Comments by "Terje Oseberg" (@terjeoseberg990) on "Dr. John Campbell"
channel.
-
430
-
119
-
101
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
45
-
35
-
34
-
31
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Everyone, regardless of the CT value, if they test positive is, or has recently been infected by the virus. Infection by the virus is the only way to test positive. The PCR tests are incredibly accurate.
The problem is whether they are contagious or not. Testing positive on a PCR test does not guarantee that you’re contagious. The only way to determine whether you’re contagious is a viral culture test. But these tests are very slow and expensive. Therefor we are using PCR tests to determine infectivity rather than viral cultures.
They have conducted studies to determine whether the cycle threshold is related to infectivity, and indeed it is. They have determined that in the unvaccinated it’s very unlikely that someone with a cycle threshold of 40 or above is contagious. That’s why they chose CT=40 as the cutoff. Unvaccinated people with CT=35 are significantly more likely to be contagious than unvaccinated people with CT=40.
The value was chosen to slow the spread of the virus, not to diagnose disease. Disease is diagnosed by the symptoms. If you’re sick, and the symptoms match Covid, then you have Covid. If you are experiencing no symptoms, then you’re not sick. If you’re not sick, you do not have Covid, even if you are infected and might be contagious.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
snikrepak, I’ve been mentioning it since February 2020.
Even now, we could completely stop the pandemic without vaccines within a month. All it would take is a complete and total lockdown for that month.
Pay everyone to stay home, an put police everywhere. Whoever is fought outside would be arrested, and in addition to not getting their payment, they would be jailed and fined. No excuses.
A 2 month supply of non perishable food would have to be delivered in advance, and all bills suspended for the month. Utilities paid by the government.
Actual essential workers would wear hazmat suits, and have a sticker on their car so the police know not to pull them over. The sticker could have a QR code to identify the driver and their work hours. They’d also need an ID.
Then, after the 1 month lockdown we implement contact tracing, just in case something remains. If something is found, it could be dealt with.
It’s possible to end the pandemic any time we want. We could test it in one state to verify that it’ll work if we want. This is something we could have done in 2020, and we could still do it today.
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
jayandess, It’s not that Covid patients became more important, but they didn’t want to spread Covid to others because then there would have been a lot more deaths.
In the US there are 330 million people. Since the average lifespan is 86 years, on average 3,837,209 people die per year. Only 500,000 people died of Covid, but if they hadn’t locked down, and did all the social distancing and mask stuff, they could have easily overwhelmed the hospitals and it could have been 20 to 30 million.
The fatality rate is 1%, but with proper medical care. Without proper medical care, it 10-15%. That’s why they’re freaking out in India right now. People are currently dying so shouldn’t be.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Koozje , “until now” implies that now something weird happened. I believe you meant “so far”. Also, remember, the human safety trials were over a year ago, and even the phase 3 efficacy trial started in July last year, so over 15,000 people were vaccinated in 1 trial and over 22,000 in another trial in July and August last year.
Normal vaccines trials only have 3,000 participants, so we currently have way more data than we normally do.
Every year flu vaccines are developed, tested, and approved within 6 months.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
PCR tests are incredibly accurate. The issue was that if the CT is 40, you either just got infected, or you’ve recovered and been over it already. Either way, you’re not contagious.
It basically means you’ve been infected. So should be counted at an “infection”, but not a “case”, because a “case” means you got sick.
Basically, if you got sick, and that’s why you got tested, then you tested at CT=40, then you are a case, but if you didn’t get sick, you’re not.
The problem is, PCR is too accurate.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Baard2000 , That 375,000 number is reported events after vaccination. These events occur every day in people for other reasons and no reason at all. The only way to determine whether those events were caused by the vaccines is to compare the numbers to the regular background rates of these same events, and only if they see an increase will it be determined by the vaccines.
(Made up number)
For example if there’s are 5 heart attack per week per million men between 50 and 55 and after vaccination there are still 5, then the vaccines did not cause those 5. But if it suddenly increases to 20, then the vaccines caused 15 of them.
So basically, the majority of those 375,000 cases are not caused by the vaccines, or they stop using them. They would be considered too dangerous.
They’ve recently determined that Pfizer causes myocarditis is teen boys. Well, it actually doubles the rate from approximately 6 per 100,000 per year to 12 or something like that. It’s really not that many, so in the US that are still recommending that teens 12 - 17 be vaccinated.
Every event after vaccination should be reported, but every event reported is not caused by the vaccines. Someone who actually understands what they are doing needs to review the numbers cases and make that determination. They are doing these reviews constantly. That’s how they discovered the blood clotting issue and the myocarditis issue. And that’s why despite there being 375,000 entries, there is nothing else there that’s concerning.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jon0604 , There’s a lot of confusion around the terms “infection”, “case”, and “breakthrough”. There has never been a vaccine that prevents a virus from entering your body. Your immune system can not fight a virus outside your body. Also, the cells meant to attack a particular pathogen “go to sleep” if you are not constantly exposed to the pathogen, and therefore need time to “wake up” if you’re later exposed.
I don’t know whether “reinfection” and “breakthrough” in Oklahoma refers to testing positive on a PCR test or symptomatic Covid, or hospitalization, or what. PCR is so sensitive that you can test positive while your not shedding enough to be contagious. Or you could be shedding viruses that are coated with antibodies.
“This study has demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infected vaccinated individuals are less likely to engage in significant viral shedding, and when they do, the viral particles appear to be less infectious. The vaccinated also report a significantly lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms than the non-vaccinated, with 74% of days reported symptomless compared to 37%, respectively. Breakthrough infections in the vaccinated tended to be tissue-restricted, usually only detectable in saliva samples and not the nasal cavity. The usual method of utilizing nasal swabs for routine testing may cause an underestimation of the number of infected amongst the vaccinated.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Campbellteaching , Methods: This observational cohort study was conducted from March to May 2020, among patients admitted to COVID-19 wards of Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. A total of 930 patients with COVID-19 were included; 92 were excluded because of previous calcifediol intake. Of the remaining 838, a total of 447 received calcifediol (532 μg on day 1 plus 266 μg on days 3, 7, 15, and 30), whereas 391 were not treated at the time of hospital admission (intention-to-treat). Of the latter, 53 patients were treated later during ICU admission and were allocated in the treated group in a second analysis. In healthy individuals, calcifediol is about 3.2-fold more potent on a weight basis than cholecalciferol. Main outcome measures were ICU admission and mortality.
Results: ICU assistance was required by 102 (12.2%) participants. Out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 20 (4.5%) required the ICU, compared to 82 (21%) out of 391 nontreated (P < .001). Logistic regression of calcifediol treatment on ICU admission, adjusted by age, sex, linearized 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, and comorbidities showed that treated patients had a reduced risk of requiring the ICU (odds ratio [OR] 0.13; 95% CI 0.07-0.23). Overall mortality was 10%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 21 (4.7%) out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission died compared to 62 patients (15.9%) out of 391 nontreated (P = .001). Adjusted results showed a reduced mortality risk with an OR of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.10-0.43). In the second analysis, the obtained OR was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27-0.99).
Conclusion: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, calcifediol treatment significantly reduced ICU admission and mortality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@crazyratlady3438 , Well, how the vaccines work is incredibly simple. There’s absolutely no reason why the platform itself should cause any long term side effects that occur after a few months. We know this because we have been studying mRNA technology for over 50 years.
So the only possibility, because it’s the only thing that’s actually new, is the spike protein, and what long term effects it might cause. However, the spike proteins created by the mRNA vaccines are temporary. Therefore any adverse reactions caused by the spike proteins will show up while the spike proteins are still present, not years later. What that means is that we know already that we have already seen all the long term side effects that we will ever see.
Besides, the virus also causes is to make spike proteins, but significantly more of them. So any long term side effects caused by the spike proteins will be worse with infection. Because the vaccines reduce the viral replication upon infection, the vaccines will also reduce the risk of long term side effects upon post vaccination infection, which is actually what we’re seeing.
So basically, we already know all the long term side effects of the vaccines.
2
-
@chasejdmartin , Because 50% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic, and 30% are mild, and Covid causes long term inflammation that can damage your brain, pancreas, kidneys, heart, and many other organs. They probably got Covid without knowing and then died later.
How SARS-CoV-2 Causes Brain, Kidney, Pancreas, & Heart Damage
https://youtu.be/g9Ftwk4loPA
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stephenguy3901 , In a country where 1 out if 33,000 people die every day, these ignore ant dum basses don’t understand that if you vaccinate a million people a day, 30 will die every day within 24 hours of being vaccinated. It’s not like the vaccines are going to prevent these deaths that were going to happen anyway. 30/day == 210/week, or nearly 1,000/week.
If we see an increase above these numbers, then we need to worry. The reason why VAERS can be so sensitive is because the statisticians can break the numbers down by age, sex, race, and other health issues as well as the cause of death.
These stew pid antivaxxers look at VAERS and just assume that everything there was caused by the vaccines.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Stephen Arling, One example of a bad one was the recent one with about 3,000 participants where about 2/3rd took two doses of Ivermectin 72 hours apart and the remaining 1/3rd took nothing. This study “showed” that two doses 72 hours apart is 83% effective for one month.
The problem with this study is that the participants self selected. Meaning they were all offered Ivermectin, and about 1/3rd of them refused.
Why this is bad, is because it’s possible that those who refused were people who believe that the virus “the flu” or a hoax or real, but not dangerous, and therefore were careless and refused to take other precautions. While those who accepted the Ivermectin might be people who are much more cautious and wore their masks diligently and maintained social distance.
This is why double blind is so important. Everyone in the study need to understand that they might have received the drug, or they might not. Therefor they will all behave similarly. If they had randomly given the ivermectin to half of the 3,000 and placebo to the other half, then you’d have an even mix of both types of people in both arms of the study.
So, although the study appears to show that Ivermectin is 83% effective, what it really shows is that the type of people who would choose to take Ivermectin are 83% less likely to get Covid than the type of people who would choose not to take Ivermectin.
So, to determine whether a study is good or not, you have to look at the study, and if you can’t find any such problems with it, then it’s likely good. If this particular study was a double blind study with a placebo control, then it would be a great study. Unfortunately, it’s not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hughmanbeing1050 , That depends on whether they just got infected, or they’re finished. If they’re finished with the virus, then sure.
The question is whether we should have them return to get tested again, or what? Maybe if they have had symptoms, and those symptoms are going away, we might be able to assume it’s the end, and if there have been no symptoms, we could assume it’s the beginning. Then, if it’s the beginning, put them in quarantine for two days, then test them again.
But with a shortage of tests, is this a good idea? If the goal is to stop people from spreading the virus, and there’s a shortage of testing capacity, what would you suggest?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mayrareyes8135 , When this pandemic started, around 50% of the immunologically naive were asymptomatic upon infection, and around 30% experienced mild symptoms. Only around 10-15% required hospital care.
Around 2/3 of those who required hospital care had at least 1 comorbidity, so 1/3 had no comorbidities. Since approximately 50% of the population has 1 comorbidity, those with 1 or more comorbidities are at approximately twice the risk as those with none. Therefore those with at least 1 comorbidity are at around 20% risk, and those with none are at around 10% risk of hospitalization.
So, if Omicron is twice as lethal and you have no comorbidities, then your risk of hospitalization, if you were immunologically naive, was around 10%. You therefore had around a 90% chance of experiencing mild to no symptoms.
However, how can you be sure you were immunologically naive? How do you know you weren’t already infected and experienced mild to no symptoms? You could have already been among the 80% who gained immunity from previous infection. Were you tested for antibodies or for a T cell response?
Most of the world now has immunity either from previous infection, or vaccination. The seroprevalence in the UK is around 98%. The pandemic is pretty much over for the majority of us. The immunologically naive are now extremely rare, and most of the unvaccinated, without getting tested, have no clue whether they are immunologically naive or not.
You got lucky, and you are now no longer immunologically naive. However, you have no clue what damage this infection may have done to your body, and what the long term consequences might be. There have been no long term studies, and the short term studies don’t look good.
How SARS-CoV-2 Causes Brain, Kidney, Pancreas, & Heart Damage
https://youtu.be/g9Ftwk4loPA
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
““The country may have been too optimistic after their vaccine rollout and opened up too quickly, especially to internal travel during the summer holiday season,” said Michael Touchton, from the University of Miami’s Observatory for the Containment of Covid-19 in the Americas. Chile reopened its borders in November 2020 when infections had dropped from its June peak to around 1400 cases a day. It also permitted domestic travel during the country’s December to February holiday season this year, when restaurants, shops, and holiday resorts reopened.
Careless behaviour during the vacations likely facilitated the virus’s spread, experts said.
“At the beginning of the vaccine campaign there was a message from government that ‘vaccines are on their way so the pandemic will end soon.’ Everyone stopped taking care, stopped wearing masks, and joined big crowds during the holiday season,” said Claudia Cortés, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Chile.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1023
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chris H, Here’s how PCR works in really simple terms that hopefully your relative can understand.
They take a sample from your nose, and put it in a liquid that preserves RNA. Then they add the materials needed to duplicate the RNA the same way it duplicates inside your cells.
Once they’ve all been copied, the copies are attached to the originals. When they heat the sample, the copies separate from the originals and you now have twice as many bits of RNA.
Then they let it cool down, and they start copying again. The cycles are just the heating and cooling cycle, and you double the number of copies with every cycle.
There’s more to it like there’s a mechanism so only the bits of RNA that match a pattern are copied.
The cycle count is just a measure of how much RNA was in the sample. But how the sample was taken also influences how much RNA was present in the sample.
Requiring 35 cycles for a positive result vs 40 definitely changes the number of positive results, but with 40, the RNA fragments were there. Why? If you were never infected, why would you have SARS-CoV-2 RNA fragments in your sample?
It’s a good thing that the sample contained so few RNA fragments that they needed 40 cycles to detect them. It means that you’re probably not contagious. Maybe you got infected by the virus, but your body fought it off. Or maybe you just got it and you haven’t gotten sick yet. If I were a doctor and someone tested positive with a CT of 40, I’d immediately prescribe Ivermectin and I’d test their blood for Vitamin D and if it’s low, I’d prescribe Calcifediol (a form of Vitamin D that’s absorbed immediately).
Then I’d explain that they either just got infected, or they’ve been infected and they’re getting over it already. And I’d test them again in a week to see if the RNA is increasing or decreasing. It might also be worth testing their blood for antibodies. If antibodies are present it means they’ve been infected for a while and are probably getting over it.
1
-
Chris H, For PCR testing to detect only SARS-CoV-2, they have to analyze the RNA for all coronaviruses and choose to amplify only a segment that exists in SARS-CoV-2.
Sure, there are many similarities between coronaviruses. But they’re not identical, or they would be the same virus. So there are obviously differences.
And sure, There’s no way to tell from the PCR test whether the sample contains full viruses, or only fragments. But isn’t it obvious to you that if you have a whole bunch of virus RNA in your nose, that your body is manufacturing them? Otherwise, where are they coming from? Do you really believe you could have RNA fragments sitting in your nose a month after your body stopped manufacturing them? Your body isn’t constantly excreting mucus and sending immune cells there to kill bacteria and clean up the mess? I doubt RNA fragments could last a few hours in there before they are somehow removed by some mechanism or another. This is all part of the innate immune system that’s supposed to keep viruses out of our bodies.
They’re are millions of bacteria in the air that we’re breathing in constantly, our bodies are constantly dealing with them to keep them out. These RNA fragments are mixed with these bacteria and they are consumed by our innate immune system along with them. Anyone who believes that an RNA fragment is going to last very long up there is nuts.
Unless there reproducing faster than they can be destroyed, they’re going to be gone. So basically, if they’re detected, There’s viral replication going on in your body. Viral replication means there are fully intact viruses somewhere in your body. Whether they are in your nose or not is unknown from these test results, but most likely there are. But this is only a question of whether you’re contagious or not, NOT whether you’re infected or not.
And if we don’t know whether you’re contagious or not, then just behave like you are, and medicate you like you just got it and could get worse until they’ve proven otherwise with a negative test result. There’s no point taking any chances.
1
-
Sharky Moon, What are you going to do when Pfizer gets full FDA approved next week? When it’s no longer approve for emergency use, but it’s fully approved? What then? Your whole argument that “it’s not approved” goes down the drain. This is going to crush your whole world view. I hope you don’t go into mental meltdown or something.
You should go see your therapist and get your meds in advance, because full FDA approval is inevitable, because the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective.
Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca, Novavax will also be fully FDA approved eventually too, because they’re all safe and effective. It’s pretty obvious bro. They vaccinated over 15,000 in the phase 3 trials, and they didn’t even start the phase 3 trial until after they proved that the vaccines were safe in the phase 1 (human safety trials).
They’re not going to let them vaccinate 15,000 people with a vaccine that might not be safe. That’d be dumb. If 10% of them died, nobody would take the vaccine. They’d be wasting their time and money. They’d be stupid to do that. So obviously they’re going to prove that it’s safe BEFORE they invest a dime in a phase 3 trial. Isn’t that obvious?
And after vaccinating 15,000 people in the phase 3 trial, not one of them died because of the vaccine.
And now, over 1.4 billion people have been vaccinated. If 0.1% died, there would be 1.4 million dead people from the vaccines. You don’t think we’d notice that?
The antivaxxer a are making a big deal out of 4,000 people who probably would have died already without the vaccine. To really know whether the vaccines caused it or not, we need to compare those 4,000 people with how many die without vaccines. Did the vaccines cause an increase in deaths or not? If there’s an increase, then it’s probably the vaccines. If there’s no increase, then it’s not the vaccines.
So, is there an increase in deaths or not? Don’t trust what I tell you. Go look it up. Go check to see if the vaccines are causing deaths to increase or not. If the vaccines are killing people there will be an increase. Right?
So you go find your evidence and then present it to people. Or, go find the evidence that you’re wrong. I already know what you’re going to find.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solobano570 , This is a much better study that actually proves something.
Methods: This observational cohort study was conducted from March to May 2020, among patients admitted to COVID-19 wards of Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. A total of 930 patients with COVID-19 were included; 92 were excluded because of previous calcifediol intake. Of the remaining 838, a total of 447 received calcifediol (532 μg on day 1 plus 266 μg on days 3, 7, 15, and 30), whereas 391 were not treated at the time of hospital admission (intention-to-treat). Of the latter, 53 patients were treated later during ICU admission and were allocated in the treated group in a second analysis. In healthy individuals, calcifediol is about 3.2-fold more potent on a weight basis than cholecalciferol. Main outcome measures were ICU admission and mortality.
Results: ICU assistance was required by 102 (12.2%) participants. Out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 20 (4.5%) required the ICU, compared to 82 (21%) out of 391 nontreated (P < .001). Logistic regression of calcifediol treatment on ICU admission, adjusted by age, sex, linearized 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, and comorbidities showed that treated patients had a reduced risk of requiring the ICU (odds ratio [OR] 0.13; 95% CI 0.07-0.23). Overall mortality was 10%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 21 (4.7%) out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission died compared to 62 patients (15.9%) out of 391 nontreated (P = .001). Adjusted results showed a reduced mortality risk with an OR of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.10-0.43). In the second analysis, the obtained OR was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27-0.99).
Conclusion: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, calcifediol treatment significantly reduced ICU admission and mortality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Pilar Villarraga had spent much of the summer counting down the days until her daughter Sophia’s birthday. In early August, Sophia would turn 12 — and become officially eligible for a Covid-19 vaccine. “I didn’t want her to start school without the vaccine,” said Ms. Villarraga, who lives in Doral, Fla.
And then, in late July, just two weeks before the milestone birthday, Sophia caught the coronavirus. At first, she just had a fever, but on July 25, after four quiet days convalescing at home, her ribs began to hurt. The next day, Ms. Villarraga took her to the emergency room, where chest X-rays revealed that Sophia had developed pneumonia. She soon began coughing up blood.
Sophia was promptly admitted to Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, in Miami. Her parents, and their friends, were in shock. “I didn’t think that kids could get that sick,” Ms. Villarraga said.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@originalkk882 , The type of antibodies is irrelevant. The presence of any antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 means that they have been exposed to the antigen and have therefore developed B and T cells that will protect them against severe disease.
Also, the seroprevalence in the UK is 98%, not 90%. Most of the rest of the world is likely similar, either from previous infection, or from vaccination.
The vaccines, regardless of whatever you believe, are over 90-95% effective against severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Nobody cares about the infection rate as long as hospitals are not becoming overwhelmed, and we’re not running out of monoclonals and antivirals.
Your narrative us falling apart bro. People won’t keep believing your ignore ant antivaxxer lies and propaganda forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
asearchie, Ivermectin is not a “non-pharmaceutical treatment” though.
The issue here is to we need an RCT, and the FLCCC should just do one. Obviously big pharma will never do it. Duhhh.... Why would they? All I’m saying it’s that FLCCC should do it. The medication is cheap. I heard that it’s $168/kg. A single dose is measured in micrograms. An RCT should not be expensive or difficult.
You’re doing exactly what everyone else is doing, including Tess Lawrie. Why? Just do the damned study already. I’ve been saying this same thing for months, and yet it still hasn’t happened.
I’m starting to believe they won’t do it because maybe they know it doesn’t work. Who the hell knows?
If a thousand people do a thousand small studies with 20-30 patients each, do you believe the ones that fail will be published? Why would they published all the failed studies? They’re obviously only going to publish the successful ones, right? Maybe that’s what’s happening and we’re only seeing the studies that show positive results. How the hell would we know? We wouldn’t.
So basically, maybe the sh!t works, or maybe it doesn’t. You can go ahead and look at their website and believe it works, but I want to see proof. So do a bunch of doctors, scientists, and policy makers. It makes sense.
I have an actionable item here, and what do you have? You have, “but, but, but, look at the meta study”. Well, garbage in = garbage out.
They want an RCT, so do an RCT. It’s that simple. If it works, the RCT will show positive results.
I hope the FLCCC reads my comments and does it. Just get it over with.
1
-
1
-
asearchie, What if they started using Ivermectin in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Panama, Portugal, Lebanon, and Mexico at the same time as they decided to enforce lockdowns, and the lockdowns worked. Who knows. Do you? Did they start giving out Ivermectin without lockdowns? Did they not enforce masks?
This is WHY WE NEED DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED, bro!!!
Dude, wake the hell up. With a placebo control group, we don’t know if the Ivermectin made any difference. And if it’s not double blind, we don’t know whether or not there was some sort of selection bias.
Do you not understand how science works? What’s confusing you here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
o markosmithiskingofthejews , All the variants since the beginning of the pandemic have caused 0 symptoms in about 50% of those who are infected. You’ve heard of asymptomatic cases right? That’s not new, so at least 50% of those who get it with no previous exposure should continue to be asymptomatic. If fewer than that are asymptomatic, that means that the virus has become more virulent, not less.
Also, if 95% of the population is protected against severe disease by their existing antibodies from vaccination or previous exposure, and Omicron is infecting everyone, we should expect 1/20th as many hospitalizations and deaths. If it’s only 1/10th the hospitalizations and deaths, then Omicron is 2 times more lethal.
This is some extremely sie math, so if you don’t understand, then your brain is clearly malfunctioning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dcottt95 , There are two antivirals, Regeneron and Paxlovid.
And they’re no fixed rate for Covid hospitalization. The cost is related to how many procedures that are required, how long the stay is, whether you’re in an ICU or not, and what drugs you require. I heard that the average cost was $50,000. Maybe it’s $39,000. Either way, It’s the average, and not a flat rate, and hospitals and big pharma make more money when more people require care. The vaccines reduce the number of people who require hospitalization.
Insurance companies want you vaccinated, because it reduces their costs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
peaceful journey, The Israel data will be available soon. That data will likely result in full FDA approval for the Pfizer vaccine within about a month. Israel has public healthcare provided by the government, so they know all about everyone who’s vaccinated, and everyone who’s not, and every single adverse reaction or hospital visit after vaccination. That data will put all this antivaxxer nonsense to rest. That is going to happen soon.
Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, and the others will come later, and we’ll see the same results with them. They all work, they’re all safe, and there are no long term side effect with any of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
peaceful journey, Well, if you actually understood how these vaccines work, you would understand exactly why it’s impossible for any new side effects to show up after a few months.
But it seems that you lack the capacity to understand how these vaccines work despite their simplicity.
These new vaccines are actually safer than any other vaccine in history because rather than involving many proteins, they involve only one. Because they do not contain any virus at all, there is absolutely no chance of some viral vector mutating so it can replicate. Also, because it’s not a deactivated virus, there’s no chance of a few viruses not being properly deactivated.
Your immune system will have to gain the capacity to manufacture very few highly targeted antibodies which have been proven to be the exact same antibodies produced by those who have been infected by the virus, so if there are any side effects caused by those antibodies, then those same side effects would also be caused by natural infection.
But I understand that you do not understand science, you this is all way over your head. It’s really too bad.
Good luck. Keep wearing your mask, because it is starting to look like we won’t reach herd immunity for a while because there are too many dummies out there who are afraid to get vaccinated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Meanieroo , You are wrong. The monoclonal antibodies were not fully FDA approved in November of 2020. They’re still only approved for emergency use.
Also, the monoclonal antibodies are only 70-80% effective if given early. Many won’t get them early, because by the time the symptoms become serious, it’s too late.
The vaccines are safe, and 70-95% effective depending on which vaccine, the number of doses, and how long ago you received them.
"Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy drops to 77%.
Meanwhile, Moderna’s vaccine was 93% effective at reducing the short-term risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and remained 92% effective after 120 days."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dripfreefpv9695 , In Brazil in 2020, before the vaccines were available, and before they knew that Ivermectin doesn’t work, yes. Today, in the United States, no. Smart people now know that Ivermectin doesn’t work for Covid, and that masks do. In 2020, before the vaccines were available, and before we figured out what works, and what doesn’t, intelligent people were more willing to try anything that might help because the were no other proven options.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stephen Arling,
Methods
A prospective cohort study was conducted at AIIMS Bhubaneswar, which provides both COVID and Non-COVID care since March 2020. All employees and students of the institute who provided written informed consent participated in the study.Uptake of two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg at a gap of 72 hours) was considered as exposure. The primary outcome of the study was COVID-19 infection in the following month of ivermectin consumption diagnosed by RTPCR as per Government of India testing criteria guidelines.The log-binomial model was used to estimate adjusted relative risk, and the Kaplan- Meier failure plot was used to estimate the probability of COVID-19 infection with follow-up time.
Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two-doses and single-dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection(6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two-doses of oral ivermectin have a signi cantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 disease during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.
Conclusion and relevance
Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis have relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-208785/v1/d6ff79a3-d354-4aba-a6b0-4bc123bbd225.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
justsayupyours, Anyone, including asymptomatic spreaders, of they are shedding the virus, will test positive on a PCR test. If they are shedding, it’s not possible to test negative unless the sample is bad, which is very unlikely.
The thing is, if they are asymptomatic, they are not likely to be tested. That’s why they won’t test positive. Can’t test positive if you’re not tested, right?
What Rab J is talking about is that someone who tests positive only after 40 cycles is shedding so little virus that they are not contagious. They might not even be shedding whole viruses, but only remnants. Rab J is claiming that this should not be counted as a “case”. He’s actually correct, because a “case” should only be counted if the person is actually sick. To be a “case”, you actually have to experience symptoms.
However, what Rab J is wrong about, because he’s confused, is that anyone who has tested positive has been infected. Asymptomatic spreaders, because they are asymptomatic are not a “case” but they have been infected.
This is why the infection fatality rate, and the case fatality rate are different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Collieco Form, Really? Don’t they use Ivermectin in India? Why are the deaths increasing right now if it “works so well”? What about Brazil? I have 4 friends in Brazil who got Covid already, 3 of them got Ivermectin, so I know for a fact from personal friends that they are using Ivermectin in Brazil. So if Ivermectin works so well, why is Brazil still experiencing deaths?
Open your eyes bro!!!
Either you are blind, your eyes are closed, or you’re a moron. Which is it? I’d like to know.
Sure, maybe Ivermectin helps. Who knows? But it’s definitely not sufficient. That’s 100% clear.
In Turkey there using Favipiravir. How do I know? Because a friend in Turkey has Covid right now and that’s what they gave her. It’s another old anti parasite drug that’s cheap and safe. But guess what? People are still dying in Turkey too. Why?
If the sh!T works, why are people still dying? You’d have to be an idiot to believe that we already have treatments that are sufficient.
If you’re smart, you’ll get vaccinated. That’s what the smart people are doing. If you’re more afraid of vaccines that have already been given to over 700 million people than a virus that causes permanent lung damage in 20% of those who are infected, then I hope you get it and are one of those 20% so you can smarten up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Happy Patriot, Also, part of the approval process is approving the manufacturing process, the factory, and the quality control. Because the government ordered and paid for 100 million doses in advance, they were able to build the factory, get it approved, and start manufacturing the vaccines before the phase 3 trials were completed. Normally they would never do that because there’s too much of a risk that the vaccines might not be effective. Normally they would have to prove that the vaccines are effective first, then find investors to fund the manufacturing facilities, then get the manufacturing process FDA approved. This is what usually takes 10 years.
It also takes a very long time to develop new technologies. The mRNA technologies involved in the mRNA vaccines took over 50 years, billions of dollars, and thousands of scientists to develop. Even after Malone’s tiny contribution, it still took 30 more years and billions of dollars more research to overcome the remaining obstacles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1