffy their research is). I find it hilarious that the use of a drug off label requires such high standards, when all standards were inexplicably removed/modified to push through this "vaccine". 

Well. As I stated in my first post today. What I am seeing is a lack of data and sample size. And to go back to my prefered meta-analysis a trend that suggests no positive impact on the treatment or preventation. I guess the FDA is coming to a similar conclusion. You obviously don´t agree. I can agree that we need more research. And that includes all potential treatments.

To adress the wariness when it comes to decisions from the FDA or CDC and your complains about off-label use vs the vaccine approval. One of the reasons for the high standards for off-label use is actually related to one of your main complains. The drug price. To many examples of off-label use of a cheaper drug instead of the "best option" that lead to complications. To many examples of big pharma trying to promote their product. Ignoring potential risks or actively hidding them. Both examples lead to numerous law suits.

[luka_skywalker_77]

The problem is you think the vaccine is the best option.

It isn't. Pre treatment is the best option. And thankfully, enough lives have been saved via IVM that there are many doctors out there able to prescribe it. 

IVM is the cheapest option. Monoclonals are another option. The vaccine is the most expensive option and the new drug they are coming out with soon as a prophylaxes, will also be expensive. Problem you us is the first level options aren't profitable. This is about money for big pharma. It's about power and control for politicians. And for us in the dark: it's about doing whatever we need to do to get back to playing angry birds. 

So far what i see is this: the highest level of stringency is being applied to drugs and medications that have been around for decades and are overwhelmingly safe (and currently used). According to you, these HAVE to be throuhgouly tested, to the point of absurdity, for them to even be considered for off label use--and that sounds normal to you? 

What we have injected--by all metrics--is an experimental vaccine (therapy). I say that because it is no longitudinal studies that show efficacy and safety. We just have to trust it, to inject it into kids, pregnant women and anyone else without pause or concern for if that's even necessary. There's no conversation of natural immunity, which brings all of this in question.

So you cant simply say on one hand, we are going to remove any roadblocks for big pharma to create a vaccine out of thin air, using a tech that has never brought product to market, while scrutinizing the hell out of safe drugs that have shown efficacy. 

Your concern, is the effect of the pandemic on the hospitals--which is somewhat valid but fairly overblown. It always has been. Let's get to 100% vaccine uptake. 

Now where are we?

There will still be cases. There will still be deaths. We will HAVE to be vaccinated 2-3 times a year at an astronomical cost and society will fracture along the lines of vaccinated/unvaccinated.

Then, apartheid will occur. 

So what you're asking for isn't an end to the pandemic because your solution doesn't solve that problem. There will always be cases and hospitalizations for covid. And as the efficacy of this vaccine wanes, which will happen each year, escape mutants will  create stronger and stronger versions (and this doesn't even take ADE into account).

It's just compliance. Compliance for more test subjects. 

But you were right: "Too many examples of big pharma trying to promote their product. Ignoring potential risks or actively hiding them. Both examples lead to numerous law suits."

... because the first thing they did was to remove themselves from liability in regards to the covid vaccines. Snakes don't change: they just shed their skins. 

---

Another good database. Make sure to look through all available Ivermectin research. Not just the one that supports your opinion.

I posted plenty like that. You just didn't care to look through the material I posted. Which is okay, but don't claim that I am posting biased material when yours is exclusively that. I'll post a link to all the studies again: https://c19ivermectin.com/. Many of the studies are found in both places.

My question is why do you care if doctors prescribe a medication to treat their patients the doctor apparently feels (based on his practice of prescribing it), works for them. What kind of power trip is that?

[dirkfansince1998]

The problem is you think the vaccine is the best option.

Absolutely right. Still feeling good about it. Again. The data is as clear as it gets.

I posted plenty like that. You just didn't care to look through the material I posted. Which is okay, but don't claim that I am posting biased material when yours is exclusively that. I'll post a link to all the studies again: https://c19ivermectin.com/. Many of the studies are found in both places.

Somebody already mentioned. It is futile. I actually tried to reach out and find some common ground. Focusing on the need for research.
I already adressed the mentioned side. It isn´t including all available studies and the meta-analysis is as selective and biased as it gets. Not to mention the additional abstracts they are listing or the "World Ivermectin Day" celebrations news.
You obviously did not feel the need to adress my concerns about retracted and heavily criticized studies. Now I at least know how you came to your conclusions. Also know why you are complaining about censorship and other things. The mentioned site is suspended on twitter. Reason:"spreading misleading and potential harmful information related to COVID-19"
I know I know. Censorship. We are being played by the government and big pharma. They are all working together to suppress us. Sorry. I am done for today. No need for any further deep dive.

[Dahlsim]

What's silly, is this idea that you will solve this crisis by vaccinating everyone, so let me explain a few things outright so that we can put that to rest. 

1. There will be no cure/vaccine for the common cold/flu/covid virus of any relatability, which is why this therapeutic is nothing more than a flu shot.
2. This vaccine does not stop transmission and in fact, the vaccinated and unvaccinated transmit at the same or even greater rates. 
3. The vaccine does not stop you from getting covid, but you may have a better chance at mitigating serious illness. There is a lot to be said for humans toying with the immune process--there isn't enough data to accurate predict how a long term immune management like will affect people.
4. People are not only dying from the vaccine, they are also dying after contracting covid while having the vaccine. There are also close to a million documented cases of side effects. 
5. You will require twice yearly booster the rest of your life at this point, so get used to it. 
6. Natural immunity is greater than a temporary, vaccine induced immunity. 
7. The unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated and in fact, the vaccinated shouldn't care. 
8. There's a reason they stopped talking about breakthrough cases. 
9. This will not end with 100% vaccination rates because this leaky vaccine does not stop transmission or infection. If you want an idea about how 100% will play out, pay attention to Israel. 
10. They changed the definition of what a vaccine is to fit the narrative they want you to believe. It was changed from what we commonly know as a vaccine to something more of a therapeutic--which is what this vaccine is. This isn't a pox vaccine. It doesn't stop anything and they knew that months ago.
11. Masks have not worked in any place on earth in containing covid 19. 
12. Lockdowns have not worked in any place on earth in containing covid 19.
13. Advance/early treatment is still the best way to contain the outbreak. 
14. Ivermectin works and is proven to work. Limiting Doctors from prescribing it is allowing more people to die when they don't have to. It's their JOB to prescribe the best medication for the task, and that shouldn't be up to the gov't or some pharmacists to determine. If you want to talk about experts, you have no discussion here. 
15. Limiting the shipping of monoclonal antibodies is simply evil and political. This is what was given to Trump last year, under the name of regeneron. It somehow went relatively unpublicized because "idiots". 
16. 99% of all people infected with covid recover fine. That has never changed. A positive result has never been an automatic death sentence. 
17. 95% of all covid deaths in the US are over the age of 50 (with comorbidities). Anyone under that age should be able to make their own choices on taking a vax or not.
18. Kids are NOT affected by this pandemic, apart from the measures we've taken to limit them from the rest of society and to keep them out of school. No data supports this. 
19. We have more infections and deaths this year on a month to month basis WITH A VACCINE than we did last year without one. 
20. Lastly, Fauci funded GOF research and will pay for this. He's as culpable as anyone else in this regard and his involvement with the HIV treatments in Africa are simply a precursor to this. He has lied repeatedly during this pandemic and is nothing more than a politician at this point. 

@"luka_skywalker_77"  I really appreciate that you took the time and put this list together even though it bucks the general tide. 
There are also posts from @"dirkfansince1998" and others that do a very admirable job of championing the other side of the debate. 

I especially appreciate your list though because  people like yourself are so important in countering the bandwagon effect of human nature.  
You are at least making points that provide dissent to the smartest guys in the room so to speak and the group think. 
That generally takes courage.
I don't necessarily fall in step on everything but I highlighted a few of your points I think off the top deserve serious consideration on the topic. 

The thing that compels me to take valuable time and contribute to a conversation like this is the fact that clearly the entire debate is now politicized.  There is no question now that a majority bias exists to push the narrative of the vaccination as Savior so to speak.  The more biases such as political advantage and financial advantage are introduced and exerted on any topic the more the topic is not really "Science" any more.  

With a little effort its easy to see that public Pressure is being applied in every possible way to: 

1) Suppress data that does fit the Vaccinations will save us narrative.  E.g. social media giants remove any counter narrative, label it misinformation summarily and absolutely ban all source people or organizations that counter the narrative. 
2) Attack people, defame people them, deprive them of livelihood and advancement if they put forth evidence that in any way dissents from the Vaccinations will save us narrative. 
3) Attack therapeutics and treatments or prophylactics that might been seen as discouraging people from all out dependence on vaccinations will save us. 
4) Downplay even Natural immunity and natural methods to support immunity again because it might discourage people from all out reliance on vaccinations will save us. 
5) Adverse effects of the vaccine are incredibly underreported or outright suppressed so people see only the dangers of not taking vaccinations and remain clueless about the lives of thousands who suffer from adverse effects.   This is ok because the lives of the people themselves are being treated as the lab rats to get the improved data. The greater good of course.  
6) Corruption of science and statistics.  Not only the general public and media but even Medical Professionals are being blackballed and having their credentials challenged or taken for any counter narrative.  Studies that don't conform to narrative are discredited, defunded and of course suppressed from circulation while studies that support vaccinations will save us are funded and commissioned for that purpose. 

I could go on but does anyone really think the search for the facts and truth on this matter is occurring and free and objective environment?  Do you really think that none of the statistics and results you are reading are skewed?  

Once free speech itself has been diminished and redefined, how can we trust the accuracy of the science we trust in with our lives when we know the search to find the facts is itself corrupted? 

I post the dissenting views precisely because they are being attacked and suppressed. 
Daystar for example are fighting a lawsuit against major media giant for working to suppress their entire organization and work over this issue. 
You don't have to be a fan of evangelicals to see that they are providing a voice to medical professional after medical professional, Doctors and Scientists (wild CaPs just for you WAB   )  and people from all walks of life that publicly document the fact that they and their families have been harmed by a vaccination that the majority (they say now) wants to force on everyone.   
https://vaccines.daystar.com

[SleepingHero]

I, personally, agree with some statements made by both sides and, at the same time, don't agree with some statements made by both sides. My personal style is more of an observer, but that doesn't mean I have my own beliefs. At times, I do have to take a breath and not go all Dan Ackroyd...

I agree with this so much. Good points made from all around. I vehemently believe in the freedom of choice. I know it's antithetical to ending this pandemic quickly but I just can never agree with a governmental body mandating it's citizens to take a vaccine. I think with proper education, people will naturally choose the correct choice in enough volume that it doesn't matter that some go against the grain. And yes that goes with all the other mandated vaccines that we all had to take as a kid. Up to the parents if they want to endanger their child and risk disfigurement. All it takes is a couple of publicized cases and people will automatically choose what works. A market correction if you will. And I believe in this vaccine (except maybe J&J  ) whole heartedly and the research behind it. It does work and I do have it.  

I know this is as polarizing of a topic for many and often online arguments just lead to digging our heels into our same viewpoint, but I just really appreciate that everyone here can make their points and just agree to disagree sometimes. 

It's an attribute that is slowly going extinct nowadays. Division is easy. Learning to accept other viewpoints and even trying to take something from them is the hard part and best part of life! I suppose I'm just an ardent libertarian in some aspects of life if I want to put a label on it. 

Anyways, back to being mostly a neutral bystander now. Kudos to everyone arguing for both sides.

[dirkfansince1998]

The thing that compels me to take valuable time and contribute to a conversation like this is the fact that clearly the entire debate is now politicized.  There is no question now that a majority bias exists to push the narrative of the vaccination as Savior so to speak.  The more biases such as political advantage and financial advantage are introduced and exerted on any topic the more the topic is not really "Science" any more.  

I don´t agree with a lot of your opinions on this topic but I enjoyed our conversation. But...
Absolutely agree that this is a mayor concern. Would add that it goes both ways. Once again right along the lines of the right/left divide we are seeing all through the country. Going along with growing science sceptism. I like to believe that at some point in the past people from both sides wouldn´t have trusted the word of random TV talking heads over medical experts or the head of the CDC/FDA. And I am not even blaming the people. Both political parties, leaders of agencies and other institutions did a lot to cause this. The lack of trust in the current political system/leaders is evident.

To highlight this. We have politicians from one side trying their best to spread misinformation about the vaccine. Promoting unproven alternative treatments. Problem is that the other side isn´t really any better. Creating a toxic culture and in case of the pandemic it is hurting the research process. I mentioned the lack of useful Ivermectin studies. Why is that the case? Answer...lack of approval and funding. More research when it comes to a potential treatment shouldn´t be controversial but sadly it is.

Not to mention the broken health care system. We wouldn´t have endless debates about treatments like Ivermectin if other "better" options would be available for cheap.

[david75090]

Not to mention the broken health care system. We wouldn´t have endless debates about treatments like Ivermectin if other "better" options would be available for cheap.

There are "experts" pleading with people to not take Ivermectin. It's not a cure, either. Like a lot of the other remedies, they have a similar affect as a placebo. The best thing, don't get infected. There's not a cure for Covid. It's Russian roulette. So-n-so wasn't affected. So-n-so was fortunate. Other so-n-soes were not as fortunate. They died or had a hard time. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing pre-infection, whether you're going to be among the fortunate or not. Touting "natural immunity" would be laughable if this wasn't such a serious subject. A person knows they have natural immunity, after the fact. Oh you didn't get it, or didn't die when you got it? You were fortunate. That next person, even if it's a small percentage of next persons, died. History shows there have been plagues and pandemics that have decimated humanity. We thought we were smarter than those who were wiped out during the Dark Ages. Are we? Or are we arguing and allowing the virus to run through the population?

[dirkfansince1998]

It's not a cure, either.

Of course not. There is no cure. But there are better options. @"luka_skywalker_77" actually mentioned one of them. Based on the limited data we have early treatment with monoclonal antibodies seems to work. Problem is that it is not showing any impact in later stages of the infection. Also not available for most people. Limited supply. High costs. Basically only for high risk patients and presidents.

[Jannemann2]

I spent a fair ammount of time commenting on the "20 points list" as I had the feeling I wouldn't like some of them to stand undisputed. I didn't quote any studies as the additional amount of time this would have cost me is nothing I can afford at the moment. I tried to make clear what is based on data I've seen, what is based on comments of mixed experts (kind of meta-data ) and what is more of an opinion or educated guess. Read at your own risk. I hope it helps clarifying some points especially the benefits (but also the limits) of the current vaccines - tl;dr: from what I've seen the benefits outweigh the limits so far that my advice to everyone would be: Get your f-ing shots! A first one, a second one and a third one as soon as ethics allows it. And than we'll see. There might be a point when all off us have to face the virus itself. But doing it unprepared carries high risk for the individual, and if too many individuals chose to take that path, it's bad for the whole society.

I'm torn on vaccination mandates. A small part of me wishes to implement them and be done with it. The bigger part still thinks that's not a situation I want for multiple reasons. There's still hope we'll find batter ways to resolve our situation.

What's silly, is this idea that you will solve this crisis by vaccinating everyone, so let me explain a few things outright so that we can put that to rest.

Why is it silly? Vaccination reduces especially severe cases and death by at least an order of magnitude. Isn't protecting people from dying off Covid-19 or suffering long-term effects something we want?

1. There will be no cure/vaccine for the common cold/flu/covid virus of any relatability, which is why this therapeutic is nothing more than a flu shot.

Not sure what you're trying to say. The Common cold is not the flu is not Covid. Flu shots protect a lot of people from dying off the flu. Maybe you made the point to emphasize the word "therapeutic" instead of "vaccine" - but this isn't a terminology used by people working within the field of immunology as far as I know and I don't think it helps the discussion.

2. This vaccine does not stop transmission and in fact, the vaccinated and unvaccinated transmit at the same or even greater rates.

Yes, the vaccine induced immunity is not able to completely stop transmission. Neither is immunity induced by natural infection as far as we know. No, the vaccinated do not transmit at higher levels than the unvaccinated, where do you get this from? It wouldn't make a lot of sense, biologically. All data I have seen suggests the opposite - unfortunately the reduction in transmission for people with partial immunity through vaccination is not as good as we would wish. But there is a reduction which makes sense, biologically. Unfortuanelty it seems to be fading over time (which also makes sense). Not enough data to suggest what a third shot will to in respect of transmission, but experts in the field expect Sars-Cov-2 to become endemic, so we actually might not see 100% immunity and no 100% stop of transmission.

3. The vaccine does not stop you from getting covid, but you may have a better chance at mitigating serious illness.

Current data is good enough to strike the "may" in your first sentence. The vaccine does mitigate serious illness. Here in Germany, our RKI (function comparable to the CDC I'd say) reports per 2021-09-30 for the cases monitored through the last 4 weeks:

- protection against hospitalization:  ca. 93% (age 18-59yrs), 89% (age ≥60 yrs)
- protection against requiring intensive care : ca. 96% (age  18-59 yrs), 94% (age  ≥60 yrs)
- protection against death ca. 97% (age 18-59 yrs ), 88% (age ≥60 yrs)

(side note for @fifteenth: The delta variant is more ore less ubiquitous in Germany and also was over the complete reported time span)

There is a lot to be said for humans toying with the immune process--there isn't enough data to accurate predict how a long term immune management like will affect people.

Not sure what you mean with that. We actually have a vast amount of data generated by humans toying with the immune response. Our understanding of the process is far more detailed than it's been a  few hundred years ago. Still a lot to learn. But so far nothing suggests we have to expect some terrible consequences rising from Covid-19 vaccinations. We have seen some very rare, side effects, very few of them fatal, (which is sad enough). Data suggests we would have seen many more people suffering and dying without vaccinations. Usage rules for the vaccines have been adopted as @dirksfan1998 has already pointed out. The emergence of completely new negative side effects of the known Covid-19 vaccines NOW would be something unprecedented  after the amount of used doses and the time frame we already have using them.

4. People are not only dying from the vaccine, they are also dying after contracting covid while having the vaccine. There are also close to a million documented cases of side effects.

People have indeed died from the vaccine. Which is terribly sad. It happened very rarely (and from a vaccine which hasn't been used in the US  as far as I know and to whom it may concern ...) The death rate is much, much lower than the death-rate in people catching Sars-Cov-2 unvaccinated. The use of the concerned vaccine from AstraZeneca has been adopted to avoid further fatalities.

The number of side effects from the vaccines is several magnitudes smaller than the negative effects from Covid-19. That's why we still use them.

5. You will require twice yearly booster the rest of your life at this point, so get used to it.

We do not have enough data to know if and how many "boosters" might be necessary. We know immunity is fading to some degree and one or two shot immunization schemas won't last forever. Data suggests a third dose after 6-12 month is a good idea medically (as soon as we have enough vaccine for the countries still waiting for their first shots ...). We don't have data on what may be after that. It might result in yearly shots like for the flu (as you've suggested earlier). Might also turn out a three step vaccination schema (which is quite common for some other vaccines)  with Biontech/Pfizer will last for a long time. We don't know, what the virus will do.

6. Natural immunity is greater than a temporary, vaccine induced immunity.

Immunity from a Covid-19 infections lasts longer than originally thought (good!) as recent studies show. I'd like to emphasize here: both groups are in no way uniform (the vaccinated group may be more homogeneous: fewer variables concerning type, dose and timing of antigene application). So called "natural immunity" might be better in some cases, but especially in very mild cases it might be worse. The vaccines are optimized to produce neutralizing antibodies, a natural infection is not. (that's (partly) why the mRNA vaccines encode parts of the spike protein, not the nucleocapsid). A natural infection otoh, if not a very mild one, might result in longer contact with a more diverse set, and higher levels of virus antigene, producing a higher immune response (but also devasting inflammation reactions leading to severe illness and death).

If the virus turns out to produce lots of variants in the endemic phase, e.g. requiring yearly application of vaccines like the flu, we will also see immunity induced by natural infection fade over time. I haven't seen data about it, but this is my expectation as a (former) biologist .

Note: "natural" is not automatically good. Natural infection with a replicating virus has, compared to immunity via vaccination, a much higher chance of never reaching any immunity at all,  because you will be dead. Don't forget that, when praising the advantages of "natural immunity".

7. The unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated and in fact, the vaccinated shouldn't care.

Not true. The unvaccinated pose a threat to both: other unvaccinated (inluding themselves and their families) and vaccinated. As you've pointed out before in exactly this post of yours: immunity from vaccination is neither perfect nor permanent (so far). Risk for severe cases is reduced in vaccinated people, but not eliminated, especially in older age groups and groups with underlying medial conditions.

8. There's a reason they stopped talking about breakthrough cases.

I don't know how it is in US. Breakthrough cases are talked about all the time were I live. They are tracked in the official statistics.  Compared to infections of unvaccinated their risk of a break through infection to become life threatening is decreased  a lot.

9. This will not end with 100% vaccination rates because this leaky vaccine does not stop transmission or infection. If you want an idea about how 100% will play out, pay attention to Israel.

Yup, we won't get to 100% in a lot of countries, unfortunately. I do not think it has to do with the vaccines not preventing transmission and infection completely. Personally I'd say "Getting the virus while being fully vaccinated increases my chances to life through it relatively unaffected a lot" should be a strong enough motivation. Looks like other factors play a major role in this - trust in science and authorities only some of them. Current questioners in Germany indicate there's a relevant group which doesn't want to be vaccinated because they have the feeling they are forced to much in that direction. I understand that feeling very well but I still think it has a bit of a teenage rebellion smell. As grown ups we should be able to do something which makes sense even if we don't like the conditions around it.

Concerning Israel and 100% vaccination rate: As of yesterday they are listed with 65% of the population fully vaccinated. Maybe your 100% were meant for a different context I didn't understand. Let me add: Israel mostly used the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine, but with a relatively short interval (3 weeks) between 1st and 2nd dose. Longer intervals have been shown to produce better immunity.

10. They changed the definition of what a vaccine is to fit the narrative they want you to believe. It was changed from what we commonly know as a vaccine to something more of a therapeutic--which is what this vaccine is. This isn't a pox vaccine. It doesn't stop anything and they knew that months ago.

Not sure what you're suggesting. Not all vaccines produce sterilizing immunity*. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with Sars-Cov-2/Covid-19. The most common Covid-19 vaccines actually do something: they prevent a lot of severe courses and deaths. You might think this isn't something. I respectfully disagree.

*as this might be a topic of concern: sterilizing immunity has nothing to do with hurting a persons ability to reproduce , but actually describes a level of immunity which completely prevents a future infection with the same pathogen. (My apologies for the pun ;-))

11. Masks have not worked in any place on earth in containing covid 19.

Masks do a lot to lower transmission. I had the opportunity to hear a talk from Eberhard Bodenschatz (https://www.ds.mpg.de/en/bodenschatz) who is an expert for aerosols (the main transmission vehicle for Covid-19) where he presented some of his experiments and results about masks, the particles containing the virus including their size, how they are generated while we breath, talk, sing, scream, how their travel in the air and so on. His conclusion: Masks work very well if worn correctly. FFP-2/KN95 >> medical masks >> self made cloth masks. He was very confident (based on his and others results) masks (FFP2/KN95, even medical masks, to a lower degree), lead to very good protection against infection with the virus. Especially when combined with a testing strategy and good ventilation. (I didn't read publications on that).

Personally I think the flaw in all measures which require doing something actively (correctly wear a mask, keep your distance, avoid big gatherings of people, ensure good ventilation) is that people get tired of it and stop doing them correctly. Enforcement surely may help, but who wants that as a long term solution as this is something which affects people every day ?

12. Lockdowns have not worked in any place on earth in containing covid 19.[/font][/color]

I think they do work to some degree as an emergency measurement, but we probably agree lockdowns are nothing we're willing to accept as a permanent solution for mitigating the pandemic

13. Advance/early treatment is still the best way to contain the outbreak.

I don't necessarily disagree, but my conclusion with the available data would be the best agent to use for advance treatments are the vaccines we have. Most of other drugs which we hoped could reliably suppress acute Covid-19 have disappointed or shown mixed/unclear results in clinical tries at best (as far as I know). The beauty of the vaccines is they prevent severe cases of Covid-19 very well for probably something around 6-12 month with 2-shot immunization schemas (maybe much better with boosters; we'll know soon enough)*. Additionaly most of the other drugs require a tricky timing as they work best when applied in early stages of an infection but the max virus levels are usually reached before you even see symptoms ... You might be temped to ask "great, then lets just take X every day, as a prevention" but applying thinly tested drugs more or less on a day-to-day base will increase the chance of unwanted side effects to much higher levels and would require extensive long-time studies  - we might not want to wait for the results ...
That's not even talking about the problem that some of these maybe-good, maybe-not drugs require lots of resources from medical care for their application (e.g. infusions) beneath the timing, showing that they can't be a solution for the masses.

14. Ivermectin works and is proven to work. Limiting Doctors from prescribing it is allowing more people to die when they don't have to. It's their JOB to prescribe the best medication for the task, and that shouldn't be up to the gov't or some pharmacists to determine. If you want to talk about experts, you have no discussion here.

I'll mainly skip this point as I don't know much beneath what has already been said on this topic, the bit I've heard and read matches what dirksfan1998 already pointed out.

15. Limiting the shipping of monoclonal antibodies is simply evil and political. This is what was given to Trump last year, under the name of regeneron. It somehow went relatively unpublicized because "idiots".

Monoclonal antibodies might work well in some cases, but vaccines induce a longer effects (classical active vs passive immunity). therapeutic antibodies probably also suffer from the problem of being applicated at the right time and often need to be applied via infusion (lot's of resources needed to do that). A quick glance showed there are studies about subcutan injections (easier to do), but I don't know how thoroughly tested up to know. They will most probably prevent or severely decrease the induction of active ("natural" :-)) immunity from the ongoing infection. I think they'll still add to the mix of counter measurements in case of active infections but I wouldn't expect them to be a "game changer" on their own.

I didn't look it up, but as someone who actual has created monoclonal antibodies for experiments by myself, my exception would be that these are much more difficult to mass produce and therefore much more expensive with lower availability than e.g. nucleic acid based vaccines. Techniques may have evolved since my time in a lab. I may be wrong.

16. 99% of all people infected with covid recover fine. That has never changed. A positive result has never been an automatic death sentence.

Lethality rate for the US is currently arround 2%, so yes: 98% of all people will stay alive and the majority will fully recover. But beware: There's Long-Covid (even if we still don't have good data on it) and having been on an ICU severly affects the health condition of a lot of people in the long term and reduces the mean expected life-span significantly. This may be not as present in the public discussions, as if someone requires ICU treatment you don't have a choice anyway in most cases.

Nevertheless: Even when ignoring health issues caused by Covid-19 down the road, 2% of 330 million people in the US would be quite a high body count (6.6 mil deaths) subtract whatever you want for 55% (?) of the polulation being fully vaccinated, some got immunity through infection, 700.000 are already dead. The number of people who will die still seems unacceptable for me, especially as there is a way to reduce this by at least a factor of ten by the vaccines we do have at hand now.

17. 95% of all covid deaths in the US are over the age of 50 (with comorbidities). Anyone under that age should be able to make their own choices on taking a vax or not.[/font][/color]

I agree that older groups are affected much more, data is showing that very clearly. But I'd like to emphasize that more or less everybody who stays unvaccinated will catch the virus without meaningful protection. Even in the younger groups, given the high number of affected people there's still a lot of people that will die or permanently damage their bodies (including the brain ). And these are the age groups which might have children in a lot of cases. If I was a little boy it would be hard to cope my father or mother dying or staying in a hospital for weeks or month, maybe under ICU, in a coma, unable to react to me, making me fear for him/her every day. Because the didn't want a vaccine.

18. Kids are NOT affected by this pandemic, apart from the measures we've taken to limit them from the rest of society and to keep them out of school. No data supports this.

While kids are surely affected in multiple negative ways by the measurements taken to (mainly) protect their stubborn parents from killing themselves, it's not true they are NOT affeted by the pandemic e.g. the virus. To a much lower degree, sure. If you allow them to get infected by the millions unprotected, we all still won't be happy with the results :-(.

19. We have more infections and deaths this year on a month to month basis WITH A VACCINE than we did last year without one.

This is true (presuming you're referring to the US), but you're not really suggesting the higher number in infections and deaths is caused by the vaccine, are you? The delta variant produces much higher virus loads and has an R0 around 6 - which essentially means: it's much more "infectious" than the original Sars-Cov-2 wildtype virus.  Combine this with a population which might be increasingly unwilling to stick to other protective measures like masks and lockdowns and (understandably) wants to go back to leading a normal life while 45% are not fully vaccinated and you have a good base to explain the high infection and death rates.

I'll stop here. Not sure what to comment on point 20 and below, and maybe having commented on most of your points but not all of them has its own beauty of imperfection in a pandemic where the answer to more questions than we might like still is: We don't now - yet.

@soog sorry to probably kill your scrolling completely. At least I didn't do a meaningless full quote with one additional sentence below it :-).

[Jannemann2]

Allow me one more off-topic, for personal reasons:

https://twitter.com/MPI_Meteo/status/144...0616605699

Cheers Klaus Hasselmann!

[dirkfansince1998]

@"Jannemann2"

A+ for effort. There is no way to adress all mentioned points on the list in the length and detail they deserve. Would probably need an individual thread for every single one of them. I already tried to cut it short and only adressed a topic that made a lot of headlines in the last couple of days. Really had no motivation to do it for more than one. I am coming to this place to escape work life and talk basketball. Not to read even more studies.
You don´t have to answer the question if you don´t want to but now I am curious. What do you mean with former biologist. Already retired? Changed profession?

[Jannemann2]

@"Jannemann2"

You don´t have to answer the question if you don´t want to but now I am curious. What do you mean with former biologist. Already retired? Changed profession?

lots of appreciation for what you've done in this thread so far, @"dirkfansince1998" !

I worked four years in a neurobiology lab while still studying biology. Had a loooong interruption doing other things before I decided to still do the examens, and write a lengthy diploma thesis in applied bioinformatics. Changed professions after that and became an it guy who rues not having become a scientist from time to time which might lead to answering on lengthy off-topic-threads in basketball forums at night. Former post might give a hint about my current employment ;-).

cheers!

[Jommybone]

I knew better than to venture into this thread. But somehow I got here anyway, damn fool that I am.

Anyway, please know that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But my spouse is a doctor. Her specialty is infectious diseases. What she says—that I believe I’m competent to repeat accurately—is this: 

You can’t believe how disheartening it is to spend your life trying to learn complicated medical science, in part to prepare for just such a scenario as this, and then to have patients come into the hospital telling you how to do your job because they read some shit on the internet.

Ok, the “shit” edit was mine. The rest is her. 

No need to reply to me. I plan to never click on this thread again. (Serenity now!)

[dirkfansince1998]

lots of appreciation for what you've done in this thread so far, @"dirkfansince1998" !

I worked four years in a neurobiology lab while still studying biology. Had a loooong interruption doing other things before I decided to still do the examens, and write a lengthy diploma thesis in applied bioinformatics. Changed professions after that and became an it guy who rues not having become a scientist from time to time which might lead to answering on lengthy off-topic-threads in basketball forums at night. Former post might give a hint about my current employment ;-).

cheers!

It´s not for all of us. I took the easier route as well. After seven years of university/med school + dissertation I was really tired of it. Specialized in hematology and have to admit that even though I had plenty of opportunities to participate in research projects I declined most of them. In hindsight not the smartest career choice. Current career projection...let´s just say that I will probably never be the head of a department or chief of medicine. Unless I am willing to work in a small provincial hospital.

That said. As @Jommybone mentioned. Don´t believe all the "shit" you read on the internet. Even from "self proclaimed" physicians like me. There is no way to prove any of it. And even if you are talking with a physican. Remember that most of them are specialists. Anatomy class was a long time ago. I might remember a few things but the average person that is willing to do some research on the topic probably knows more about KP and his knees issues or similar topics.