In my opinion, the type of technology you see with the Pfizer and Modena vaccine will likely be the new norm with vaccines going forward. Its usage of mRNA has been around for quite sometime and been use regularly research. It’s the evolution of medicine just as we do in gene therapy and directed therapy in cancer and such. Ironically, the two vaccine that seems to be having issues are the two that’s base on “old” tech with using another viral vector just like most the vaccines that we are familiar with.
Fans back in the G1C soon?
- Thread starter Warhawk
- Start date
- Status
For all those that are excited about vaccines and getting back to "normal", I'll inform you that there has been treatment for sars-cov-2 for many months now, backed by a crap ton of epidemiological data, clinical data, testimonials by patients and docs on the front lines, and lab data.
If people only knew the sinister and unfathomable stuff that's going on behind the scenes they would flip and be in total disbelief.
The whole thing is a joke, and I'm not downplaying the severity of the disease, I have family members that have passed away, but I'm more distraught and disappointed at the governmental systems and higher powers that have managed this whole thing.
Very simply, they don't give a crap about you. This whole mass vaccination campaign to "save lives" is a total ploy, this is about getting out new technology that otherwise wouldn't have been able to be deployed, making a crap ton of money on vaccines, and probably a bunch of other stuff- control/power.
How do I know this ? Again, so much data has emerged from several months back regarding safe and effective treatments existing for Covid and the government has done jack about it, not a peep. Actually my mistake, they have actively censored this information from the public and continuously do it, I witness it basically every day.
My word of advice, vaccinated or not, learn about treatments that exist for Covid, by established doctors and scientists with no conflicts on interest.
We never know what's around the corner, it's better to have all tools in the toolkit.
I know this is political but I hate that people aren't aware of this and have to suffer unnecessarily and endlessly. And I also wouldn't say this irresponsibly knowing my words could actually harm someone, just trying to help the few that do take notice
If people only knew the sinister and unfathomable stuff that's going on behind the scenes they would flip and be in total disbelief.
The whole thing is a joke, and I'm not downplaying the severity of the disease, I have family members that have passed away, but I'm more distraught and disappointed at the governmental systems and higher powers that have managed this whole thing.
Very simply, they don't give a crap about you. This whole mass vaccination campaign to "save lives" is a total ploy, this is about getting out new technology that otherwise wouldn't have been able to be deployed, making a crap ton of money on vaccines, and probably a bunch of other stuff- control/power.
How do I know this ? Again, so much data has emerged from several months back regarding safe and effective treatments existing for Covid and the government has done jack about it, not a peep. Actually my mistake, they have actively censored this information from the public and continuously do it, I witness it basically every day.
My word of advice, vaccinated or not, learn about treatments that exist for Covid, by established doctors and scientists with no conflicts on interest.
We never know what's around the corner, it's better to have all tools in the toolkit.
I know this is political but I hate that people aren't aware of this and have to suffer unnecessarily and endlessly. And I also wouldn't say this irresponsibly knowing my words could actually harm someone, just trying to help the few that do take notice
Of course, in reality one needs to treat early since at that point the viral load is lower and the hyper-inflammatory state hasn't kicked in yet.
You need to treat early 100%, ideally as soon as you feel any symptoms.
The earlier you treat the easier it is for someone.
Once you are in the hospital it's more difficult, you need to control inflammation with steroids and obviously it's just more difficult at that stage and more complex
You need to treat early 100%, ideally as soon as you feel any symptoms.
The earlier you treat the easier it is for someone.
Once you are in the hospital it's more difficult, you need to control inflammation with steroids and obviously it's just more difficult at that stage and more complex
Ehh I’ll disagree. the only medication they actually show to decrease mortality is steroid however if given too early in the course before inflammatory response are high then you run the risk of immunosuppressive on and getting concurrent bacterial infection. Remdesivir only show to decrease symptoms quicker but no improvement in mortality. Toccizulomab is the same. Only in setting of cytokines storm. Given earlier you get chance of massive bacterial infection
It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic given one of your earlier posts, but I sincerely hope for your sake that you are.
I'm not in the US, but it amazes me to watch from the outside how politicized this has become in your country (I'm not saying the US is the only country this is happening in, far from it). This isn't a political issue, it's a public health issue. If you don't want to wear a mask or get a vaccine, that's your right, nobody is forcing you to. That doesn't mean you have the right to enter a private business and put others at risk. This is not difficult.
I'm not in the US, but it amazes me to watch from the outside how politicized this has become in your country (I'm not saying the US is the only country this is happening in, far from it). This isn't a political issue, it's a public health issue. If you don't want to wear a mask or get a vaccine, that's your right, nobody is forcing you to. That doesn't mean you have the right to enter a private business and put others at risk. This is not difficult.
Also the treatment plan for covid is pretty much out there so not sure why you think it’s censor. Most doctors practice evidence base medicine via clinical trials. Earlier on the pandemic it was all over the place since we don’t have any trials and most of it is base on educated guess base on prior experience with other viral illness ie SARS. As time pass and we have more experience, most treatment plan are pretty streamline and that’s basically based on trials that’s pretty much accessible to anyone who knows how to intepret it.
https://www.recoverytrial.net/results
https://www.recoverytrial.net/results
Remdesivir is a joke, attested by many doctors, they use it because they are told to, but the results with Remdesivir aren't very good at all, not to mention giving it in a hospital setting at that point it's even more useless. Remdesivir has one mechanism of action to cut the virus but it should be used early, but either way, it's not very good.
Steroids are to be given day 7-8 because of what you said, that much is known.
But really my post is on Ivermectin. The same group (the FLCCC) that was screaming at the government to endorse corticosteroids last April because it was working and saving lives (the government in July finally agreed to endorse it) were screaming at the government in December to deploy Ivermectin immediately to again save lives.
Ivermectin has been used for 40 years as an antiparasitic, it is extremely safe (16 deaths, 4,700 adverse events since 1992 --- compare that to remdesivir that's been out basically less than a year), is in the WHO'S most essential medicines list, and won the Nobel prize in 2015 for eradicating river blindness in Africa.
There's several meta-analyses on Ivermectin from very well respected groups, 26 randomized control trials, many observation trials- 50 trials overall, 15,000 patients around the world, 80-90% decrease in mortality when taken early, and close to 90% decrease of mortality when taken prophylactically.
It's mechanism of action is very well explained by some docs, it interferes with the virus attaching to the ACE-2 receptor among other things and also tames inflammation. It works plain and simple, and again, is best when used early.
The problem is it's cheap and off-patent, sadly.
And Ivermectin isn't the only medication that works, there's fluvoxamine, Budesonide just had a study come out showing that it cut mortality by 92%, and others. The data on Ivermectin is pretty overwhelming though
Steroids are to be given day 7-8 because of what you said, that much is known.
But really my post is on Ivermectin. The same group (the FLCCC) that was screaming at the government to endorse corticosteroids last April because it was working and saving lives (the government in July finally agreed to endorse it) were screaming at the government in December to deploy Ivermectin immediately to again save lives.
Ivermectin has been used for 40 years as an antiparasitic, it is extremely safe (16 deaths, 4,700 adverse events since 1992 --- compare that to remdesivir that's been out basically less than a year), is in the WHO'S most essential medicines list, and won the Nobel prize in 2015 for eradicating river blindness in Africa.
There's several meta-analyses on Ivermectin from very well respected groups, 26 randomized control trials, many observation trials- 50 trials overall, 15,000 patients around the world, 80-90% decrease in mortality when taken early, and close to 90% decrease of mortality when taken prophylactically.
It's mechanism of action is very well explained by some docs, it interferes with the virus attaching to the ACE-2 receptor among other things and also tames inflammation. It works plain and simple, and again, is best when used early.
The problem is it's cheap and off-patent, sadly.
And Ivermectin isn't the only medication that works, there's fluvoxamine, Budesonide just had a study come out showing that it cut mortality by 92%, and others. The data on Ivermectin is pretty overwhelming though
Again it’s the same as any steroid class. Only helpful when there’s inflammatory response but given early increase risk or bacterial infection. With regards to ivermectin, it’s an anti parasitic and the date on it for covid is inconclusive at best and no doctor in their right mind would try it off label and get sue if there’s an adverse effect since that’s indefensible in court.
Ivermectin is 100% censored, I've basically been involved with it since December. Also, there's a lot of bureaucracy involved. Many doctors can't prescribe what they want because the hospitals won't allow it, also some are afraid of losing their license for prescribing something against the grain, even though 20-30% of medications that are prescribed are off-label anyways
The reality is if evidence based medicine were actually employed uniformly throughout the world, we wouldn't even be in a pandemic anymore. This would have ended several months ago
The reality is if evidence based medicine were actually employed uniformly throughout the world, we wouldn't even be in a pandemic anymore. This would have ended several months ago
I would have liked this except the last part. Common sense and common courtesy should keep one who is sick to keep out of stores and such. We all know common sense and common courtesy isn't followed in many of those cases. Your medical conditions and any treatments you have had is a personal right to keep private. NO store has a right to any aspect of that. Now a compromise could be simply give the option to prove you have had it OR take a rapid response test.
In terms of the politization of the issue, I agree. I had the majority of an earlier post removed. That is okay, I agree with the rules and stepped over the line.
In terms of the politization of the issue, I agree. I had the majority of an earlier post removed. That is okay, I agree with the rules and stepped over the line.
The logic just isn't there for a drug that's been fda approved for over 30 years, that has produced 4,700 adverse events during that time.
I dare someone to go look at the adverse events data for the vaccines that have been out less than 6 months. There's just no comparison, it's on another stratosphere.
And the data is not inconclusive, again, like I said in my original post, there's tons of epidemiological data and so many testimonials from front line doctors that have used it, in addition to tons of clinical trials. Again this isn't me saying it there are groups that look at this evidence for a living that have shown that the data is overwhelming. It's just not a scientific debate at this point.
So many doctors are actually using it because it works plain and simple.
I dare someone to go look at the adverse events data for the vaccines that have been out less than 6 months. There's just no comparison, it's on another stratosphere.
And the data is not inconclusive, again, like I said in my original post, there's tons of epidemiological data and so many testimonials from front line doctors that have used it, in addition to tons of clinical trials. Again this isn't me saying it there are groups that look at this evidence for a living that have shown that the data is overwhelming. It's just not a scientific debate at this point.
So many doctors are actually using it because it works plain and simple.
Censor where? In the US? I can tell you pretty much it’s not recommended anywhere in the in medical community across the international community so yea, you can say it’s censor where you don’t want to be the black sheep and not practice evidence base medicine
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials
https://www.who.int/news-room/featu...used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials
https://www.who.int/news-room/featu...used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389
Not true. Have you actually looked at the WHO report behind the recommendation against the use of Ivermectin ? I'm going to guess not.
Have you actually read the JAMA study on Ivermectin ? I'm going to guess not.
Have you actually read any of the studies of Ivermectin ? Have you actually followed the data ?
It's easy for one that hasn't actually done their homework to pull up these articles from WHO and JAMA, probably followed by Merck and the FDA, to prove their point but that's not the way things work
Have you actually read the JAMA study on Ivermectin ? I'm going to guess not.
Have you actually read any of the studies of Ivermectin ? Have you actually followed the data ?
It's easy for one that hasn't actually done their homework to pull up these articles from WHO and JAMA, probably followed by Merck and the FDA, to prove their point but that's not the way things work
I read the trial from Jama. It’s small study. You talk a lot of game but show me the link to your data.
Here’s a summary of all the trials that I’ve seen. I would say the bulk of them have extremely small sample size
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/
If you got actual link to trial then by all means share them
Here’s a summary of all the trials that I’ve seen. I would say the bulk of them have extremely small sample size
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/
If you got actual link to trial then by all means share them
Last edited:
I think I may be missing something, but in this scenario, why would a store need to see your medical treatment/conditions? In the context of the store, it's wear a mask or refuse service. Stores are not going to be asking for proof of vaccination. What you have suggested as the compromise, is what I had assumed we were already talking about?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that one's medical history needs to be disclosed to avail of a service, unless you consider providing proof of vaccination as such, but I find that to be disingenuous in the context of a global pandemic, and I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting anyway.
Maybe I have missed an earlier point.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that one's medical history needs to be disclosed to avail of a service, unless you consider providing proof of vaccination as such, but I find that to be disingenuous in the context of a global pandemic, and I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting anyway.
Maybe I have missed an earlier point.
no prob.
https://c19ivermectin.com/ (compilation of all studies)
https://ivmmeta.com/ (meta analysis by the same group that compiled the above)
https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml (peer reviewed published paper endorsing early treatment, covers many medications, including ivermectin)
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf (FLCCC meta-analysis on Ivermectin)
https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4ee...d/593c4f_8cb655bd21b1448ba6cf1f4c59f0d73d.pdf (Dr. Tess Lawrie's meta-analysis on Ivermectin, she's been consulting for the WHO and other agencies for a long time)
(Tess Lawrie discussing her group's meta-analysis with Dr. John Campbell)
https://www.medincell.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Clinical_Safety_of_Ivermectin-March_2021.pdf (safety analysis on Ivermectin)
(Tess Lawrie and Dr. Been WHO recommendation analysis)
(Ivermectin mechanism of action against Sars-CoV-2)
https://jamaletter.com/ (Doctors refuting the JAMA study)
https://c19ivermectin.com/ (compilation of all studies)
https://ivmmeta.com/ (meta analysis by the same group that compiled the above)
https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml (peer reviewed published paper endorsing early treatment, covers many medications, including ivermectin)
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf (FLCCC meta-analysis on Ivermectin)
https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4ee...d/593c4f_8cb655bd21b1448ba6cf1f4c59f0d73d.pdf (Dr. Tess Lawrie's meta-analysis on Ivermectin, she's been consulting for the WHO and other agencies for a long time)
(Tess Lawrie discussing her group's meta-analysis with Dr. John Campbell)
https://www.medincell.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Clinical_Safety_of_Ivermectin-March_2021.pdf (safety analysis on Ivermectin)
(Tess Lawrie and Dr. Been WHO recommendation analysis)
(Ivermectin mechanism of action against Sars-CoV-2)
https://jamaletter.com/ (Doctors refuting the JAMA study)
Last edited:
Actually I do feel that providing proof of vaccination is something that is protected and should be protected. It is a slippery slope that I am afraid we are already on. That is why I suggested the compromise. I am leary of public spaces especially with the growing non-compliance with mask wearing. But that is me. I also see a difference between being made to wear a mask and being forced to take a treatment. One is temporary and the other of unknown duration. If you are okay with this, why stop there? Mandate flu vaccination. Tens of thousands die in just the US most every year. Many of these could be prevented with universal vaccination. Slippery slope.
I am getting my second shot next week. But despite my work offering them much earlier, it was not mandatory. I made the decision after determining for myself that the risk of not taking was MUCH greater than the actual risk of taking them. It should not be mandatory but left to the individual. But as someone else stated at a point you have to let people live with their choices and if they haven't protected themselves then there shouldn't be a requirement for us to wear masks for their sakes.
I am getting my second shot next week. But despite my work offering them much earlier, it was not mandatory. I made the decision after determining for myself that the risk of not taking was MUCH greater than the actual risk of taking them. It should not be mandatory but left to the individual. But as someone else stated at a point you have to let people live with their choices and if they haven't protected themselves then there shouldn't be a requirement for us to wear masks for their sakes.
So which article from your site ivermectin.com do you consider a strong argument because no offense, from a quick glance they don’t look very strong. There seems to be a lot from studies in South America which has a very different population dynamic from the US. Two a lot of them have extremely small sample sizes and was also treated concurrently with other agents. I can see where you get the 15000 from the top of the site but that seems a bit disingenuous as that’s not a a single trial of 15k which I would find more compelling. The 15k is a total of all the participant group together from many singular trial which all predominantly done in South Asia, Africa and South America.
Last edited:
Actually the highest form of evidence is a meta-analysis which provides an analysis of a cohort of studies (of course, filtering what needs to be filtered). A study having a small sample size doesn't really attest to the quality of the study being done, it just means it has a lower N-value.
A lot of these clinical trials were done by clinicians themselves, that is, them throwing down their own money to fund the trial. That doesn't make them any less worthy.
And of course, who wouldn't want to have a giant 15,000 person randomized placebo controlled trial assuming it's well done, but there's issues with that including costs and ethics considering the data that exists for Ivermectin.
Trials being done in 3rd world countries also don't make them any less worthy.
Here are two studies:
https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-100956/v1/682247ca-ef49-4d68-aa3f-493a8fc9a056.pdf
A lot of these clinical trials were done by clinicians themselves, that is, them throwing down their own money to fund the trial. That doesn't make them any less worthy.
And of course, who wouldn't want to have a giant 15,000 person randomized placebo controlled trial assuming it's well done, but there's issues with that including costs and ethics considering the data that exists for Ivermectin.
Trials being done in 3rd world countries also don't make them any less worthy.
Here are two studies:
https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34898-4/fulltext
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-100956/v1/682247ca-ef49-4d68-aa3f-493a8fc9a056.pdf
Count me in as a person who will never step foot in G1C as long as they require a vaccine to get in. A business has a right to create rules like that and the people have a right to take their business elsewhere. In the end, all Vivek or any business owner really care about is the bottom dollar. When they start getting hit in their wallets, they'll all the sudden soften up on all these new age ideas that they're all onboard with right now. What's scary is they're trying to condition the general public to be compliant with all these new rules that violate our general freedoms because if they make the general public compliant, then they can push whatever rules they want, still get their money and still keep their power.
The Kings can't even win 41 games in a season and you think they are scheming on how they can condition and shape the public to do what they want? Lol, c'mon man. If you don't want to go, that's cool, but there isn't some higher plan to their strategy.
Most of these rules are a liability play. They are just covering their a**
Most of these rules are a liability play. They are just covering their a**
- Status