Covid-19 and Life

I truly enjoy reading your clear, consistent formulations. It seems you really did your lessons at home and made some effort in explaining things.

Your are, as almost everybody here, convinced of your side of the truth.

What I dont understand is the fact, that you still believe in the necessity of these vaccine*clot shots.
You had 5? Thats crazy! Since nobody dies of covid anymore. It is known that the antibody titer doesnt rise after the third shot.

Let me ask you a question. Why did you have 5?

 

The Polio vaccine was only 80% effective. Yet that was enough to wipe Polio off of the planet. Well, almost at any rate, until anti-vaccination people started spreading misinformation about the Polio vaccine.

 

Right.

I've lived 50+ years and never met nor known anyone get polio.

I've known and met dozens of people who are fully covid vaccinated and yet they had covid, most multiple times.

I guess that makes the covid vaccine about shit% effective compared to the polio vaccine.

Incidentally, everyone as school had the polio vaccine and no one died from it. I personally know someone that died due to complications of the AZ vaccine. Yeah, that certainly colours the judgement of it.

So, from my small personal study I am 100% against the covid "vaccines".

Got any other vaccines you want to discuss that killed people and didn't stop the spread of the disease?

 

Hmmm ... could please be so kind as to provide with us with a link to a “well designed, double blinded, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy” (and safety) of the mRNA Clot-Shots (that I recall you saying you were injected with).

Oh .... wait .... there aren’t any!

In the mean time (in your apparently abundant amount of spare time) here is a link to a repository to 89 studies involving Ivermectin. Knock yourself out.

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/...ectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

And yet another link to even more studies ... 33 in total .... 17 of which are positive; 6 are mixed; and 10 are not supportive.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1REs0YmFsagCcru1KUrNW4GgW61o2i_nBnVEDf1xMM9A/htmlview

Oh .... just to make you feel good ... the last positive study linked above, dated July 7, 2022, entitled, “The effect of ivermectin on the viral load and culture viability in early treatment of nonhospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial,” that was published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, (did you get that .... “double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial” ... verstehen sie das?), concludes:

“There were lower viral loads and less viable cultures in the ivermectin group, which shows its anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. It could reduce transmission in these patients and encourage further studies with this drug.”

 

Not at all. I evaluate risks and rewards, and make the best choices that I can. There are many unknowns. (Let me channel Rumsfeld at this point.)

Certain things seem obvious to me. Like the world being round -- although I've never been to space. I look up, and see the round moon, the round sun, the round planets ... so for me, it's hard for me to imagine that in the entire universe, there's one fucking flat planet, and I just happen to live on it.

(Yeah yeah, powerlines, sunsets, gravity, lots of other reasons.)

It's just simple logic. I'm not that smart, so I have to keep my logic simple.

Same thing with vaccines and information about health stuff: I can choose to read papers by researchers; I can choose to listen to my doctor; or I can believe memes on Facebook posted by my cousin in Arkansas who got his cousin pregnant when she was 12 and he had to drop out of high school to marry and support her by working double shifts between McDonalds and the Tyson chicken plant. I'm not that smart, so I have to keep my logic simple; in this case, I'm going to tend to believe the scientists researching the topic as their full time occupation, and I'm going to tend to believe my doctor who graduated from medical school and has to keep her certs up-to-date by taking classes and other doctor shit.

They could still be wrong. There's implicit bias in research. And doctors are often wrong. (Hopefully they're right more often than wrong, but sometimes I wonder ...)

Look, I'm not an epidemiologist, and I can barely spell it. I'm not a doctor. I'm not even a doctor in English or something like that. I have to be able to assign trust to people who are worthy of trust, i.e. trustworthy. My cousin is a nice guy, and if I need help rebuilding a transmission on an old pick-up, I'm calling him. But for medical advice, he's not my go-to source, even if his re-posted facebook memes are hilarious.

I'd have to look at my records again to see when I got them. Initially, I got two because that's how the initial shot worked. Certain countries had certain requirements for travel, so that explains some of the other shots. (Because of travel requirements, I get a lot of vaccines you've probably never heard of unless you're in the military. I'm not in the military, but I do travel a fair bit.)

I think the last 2 COVID shots I got were the yearly flu + covid vaccine booster. Based on my doctor's suggestion, I'll likely continue to get those yearly unless she learns something new that indicates otherwise.

As far as "nobody dies of COVID anymore", at close to 60k this year (2023) in the US, it's still one of the leading causes of death, just behind drug overdoses (around 80k) and diabetes (around 100k). And it was much, much higher in 2021 and 2022, before the vaccine was widespread. COVID deaths are still much higher than car deaths and gun deaths in the US, yet we still mostly wear seat-belts, and some parents even buy their kids bullet-proof back-packs.

And finally, there's just way too much political bullshit in the COVID conversation. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. It's like reading old people facebook, how they dream about "killing some libs" and crap like that.

FWIW - the thing about "retinal vascular occlusion" is real. There is significant evidence of a 2x - 3x higher incidence rate after COVID vaccines. This is the thing about trusting researchers and using simple logic: Sometimes there are things that you actually don't want to hear that you can still trust to likely be true.

 

OK, Boomer.

Like I said, we pretty much eradicated Polio from the face of the earth.

I did look up the numbers, just to be sure: "The Salk vaccine had been 60–70% effective against PV1 (poliovirus type 1), over 90% effective against PV2 and PV3, and 94% effective against the development of bulbar polio." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine

However, the more recent polio vaccines used since around 2000, given in 4 separate doses, are between 99-100% effective. So my information was pretty badly out of date.

And? What are you trying to say here?

I've also met people who were fully COVID vaccinated and caught COVID.

Not sure if you're looking for a citation in a paper or what.

That is theoretically possible, although statically unlikely. A very small number of people have likely died from the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. There is an "increased risk of the rare and potentially fatal thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) ... [with] a temporally related incidence of 0.21 cases per 1 million vaccinated-days. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has assessed 41 cases of anaphylaxis from around 5 million vaccinations in the United Kingdom. Capillary leak syndrome is a possible side effect of the vaccine. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) listed Guillain-Barré syndrome as a very rare side effect of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and added a warning in the product information." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine

There's a reason why health organizations don't make medical suggestions based on your own personal anecdotes. There's a reason why I'm more likely to trust scientists, researches, and doctors, than you.

Medical decisions should be based on actual evidence, not on stories and memes that people share online.

I still can't fathom why this isn't easy to comprehend.

 

It's not a vaccine, it's a therapy or treatment, and at both it is ineffective, so the net result is that it is a money making scheme.

They make medical suggestions based on personal anecdotes of many people, mine included. That's how it works. Science is consensus opinion, not one corporation's idea of fact or what the TV tells you.

That you are more likely to trust a global profit making corporation with skin in the game more than you trust your own eyes and experience, or the experience of your neighbours, says something.

Can you think of any other vaccines that have utterly failed to prevent infection or death of those that bought into the vaccine? I can't, but hopefuly you can.

 

You are a real expert in medicine. It seems you should get a price for this.
Hm which price.

The price for fastest copy and pasting without reading?
The price for super exorbitant underpayed viruepidemiologicoparasitologist in the world?
The querolateffector?


I will think about your price. Maybe I will do a poll here.

But back to your last post.

The last sentence is the same I mentioned in my last posting on THIS topic. Did you read it untill the end?

As it seems NO.

Have there further studies been done?

As it seems NO.

I guess you would have posted them if they would have been conducted.

But. please be honest.

Is there a need to treat a virus infection, that:.
A: has been manipulated by the media in its severity
B: has a mostly mild progress
C: has been tested in a patient group with mild COVID19, which is surely not to treat because it is milder than a flu.

As it seems NO.

And D: use a mediament which efficacy is questionable.

As it seems NO.

I mean they explecitely wrote at the end:
" It could reduce transmission in these patients and encourage further studies with this drug"

This means that - I want to explain it to you - the data shown in the study
( I am 1200000 percent sure you just read the abstract ( if) and copypasted a link you found somewhere in the internet)
shows there is some efficacy, like it has been shown severaly times before ( my opinion, it is NOT written there! I just read several metaanalyses before you posted this)
and that there has to be done more research if the findings are right.

And the authors themselves question the meaningfulness of their study,.

Because they treated people with mild symptoms and even one perspn that has been asymptomatic
They also discuss, correctly, that 89 persons in this study arent enough to tell about the efficacy of this medicament.

This and nothing else is, what also your evil FDA says.

We have to check it.
Until now the side effects dont allow us to give the medicament free for use in COVID 19.
We have other ones.

I for myself would not use any medicaments against a mild cold.
Well except ibuprofen, a hot tea or so.

Would you?

And could you please link up a study the FDA was refferring to? I Am not sure, if this list, you posted really answeres the point of the epoch times video. Couldn't open it.

The whole thing sounds like the Hydroxycloroquin hype. Yes there are studies against , pro, at the end the pandemic is over and nobody uses paxlovid.

 

Oh I can fully understand your point of view. These youtube-professors and facebook meme fetishists always work the same. They know they are wrong g mostly - but want to prove you something. So they are searching and searching and searching to find a singke straw to hold on and they open their argumentatiton.

The thing is unluckily sometimes they are right. Which shows lateron.
The trick is to just search for something controversal.
They of course choose the opposing site from mainstream and alwaxs telk stories about a special source. Well if the source was wrong they had their story and tell you, that this was governmental misinformation to bring themselves in miscredit.
And if they were right they just say:"Look! I told it the whole time."

I am a medical professional, not a doctor, but I am working together with them.

Puh and I have to say:" They arent gods. " mostly they do their jobs really well, but in many cases you could let a monkey choose their decisions.

They just have their lives, children, hobbies and want to live easigoing.
Bythe way more than 20 percent of doctors misuse drugs and alcohol constantly. And this is just the known part.

I have been working in rehabilitation several years, before I started to work in an ER. And I know how "Osteopathiy" evovled in Germany.
It is not comparable to the US education. Completely different and a bit esotheric often.
Well at the beginning the docotrs here sayd:" What a crap. Such an eminencebased stuff. There arent studies and what ever." but they saw t wirked andrecognized that
A they lost patients and their beliefs in Doctors
And
B recognized they could earn much money by offering osteopathy.

So within several years osteopathy became very common amongst doctors. Still without evidence based medicine.

Doctors always run for the money. And they dont do anything for free.
So if your doctor offers you a corona vaccineshot just ask him why you need it since the pandemic is over.

Do you have underlying deseases?

 

Did you read AND understand the last sentence of my original post?

“As ridiculous as it sounds: the FDA claims that ivermectin does not work against Chinese Coronavirus but in order to prove that point, they link to studies that say that it does!”

Apparently not.

Too bad you couldn’t open the video. It would works for me. You would have been spoon-fed their findings and maybe even learned something.

So .... I’ll take it slow and easy for you:

The FDA’s website states, irrelevant part:

• “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.” (https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19)

The hyperlink given by the FDA above in support of its claim that currently available data not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 links to the 89 clinical studies that I previously mentioned above. (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/...ectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

What the video that you cannot open shows is that The Epoch Times reviewed all 89 studies linked above and then separated out the 33 studies that were actually fully completed and not terminated.(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1REs0YmFsagCcru1KUrNW4GgW61o2i_nBnVEDf1xMM9A/htmlview)

As I mentioned above, from those 33 studies 17 (that were listed in the FDA’s data n support of its false claim) came to a positive conclusion as to efficacy ... over 50%

Soooooo ... in other words, the FDA lied when it said, “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. ”

Just what the last sentence of my original post said ...

 

I hear you, but "they" is not some single entity that pools advertising revenues and strategizes as a coordinated entity. "They" is actually a bunch of different companies, each of which would like to eat the lunches of the others. So even if 99% of "they" somehow managed to collude on this topic, the remaining 1% would have more than sufficient reach (and plenty of motivation) to blow the story wide open. And since the records (e.g. health statistics) are all public, it wouldn't be hard to discover the story.

This may indeed be the view of the WHO and the CDC / NIH / etc.

But it's certainly not the view of media publications, which are made up of people who would gladly sell their own soul to get a big scoop, even if that meant trashing vaccines (or the pope, or Taylor Swift, or whatever).

Betting on people being greedy and self-interested is almost always a sure win.

 

Re-read that last line you wrote, sir.
and REALLY think about it:
If you tell the truth, you're blackballed and can no longer work in the industry...

They might as well be ONE mind, ONE entity, because like "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," they're doing it in the open, and NO ONE CARES, because they'll be marginalized or destroyed.
They are dogs competing for the scraps from Master's table, AND THEY KNOW IT, so they fight to get the BEST angle on the "news" (Narrative) that Master wants to hear.
They'll kill each other, but never bite the hand that beats them...

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I Present To You The Next Director of the CDC


​

Meet Mandy Cohen.

She was announced as the Biden administration’s pick to replace Rochelle Walensky to head up the nation’s so-called leading public health agency. And ... unsurprisingly ... she’s just as disappointing.

As you probably figured out by now, she has a serious mask fetish (she advocated, in summer 2021, that “all children and staff” in K-8 schools should be forced to “wear masks indoors, regardless of vaccination status.”) And ... she obviously worships at the altar of The Esteemed Little Elf!

AND SPEAKING OF THE ESTEEMED LITTLE ELF:

Senator Rand Paul to Release Book About the Fauci Cover-Up
​

No Republican in government has gone after The Esteemed Little Elf more aggressively than Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, and he is not done yet.

Paul is apparently coming out with a book that will reportedly expose Fauci’s role in the Chinese Coronavirus plandemic and the associated cover-up.

Being a physician, Rand Paul is exactly the right person to do this.

Redstate reports:

“During a recent interview, Sen. Paul gave a sneak peek of what to expect this fall when the book comes out.

‘From day one, from January 31 of 2020, [former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and former Chief Medical Advisor to the Ppresident Dr. Anthony Fauci] was conspiring with fellow virologists to cover this up because he knew he had been one of the world’s leading advocates of gain of function research for at least a decade. He’s quoted as saying that gain of function research is so important that even if a pandemic breaks out, it’ll be worth the knowledge.

He’d been an advocate for a decade. He was an advocate and the chief architect of funding the lab in Wuhan. So he knew from the very beginning if this leak from the lab in Wuhan, that the guilt, the culpability for the pandemic would attach to his horrific decision to fund this lab. And so, no, he’s been trying to cover it up from day one.

It’s only in the last six months or so he started saying this “open mind” thing. But no, he’s been part of an elaborate cover-up to make sure that no one ever knew the truth. But we’re going to get to the truth, I promise.’”

This needs to happen. Preorder. Destined to be a Best Seller!

I’m sure this will be covered in detail in Sen. Paul’s book:

Did The Esteemed Little Elf lie when he said he never funded gain of function research? Well, Peter Daszak certainly thanked The Elf’s NIH for resuming funding for his “gain of function” research.

​

Should get interesting ...

See:
https://redstate.com/tladuke/2023/0...auci-coverup-and-it-will-be-marvelous-n755118

​

 

I was thinking something similar. We have no idea of how many deaths were attributed to COVID that were really from other sources. AKA car accidents, terminal people, gun shootings, etc. We need there were deaths that weren't because of Covid that were counted as such and will never know for sure.

Hence the 1700 figure is probably even lower. And it could be so low that it's irrelevant.

What's so sad, is that we will never know the truth. It's good that Hopkins is releasing some information but with all of the lies, politics etc I doubt this will get much exposure.

 

​

 

THE GREAT CHINESE CORONAVIRUS HOSPITAL DEATH TRAP

In NY 97.2% of Chinese Coronavirus Patients Who Were Over The Age of 65 and On Ventilators Die
​

• Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting Chinese Coronavirus patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence; 76.4% of Chinese Coronavirus patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%;​
• The recommendation to place Chinese Coronavirus patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting Chinese patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machine;​
• Data suggest around 10,000 patients died with Chinese Coronavirus in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020. Other metropolitan areas also saw massive spikes in deaths among younger individuals who were at low risk of dying from Chinese Coronavirus. It’s possible many of these deaths were the result of being placed on mechanical ventilation;​
• The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected Chinese Coronavirus patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input; and​
• Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from Chinese Coronavirus is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty.​

​

​

See:​

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/June/PDF/covid-death-coverup-pdf.pdf​

​

 

The 97% figure for over 65 is horrible. But the 76% for age 18 and up is terrifying.

NY hospitals managed to kill 76% of everyone with the flu.

 

Part of the PLAN????? + BIG $$$$ to be made on vented Patients ... just like BIG $$$$ to be made on Remdesivir.

 

No. The FDA doesnt say that Ivermectin doesnt work against the virus replikation. The FDA says, that they cant give it free for humans in Covid, because there are still data missing and in the look together of data, there isnt a benefit from this substance. Even if singualr studies tell this.

No matter how often you write, that there are studies saying this stuff works. The FDA sees it different. And also the RKI.
You can stand on your head if you want.
The effectiveness of ivermectin, with all its sideeffects and so on. doesnt seem to be good enough to have been chosen as a therapeuticum.
If you check the therapy strategy ivermectin doesnt play a role. There are other substances which won the race.

In the case of the RKI the last update for therapy recommendations by the COVRIIN has been in march 2022.
From then on it seemingly hasnt been useful to change the opinion by the data that was given after.

Besides the fact that ivermectin seemingly doesnt interest the FDA a bean, like your opinion or the opinion of several people or media, and they didnt update their site according to the results of the linked studies there might be a possibility, that the poor trainee, who is responsible for this page didnt update.

To get clarity, just write a letter to your FDA responsibles - in modern days an email would also be conceivable.. You pay taxes for this. Maybe you are the big sherlock who brings light into the not updated or willingly not updated page.

The RKI gets more specific than your FDA but comes to the same conclusions.



For complete translations I am too lazy now. But the pictire says there are currently studies under surveillance, there is possible action against SARS Cov 2 but no recommendation. It may be used off label.
The risk of too high dosage and following toxicity in unsurveillanced usage is too high for prescription.

And the evicence is too low to get a certification.

As it seems, they havent seen a necessity to follow the studies anymore because the pandemic is over.

But as I gave you the idea I will ask them via email by myself, why they stopped updating and so on.

Keep calm and composed. Usually the easiest explanation is the right one.

 

About 70 % of the counted covid deaths havent been covid related.

 

No. Not everyone those who had to vemtilated. Seems to be really. Much for me in Germany and worldwide it has been 50 / 50 when I remember right.

 

Are you sure? I've heard 382% of statistics given out on the Internet are made up ;-)

All joking aside, I don't know if the number is 70%, 20%, 50% or whatever. What I do know is that the numbers aren't accurate and we have no way of knowing. All we know is that it's clear that there were incentives for hospitals, doctors etc to put Covid as the cause of death. This should be very concerning to everyone. Sadly too many just don't care. Worse some even defend all of the stupidity. And I even see people wearing "masks" even though Biden, The WHO, and others have pronounced this "over" and now "normal" just like flu and the common cold.

Go figure ;-)

 

Maybe the mask wearers are corona positive and want to feel better in crowded areas.
When I had covid last year I wore a mask when going to home depot and so on.

The mask mandate has just been cancelled and I was the only person with a mask due to my running nose.

But I am sure that there do still exist mask fetishists, that believe in the mask miracle (well I am a mask believer also I have go admit.) and the evilness of corona omikron.

About the covid death numbers.
I think they were counted almost the same way all over the world.

Could you please post me a source for the incentives payd by corona death? I want to read this by my own.