Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Conspiracy Theories & Claims

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
3,691
Points
164
What you say is mostly true... however... why did people want to try using Ivermectin at all? That is where the problem arises. Check this out:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...f1ynZsituEJAWhO-NZTW9UJFxzNusWTQxDEqn1yHNQXHw

Yeah... it has proven effects as an anti-viral agent. The only question is if it works on Covid-19.
In vitro testing is done in test tubes and petrie dishes and does not take into account the entire organism that might be affected by the item being tested. There are probably dozens of things out there that will kill the covid virus that will also destroy tissue and send living beings to hospitals.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
829
Points
99
In vitro testing is done in test tubes and petrie dishes and does not take into account the entire organism that might be affected by the item being tested. There are probably dozens of things out there that will kill the covid virus that will also destroy tissue and send living beings to hospitals.
and? The real question here is if a safe dose of Ivermectin has an effect. Empty speculation that maybe it doesn't work is... well... empty and meaningless.

literally anything can kill you if you take too much of it... many people die of Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure every year. But it's safe when used in proper doses.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
3,691
Points
164
and? The real question here is if a safe dose of Ivermectin has an effect. Empty speculation that maybe it doesn't work is... well... empty and meaningless.

literally anything can kill you if you take too much of it... many people die of Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure every year. But it's safe when used in proper doses.
Telling people who are showing up in an emergency room that there is speculation that something doesn't work is also meaningless. Rather than just belt something down, it would be generally intelligent and prudent to act based on some evidence (not your cousin on fb) first that it won't hurt you and second that it may do some good. The only way to find out if a safe dose of anything if effective on anything is for trained people to run a double blind test. Or they can all just go ahead and drink that bleach (which is really effective at killing covid viruses in vitro.).
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
829
Points
99
Telling people who are showing up in an emergency room that there is speculation that something doesn't work is also meaningless. Rather than just belt something down, it would be generally intelligent and prudent to act based on some evidence (not your cousin on fb) first that it won't hurt you and second that it may do some good. The only way to find out if a safe dose of anything if effective on anything is for trained people to run a double blind test. Or they can all just go ahead and drink that bleach (which is really effective at killing covid viruses in vitro.).
Yeah... well... the safe dosage is a known quantity... that article I linked a few posts up actually has an example of a safe dose.
Ivermectin is used in a dose of 0.15 mg/kg–0.2 mg/kg body weight
Also... that's not from "my cousin on facebook"....
US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,718
Points
159
This is what I mean about people being villainized for having a difference of opinion. This video is just short of 20 minutes long, but I think it is worth the watch and explains pretty much how I feel about being put into the same category as a murder.

GOD on COVID: Eric Clapton's "Disastrous" Vaccine Experience

 

flannel

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
68
Reaction score
130
Points
33
Location
East Midlands, UK
An Ivermectin study:

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19
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. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments.... The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains
 

JahaRa

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
332
Points
68
Taking medication without actually having an idea of drug interactions, contraindications, medical history, etc, is stupid, to say the least.

There's actually a process involved before a drug is prescribed. Even doctors check, double-check, get work-ups, test, before commencing a pharmacological treatment.

There's enough stupidity out there without people self-prescribing.



"The tweet included a link that described the dangers of ivermectin. Side effects humans may experience while taking the cattle medicine, according to the FDA, include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, dizziness, seizures, coma and even death".
I wish all doctors did that. I had a doctor write out a prescription for a staten drug before even telling me hello on my first visit to see him. He didn't even ask why I was there. I was there for an annual physical. And how could he know I had high cholesterol without even looking at the form I filled out or asking me any questions or doing any blood work. You probably don't live in the U.S. if your doctors are so thorough.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
829
Points
99
Ivermectin trouble in COVID paradise...
------------------------
U.S.

Patients Overdosing on Ivermectin Are Clogging Oklahoma ERs: Doctor​

BY JON JACKSON ON 9/2/21 AT 4:43 PM EDT

A doctor in rural Oklahoma has claimed that people taking the horse de-wormer medication ivermectin to treat COVID-19 are filling up the area's emergency rooms.

"There's a reason you have to have a doctor to get a prescription for this stuff because it can be dangerous," Dr. Jason McElyea, a frontline family physician who works in emergency rooms in eastern and southern Oklahoma, told local news station KFOR-TV.

The rise in human ivermectin use has led multiple health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to issue stern warnings against using the drug for anything other than its intended purposes.

McElyea said he's seen many patients in the ER recently due to adverse reactions to ivermectin. He also claimed ambulances are being overwhelmed from responding to people sick from the medication.

"The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated."

https://www.newsweek.com/patients-overdosing-ivermectin-are-clogging-oklahoma-ers-doctor-1625631
Well this just got stupid.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...verloading-hospitals/ar-AAO9Xxx?ocid=msedgntp
Turns out that story was a hoax. And people ate it like candy because it matched their expectations I guess?
 

Victory

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
3,177
Points
159
Location
London
If ever there was a hint we are living in a strange world, it is Professor Chris Whitty commenting on a Nicki Minaj tweet!


Screen_Shot_2021_09_13_at_6.09.49_PM.jpg



From The Guardian newspaper

whi.jpg



https://www.theguardian.com/society...th-spreaders-ashamed-chris-whitty-nicki-minaj
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
33,677
Reaction score
44,136
Points
314
Location
East of Suez
It was definitely the vaccine that caused both the inflamed apple-sacks and the cancelled wedding.

The suggestion that it could have been an STD caught through infidelity is outrageous.
 

Beresford

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
371
Reaction score
829
Points
99
Location
Alloway's Auld Haunted Kirk
Well this is an interesting discussion piece:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...out-natural-immunity/ar-AAOyiaM?ocid=msedgntp
Why ARE public officials seemingly ignoring science to push an agenda?
They aren't. Herd immunity, if it exists where COVID is concerned, cannot be achieved without vaccines. Current infection rates in many countries would suggest that it would still be a long way off anyway.

The entire article is based on limited data and although it doesn't quite take up an anti-vax slant, it's not far off it.
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,718
Points
159
They aren't. Herd immunity, if it exists where COVID is concerned, cannot be achieved without vaccines. Current infection rates in many countries would suggest that it would still be a long way off anyway.

The entire article is based on limited data and although it doesn't quite take up an anti-vax slant, it's not far off it.


The article does not say anything against getting vaccinated. In fact, it promotes getting vaccinated.

Several studies have proven that the immunity acquired by previously having the virus is significantly better than immunity from vaccination. The largest study on this subject, conducted in Israel with more than 700,000 people, found that those with natural immunity were 96.3% less likely than never-infected and vaccinated people to contract COVID-19 for a second time and develop symptoms from it. This confirmed what researchers had been saying for months: natural immunity is both effective and long-lasting, even against the virus’s variants.

This is not to say that vaccination serves no purpose. Indeed, the Israeli study found that those with natural immunity who also chose to get the shot were even more protected against COVID-19’s symptoms (at least slightly) than those who had just one form of immunity. Moreover, we already know that vaccinating those who have not yet been infected with COVID-19 dramatically reduces their risk of hospitalization and death from the virus.

Forgive me, but it seems that any opinion that differs is an anti-vax slant.
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,718
Points
159
Paul Weston - Why is there a a ten fold increase in Covid deaths...


Government data on Covid deaths and tests here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai... Smith and O'Brien need to click on "Deaths" and then "Data" followed by scrolling down through until they reach Aug 2020.
 

Beresford

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
371
Reaction score
829
Points
99
Location
Alloway's Auld Haunted Kirk
The article does not say anything against getting vaccinated. In fact, it promotes getting vaccinated.



Forgive me, but it seems that any opinion that differs is an anti-vax slant.
We'll have to disagree on this one. It places a greater emphasis on herd immunity, which in my opinion is a dangerous thing to do since an awful lot of people in the US are vaccine hesitant to say the least. The likelihood is that it will reinforce some people's views on vaccines, which in my opinion is a dangerous thing.
 

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,718
Points
159
We'll have to disagree on this one. It places a greater emphasis on herd immunity, which in my opinion is a dangerous thing to do since an awful lot of people in the US are vaccine hesitant to say the least. The likelihood is that it will reinforce some people's views on vaccines, which in my opinion is a dangerous thing.

What if it is a dangerous thing, don't you want to know before you roll up your sleeve? As adults in a free country, shouldn't we all have the right to make an informed decision?

Does the FDA think these data justify the first full approval of a covid-19 vaccine?

The FDA should demand adequate, controlled studies with long term follow up, and make data publicly available, before granting full approval to covid-19 vaccines, says Peter Doshi





On 28 July 2021, Pfizer and BioNTech posted updated results for their ongoing phase 3 covid-19 vaccine trial. The preprint came almost a year to the day after the historical trial commenced, and nearly four months since the companies announced vaccine efficacy estimates “up to six months.”


But you won’t find 10 month follow-up data here. While the preprint is new, the results it contains aren’t particularly up to date. In fact, the paper is based on the same data cut-off date (13 March 2021) as the 1 April press release, and its topline efficacy result is identical: 91.3% (95% CI 89.0 to 93.2) vaccine efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 through “up to six months of follow-up.”


The 20 page preprint matters because it represents the most detailed public account of the pivotal trial data Pfizer submitted in pursuit of the world’s first “full approval” of a coronavirus vaccine from the Food and Drug Administration. It deserves careful scrutiny.


The elephant named “waning immunity”


Since late last year, we’ve heard that Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines are “95% effective” with even greater efficacy against severe disease (“100% effective,” Moderna said).


Whatever one thinks about the “95% effective” claims (my thoughts are here), even the most enthusiastic commentators have acknowledged that measuring vaccine efficacy two months after dosing says little about just how long vaccine-induced immunity will last. “We’re going to be looking very intently at the durability of protection,” Pfizer senior vice president William Gruber, an author on the recent preprint, told the FDA’s advisory committee last December.


The concern, of course, was decreased efficacy over time. “Waning immunity” is a known problem for influenza vaccines, with some studies showing near zero effectiveness after just three months, meaning a vaccine taken early may ultimately provide no protection by the time “flu season” arrives some months later. If vaccine efficacy wanes over time, the crucial question becomes what level of effectiveness will the vaccine provide when a person is actually exposed to the virus? Unlike covid vaccines, influenza vaccine performance has always been judged over a full season, not a couple months.


And so the recent reports from Israel’s Ministry of Health caught my eye. In early July, they reported that efficacy against infection and symptomatic disease “fell to 64%.” By late July it had fallen to 39% where Delta is the dominant strain. This is very low. For context, the FDA’s expectation is of “at least 50%” efficacy for any approvable vaccine.


Now Israel, which almost exclusively used Pfizer vaccine, has begun administering a third “booster” dose to all adults over 40. And starting 20 September 2021, the US plans to follow suit for all “fully vaccinated” adults eight months past their second dose.


Delta may not be responsible


Enter Pfizer’s preprint. As an RCT reporting “up to six months of follow-up,” it is notable that evidence of waning immunity was already visible in the data by the 13 March 2021 data cut-off.


“From its peak post-dose 2,” the study authors write, “observed VE [vaccine efficacy] declined.” From 96% to 90% (from two months to <4 months), then to 84% (95% CI 75 to 90) “from four months to the data cut-off,” which, by my calculation (see footnote at the end of the piece), was about one month later.


But although this additional information was available to Pfizer in April, it was not published until the end of July.


And it’s hard to imagine how the Delta variant could play a real role here, for 77% of trial participants were from the United States, where Delta was not established until months after data cut-off.


Waning efficacy has the potential to be far more than a minor inconvenience; it can dramatically change the risk-benefit calculus. And whatever its cause—intrinsic properties of the vaccine, the circulation of new variants, some combination of the two, or something else—the bottom line is that vaccines need to be effective.


Until new clinical trials demonstrate that boosters increase efficacy above 50%, without increasing serious adverse events, it is unclear whether the 2-dose series would even meet the FDA’s approval standard at six or nine months.


The “six month” preprint based on the 7% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months


The final efficacy timepoint reported in Pfizer’s preprint is “from four months to the data cut-off.” The confidence interval here is wider than earlier time points because only half of trial participants (53%) made it to the four month mark, and mean follow-up is around 4.4 months (see footnote).


This all happened because starting last December, Pfizer allowed all trial participants to be formally unblinded, and placebo recipients to get vaccinated. By 13 March 2021 (data cut-off), 93% of trial participants (41,128 of 44,060; Fig 1) were unblinded, officially entering “open-label followup.” (Ditto for Moderna: by mid April, 98% of placebo recipients had been vaccinated.)

More at the link...

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/2...he-first-full-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/
 

Beresford

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
371
Reaction score
829
Points
99
Location
Alloway's Auld Haunted Kirk

michael59

Justified & Incandecent
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
3,718
Points
159
The scientists said it was safe for me, so that's good enough. Like the vast majority of people, I've had plenty of vaccinations over the years.

And as an adult you are entitled to make that decision. Why am I not afforded that same right? I'm not saying that vaccines are the devil, I am saying this is way to fast to be FDA approved. Things can go very wrong and history is full of these mistakes. You would think that hindsight is 20/20 especially after the Polio vaccine fiasco.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile... and that's just what they are doing.

Pfizer begins Covid vaccine trial on infants and young kids​


Pfizer said it has started a clinical trial testing its Covid-19 vaccine on healthy 6-month to 11-year old children, a crucial step in obtaining federal regulatory clearance to start vaccinating young kids and controlling the pandemic.

The first participants in the study have already gotten their shots, which were developed in partnership with German drugmaker BioNTech, New York-based Pfizer announced Thursday. It intends to enroll 144 children in the first phase.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/25/covid-vaccine-pfizer-begins-trial-on-infants-and-young-kids.htm
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
5,482
Points
214
It should be a cost/benefit to make for yourself. I'm happy that the old and vulnerable can get a vaccine. I however am wary of getting a shot of something new and relatively untested like this. That AstraZeneca has achieved immunity from prosecution, shows that they know it is a gamble.
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
3,691
Points
164
It should be a cost/benefit to make for yourself. I'm happy that the old and vulnerable can get a vaccine. I however am wary of getting a shot of something new and relatively untested like this. That AstraZeneca has achieved immunity from prosecution, shows that they know it is a gamble.
In the US all vaccine manufacturers have immunity for legal action on all their vaccines except I think in the event of bona fide gross negligence (ie - someone dropped their lunch into the vat.) No vaccine is without side effects, rarely serious, public information, and it saved a lot of silly wear and tear on the legal system. The covid vaccines, having been subject to beta testing of, what, 300,000,000 doses, are about the best-tested medicine around. Since this is a thread on conspiracy theories and claims and not actually on the disease, I'm adding that I'm not questioning the general anxiety surrounding all things covid and the urge to establish control in an environment where you can't. But this untested vaccine thing is a projection of general anxiety. Personally I deal with the anxiety by still wiping everything that comes into the house with the fallacious reasoning that when they give the new infection numbers and say that 85 of today's infections were of undetermined origin, how can they know that it wasn't the groceries. It's harmless and I have really clean groceries.
 
Last edited:

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
829
Points
99
We'll have to disagree on this one. It places a greater emphasis on herd immunity, which in my opinion is a dangerous thing to do since an awful lot of people in the US are vaccine hesitant to say the least. The likelihood is that it will reinforce some people's views on vaccines, which in my opinion is a dangerous thing.
the problem I see with this logic... is that you're justifying lying to the public.

THE worst thing you can do as someone who is genuinely trying to do the right thing is to get caught lying. which is what this article was about. Pro-vax? Anti-Vax? Those terms are deflections to discourage discussion of the social issues related to the pandemic. And that's the core of this article: Are people actually doing the right thing? Or are they just blowing smoke and telling people to obey the government for their own "safety"?
In the US all vaccine manufacturers have immunity for legal action on all their vaccines except I think in the event of bona fide gross negligence (ie - someone dropped their lunch into the vat.) No vaccine is without side effects, rarely serious, public information, and it saved a lot of silly wear and tear on the legal system. The covid vaccines, having been subject to beta testing of, what, 300,000,000 doses, are about the best-tested medicine around. Since this is a thread on conspiracy theories and claims and not actually on the disease, I'm adding that I'm not questioning the general anxiety surrounding all things covid and the urge to establish control in an environment where you can't. But this untested vaccine thing is a projection of general anxiety. Personally I deal with the anxiety by still wiping everything that comes into the house with the fallacious reasoning that when they give the new infection numbers and say that 85 of today's infections were of undetermined origin, how can they know that it wasn't the groceries. It's harmless and I have really clean groceries.
Early in the pandemic it was proven you CAN get it from handling mail. Covid-19 can last for over a week outside a host. Sooo touching random things that have been near an infected person? yeah.... if you know they were infected....
 
Last edited:

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
4,740
Reaction score
5,482
Points
214
Those 300 million doses are tested in regards to short term effects. I don't expect to take the vaccine and drop dead the day after anyway. What happens years down the line is a different matter.
 

marhawkman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
829
Points
99
Those 300 million doses are tested in regards to short term effects. I don't expect to take the vaccine and drop dead the day after anyway. What happens years down the line is a different matter.
And to make that line of thought worse... the vaccines only seem to last for around 6 months. How many "booster" doses will you have to get to maintain immunity for.. say... 5 years? What is the cumulative effect of 8 more more doses?
 

Lb8535

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
3,691
Points
164
the problem I see with this logic... is that you're justifying lying to the public.

THE worst thing you can do as someone who is genuinely trying to do the right thing is to get caught lying. which is what this article was about. Pro-vax? Anti-Vax? Those terms are deflections to discourage discussion of the social issues related to the pandemic. And that's the core of this article: Are people actually doing the right thing? Or are they just blowing smoke and telling people to obey the government for their own "safety"?

Early in the pandemic it was proven you CAN get it from handling mail. Covid-19 can last for over a week outside a host. Sooo touching random things that have been near an infected person? yeah.... if you know they were infected....
Sure you can, and conceivably from almost anything else - at room temperature viable covid viruses could not be cultured off of paper after 3 days. What is room temperature and what paper? High gloss? tp? In any case you need to grab the paper and then put your fingers really close to your mouth, nose or possibly (jury still out on this) eyes. The viruses don't jump around on their own. I do believe that the information being publicized from respectable sources is the best anyone has very early on in a major catastrophe and I'm fine with changes in direction. I'm still overly and obsessively careful about whatever comes into the house. But I'm aware of the issue, and as I said, it harms no one and just wastes my time.
 

JahaRa

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
332
Points
68
And to make that line of thought worse... the vaccines only seem to last for around 6 months. How many "booster" doses will you have to get to maintain immunity for.. say... 5 years? What is the cumulative effect of 8 more more doses?
I am sure they will perfect it so that it will be just like a flu shot, once a year. And that 6 month time frame is not proven yet, the data has to include other factors in order to be accurate. And as far as I can tell the "booster" looks like a distracting money grab from a company that is selling a substandard vaccine. Is moderna or Jansen or Astra Zeneca talking about boosters or is it just Pfizer?
 
Top