🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Preventing the spread of Fake News and Misinformation

That does not sound like much evidence. You herd some interviewer, interviewing some doctor who explained how it works. And you heard interviews with some doctors on the radio who claimed they used it successful. So based on this evidence we are to assume it is 85% effective at preventing covid and abandon vaccines which have been proven in clinical trials with over 40,000 subjects, approved by FDA, and shown effective by the very the low percentage of vaccinated covid patients in the hospitals. :cuckoo:

Those "clinical trials" are only looking for immediate and drastic effects.
There has never been any vaccines like this ever before.
And clearly the CDC does not understand anything about them.
The CDC site on mRNA vaccines is so incredibly stupid and wrong, that it is a national embarrassment.

Here is what the CDC claims:

{...
mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies.

A Closer Look at How COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Work​

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines give instructions for our cells to make a harmless piece of what is called the “spike protein.” The spike protein is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19.

  1. First, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them.
  2. Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19.
  3. At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection. The benefit of mRNA vaccines, like all vaccines, is those vaccinated gain this protection without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19.
...}

That is just ridiculous.
There is no way an intramuscular injection can possibly get mRNA into cells, and if it could, it would be far too dangerous for anyone to take.
And if you did get mRNA into our own cells, then those cells would be attacked and destroyed by our own immune system, which would be highly dangerous, depending on which cells got contaminated.
Nor would there be any way of regulating dosage, since our cells would all react differently to an mRNA injection.
Some people would not produce any spike proteins, while other would produce so many that the immune response would be fatal.

I have read how mRNA REALLY works, and it is nothing at all like this.
The mRNA is injected into large stem cells in a factory, where insertion into cells is easily done with micro syringes, under a microscope.
Then spike proteins are later harvest for the vaccines.
That is ALL the vaccines contain, just spike proteins, nothing else.

Clearly the CDC is incompetent and just flag waving for big pharma.
There is no intellectual integrity at all.
There was no real valid testing done.
While these vaccines seem to be saving lives, we have no idea at all what the possible side effect are going to be.
 
"Out there" is that there are no serious studies supporting your claim.

You claimed 85% effectiveness, I KNOW that's bullshit because that would be a huge development in Covid treatment and front page medical news.

So, I'm asking you where you got that number from...is it your ass and you are too embarrassed to admit?


Nope, but you're going to do what you're told so FOAD.

.
 
There's a very low percentage of previously infected people in hospitals as well, but you commies ignore natural immunity and demand everyone get vaccinated, that's as anti-science as you can get. So assume what you will, believe what you will, I'm tired of calling out the commie lies on the subject.

.

AP News say, "Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been"
NBC News says, "Unvaccinated people over 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid"
NPR says, More than 97% of people entering hospitals right now are unvaccinated.
Public Health Insider reports "And, people who are not fully vaccinated are getting seriously ill and dying at much higher rates than the vaccinated population."


 
"Out there" is that there are no serious studies supporting your claim.

You claimed 85% effectiveness, I KNOW that's bullshit because that would be a huge development in Covid treatment and front page medical news.

So, I'm asking you where you got that number from...is it your ass and you are too embarrassed to admit?

Wrong.
I just listed only 3, but I hit over 50 sites all claiming huge success for just Ivermectin alone, not even including all the others, like Fluvoxamine, Remdesivir, quinine, zinc, monoclonal antibodies, etc.
Each one of which has over 50 sites claiming success.
So you have to be deliberately not looking.
 
AP News say, "Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been"
NBC News says, "Unvaccinated people over 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid"
NPR says, More than 97% of people entering hospitals right now are unvaccinated.
Public Health Insider reports "And, people who are not fully vaccinated are getting seriously ill and dying at much higher rates than the vaccinated population."





So what are the stats on people with natural immunity gained from previous infection?

.
 

{...
{
US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health
Search database
...

Conclusions:​

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
...}

{...

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory, MD,1,* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5
...

Conclusions:​

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
...}

{...

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness​

...}

And that is just a quick search on Ivermectin.
I have posted many more on Ivermectin, such as from Israel and India, as well as dozens more on other treatment that are proven successful.
In fact, it should be obvious that no one should be dying. Covid-19 is not killing anyone, and only the autoimmune response is.
There is absolutely no credible evidence that might suggest that ivermectin is more effective than the current COVID-19 vaccines. There is evidence that after infection the drug has been successfully in reducing infection.
Stopping an illness from happening makes much more sense than to have to deal with the awful problems that can result.
 
AP News say, "Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been"
NBC News says, "Unvaccinated people over 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid"
NPR says, More than 97% of people entering hospitals right now are unvaccinated.
Public Health Insider reports "And, people who are not fully vaccinated are getting seriously ill and dying at much higher rates than the vaccinated population."




You are missing the point.
No one is saying vaccines are bad.
The POINT is we should not have waited for these vaccines, and these vaccines likely are unnecessary risks.
We should have ended the covid epidemic in the first month, either by starving it with a full quarantine, or by burning it out with variolation to quickly achieve herd immunity.

Flattening the curve so we could wait around for vaccines a year and a half later was insanely irresponsible, and taking synthetic spike proteins with unknown side effests, is incredibly bad. We killed half a million unnecessarily, and we may well have killed hundreds of millions more that we just do not know about yet.
 
We've all seen it on USMB and elsewhere, fake news and misinformation on just about every major topic of public interest, global warming, elections, covid-19, foreign policy, domestic policy, legislation, crime, etc..... When we see posts that are filled with false information that is contrary to, trusted news services, science, trusted leaders, and often just plain common sense, we feel obliged to prove the poster is wrong. Generally speaking this not the best way to stop the spread of misinformation. It actually increases it. It is exactly what the poster wants, an invitation to provide more misinformation in support of his augment. When we play this game with the poster we become part of the problem, not the solution.

Fake news is bad for democracy — and in a pandemic, it may be a matter of life or death.

Best post in the past two weeks. Thanks man, DrLove is taking a break from the stoopid.
Seriously, it's fun for awhile and then it's just boring and unfulfilling.
Catch y'all maybe around the 20th or so.
 
There is no law against lying per se. However when that lie cause damage then it is a violation law, if you can prove it. And there lies the problem. Proving that millions people died because of a lie would be very difficult.

News reporting (not news commentary) should not be filtered to support an agenda nor should it contain contain opinions, nor interpretations, nor discussions. The problem is getting news outlets to do this. What they are doing now is profitable If government doesn't step in, then who will?
It will have to be the government because there has to be consequences.

{...
{
US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health
Search database
...

Conclusions:​

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
...}

{...

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

Pierre Kory, MD,1,* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5
...

Conclusions:​

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
...}

{...

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness​

...}

And that is just a quick search on Ivermectin.
I have posted many more on Ivermectin, such as from Israel and India, as well as dozens more on other treatment that are proven successful.
In fact, it should be obvious that no one should be dying. Covid-19 is not killing anyone, and only the autoimmune response is.
You people are clowns
"We, the authors of “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (op-ed, July 29), have egg on our faces. Relying on a summary of studies published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, we quoted the results from a study of 200 healthcare workers. After our article was published, we learned that this study, by Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University in Egypt, has recently been retracted due to serious charges of data manipulation." Opinion | Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction
 

You fool.

.
Hey fool, where did you get 85% from for HCQ/Zinc/Ivermectin cocktail?

On Ivermectin from your link:

Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls.

You know what 31% is? A poor treatment option.
 
Last edited:

You fool.

.

https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fimageserve%2F613138b7ab7421dff59c774b%2FFunny-portrait-of-a-laughing-horse--Camargue-horse-yawning-%2F960x0.jpg%3FcropX1%3D0%26cropX2%3D2734%26cropY1%3D24%26cropY2%3D1562
 
It will have to be the government because there has to be consequences.

You people are clowns
"We, the authors of “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (op-ed, July 29), have egg on our faces. Relying on a summary of studies published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, we quoted the results from a study of 200 healthcare workers. After our article was published, we learned that this study, by Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University in Egypt, has recently been retracted due to serious charges of data manipulation." Opinion | Writers Missed Ivermectin Study Retraction

So?
None of the links provided were based on the withdrawn University of Egypt publication.
That has nothing to do with the drug or other tests or publications,
 
And that’s what most do.

The problem is that the political climate has become so partisan and toxic that when the press do relate an accurate, factual accounting of an event, those who perceive that accurate, factual accounting as somehow detrimental to their political agenda accuse the press of reporting ‘fake news.’

Is this accurate?

washingtonexaminer.com: CNN analyst: You don’t have a constitutional right to interstate travel (you do).
 
Hey fool, where did you get 85% from for HCQ/Zinc/Ivermectin cocktail?

On Ivermectin from your link:

Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls.

You know what 31% is? A poor treatment option.

No, a 31% reduction in severity means survival instead of death.
 
Last edited:
Cool story bro - did you find 85% effectiveness of Ivermectin/HCQ/Zinc cocktail?

That is stupid.
Those 3 drugs have nothing at all to do with each other.

{...
Dr. Mike Hansen breaks down the findings of a recent study into the effectiveness of supplements in protecting against the virus.
...
When it comes to COVID, he explains that there is precedent to suggest zinc may inhibit the enzyme that allows the virus to replicate its RNA , and that vitamin C may decrease susceptibility to respiratory infections. However, he adds that the most recent study was only carried out with patients experiencing mild to moderate illness, not people who had been hospitalized due to their symptoms, and so the effectiveness of these in cases of serious illness is not yet known.

"Currently, there are studies being done in China and the United States that are looking at the potential role of intravenous vitamin C in reducing the need for requiring a ventilator in COVID-19 patients," he says. "Also, vitamin C, zinc and vitamin D are being looked at for the prevention of COVID."

Additionally, Hansen states that the supplement doses used in the study can also cause a range of side effects.

"If zinc is taken in high doses, especially more than 40 mg per day, it's been shown to cause dry mouth, nausea, loss of appetite, diarrhea, and long-term users can develop low levels of copper, decreased immunity, and lower levels of the good cholesterol HDL," he says. "Taking over 2000 mg of vitamin C a day can cause heartburn, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and headaches."

The ideal daily dose, he adds, is 90 mg for men and 75 mg for women.
...}
 

Forum List

Back
Top