Covid vaccine after having covid

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Montanan

What the Unvaccinated Are Telling a Public Health Care Outreach Worker in One of America’s Least Vaccinated States [Wyoming]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wh...?ocid=msedgntp

Are there any common misconceptions or conspiracy theories that you’re hearing?
I think the biggest for us is just the new technology. People don’t trust whenever they hear mRNA. People commonly think that those vaccines work by altering your own DNA. Obviously, that’s not true. So we’re just making sure that we try to explain that to people in the most simple way.

That they don't trust this new technology. I agree. I am following the science but don't like what I see. If the existing early treatments hadn't been suppressed, these new gene based vaccines would never have passed EUA.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

I am following the science but don't like what I see.

Well it seems you like it enough to talk about it nonstop. Of course what you are willing to see are only the antivax-friendly nuggets that you or others have lifted out of context.

If the existing early treatments hadn't been suppressed, these new gene based vaccines would never have passed EUA.

There is no sure-fire treatment that reduces the risks from having COVID to anywhere near that of the vaccines. Even if there was, it's still easier, more economical and safer to vaccinate, than to have to find, diagnose, then treat every single person who gets seriously sick with COVID. Even you must see that.

The new mRNA vaccine approach is faster to develop, and safer than most conventional dead-bug vaccines. It's a brilliant new approach, and it will eventually be the dominant viral vaccination technology. A lot of antivaxxers will be saved by it, even if they don't get it (in both senses).

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

.....
The new mRNA vaccine approach is faster to develop, and (could eventually be made) safer than most conventional dead-bug vaccines. It's a brilliant new approach, and it will eventually be the dominant viral vaccination technology. .......

This is correct. I agree. They staged a pandemic to make sure of it. It will change medicine as we know it. No going back now...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

This is correct. I agree. They staged a pandemic to make sure of it. It will change medicine as we know it. No going back now...

"They staged a pandemic...."

[Sand crab]

Who’s they?

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"They staged a pandemic...."

It appears so.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

There are some late stage studies and studies using excessive dosage that show negative results. All early treatment studies showed positive results. There are very successful oral multidrug treatment protocols being utilized with excellent results. Look up Dr. Peter McCullough. There are 261 studies linked here with included meta analyses:https://hcqmeta.com/#fig_fpearly
Here are additional links to a few of the studies:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/
https://link.springer.com/content/pd...20-00432-w.pdf
https://www.journalajmah.com/index.p...ew/30224/56706
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...093v1.full.pdf
https://icjournal.org/Synapse/Data/P.../ic-52-396.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/biomedgeron.../3/e19/5879759
https://link.springer.com/content/pd...020-1782-1.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...24857920300996
https://watermark.silverchair.com/mj...xyvv7HD6sfpHN2
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tment_outcomes
All HCQ studies can be accessed with the first link.
Even on PubMed there are mostly positive studies and articles linked. It might be time to think about changing your views on the subject.

So this is a perfect example of how science actually works. Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19 continues to be studied, as it should. Different studies based on different design parameters (and differing biases) are producing a range of results. I hope you recognize I could easily fill the page with studies showing benign to negative results.

At this point the expert analysis from most established and credible sources (CDC, Health Canada, WHO, etc.) remain of the opinion that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment. But if the tide of research changes, so will they. And so will I.

Where you see conspiracy and secret cabals of "powers that be", I see the normal process of science playing out as it should.

This is the problem with people who believe they are as skilled as the established experts in a field. Expertise matters. I'll say it again; experts don't always get it right. But they are more often right than lay people who believe they know more.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

This is correct. I agree. They staged a pandemic to make sure of it. It will change medicine as we know it. No going back now...

Surely you see that this puts you in the category of flat earthers, staged moon-landing believers, or 9/11 false flaggers.

[Thumbs Up]

Two takes on the same story proving that Yahoo News is in the pocket of Big Pharma:
Indian Bar Association sues WHO scientist over Ivermectin
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opin...cbb3b4dfa.html

Specific charges included the running of a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin and issuing statements in social and mainstream media to wrongfully influence the public against the use of Ivermectin despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data showing its profound effectiveness in both prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Indian Bar Association VS WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan: Does Ivermectin Help Covid Patients? https://in.news.yahoo.com/indian-bar...091221375.html
Notice that Yahoo news makes a point to include

:In March 2021, a larger randomised clinical trial was published, which revealed that Ivermectin had no effect on the duration of symptoms in people with mild Covid-19.

and included a link to a highly criticized, big pharma supported study which only showed moderate improvement. And then even claiming that the quoted study showed that Ivermectin had no effect on the duration of symptoms. There is an open letter, signed by >100 physicians, concluding this study is fatally flawed:

Contrary to the authors’ stated conclusion, the findings suggest lower rates of disease progression, hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality with ivermectin, which might have been confirmed to be statistically significant with a larger sample and more rigorous study design.

https://jamaletter.com/
Here is the full text of the letter:

Open Letter by U.S. Doctors: JAMA Ivermectin Study Is Fatally Flawed


We the undersigned physicians present this letter to call attention to multiple, integral flaws in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s recently published paper “Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19”[1]. Above all, the data reported do not support the authors’ conclusion that ivermectin is ineffective as a treatment for mild COVID-19.

The study’s flaws span subject population, design, execution and controls. The small sample size (n = 400) had a median age of 37 and a BMI of 26, making them extremely low risk for COVID-19 hard endpoints. Faced with this low-relevance study group, the study authors improperly changed primary endpoint midway, moving the main endpoint to full symptom resolution by day 21. This self-reported subjective endpoint, obtained through telephone survey, is not credible for avoiding nondifferential nullward bias of the results.

We note other major errors in study conduct. The authors incorrectly administered ivermectin on an empty stomach, reducing drug bioavailability in lung tissue, the critical drug target, by a factor of roughly 2.5. Additionally, ivermectin is readily available over-the-counter in Colombia, where sales have been ubiquitous (1.6 doses per COVID-19 case) in Cali during the study period.[2] Lack of serum testing in the study prevented identification of subjects who may have used the drug at intervals longer than the study lookback.

Contrary to the authors’ stated conclusion, the findings suggest lower rates of disease progression, hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality with ivermectin, which might have been confirmed to be statistically significant with a larger sample and more rigorous study design.

Indeed, notwithstanding these limitations, the available data indicate a 9% faster daily symptom resolution, which when generalized to large populations would have a meaningful impact.[3]

The severe weaknesses of this study make it uninformative about whether ivermectin is beneficial in early COVID-19 treatment. Yet, the authors misleadingly conclude that their findings “do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19”, as if they had enough quality data to make that case, which they do not.

Physicians have a solemn duty to care for patients, and randomized controlled trials can provide valuable information. But, as is the case here, they can also be flawed and must therefore always be weighed within the totality of evidence in order to provide the most appropriate patient care.

Over the past year, many government agencies, academic journals, the broader media, and medical associations have departed from historic norms and elevated the status of randomized controlled trials. Such trials are seemingly presented as the only valid basis for making clinical recommendations about COVID-19 treatment, no matter how flawed. This trend has severely hindered the ability of physicians to use clinical experience and observational trials to offer their patients guidance on early treatment for this still not well-understood infection.

We oppose this fixation on randomized controlled trials at the expense of other clinical and scientific evidence and urge medical policymakers to restore balance to the practice of medicine.

Physicians must be free to use all appropriate methodologies in determining the best approach to COVID-19, and to other conditions underlying health disparities throughout our country.

All of the clinical data concerning Ivermectin is linked and analyzed here:https://ivmmeta.com/
Some comments on the flawed JAMA study:

Phone survey based RCT with low risk patients, 200 ivermectin and 198 control, showing lower mortality, lower disease progression, lower treatment escalation, and faster resolution of symptoms with treatment, without reaching statistical significance. Authors find the results of this trial alone do not support the use of ivermectin. However the effects are all positive, especially for serious outcomes which are unable to reach statistical significance with the very small number of events in the low risk population.
With the low risk patient population, there is little room for improvement with an effective treatment - 59/57% (IVM/control) recovered within the first 2 days to either "no symptoms" or "not hospitalized and no limitation of activities"; 73/69% within 5 days. Less than 3% of all patients ever deteriorated.
The primary outcome was changed mid-trial, it was originally clinical deterioration, which is more meaningful, and shows greater benefit. The new outcome of resolution of symptoms includes "not hospitalized and no limitation of activities" as a negative outcome and is not very meaningful in terms of assessing how much treatment reduces serious outcomes. Using this measure could completely invalidate results - for example a treatment that eliminates all COVID-19 symptoms but has a temporary minor adverse event could be seen as worse.
Authors state that "preliminary reports of other randomized trials of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 with positive results have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals", however there were actually 8 peer-reviewed RCTs with positive effects published prior to this paper (and 19 total peer-reviewed studies with positive effects).
Authors advised taking ivermectin on an empty stomach, reducing lung tissue concentration by ~2.5x [2].
76 patients were excluded due to control patients receiving ivermectin. However, there was a similar percentage of adverse events like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain in both treatment and control groups. These are potential non-serious side effects of treatment and suggest that it is possible that many more control patients received some kind of treatment.

Ivermectin was widely used in the population and available OTC at the time of the study. The study protocol only excluded patients with previous ivermectin use within 5 days, however other trials often monitor effects 10+ days after the last dose [3].
This study reportedly has an ethical issue whereby participants were told the study drug was "D11AX22" [4]. The editor-in-chief of JAMA initially offered to help with this issue, but later indicated that "JAMA does not review consent forms", however the lead author reportedly confirmed the issue. Therefore this paper may be retracted (JAMA has not indicated their response yet) [5, 6, 7].
The study protocol specifically allows "the use of other treatments outside of clinical trials". The paper provides no information on what other treatments were used, but other treatments were commonly used at the time, for example [8]. Additionally, the control group did about 5x better than anticipated for deterioration, also suggesting that the control patients used some kind of treatment. Patients which enroll in such a study may be more likely to learn about and use other treatments, especially since they do not know if they are receiving the study medication.
Most data was collected via surveys, without physical examination.
The trial protocol lists “the duration of supplemental oxygen” as an outcome but the results for this outcome are missing.
The study protocol was amended 4 times. Amendments 2-4 are provided but amendment 1 is missing. Amendment 2 increased the inclusion criteria to within 7 days of onset, including more later stage patients and reducing the expected effectiveness.
Grants and/or personal fees, including in some cases during the conduct of the study, were provided by Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, and Gilead.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Surely you see that this puts you in the category of flat earthers, staged moon-landing believers, or 9/11 false flaggers.

I don't believe in a flat earth although we could possibly have a hollow planet. Moon landing? I have no idea so no comment. However 9/11, I believe was most definitely a false flag. It is very hard to deny that it was not some sort of a controlled demolition. In March 2020 I stated here on one of the threads that covid probably escaped from a lab. I posted the GOF research studies and showed the funding source. You guys lambasted me for it. Now over a year later that same conversation has entered the main stream. What say you now?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

I don't believe in a flat earth although we could possibly have a hollow planet. Moon landing? I have no idea so no comment. However 9/11, I believe was most definitely a false flag. It is very hard to deny that it was not some sort of a controlled demolition. In March 2020 I stated here on one of the threads that covid probably escaped from a lab. I posted the GOF research studies and showed the funding source. You guys lambasted me for it. Now over a year later that same conversation has entered the main stream. What say you now?

Ok, good to know. No point carrying on our discussion. If we can't have a shared reality, there really is nothing to be said.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

What say you now?

A stopped clock is right twice a day?

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Surely you see that this puts you in the category of flat earthers, staged moon-landing believers, or 9/11 false flaggers.

We are asked to use common sense and accept the science. In *the wild* virus mutate/adapt to survive and reproduce. The virus created in the US and later relocated to China was genetically identical to the virus that developed *in the wild* ¿¿ a mathematical miracle to say the least...

Over the last two decades this pandemic was promised and falsy himself gave us a time-line a year ahead of it...interesting at least

I never said the earth was flat...but I find it interesting there are several flight paths for commercial airlines that make absolutely no sense distance wise on the globe, but make perfect sense laid over a map of *flat earth*. I would love to know the piece of the puzzle that explains that.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

We are asked to use common sense and accept the science.

NO. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process of science is or does. Science fundamentally DOES NOT rely on so-called "common sense."

The process of science is necessary to combat against this highly flawed method of discerning reality. Understanding this fact is the first step in truly understanding what science does and how it works.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

NO. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process of science is or does. Science fundamentally DOES NOT rely on so-called "common sense."

The process of science is necessary to combat against this highly flawed method of discerning reality. Understanding this fact is the first step in truly understanding what science does and how it works.

Exactly, but,

We are (being) asked to use common sense and accept the science

Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen. --Einstein