The Sports And COVID Vaccine Thread
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
- Status
macadocious
Starter
Can you stop being part of the MSM propaganda machine?
John Galt
Starter
Can’t tell if this is facetious
Last edited:
I would say it all depends on how much of a risk taker you are and what your risk and benefit ratio is. Medicine is not a black and white science and it's all boils down risk and benefit. For example, if I was to work in a field like IT that I don't have a ton of exposure to Covid and my entire family is vaccinated then I am probably more willing to take more risk since even if I or one of my family member are a breakthrough covid case, the chance of us getting sick enough to be in a hospital is fairly low. On the other hand, I work in the hospital and knee deep in Covid all day and I have a toddler at home along with having an immunocompromise sister, I have kept up my universal precaution despite being vaccinated since December.
On a side note, I got my pfizer vaccine in mid December of last year but I was definitely hesitant at first and I didn't plan on getting it unless the benefit was clear since it was very early on. By that point in December, I've already had taken care of a fair share of Covid cases and plenty of close call since I pretty much use the same N95 (they're meant for single use) for a week at time or just a surgical mask alone that I figure i would have developed some immunity due to exposure. I checked my covid antibody level and it was negative so i went ahead and got the vaccine. Had my antibody level at that point already was positive then I probably would have waited on the vaccine. Three weeks after my second shot i repeat my antibody test and it was positive. While not the most scientific experiment by any means, but it was a win win in my book. Win for the fact that masks did work in preventing from getting sick at all prior to vaccine despite exposure and win for that I know that the vaccine works. I am generally a risk averse person so to me the masking up and the vaccine clearly has a better benefit than risk.
whozit
Starter
I also took the vaccine after hesitation. I plan on getting the booster when available. In public, the need to wear a mask is still there. In my office, no. If you come into my office, there's six feet from the the seats and where I am sitting.
However, I don't wear one at home and my wife works in close quarters with children at school making me a risk of becoming a break through case. Just like her coworker was. Who ignorantly came to work sick despite her husband being a break through case thinking she was safe because she was vaccinated. Many of the first vaccinated are now in the time frame that the vaccines are weakening.
Our medical director shared a study on the antibodies created after immunization. There’s a large range in results from individual to individual with age appearantly an important variable the older you are. Not for the better. I am not aware of them knowing the "exact" threshold of antibodies needed for protection. Start with lower antibodies created, it may not take much reduction in efficiency to make the vaccine ineffective depending on individual. I would recommend vaccines with the caveat to not assume you are protected and even less as time goes on. The vaccinated are helping spread it with a cavalier attitude of being protected.
I think it was.
Section 101
All-Star
So it's been 8+ months now. Have you an antibody test done again?
It's a bit more complicated. Most of the assays to test for antibody use a technique call ELISA which is very sensitive test so even at the tiniest existing level of antibody it will be positive but that doesn't necessarily mean it's enough for neutralization. Secondly, the immune system is a bit complex. For generalization sake, antibodies has a half life of 10-30 days so with any vaccine or or natural infection, your antibodies will decrease over time. What doesn't go down that quickly are memory B and T cells and that's basically the basis of vaccine technology. Memory B cells basically store the information of the antigen (in this case the spike protein on Covid) so that when it encounters the antigen again, it can quickly mass produce antibodies right away against it. Memory B cell can circulate in your body for decade. For example, that's why booster for Tetanus vaccine can be up to 10 years once you're prime. The Tetanus vaccine is basically base on inactivated tetanus toxin. The toxin doesn't mutate so once you're developed some Memory B cells, you're good for quite some years. I guess a better test would be to detect circulating memory B cell specific to the antigen you're looking for. That's a bit harder and it's been 10-15 years since I've been involve in basic science research so I can't really comment on that. My guess is that it is probably feasible and probably done in some academic lab but not practical in the clinical setting yet.
Back to your question, I haven't decide if I am going to get antibody test again since I am not sure how helpful it is in term of my decision making process. If it's still positive then I guess for morale-wise I'll feel good about it but not enough of a reason for me to decline a booster. If it's negative then I definitely would want a booster.
miltonap
Starter
You jump to some amazing conclusions. Propaganda? Hit piece? Sole purpose is to push vaccines? Completely unethical?
No, it's a reminder that the drug has not been proven to help. It may work. The science is NOT "clear". Even the drug manufacturer says not to take it for COVID. Here is what they said:
Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Merck.com
This is also very informative:
Ivermectin Is the New Hydroxychloroquine: Seeking the Elusive Covid Cure - Bloomberg
Do you honestly think if it worked that doctors and others wouldn't be tripping over themselves to save lives??? You espouse these conspiracy theories and ignore the reality. Doctors are doing everything they can to keep folks alive with COVID patients. If it truly worked, and was proven to work, they would prescribe it and the manufacturer would help promote it. Or do you think all the doctors around the world are intentionally withholding existing medications that work? Do you know how much money Merck could make by simply ramping up production of an existing drug they make to save lives in a pandemic???
The studies you linked indicate that it may help. GREAT! I would be happy to see a proven medication relieve the pain, suffering, and in many cases, death from COVID. Nothing would make me happier (relating to COVID sufferers, that is).
But people are literally taking horse and cow drugs and poisoning themselves (instead of getting a proven, approved vaccine to prevent the hospitalizations and deaths to begin with!). They are too ignorant to realize the difference between prescribed versions and the vet versions and the already overwhelmed doctors are now faced with dealing with these overdose victims as well. And the studies have some problems, discussed above, and the manufacturer says not to take it and hasn't done the studies that prove it would help.
In fact, if you read the info from your links, they say this:
In other words, the initial review looks promising but you need to do the work, perform the controlled studies, check dosages, and run it through the FDA for their authorization, and then they can use it. You know, rigorous studies like the vaccines went through. And if they can generate a vaccine, do the trials, and get authorization, then everyone has had plenty of time to run this existing medication (already approved for use with people in the US) to see if it truly works or not. Do the work.
The science IS clear, you are just uneducated about the subject. I know that because you don’t even know that Merck isn’t the manufacturer of Ivermectin anymore. Their patent expired decades ago.
Maybe if you really don’t understand a subject don’t say anything at all ?
Also, the idea of Ivermectin being useless at the FDA approved .2mg/kg dose is pretty funny. That’s not what the data shows. Many of the studies are done at .2mg/kg, and there is a clear correlation between dosing and outcomes. That can’t happen if a drug doesn’t work.
Ivermectin’s safety profile is impeccable. Here is a large report on its safety
https://www.medincell.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Clinical_Safety_of_Ivermectin-March_2021.pdf
Here is another study that was done to assess safety at doses higher than what is FDA approved, up to 10x.
https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1177/009127002237994
DOCTORS AND OTHERS ARE TRIPPING THEMSELVES TO SAVE LIVES YOU’RE JUST NOT PAYING ATTENTION AT ALL. It’s not me that doesn’t understand reality, it’s you that is uneducated about this subject.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4930...y-senate-hearing-ivermectin-100-cure-covid-19
This doctor’s group, the FLCCC, is the most published medical organization in the world. They’ve been advocating hard for Ivermectin since last year and many, like myself, have paid attention. You again, just don’t know what you’re talking about. Feel free to go to their website and look through their resumes.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
And FYI, before corticosteroids became the standard of care in late hospital phase, it was the FLCCC that was screaming at the government to approve their use. Nobody listened to them, the media called them quacks. It took a large randomized controlled trial that barely passed due to under-dosed steroids for the government to finally do something about the use of corticosteroids in Covid-19.
This happened months after the recommendation by the FLCCC.
And again, maybe people wouldn’t have to resort to vet versions of Ivermectin if the human version was rightfully promoted by the government. You shouldn’t blame people for wanting to get help. The current NIH guidelines are a ridiculous set of guidelines that tell people to do absolutely nothing until they get so sick to the point that they can’t breathe. It is a ridiculous, uncompassionate, unscientific set of guidelines set by the health organizations who you seem to revere and trust so much.
You also need to re-read the excerpt you quoted from one of the meta-analyses. They disagree with the NIH’s recommendation. They are saying that this doesn’t make sense during a global health emergency and in consideration of such a safe low-cost drug as Ivermectin.
Maybe you can educate yourself more on the data surrounding Ivermectin before discussing more.
https://ivmmeta.com/
There are expert opinions, epidemiological studies, observational studies, randomized controlled trials, as well as meta-analyses.
What kind of a strawman is this? Miltonap literally stated in the very first paragraph that he was not advocating taking horse dewormer and your response is literally you making fun of him for advocating horse dewormer. You're better than this man.
That Tweet that Warhawk posted from the FDA is propaganda. The propaganda does not lie in the fact that people should not be taking animal deworming medicine. That is common sense. The propaganda lies in the article's headline "Why you should not use Ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19". That is the propaganda because it does not follow the studies being done in other countries where they are successfully treating people with the drug. Not the horse dewormer variety.
If you search for the drug on google vs. say duck duck go, you'll get much different results. Google is doing their part in the propaganda, the same way most social media sites are. The algorithms are feeding you information they want you to know, not necessarily the information you're looking for.
I don't know if Ivermectin really works or not so I wouldn't count on it to save my life but I also don't trust the FDA, who have multiple people that are backed by big pharma, to ignore a cheap drug that works in order to push vaccines out to millions of people, which has doubled Pfizer's profits in just the last year alone.
That's funny. So Merck decided to issue a statement on a drug they no longer manufacture? So then what is Stromectol? And why does Merck have it on their website and provide assistance for getting it for those in need? Apparently Merck tricked Reuters to say that Merck manufactures it as well?
I never said they were the ONLY manufacturer of the drug.
Stromectol PI (merck.com)
Merck Programs to Help Those in Need - Product (merckhelps.com)
WHO joins Europe, Merck in recommending against ivermectin for COVID-19 | Reuters
Look, you apparently are having a hard time understanding my statements for some reason. Let me spell it out a little simpler:
- I never said it wasn't safe for use for people at the recommended dosages and intended use when prescribed by their doctor.
- I clearly said it may work for this as well but hasn't yet been proven to, at least to the satisfaction of the FDA.
- I also clearly said that I hope it does work and saves lives!
- I provided documented cases of people ignoring doctor's, the federal government's, and the manufacturer's advice and consuming veterinarian-provided drugs for large animals and poisoning themselves.
Look - it may be a wonder drug. It may cure cancer, regrow hair, straighten crooked teeth, and fix broken bones. It may even make me 20 years younger at slightly higher doses. So run the required tests / studies, document it, submit it for federal review, and no problem! But that hasn't been done at this point. And the, um, less sophisticated amongst us are ignoring common sense and consuming medicine for horses and cows and poisoning themselves because some nut on the radio or your "out there" pseudo-news channel is telling them to instead of talking to their doctors about it first. And they are the ones calling everyone else sheep!
Last edited:
Approval for use in other countries is often to a lower standard than that required for use in the USA. So great, if it works: do a large, statistically-valid study, document it, and submit your proof for emergency authorization of Ivermectin for use in the USA. That hasn't been done. There's been plenty of time at this point.
Do you really think the FDA is going to come out and say "we know a lot of you are buying livestock medicine and poisoning yourselves - please make sure you cut it first before unauthorized use (unless you are the size of Andre the Giant)"? Get real. The calls for poisoning aren't coming from folks that got this from a doctor for authorized use for treating parasites....
miltonap
Starter
That's funny. So Merck decided to issue a statement on a drug they no longer manufacture? So then what is Stromectol? And why does Merck have it on their website and provide assistance for getting it for those in need? Apparently Merck tricked Reuters to say that Merck manufactures it as well?
I never said they were the ONLY manufacturer of the drug.
Stromectol PI (merck.com)
Merck Programs to Help Those in Need - Product (merckhelps.com)
WHO joins Europe, Merck in recommending against ivermectin for COVID-19 | Reuters
Look, you apparently are having a hard time understanding my statements for some reason. Let me spell it out a little simpler:
Merck (or others) have had plenty of time to run it by the FDA for approval at this point; heck, three vaccines have been developed, tested, been submitted for consideration, gone through federal review and individual state reviews after the federal review, and authorized for use as of what, February? So you are saying Merck (or others) can't put together a rigorous study on an existing drug that has already been approved for human use for parasites in the same amount of time?
- I never said it wasn't safe for use for people at the recommended dosages and intended use when prescribed by their doctor.
- I clearly said it may work for this as well but hasn't yet been proven to, at least to the satisfaction of the FDA.
- I also clearly said that I hope it does work and saves lives!
- I provided documented cases of people ignoring doctor's, the federal government's, and the manufacturer's advice and consuming veterinarian-provided drugs for large animals and poisoning themselves.
Look - it may be a wonder drug. It may cure cancer, regrow hair, straighten crooked teeth, and fix broken bones. It may even make me 20 years younger at slightly higher doses. So run the required tests / studies, document it, submit it for federal review, and no problem! But that hasn't been done at this point. And the, um, less sophisticated amongst us are ignoring common sense and consuming medicine for horses and cows and poisoning themselves because some nut on the radio or your "out there" pseudo-news channel is telling them to instead of talking to their doctors about it first. And they are the ones calling everyone else sheep!
You're being dishonest af. Why don't you just admit that you thought they were THE manufacturer of Ivermectin ? It's obvious in your post.
It also seems that you don't know what off-patent means. It means anyone can make the drug, there's hundreds of manufacturers all of the world that make Ivermectin, it's extremely low cost.
What benefit would there be for Merck to pour in millions of dollars to run a large randomized control trial for a cheap off-patent drug ? Because they have a kind heart? Get a grip.
Merck is developing Molnupiravir, there is an incentive for them to trash Ivermectin.
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-an...e-for-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/
You ask for a mega large randomized control trial. There's already peer reviewed meta-analyses, the highest form of medical evidence.
You ask why hasn't anyone funded a mega large trial ? You need to understand that a mega large trial costs millions of dollars to run. Most Ivermectin studies come from middle to low income countries. You make it sound so easy for someone to invest this kind of money for a generic drug.
You would also think that the NIH or one of these groups would have felt incentivized to run a large trial like that for the good of the people. Interesting that it wasn't done isn't it ?
Instead the NIH funded a trial for a novel drug called Remdesivir, which doesn't even work in the hospital phase by the way and is showing the potential to cause acute kidney toxicity. Oh and it costs 3k USD a dose, forgot that important bit.
I don't know if you are aware of this but money talks in this society. It seems you don't really understand this judging from your posts.
I knew Merck made it. You are the one who said they didn't, while they clearly still do. Others make it as well. So what? Why is this a hill you want to die on?
I said study or trial, but it could be whatever proof is required to establish that it works. It hasn't been provided yet, or at least to the satisfaction of the FDA.
The "peer reviewed meta-analysis" has shown it may work, but others say the data/analysis isn't sufficient or doesn't show a strong enough correlation. I'm leaving that argument to the pros who know a lot more about medicine and statistics than I do. But I'll take the word of the FDA and the NIH over an aggregation of foreign studies that show debatable results.
And I'm certainly not going to start buying livestock and pills chugging them down without better proof than that. "If it's good enough for Bessie, I guess it's good enough for me!" That's kind of the point of this discussion.
Actually, never mind, I'm vaccinated. I more almost assuredly won't have to worry about it anyways. I'll leave the mad rush to the vet for livestock meds to those who for some reason think that's a smarter option than a proven and authorized vaccine.
Edit: I'm still wondering why you are ignoring what I said. I hope it works. I hope it helps. Just do what it takes to prove it so folks can use it if it does. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? If it's the wonder drug you say it is, someone should be able to do that. And if not, then keep buying literal horse meds. Whatever makes you happy.
Last edited:
whozit
Starter
I really don't think he is advocating taking meds from the vets. But apparently some are. Do you remember the media response after our former president advocated a particular drug? A drug that my child takes (other reasons) and had been considered extremely safe for 70+ years was suddenly bad and extremely dangerous. Why was that?
We have vaccines partly because of "warp speed" that the last administration implemented. Ten billion? for the development. It was smart because it took the risk off of the manufacturers to put in the work. Pharmaceutical companies don't do the research for the common good, they do it where they think they can corner a segment of the market. To do or not to do depends largely on the outlook on the bottom line. They were assured a good or at least break even for anything invested.
One thing that has desipointed me from the last administration on, where was the financial resources being provided on new treatments for those who already had Covid? Perhaps it was being provided but not widely published. I have my doubts. It seems anything other than vaccines was dismissed and discouraged. Vaccines going at the source is good dismissing the symptoms by not putting the funding for more effective treatments not so good. With all the money spent, some spent there under same conditions could have been money well spent.
miltonap
Starter
The "Pros" at the NIH and the FDA are never going to approve it. Unless the vaccines turn out to be a total failure and stop working. They are just not interested. Pre-pandemic the FDA has approved drugs with 1/10th of the evidence that exists right now for Ivermectin. And it's an unbelievably safe drug. It's never going to happen. And this has nothing to do with science like you think it does. I hope you realize that one day. These health organizations don't care about you as much as you think they do.
And there's no need for horse Ivermectin when there are plenty of doctors that have followed the evidence and will prescribe human Ivermectin for Covid-19.
www.exstnc.com
Padrino
All-Star
The lengths some will go to in order to die (sometimes literally) on very particular partisan hills absolutely staggers the mind, as does the magical thinking amongst this set. Perfectly safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 are suspect in the minds of many because they initially only received "Emergency Use Authorization" from the FDA. The implication, of course, is that the vaccines were not thoroughly vetted, and that these individuals would have been less suspicious of the vaccines if they had received full and complete approval from the FDA.
That said, the FDA is likely to award the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines their full approval as early as tomorrow. Will this actually change the minds of those who are refusing vaccination, including some in this thread, who claim only to be expressing healthy skepticism devoid of any sectarian considerations whatsoever? I imagine it will not. In fact, I'd guess it won't make even the tiniest dent in the armor they've created to insulate themselves from tangible reality. I suspect the goalposts will move yet again as justification for this "skepticism" (in some cases, the goalposts have already been moved preemptively in anticipation of the FDA's full approval of the vaccines).
And in spite of all that "healthy skepticism" anti-vaxxers claim to be espousing, many amongst them will still tout a variety of drugs and therapeutics that, while potentially safe under specific circumstances to treat conditions unrelated to COVID-19, have yet to undergo even a fraction of the rigorous testing as treatments for COVID-19 that were undertaken in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines themselves. The very argument that justifies their vaccine skepticism in the first place is not nearly as faithfully applied to their pet alternative drug(s) of choice, because where would the logic exist in that?
Vaccines that are under a global microscope of immense proportions, that have undergone incredibly scrupulous trials, that have been approved by scores of government agencies and health organizations around the world, that are earnestly recommended by millions of medical professionals and are being safely administered to billions of patients with a negligible risk of side effect, are worthy of intense skepticism, but undertested treatments for COVID-19, including such flavors of the week in the last year-and-a-half as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, are awarded special status in the eyes of those who are actively seeking confirmations of their existing biases. Might ivermectin be a valuable tool in the fight against COVID-19? Perhaps. Some data suggests it could be effective. More rigorous testing should be done. But why is the insufficient data currently available for ivermectin's effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 more convincing than the much more thoroughly-vetted COVID-19 vaccine approval process?
There are just mountains of bad faith arguments being made on the subject of the COVID-19 vaccines. And for whatever reason, it's more straightforward for some to believe that deception, manipulation, and coercion are occurring on a massively-coordinated global scale than to accept the realities of the readily available and easily decipherable data that says: you're much better off with the vaccine than without it, particularly now that the Delta variant predominates; you're highly unlikely to develop any significant side-effects to the vaccine; and most importantly, you will help protect others if you get it.
That said, the FDA is likely to award the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines their full approval as early as tomorrow. Will this actually change the minds of those who are refusing vaccination, including some in this thread, who claim only to be expressing healthy skepticism devoid of any sectarian considerations whatsoever? I imagine it will not. In fact, I'd guess it won't make even the tiniest dent in the armor they've created to insulate themselves from tangible reality. I suspect the goalposts will move yet again as justification for this "skepticism" (in some cases, the goalposts have already been moved preemptively in anticipation of the FDA's full approval of the vaccines).
And in spite of all that "healthy skepticism" anti-vaxxers claim to be espousing, many amongst them will still tout a variety of drugs and therapeutics that, while potentially safe under specific circumstances to treat conditions unrelated to COVID-19, have yet to undergo even a fraction of the rigorous testing as treatments for COVID-19 that were undertaken in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines themselves. The very argument that justifies their vaccine skepticism in the first place is not nearly as faithfully applied to their pet alternative drug(s) of choice, because where would the logic exist in that?
Vaccines that are under a global microscope of immense proportions, that have undergone incredibly scrupulous trials, that have been approved by scores of government agencies and health organizations around the world, that are earnestly recommended by millions of medical professionals and are being safely administered to billions of patients with a negligible risk of side effect, are worthy of intense skepticism, but undertested treatments for COVID-19, including such flavors of the week in the last year-and-a-half as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, are awarded special status in the eyes of those who are actively seeking confirmations of their existing biases. Might ivermectin be a valuable tool in the fight against COVID-19? Perhaps. Some data suggests it could be effective. More rigorous testing should be done. But why is the insufficient data currently available for ivermectin's effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 more convincing than the much more thoroughly-vetted COVID-19 vaccine approval process?
There are just mountains of bad faith arguments being made on the subject of the COVID-19 vaccines. And for whatever reason, it's more straightforward for some to believe that deception, manipulation, and coercion are occurring on a massively-coordinated global scale than to accept the realities of the readily available and easily decipherable data that says: you're much better off with the vaccine than without it, particularly now that the Delta variant predominates; you're highly unlikely to develop any significant side-effects to the vaccine; and most importantly, you will help protect others if you get it.
Last edited:
whozit
Starter
The one thing I will say about this is that while there is a vocal subset, the hesitancy to not take it goes across all subsets. One subset that definitely doesn't go where you and others are trying to box the opposition in from have at least historical justification for being apprehensive of any new vaccine. They are also a subset that Covid has hitten among the hardest and probably need it the most.The lengths some will go to in order to die (sometimes literally) on very particular partisan hills absolutely staggers the mind, as does the magical thinking amongst this set. Perfectly safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 are suspect in the minds of many because they initially only received "Emergency Use Authorization" from the FDA. The implication, of course, is that the vaccines were not thoroughly vetted, and that these individuals would have been less suspicious of the vaccines if they had received full and complete approval from the FDA.
That said, the FDA is likely to award the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines their full approval as early as tomorrow. Will this actually change the minds of those who are refusing vaccination, including some in this thread, who claim only to be expressing healthy skepticism devoid of any sectarian considerations whatsoever? I imagine it will not. In fact, I'd guess it won't make even the tiniest dent in the armor they've created to insulate themselves from tangible reality. I suspect the goalposts will move yet again as justification for this "skepticism" (in some cases, the goalposts have already been moved preemptively in anticipation of the FDA's full approval of the vaccines).
And in spite of all that "healthy skepticism" anti-vaxxers claim to be espousing, many amongst them will still tout a variety of drugs and therapeutics that, while potentially safe under specific circumstances to treat conditions unrelated to COVID-19, have yet to undergo even a fraction of the rigorous testing as treatments for COVID-19 that were undertaken in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines themselves. The very argument that justifies their vaccine skepticism in the first place is not nearly as faithfully applied to their pet alternative drug(s) of choice, because where would the logic exist in that?
Vaccines that are under a global microscope of immense proportions, that have undergone incredibly scrupulous trials, that have been approved by scores of government agencies and health organizations around the world, that are earnestly recommended by millions of medical professionals and are being safely administered to billions of patients with a negligible risk of side effect, are worthy of intense skepticism, but undertested treatments for COVID-19, including such flavors of the week in the last year-and-a-half as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, are awarded special status in the eyes of those who are actively seeking confirmations of their existing biases. Might ivermectin be a valuable tool in the fight against COVID-19? Perhaps. Some data suggests it could be effective. More rigorous testing should be done. But why is the insufficient data currently available for ivermectin's effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 more convincing than the much more thoroughly-vetted COVID-19 vaccine approval process?
There are just mountains of bad faith arguments being made on the subject of the COVID-19 vaccines. And for whatever reason, it's more straightforward for some to believe that deception, manipulation, and coercion are occurring on a massively-coordinated global scale than to accept the realities of the readily available and easily decipherable data that says: you're much better off with the vaccine than without it, particularly now that the Delta variant predominates; you're highly unlikely to develop any significant side-effects to the vaccine; and most importantly, you will help protect others if you get it.
Politics on what should have simply been a emergency public health issue have caused untold harm on society by all parties. No side should be allowed to feign innocence.
It may be so but you'd think there would have been more studies done in this country since the drug has been talked about since nearly the beginning of this whole thing. You don't find it strange that it seems to be working elsewhere but if you talk about it on social media, you can get banned here?
I never made the argument that the FDA should tell people to cut livestock medicine. Why do you guys keep making this strawman argument? Even the posts after yours have people doubling down on this false pretense that people here are advocating taking livestock medicine. The FDA should be honest about it since that's what we pay them to do. Just the same way our tax dollars don't pay Fauci the highest governmental salary in the country to lie to us about masks and then come out a couple months later and say he had to lie so the front line workers wouldn't run out.
All the FDA has to say is horse dewormer is bad and should never be consumed by an adult because it is dangerous. Ivermectin tablets for humans that are approved by the FDA are for conditions caused by parasitic worms in your intestines and can also treat head lice and some skin conditions but are not approved for the use of treating Covid. How difficult is that? There was no need for propaganda in this case. The fact that they used propaganda makes people wonder what are they trying to hide? If they stopped lying and were honest with people, they'd probably have a much higher vaccination rate.
Covid-19, Delta Variant and Vaccine News: Live Updates - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Covid-19 Updates: F.D.A. Grants Full Approval to Pfizer-BioNTech Covid Vaccine
Covid-19 Updates: F.D.A. Grants Full Approval to Pfizer-BioNTech Covid Vaccine
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Obviously a ploy by the #swamp!
Why down play the healing effects of horse downers and good ol’ American Clorox otherwise?
#theFDAarelizardpeople
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/23/us/pfizer-vaccine-mandates.html
The Pentagon moves to make vaccination mandatory in line with the F.D.A.’s approval.
The Pentagon moves to make vaccination mandatory in line with the F.D.A.’s approval.
I know you enjoy hanging out on the sidelines and jumping in for those "gotcha" moments but you're at the point where you're quadrupling down on an original incorrect strawman argument. Literally poking fun at a made up person inside your head that is eating horse pills, drinking Clorox and apparently thinks lizard people are real. We're all adults here, can we have a discussion without this nonsense? A lot of us here don't agree with each other but at least we're being civil and mature.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
most of the arguments against the vaccine would suggest otherwise.
whozit
Starter
Seriously? Apprehension is the description I would use on those I know that haven't taken it.
- Status
