Coronavirus COVID-19

[Gil Dobie]

You do realize the vaccine is broken down and cleared naturally from your body in a few days or weeks. It creates the antibody and dissipates. Side effects are pretty much known and treatable, because of the number of people vaccinated, over 7 billion, has provided a great database for studies. It's still a decision, but I'll go with the known versus the extremely low percent unknown.

I posted a video that no one watched. It gave the chance per vaccine/covid possibilities. Best protection was vaccinated and had covid, next was had covid, as some infected people don't have antibodies, then you have vaccinated, and least protected as a group is unvaccinated.

How many of those billions in that great database fore studies are 11 year olds who got it 5 years ago or 16 year olds who got it 10 years ago? None. Are we absolutely, 100% sure that the vaccine creates antibodies and dissipates without any residual impact in young children?

I wasn't referring to children. I would bet it will be found that there are no long term effects from a covid vax in children. Its people choice to get the vax. They should do their own independent research.

Why would the vax not dissipate in all humans?

[GannonFan]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

[Gil Dobie]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

But, but the long term side effects?

[SeattleGriz]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

But, but the long term side effects?

We'll have to see on the one that is a "fake" nucleotide as some have worries of it incorporating into your somatic cells. The other one that is a CL3 protease inhibitor seems more straightforward.

[SeattleGriz]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

It should. I'm glad you are asking. For that matter, monoclonal antibodies should have been a discussion point, but they were rarely used.

[JohnStOnge]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

No because the treatments do not impede circulation of the virus. They reduce the rates of hospitalization and deaths among those who do become infected.

[kalm]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

It seems like it.

[SeattleGriz]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

No because the treatments do not impede circulation of the virus. They reduce the rates of hospitalization and deaths among those who do become infected.

The EUA's were only issued because there were no other treatments reducing deaths. These change that equation. Whether you believe Ivermectin works or not, that is why many think it was buried fast, because if it worked, there would be no need for EUA's on the vaccines. Ivermectin is a CL3 protease inhibitor just like the new drug...shocking.

[Gil Dobie]

No because the treatments do not impede circulation of the virus. They reduce the rates of hospitalization and deaths among those who do become infected.

The EUA's were only issued because there were no other treatments reducing deaths. These change that equation. Whether you believe Ivermectin works or not, that is why many think it was buried fast, because if it worked, there would be no need for EUA's on the vaccines. Ivermectin is a CL3 protease inhibitor just like the new drug...shocking.

Back in July of 2020, my Dr mentioned dexamethasone. It was given to Trump. He mentioned studies that revealed it increased a patients odds of survival by 30%. Houndy attacked me for mentioning the Trump drug in the past, but it can work.

To treat his Covid-19, President Trump has started receiving dexamethasone, a common steroid that has been shown to be helpful in people with severe cases of the disease but that doctors warn should not be used early in the course of the illness.

[GannonFan]

Again on the Pfizer pill (and the Merck pill before it). Doesn't this effectively end the pandemic, while also muting the need for vaccine mandates? If there's a pill that you can take after you've become infected, and that basically does the same job that the vaccine does, doesn't that mean we're there? Pills are easy to make and easy to transport and store, so no issue with sub-temp refrigerators in 3rd world countries. Seems like a win for humanity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... l-81199631

No because the treatments do not impede circulation of the virus. They reduce the rates of hospitalization and deaths among those who do become infected.

Well, nothing has really impeded the circulation of the virus other than shutting everything down (especially since it started right back up again after we opened things up), and since we're not going to do that again it looks like we're reaching what the endemic will look like.

[89Hen]

And it's back.

It’s official: The indoor mask mandate in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is automatically triggered by the county’s COVID-19 case rate, will return this weekend.

The county’s acting health officer, Dr. James Bridgers, notified the county council Tuesday that the county had marked seven days in a row of “substantial” transmission of the virus, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The county is giving residents and businesses four days’ notice to prepare for the change. That means the mask mandate for indoor public places goes back into effect Saturday at 12:01 a.m.

Quite ironically...

The announcement came the same day D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the District, which remains an area of substantial transmission, would end its indoor mask mandate Monday.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2021 ... -saturday/

[SeattleGriz]

OSHA mandate suspended.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/osh ... e/comments

In the wake of the Fifth Circuit stay that found it likely to be struck down as unconstitutional.

SOURCE: https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2

[GannonFan]

And it's back.

It’s official: The indoor mask mandate in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is automatically triggered by the county’s COVID-19 case rate, will return this weekend.

The county’s acting health officer, Dr. James Bridgers, notified the county council Tuesday that the county had marked seven days in a row of “substantial” transmission of the virus, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The county is giving residents and businesses four days’ notice to prepare for the change. That means the mask mandate for indoor public places goes back into effect Saturday at 12:01 a.m.

Quite ironically...

The announcement came the same day D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the District, which remains an area of substantial transmission, would end its indoor mask mandate Monday.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2021 ... -saturday/

If it's so important to get people masked back up to address the rising case rate, which is measured each day, why wait 4 days to implement the new rules?

[89Hen]

If it's so important to get people masked back up to address the rising case rate, which is measured each day, why wait 4 days to implement the new rules?

I assume to give time to give notice. Not like everyone isn't used to masking.

[JohnStOnge]

No because the treatments do not impede circulation of the virus. They reduce the rates of hospitalization and deaths among those who do become infected.

The EUA's were only issued because there were no other treatments reducing deaths. These change that equation. Whether you believe Ivermectin works or not, that is why many think it was buried fast, because if it worked, there would be no need for EUA's on the vaccines. Ivermectin is a CL3 protease inhibitor just like the new drug...shocking.

The "many think it was buried fast" people are engaging in irrational conspiracy theories. Ivermectin use was discouraged because it had not been shown to be safe and effective according to the established standards for doing that. It was not buried. If people generate sufficient evidence through legitimate clinical trials to conclude that it is safe and effective for COVID-19 treatment it will be approved. Nobody is attempting to impede efforts to generate such evidence. They approved the new Merck and Pfizer drugs even though Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are still under EUA.

Both of the new drugs are very different from Ivermectin. See https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scich ... vermectin/ for one discussion of the situation. You can do Google searches to find others.

The idea that the FDA would refuse to approve Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment due to some conspiracy related to allowing EUA for vaccines is ridiculous. And that kind of nonsense is coming from conservatives. It's one more indication that the conservative movement has gone bonkers. Nut job city.

[JohnStOnge]

I just looked up the language on FDA Emergency Use Authorizations at https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biol ... -explained. This is the key language:

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

I should have looked that up a long time ago because I now know that the whole thing about "the vaccines could not have been granted EUA if it said Ivermectin works" thing is nonsense. The function of a vaccine is to prevent the illness. Ivermectin is obviously not an alternative for doing that.

It's just amazing. Every time I take the time to look into one of these things it's the same thing. Nothing really there.

Somebody really needs to do something about what's going on with the conservative movement right now. It's just completely whacked out.

[JohnStOnge]

Now for why I came here tonight: As I was doing something else I thought about looking at State by State (along with DC) vaccination rate (percent fully vaccinated) as in indicator of public attitudes in that State. So I wondered what would happen if I ran a correlation between State by State vaccination rate and State by State cumulative death rate (deaths per million population indicated at the Worldometers site). It's easy to look at because you can copy and the death rate data from Worldometers and the vaccination rate data in from https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... er-states/ into an Excel worksheet.

The idea here isn't to assess the effect of vaccination. It's looking at the vaccine rate of a given State as an indication of how willing people in that State are to take steps to avoid infection.

So I ran the correlation and the result was n = 51, Pearson correlation coefficient = -0.384597468, p = 0.005. That means there is a highly significant negative correlation. 99.5% confidence. There is a highly significant correlation such that States that now have higher vaccination rates tend to have lower cumulative death rates.

Again: This includes all the deaths that occurred from the start even before vaccines were approved. So the idea is to look at current vaccination rates as an indicator of public attitude.

[JohnStOnge]

I just have to comment on this language from the FDA page at https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biol ... -explained again:

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

Ok. So let's say FDA would've said Ivermectin worked to reduce the hospitalization and death rates of COVID-19. Let's say they even would have had time to go through the full approval process and approve it as safe and effective for treatment of COVID-19.

Do you think that means they could not issue an EUA for a test to diagnose COVID-19 if there were no adequate, approved, lab tests for doing that? It's a different thing.

Same with vaccines. That language, interpreted reasonably, does not mean a EUA can't be issued for a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 because there is an approved treatment for COVID-19 after somebody gets the disease. Preventing disease and treating disease are two different things.

[JohnStOnge]

Oh...full disclosure: What I was doing when I thought about using vaccination rate as an indicator of public attitude was seeing if there is still a correlation between vaccination rate 19 days prior and daily case rate. There isn't. Coefficient is still negative. But at -0.006 it's essentially nothing.

[SeattleGriz]

The EUA's were only issued because there were no other treatments reducing deaths. These change that equation. Whether you believe Ivermectin works or not, that is why many think it was buried fast, because if it worked, there would be no need for EUA's on the vaccines. Ivermectin is a CL3 protease inhibitor just like the new drug...shocking.

The "many think it was buried fast" people are engaging in irrational conspiracy theories. Ivermectin use was discouraged because it had not been shown to be safe and effective according to the established standards for doing that. It was not buried. If people generate sufficient evidence through legitimate clinical trials to conclude that it is safe and effective for COVID-19 treatment it will be approved. Nobody is attempting to impede efforts to generate such evidence. They approved the new Merck and Pfizer drugs even though Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are still under EUA.

Both of the new drugs are very different from Ivermectin. See https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scich ... vermectin/ for one discussion of the situation. You can do Google searches to find others.

The idea that the FDA would refuse to approve Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment due to some conspiracy related to allowing EUA for vaccines is ridiculous. And that kind of nonsense is coming from conservatives. It's one more indication that the conservative movement has gone bonkers. Nut job city.

Dude. Please. Within the first 60 words of your article:

On Sept. 27, Pfizer said that it was launching a late-phase clinical trial to test whether, in combination with another drug, its oral COVID-19 antiviral can prevent infection with the coronavirus. Dubbed PF-07321332, the investigational medication is a protease inhibitor that blocks a key enzyme the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs to replicate itself

I said right in my post (which one can see above) this drug and Ivermectin were both protease inhibitors. CL3 Protease inhibitors no less.

This is serious. Stop wasting time trolling.

[SDHornet]

OSHA mandate suspended.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/osh ... e/comments

In the wake of the Fifth Circuit stay that found it likely to be struck down as unconstitutional.

SOURCE: https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2

[kalm]

The "many think it was buried fast" people are engaging in irrational conspiracy theories. Ivermectin use was discouraged because it had not been shown to be safe and effective according to the established standards for doing that. It was not buried. If people generate sufficient evidence through legitimate clinical trials to conclude that it is safe and effective for COVID-19 treatment it will be approved. Nobody is attempting to impede efforts to generate such evidence. They approved the new Merck and Pfizer drugs even though Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are still under EUA.

Both of the new drugs are very different from Ivermectin. See https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scich ... vermectin/ for one discussion of the situation. You can do Google searches to find others.

The idea that the FDA would refuse to approve Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment due to some conspiracy related to allowing EUA for vaccines is ridiculous. And that kind of nonsense is coming from conservatives. It's one more indication that the conservative movement has gone bonkers. Nut job city.

Dude. Please. Within the first 60 words of your article:

On Sept. 27, Pfizer said that it was launching a late-phase clinical trial to test whether, in combination with another drug, its oral COVID-19 antiviral can prevent infection with the coronavirus. Dubbed PF-07321332, the investigational medication is a protease inhibitor that blocks a key enzyme the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs to replicate itself

I said right in my post (which one can see above) this drug and Ivermectin were both protease inhibitors. CL3 Protease inhibitors no less.

This is serious. Stop wasting time trolling.

They should try treating AIDS with ivermectin.

[SeattleGriz]

Dude. Please. Within the first 60 words of your article:



I said right in my post (which one can see above) this drug and Ivermectin were both protease inhibitors. CL3 Protease inhibitors no less.

This is serious. Stop wasting time trolling.

They should try treating AIDS with ivermectin.

Fauci was in charge of AIDS too! Effin' Fauci!

[JohnStOnge]

The "many think it was buried fast" people are engaging in irrational conspiracy theories. Ivermectin use was discouraged because it had not been shown to be safe and effective according to the established standards for doing that. It was not buried. If people generate sufficient evidence through legitimate clinical trials to conclude that it is safe and effective for COVID-19 treatment it will be approved. Nobody is attempting to impede efforts to generate such evidence. They approved the new Merck and Pfizer drugs even though Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are still under EUA.

Both of the new drugs are very different from Ivermectin. See https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scich ... vermectin/ for one discussion of the situation. You can do Google searches to find others.

The idea that the FDA would refuse to approve Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment due to some conspiracy related to allowing EUA for vaccines is ridiculous. And that kind of nonsense is coming from conservatives. It's one more indication that the conservative movement has gone bonkers. Nut job city.

Dude. Please. Within the first 60 words of your article:

On Sept. 27, Pfizer said that it was launching a late-phase clinical trial to test whether, in combination with another drug, its oral COVID-19 antiviral can prevent infection with the coronavirus. Dubbed PF-07321332, the investigational medication is a protease inhibitor that blocks a key enzyme the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs to replicate itself

I said right in my post (which one can see above) this drug and Ivermectin were both protease inhibitors. CL3 Protease inhibitors no less.

This is serious. Stop wasting time trolling.

I should have provided some quotes in the article. There is discussion of the protease inhibitor angle later on. Here are some quotes from the article:

Some iterations of the claim incorrectly posit that Pfizer’s drug is “based on” ivermectin and that the two are essentially the same because both are protease inhibitors — something that has not been established, and even if true, doesn’t mean the drugs are similar, as we’ll explain.

The supposed connection, according to a computational modeling paper published by some Indian scientists in March, is that ivermectin might act as a protease inhibitor, among other potential mechanisms. This alleged connection is made explicit in social media posts with a graphic juxtaposing a Pfizer press release and the abstract of the Indian paper.That paper, however, does not show that ivermectin acts as a protease inhibitor against SARS-CoV-2 through any sort of biological experiment — it only proposes the possibility based on computer simulations.

The data so far do not support using ivermectin to treat COVID-19, although clinical trials are underway to find out for sure. But if the drug does work, it is likely not through protease inhibition or any other antiviral mechanism, as the dose needed to see antiviral effects in the test tube is much higher than the amount prescribed to people.

“Pfizer’s 3CL protease inhibitor is nothing like ivermectin,” Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, told us in an email.

Several mechanisms have been proposed for how ivermectin limits coronavirus replication in cells in the lab, but protease inhibition, as is claimed in social media posts, is not generally one of them.

More often, scientists — including the Australians who first published on the drug — cite the drug’s potential ability to prevent a host protein from importing viral proteins into the nucleus, or, more rarely, to interfere with SARS-CoV-2’s ability to use its spike protein to enter human cells.

“While one could debate the exact mechanism of ivermectin, the biggest difference is that pfizer’s protease inhibitor inhibits coronavirus at concentrations that are achievable in the human body,” said Boulware, who is an investigator on a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota evaluating ivermectin as an outpatient COVID-19 treatment. “In the initial lab experiments, ivermectin required 50-100x the achievable concentrations in humans.”

You can find more by doing a find on the word "protease" in the article.

[JohnStOnge]

I just have to comment on this language from the FDA page at https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biol ... -explained again:

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

Ok. So let's say FDA would've said Ivermectin worked to reduce the hospitalization and death rates of COVID-19. Let's say they even would have had time to go through the full approval process and approve it as safe and effective for treatment of COVID-19.

Do you think that means they could not issue an EUA for a test to diagnose COVID-19 if there were no adequate, approved, lab tests for doing that? It's a different thing.

Same with vaccines. That language, interpreted reasonably, does not mean a EUA can't be issued for a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 because there is an approved treatment for COVID-19 after somebody gets the disease. Preventing disease and treating disease are two different things.

I WILL say that I remembered after I posted that that people have proposed using Ivermectin as a prophylactic to prevent disease. But I still don't think that makes it an alternative to vaccines. The objective behind a vaccine is to confer immunity. Even if Ivermectin worked as a prophylactic, is not an alternative means of doing that.

Besides, the alternative also has to be approved. Suppose people would have been gung ho about Ivermectin and actually had sufficient evidence to say it's safe and effective. What you would've seen is EUA for Ivermectin. It still wouldn't be an approved alternative even if it were an alternative. This thing of saying people are downplaying Ivermectin just so they can have EUAs for the vaccines is just absurd. It really is.