Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasts

1…3233353738…66

Comments

  • #1022
    Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird
    Posts: 0 ✭ Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird


    Bambi wrote: »
    lol have a look at what happened to peer review in places like Romania during the soviet era. Peers suddenly become very bashful when there's consequences to querying anything that backs government policy.

    It's all contingent on free speech

    Think about what you are suggesting for a moment. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Because it broke down on occasion, I don't think we should be throwing out the best method we have for determining the truth through scholarly review. What's the alternative? Find the most convincing YouTube video?


  • #1023
    Elliott Old Hawk
    Posts: 0 ✭ Elliott Old Hawk


    The most bizarre aspect of this one is there's active ongoing research into it. The scientific community is taking the possibility seriously.... So the same people get annoyed by vaccines that are proven to work and frequently object to them? But unproven treatments are all safe to use? They're used for other things but they come with side effects and plenty of potential risks. Versus using things that we've successfully used to treat covid. You'd have to be out of mind to be using it as a preventative since we have proven vaccines..


  • #1024
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird wrote: »
    Think about what you are suggesting for a moment. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Because it broke down on occasion, I don't think we should be throwing out the best method we have for determining the truth through scholarly review. What's the alternative? Find the most convincing YouTube video?

    Credibility buddy, once you don't trust the motives of your experts you don't trust their decisions.

    Like I said, I suspect that this will all come out in the wash in a few years time.


  • #1025
    Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird
    Posts: 0 ✭ Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The almost reflexive resistance to Ivermectin is bizarre. I have been following this story and others connected to it for a long time. For example the way the lab leak hypothesis resulted in censorship for so long. The tsunami of adverse reactions to all vaccines, including significant deaths, being steadfastly ignored by the media. The evidence from Japan for example for accumulation of lipid particles in body's organs. Right back to early doctors who said this is the inflammatory response causing maasive damage not a respiratory thing. And them being considered fringe theorists

    There have been doctors on the ground reporting brilliant successes who have been broadly ignored eg Sr Shankara Chetty in South Africa who has successfully treated 1000s with early use of steroids, inhalers and other pŕotocols which you can find online.

    There have been immunologists who up until speaking out re covid where highly respected in their fields. For example Geert Van Den Bossche who says that the basic and well known immunological axiom that one does not mass vaccinate during the heat of a pandemic as it always drives variants due to immune pressure on the virus still holds true in this case. It is similiar to serial passaging of viruses done in a lab but now being done in whole populations. And even more so because non sterilising vaccines are being use on a mass demographic.

    People like Dr Pierre Kory helped to develop early respected widely adopted treatment protocols re covid. Kory spoke before the US Senate and his official on the record testimony to government was censored by Youtube - just think about that.

    People like Kory were highly respected people entrusted with senior positions of medical responsibility right up until they piped up about the remarkable efficiency of repurposed drugs when it came to covid. People like emeritus professor of immunology at the University of Newcastle, Robery Clancy, who says it is crystal clear that Ivermectin is useful and should be adopted.
    These are drugs off patent. Drugs with decades of good safety protocols. Drugs that won Nobel prizes and revolutionised life in developing countrues. Repurposing drugs is gold standard response when facing a novel health situation.
    Countries like Mexico, India, South Africa have used Ivermectin with stunning results. There have been many small research studies done and several meta analyses which point towards good results. Even if the results were moderate - which they are not - Ivermectin should be used as an adjunct tool to drive towards success re covid.

    But drugs like ivermectin would challenge the emergency use authorisation of vaccines that remain in stage 3 testing until the end of 2022 and early 2023. They challenge the emergency use of novel drug treatments like the one Merck is bringing forward, which perhaps unsurprisingly has molecular similarities to their old off patent product which would not earn them a bob.

    Weinstein has been addressing issues aloud that many of us lay people have been quietly wondering about for a long time. I do not agree with him on everything but he is standing up to the present hegemony, a hegemony which is not the basis for good science Doing that, which is normal, has incurred censorship. It is all very odd.

    I appreciated Joe giving them a platform to speak. Other interviews with Kory are available on the FLCCC Alliance website.

    I have a reflexive resistance after doing some brief research around it. I just don't get why a more acceptable study isn't done on the drug. Everything I can find online about the drug is saying that all the studies Kory is referring to aren't up to standard, and standards shouldn't be dropped. Kory claims its unethical to do a double blind study. I find that bizarre.The general consensus is that this is unproven. I'd be all for an unpatented miracle drug. Just do the trials and prove it. Vaccines went through rigorous trials and there's hesistency about them yet this drug should be fast tracked. I don't get it. Also I don't buy this overarching theory that it's all about money and this is being squashed by big pharma or whoever.


  • #1026
    Elliott Old Hawk
    Posts: 0 ✭ Elliott Old Hawk


    Bambi wrote: »
    Credibility buddy, once you don't trust the motives of your experts you don't trust their decisions.

    Like I said, I suspect that this will all come out in the wash in a few years time.

    So far though, those not trusting amount to some conspiracy theorists. I haven't seen credible proof of some coverup of treatments or preventatives. The fact a doctor or biologists claims it doesn't make it more credible. Like Andrew Wakefield was once credible.. He did get published in peer review but people evaluated his research and caught him out. Meanwhile the people cited here are resorting to claiming stuff on podcasts. They're not confident enough to publish research proving their claims or highlighting what's wrong with existing research.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird
    Posts: 0 ✭ Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird


    Bambi wrote: »
    Credibility buddy, once you don't trust the motives of your experts you don't trust their decisions.

    Like I said, I suspect that this will all come out in the wash in a few years time.

    Fair enough. I think this is a crazy position to take personally. It's the same reason my oldest friend is a holocaust denier amongst many other crazy opinions.

    Do you still go to the dentist when you need to? Or go to the GP when you are sick? Or are they all liars too? If you are consistent across them, fair enough.

    Have you ever written a dissertation yourself and experienced peer review?


  • #1028
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    they were using Ivermectin in India quite widely and it didn't seem to help them too much or at least prevent them from the disastrous waves that they had there recently.

    there are actual supervised trials going on for it now - maybe they could have happened earlier - possibly. but they are ongoing now.

    dexamethasone is a very cheap steroid that was found to help reduce Covid after trials and now it's widely used since last year - so it's not as if a drug won't be widely used against Covid to save lives because it's cheap and "Big Pharma" won't cash in as a result....

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53612397#:~:text=Cheap%20steroids%20can%20save%20the,Covid%20patients%20in%20intensive%20care.
    Coronavirus: Cheap steroids save lives from severe Covid

    Well over a billion people on the planet have been vaccinated and the side effects have been very very few.

    Would be great to get some cheap drugs for prophylaxis and/or treatment for Covid but vaccines are the actual way out to get back to a normal life right now.


  • #1029
    JuanBerrosa
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭JuanBerrosa


    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    if Wikipedia is your goto place to check references, then you might just skip this podcast altogether
    Indeed Joe Rogan is a far right nutcase according to wikipedia ...


  • #1030
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Lawrence Chilly Mockingbird wrote: »
    Vaccines went through rigorous trials and there's hesistency about them yet this drug should be fast tracked. I don't get it.


    Vaccines are being used under emergency use authorisations precisely because their trials are incomplete. Incomplete can never equal rigorous.
    These are facts.

    I am not going to back and forth on this issue. Have already had bans for voicing my views. Just wanted to make a record of my position for posterity and to be able to reference it in the future when things become more clear. Especially wanted to chime in in the context of the Rogan podcast which is more accessible to many than other mediums which can be more boring.

    *Unfollows.


  • #1031
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    Elliott Old Hawk wrote: »
    The most bizarre aspect of this one is there's active ongoing research into it. The scientific community is taking the possibility seriously.... So the same people get annoyed by vaccines that are proven to work and frequently object to them? But unproven treatments are all safe to use? They're used for other things but they come with side effects and plenty of potential risks. Versus using things that we've successfully used to treat covid. You'd have to be out of mind to be using it as a preventative since we have proven vaccines..

    To be fair, the line thrown out at the start of this pandemic by leading immunologists was that it would take at least 5 years to develop and trial a vaccine that could be safely distributed to the population. It wasn’t far off 5 months when they started to roll them out. I say this as someone who was offered the chance to take up a spare vaccine by my local GP and grabbed it with both hands.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    Elliott Old Hawk
    Posts: 0 ✭ Elliott Old Hawk


    Will I Am Not wrote: »
    To be fair, the line thrown out at the start of this pandemic by leading immunologists was that it would take at least 5 years to develop and trial a vaccine that could be safely distributed to the population. It wasn’t far off 5 months when they started to roll them out. I say this as someone who was offered the chance to take up a spare vaccine by my local GP and grabbed it with both hands.
    They optimized processes which is thing. Existing stuff went into parallel mode. Meanwhile people are arguing for the use of an entirely unproven drug.


  • #1033
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Will I Am Not wrote: »
    To be fair, the line thrown out at the start of this pandemic by leading immunologists was that it would take at least 5 years to develop and trial a vaccine that could be safely distributed to the population. It wasn’t far off 5 months when they started to roll them out. I say this as someone who was offered the chance to take up a spare vaccine by my local GP and grabbed it with both hands.

    they did the SAME stages of trials in parallel to save time and used larger numbers of people to get meaningful results earlier but the same stages of trials that "normal time" vaccines go through

    the biggest change was the unprecedented manpower and effort put into this along with use of new technologies like MRNA and other technologies for developing vaccines in recent situations like Ebola

    for example there were several vaccines developed within a few weeks of the virus isolation and analysis information being released.

    that was unprecedented.

    it's just weird that people are advocating refusing vaccines that obviously work and create mass immunity and a way back to normal with negligible side effects vs something that May help in some way but is going to nowhere near do what vaccines do

    Lots of wannabe Andrew Wakefield types out there....


  • #1034
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    I’m far from anti-vax and my posting history here will tell you I enjoy mocking conspiracy theorists but would I be surprised if corners were cut in getting these vaccines out? Not at all. It was a multi-billion dollar race and once the winner crossed the line, the rest followed immediately after. It’s healthy to be concerned when such vast sums are involved, and that goes for everything.


  • #1035
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Will I Am Not wrote: »
    I’m far from anti-vax and my posting history here will tell you I enjoy mocking conspiracy theorists but would I be surprised if corners were cut in getting these vaccines out? Not at all. It was a multi-billion dollar race and once the winner crossed the line, the rest followed immediately after. It’s healthy to be concerned when such vast sums are involved, and that goes for everything.

    Vaccines that have had issues in trials like the significant Sanofi one that was a great hope for use in the EU for example have been delayed as you would expect until if and when then are resolved.

    if corners were cut wouldn't it be expected that they would be cut there as it went through the same process as the other ones?

    AstraZ sold for 2 dollars a shot to the EU - hardly big money there is there - they are supplying it at cost

    yes the Pfizer etc are more costly but why would AstraZ do it if they are not going to cash in?

    the proof is in the billions vaccinated that they are no mass or even many/any death stories that the conspiracy theorists can latch onto - 'cos the proof isn't there.


  • #1036
    Elliott Old Hawk
    Posts: 0 ✭ Elliott Old Hawk


    Also they've made all their trial data publicly available.


  • #1037
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    Elliott Old Hawk wrote: »
    The most bizarre aspect of this one is there's active ongoing research into it. The scientific community is taking the possibility seriously.... So the same people get annoyed by vaccines that are proven to work and frequently object to them? But unproven treatments are all safe to use? They're used for other things but they come with side effects and plenty of potential risks. Versus using things that we've successfully used to treat covid. You'd have to be out of mind to be using it as a preventative since we have proven vaccines..


    Invermectin has been used for 40 years, it has very mild side effects like nausea in some cases. The Covid vaccines are a new drug and can cause blood cots.
    You can see why people are skeptical with the vaccine


  • #1038
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    glasso wrote: »
    Vaccines that have had issues in trials like the significant Sanofi one that was a great hope for use in the EU for example have been delayed as you would expect until if and when then are resolved.

    if corners were cut wouldn't it be expected that they would be cut there as it went through the same process as the other ones?

    AstraZ sold for 2 dollars a shot to the EU - hardly big money there is there - they are supplying it at cost

    yes the Pfizer etc are more costly but why would AstraZ do it if they are not going to cash in?

    the proof is in the billions vaccinated that they are no mass or even many/any death stories that the conspiracy theorists can latch onto - 'cos the proof isn't there.


    Do you mean, you need proof of people who died or who had serious consequences after the vaccine?
    I posted one on FB a while ago and it got censored right away, it was a link to an official news outlet, not a random fake news page


  • #1039
    Elliott Old Hawk
    Posts: 0 ✭ Elliott Old Hawk


    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    Invermectin has been used for 40 years, it has very mild side effects like nausea in some cases. The Covid vaccines are a new drug and can cause blood cots.
    You can see why people are skeptical with the vaccine

    It's not proven for covid, the fact it's not proven means you'll struggle to even select a dosage. Higher dosage means greater risk of side effects. Listed below and hardly mild either. Meanwhile hundreds of millions have received covid vaccines and clots are incredibly rare. Pretty sure all the below side effects below would be occurring if you administered it across the globe as a preventative. On top of that, you'd be taking it away from patients that actually will benefit from it.


    "Some of the side-effects that may be associated with ivermectin include skin rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, facial or limb swelling, neurologic adverse events (dizziness, seizures, confusion), sudden drop in blood pressure, severe skin rash potentially requiring hospitalization and liver injury (hepatitis). "

    So ya, I think the logic you're applying is pretty poor.


  • #1040
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    isha wrote: »
    The almost reflexive resistance to Ivermectin is bizarre. I have been following this story and others connected to it for a long time. For example the way the lab leak hypothesis resulted in censorship for so long. The tsunami of adverse reactions to all vaccines, including significant deaths, being steadfastly ignored by the media. The evidence from Japan for example for accumulation of lipid particles in body's organs. Right back to early doctors who said this is the inflammatory response causing maasive damage not a respiratory thing. And them being considered fringe theorists

    There have been doctors on the ground reporting brilliant successes who have been broadly ignored eg Sr Shankara Chetty in South Africa who has successfully treated 1000s with early use of steroids, inhalers and other pŕotocols which you can find online.

    There have been immunologists who up until speaking out re covid where highly respected in their fields. For example Geert Van Den Bossche who says that the basic and well known immunological axiom that one does not mass vaccinate during the heat of a pandemic as it always drives variants due to immune pressure on the virus still holds true in this case. It is similiar to serial passaging of viruses done in a lab but now being done in whole populations. And even more so because non sterilising vaccines are being use on a mass demographic.

    People like Dr Pierre Kory helped to develop early respected widely adopted treatment protocols re covid. Kory spoke before the US Senate and his official on the record testimony to government was censored by Youtube - just think about that.

    People like Kory were highly respected people entrusted with senior positions of medical responsibility right up until they piped up about the remarkable efficiency of repurposed drugs when it came to covid. People like emeritus professor of immunology at the University of Newcastle, Robery Clancy, who says it is crystal clear that Ivermectin is useful and should be adopted.
    These are drugs off patent. Drugs with decades of good safety protocols. Drugs that won Nobel prizes and revolutionised life in developing countrues. Repurposing drugs is gold standard response when facing a novel health situation.
    Countries like Mexico, India, South Africa have used Ivermectin with stunning results. There have been many small research studies done and several meta analyses which point towards good results. Even if the results were moderate - which they are not - Ivermectin should be used as an adjunct tool to drive towards success re covid.

    But drugs like ivermectin would challenge the emergency use authorisation of vaccines that remain in stage 3 testing until the end of 2022 and early 2023. They challenge the emergency use of novel drug treatments like the one Merck is bringing forward, which perhaps unsurprisingly has molecular similarities to their old off patent product which would not earn them a bob.

    Weinstein has been addressing issues aloud that many of us lay people have been quietly wondering about for a long time. I do not agree with him on everything but he is standing up to the present hegemony, a hegemony which is not the basis for good science Doing that, which is normal, has incurred censorship. It is all very odd.

    I appreciated Joe giving them a platform to speak. Other interviews with Kory are available on the FLCCC Alliance website.


    Excellent post!


  • #1041
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    yes there have been some cases but you do know about probability don't you

    1 in a 100 vs 1 in 1,000,000 type stuff

    the risk is negligible vs the reward of the benefits

    and risks have been addressed - e.g. AZ vaccine being withdrawn temporarily in Ireland and other countries and only used in certain age groups.

    in the UK there were 33 million vaccinated using AZ vaccine and there were 56 deaths.

    that's 0.00016 %

    Covid death rate is say 2%

    that's 11,785 times greater

    and now they understand more about the AZ risks and even how to mitigate them

    and that's the "most dangerous" vaccine.

    the MRNA vaccines have way lower incidence

    Ivermectin is being studied but will never be "the solution" - it doesn't do what vaccines do so comparing them is pointless.


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    Elliott Old Hawk wrote: »
    It's not proven for covid, the fact it's not proven means you'll struggle to even select a dosage. Higher dosage means greater risk of side effects. Listed below and hardly mild either. Meanwhile hundreds of millions have received covid vaccines and clots are incredibly rare. Pretty sure all the below side effects below would be occurring if you administered it across the globe as a preventative. On top of that, you'd be taking it away from patients that actually will benefit from it.


    "Some of the side-effects that may be associated with ivermectin include skin rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, facial or limb swelling, neurologic adverse events (dizziness, seizures, confusion), sudden drop in blood pressure, severe skin rash potentially requiring hospitalization and liver injury (hepatitis). "


    Honestly I dont know where to start here
    1. if you watched the podcast you'd know that studies have been conducted on the efficacy of ivermectin to prevent Covid infection with frontline workers who were exposed to the risk of infection. The results are very positive even with extra small doses. No need for high dosage then
    2. No statistical data on the risk of blood clots from covid vaccines has been disclosed, so nobody can say if it's rare or not. All we know is that cases of blood clots are being swept under the rug, that is enough evidence for me
    3. why would you take the drug away from those who need it, when you can produce it a low cost - free of patent - for all?


  • #1043
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    glasso wrote: »
    yes there have been some cases but you do know about probability don't you

    1 in a 100 vs 1 in 1,000,000 type stuff

    the risk is negligible vs the reward of the benefits

    and risks have been addressed - e.g. AZ vaccine being withdrawn temporarily in Ireland and other countries and only used in certain age groups.

    in the UK there were 33 million vaccinated using AZ vaccine and there were 56 deaths.

    that's 0.00016 %

    Covid death rate is say 2%

    that's 11,785 times greater

    and now they understand more about the AZ risks and even how to mitigate them

    and that's the "most dangerous" vaccine.

    the MRNA vaccines have way lower incidence

    Ivermectin is being studied but will never be "the solution" - it doesn't do what vaccines do so comparing them is pointless.


    Covid death rate is another highly debatable figure to start with, definitely it's not 2%


  • #1044
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    Covid death rate is another highly debatable figure to start with, definitely it's not 2%

    well it's definitely thousands of times higher than getting even the "most dangerous" vaccine

    that's not debatable


  • #1045
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    glasso wrote: »
    well it's definitely thousands of times higher than getting even the "most dangerous" vaccine

    that's not debatable




    Nobody knows the death rate of the vaccine so you can't compare.
    Also, nobody knows the rate of non-deadly consequences of the vaccine, such as paralysis for example
    On the other hand we know that the death rate for Covid in healthy population under the age of 60 is incredibly small


  • #1046
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    Nobody knows the death rate of the vaccine so you can't compare.
    Also, nobody knows the rate of non-deadly consequences of the vaccine, such as paralysis for example
    On the other hand we know that the death rate for Covid in healthy population under the age of 60 is incredibly small

    they have statistics for the vaccine effects and are carefully tracked (as far as can be done and pretty accurately actually) so it is known (evolves but is known and tracked)

    stop trying to muddy the waters claiming it's not known, it's pathetic

    the risk of rolling the dice with Covid vs a vaccine is many thousands of times safer for a vaccine both in terms of death outcomes AND long-term health outcomes

    Ivermectin may well have some uses but can never replace the vaccines


  • #1047
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    glasso wrote: »
    they have statistics for the vaccine and are carefully tracked so it is known (evolves but is known and tracked)

    stop trying to muddy the waters claiming it's not known, it's pathetic

    the risk of rolling the dice with Covid vs a vaccine is many thousands of times safer for a vaccine both in terms of death outcomes AND long-term health outcomes


    what's the Covid death rate for people under the age of 50?
    if it's carefully tracked than what is it?


  • #1048
    Elliott Old Hawk
    Posts: 0 ✭ Elliott Old Hawk


    glasso wrote: »
    they have statistics for the vaccine effects and are carefully tracked (as far as can be done and pretty accurately actually) so it is known (evolves but is known and tracked)

    stop trying to muddy the waters claiming it's not known, it's pathetic

    the risk of rolling the dice with Covid vs a vaccine is many thousands of times safer for a vaccine both in terms of death outcomes AND long-term health outcomes

    Also, the statement earlier by mic saying that introducing it as a preventative wouldn't cause shortages of the drug for people who need it... This has already happened last year. Also suspect giving a drug that isn't proven will likely have as many if not more serious side effects than any covid vaccine. The covid vaccine works which is big difference.

    https://www.healthline.com/health/rheumatoid-arthritis/hydroxychloroquine-shortage-rheumatoid-arthritis-covid-19


  • #1049
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    Elliott Old Hawk wrote: »
    Also, the statement earlier by mic saying that introducing it as a preventative wouldn't cause shortages of the drug for people who need it... This has already happened last year. Also suspect giving a drug that isn't proven will likely have as many if not more serious side effects than any covid vaccine. The covid vaccine works which is big difference.

    https://www.healthline.com/health/rheumatoid-arthritis/hydroxychloroquine-shortage-rheumatoid-arthritis-covid-19


    the whole point of an effective preventative drug is to eradicate the virus, which by the way the covid vaccine isn't going to do
    As for the shortage of drug, once again, all you need to do is produce more of it


  • #1050
    Elliott Old Hawk
    Posts: 0 ✭ Elliott Old Hawk


    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    the whole point of an effective preventative drug is to eradicate the virus, which by the way the covid vaccine isn't going to do
    As for the shortage of drug, once again, all you need to do is produce more of it

    You have no proof that it will prevent it. So you want to waste resources on mass production of a drug that is not proven to work. Eg hydroxochloroquine was previously claimed to be a preventative, it was not. Seems far more beneficial to research it further rather than going your incredibly stupid and dangerous route.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    glasso wrote: »
    they have statistics for the vaccine effects and are carefully tracked (as far as can be done and pretty accurately actually) so it is known (evolves but is known and tracked)

    stop trying to muddy the waters claiming it's not known, it's pathetic

    the risk of rolling the dice with Covid vs a vaccine is many thousands of times safer for a vaccine both in terms of death outcomes AND long-term health outcomes

    Ivermectin may well have some uses but can never replace the vaccines
    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    what's the Covid death rate for people under the age of 50?
    if it's carefully tracked than what is it?

    so we're talking about vaccine outcome tracking being carefully tracked and you switch it over to Covid death rate under 50 which I never said anything about being carefully tracked :confused::confused::confused:

    that's jokeshop level argumentation really m8

    covid death rate under 50 is certainly very low but should the vaccine programme is about reducing the incidence of Covid spread and population immunity levels in the entire population (so the world can go back to normal) as well as eliminating deaths from Covid - but I'm sure that you know that...

    Covid has killed millions of people worldwide and ground the world to a halt - vaccines are the way out and not Ivermectin


Advertisement