a covid study i would like to see
let's do a real cost benefit comparison of vaccines vs other prophylactic treatments
vaccines, especially mRNA vaccines are expensive, experimental, and high risk.
their cost/benefit for healthy people is questionable and for children outright bad
other forms of safe, affordable, well tested prophylaxis and early treatment modalities exist and may be just as effective
these regimens are certainly lower risk
it’s time we abandoned the “vaccination uber alles” marketing pitch and looked at the real risk/reward of various courses of severe covid prevention
supplying schools with blister packs of safe, effective medicines to prevent and moderate covid in those exposed may be a better option than forcing experimental vaccines on children whose risk reward from vaccination is strongly negative.
it’s time for real, head to head trials to measure full risk reward and to stop forcing the intervention that happens to be incredibly profitable for big political donors onto people as a default policy
that’s not science. it’s crony capitalism.
many global leaders are becoming increasingly suspicious of the massive marketing push for vaccines to the exclusion of all else, especially as it appears that efficacy is being overstated, risks are being all but ignored, and the general idea of risk/benefit analysis that underpins all sound medical choices is being given such stunningly short shrift.
watch this video from the mexican president and health minister. they, like india, see the pharma marketing for what it is. perhaps this is because so many pharma companies have been so much more nakedly predatory in the third world for so much longer that their denizens lack the (largely underserved in my opinion) large reservoir of public trust of pharma seen in the devolved world.
maybe it’s as simple as these countries cannot afford massive vaccine programs and are instead looking for affordable options as india did. the third world did not balk at using widely available generic drugs to treat covid and push and cheat for nearly useless (but patented and expensive) drugs like remdesivir.
they also had weaker hospitals so they focused on prevention, prophylaxis, and early treatment to prevent progression. and they had quite good success once regimens were established.
yet this was barely mentioned in the western press.
call me my cynical paws, but it’s almost as big big pharma, perhaps the most important advertiser for US media after cars and beer, exerted some influence here. ..
“Referring to a pre-official release of a randomised controlled trial using Ivermectin in three doses in primary contacts of COVID-19, Dr. Manikappa said that 93 % of primary contacts who received Ivermectin did not develop any symptoms and 58 % of primary contacts who did not receive Ivermectin did progress to have symptoms of the pandemic.
“Quadruple Therapy includes Ivermectin 12 mg one dose, Doxycycline 100 mg once a day for four days, Zinc 50 mg once a day for four days and Vitamin D3 once a week. Ivermectin, Doxycycline and Zinc are to be repeated every 14 days and Vitamin D3 every week with blood levels monitored. The synergistic effect of these medicine acts to prevent viral multiplication and also stop the virus from entering human cells. Thomas Borody, an Australian gastroenterologist who is known for curing peptic ulcers with triple antibiotic therapy, has revealed that one block in South America that received Ivermectin combination prophylaxis did not contract coronavirus infection while others did,” he said.
On the side effects, Dr. Manikappa said that Ivermectin was being used in 3.7 billion people for intestinal parasites and was found to be safe. “These are not new medicine. They are already in use for treating different ailments and are found to be safe. They can be prescribed by any doctor to control the pandemic,” he said.”
some indian regions offered blister packs of this full 4 drug course. it was priced at INR 150 ($1.95 US). so, for a dollar ninety five, you could treat a patient. and you only treated those exposed or those showing the early symptoms.
this is a win both from a cost standpoint and from a side effect standpoint. adverse events were minimal and minor and were only experienced by those treated, not the whole of a society as occurs with vaccination.
how well this worked societally is hard to measure from aggregates. but this is certainly provocative:
at the very least, it warrants study. and yet we got none.
in fact, we got the opposite.
in the US, ivermectin was attacked, vilified, claimed to be ineffective and unsafe, and subjected to all manner of other FUD and smears, but the studies eventually did out. even the wall st journal is now dunking on US health officials over this.
The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?
“Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.”
this alone is outright bizarre. the FDA almost never does such things (except in covid). as someone who has been in and around in their approval processes for decades, it was shocking. they generally leave wide latitude for physicians. something like 1/3 of US prescription drugs are used off label.
outright post facto proscription is something i had almost never seen before, especially in a safe, widely used drug. this smacks of agenda, not science. and the FDA is more political now by magnitudes than i’ve ever seen it in my career.
“The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic.
Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.
Some 70 clinical trials are evaluating the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19. The statistically significant evidence suggests that it is safe and works for both treating and preventing the disease.”
awfully odd that this effective and longstanding medication taken by billions with a B of people worldwide was suddenly such a risk. it always struck me as wildly out of both proportion and character. but then so has most of what the FDA has done this year.
this kind of EUA for vaccines with rigged trial structures and high incidence of serious AE’s, especially around a vaccine type (mRNA) that has NEVER been approved in human and has shown some severe risks in animals was always odd. so was outright banning approved medications (like HCO) and burying highly effective, available, and affordable ones like budesonide, a common asthma medicine that resulted in an 80% drop in ER trips in a good RCT.
we seem to have abandoned the idea that there is any way to handle this but vaccines. and this is a bad idea and worse medical practice.
it increasingly looks like naked crony capitalism. naturally acquired immunity vastly outperforms vaccinated, so if you can reduce risk of natural to below that of taking and benefiting from a vaccine using prophylaxis and early treatment, it’s a 99% cost saver with fewer risks and greater reward.
thus the study idea:
let’s do a head to head study of vaccines vs blister packs with ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc, and vitamin d3. we can also add placebo arms for saline injection and dummy pills.
and this is going to be a REAL study, not a slanted one like the pfizer and moderna trials where they measure efficacy and risk from 7 days after the second dose and thus dodge all the nasty side effects and the period of low or possibly negative efficacy.
let’s measure infection, progression, and transmission.
and let’s document every single AE meticulously over full treatment course.
as a betting gato, my money is on blister pack for the hands down risk reward win.
the pfizer 6 month data is not impressive when you look at the full sweep of “began vaccination to present.”
even vs placebo, the risk reward looks pretty unattractive in healthy people. (and those enrolled were far healthier than population norm. this made efficacy look better. it also means it was not trialed in those who have shown the highest risk.)
this is not a great risk profile. it’s FAR worse for kids. the CDC’s own data says so.
over 25% of under 25's got so sick from vax they could not undertake normal daily activities. that’s worse than getting actual covid. mRNA vax is 20X as likely to put a 12-15 year old in the hospital as actual covid.
this happened to pretty much no one taking a blister pack of 2 vitamins and 2 of the most common medications in the world.
so why on earth would we be demanding vaccinations for schools? this is lunacy. schools never spread covid and kids rarely got anything worse than a cold. they did not spread it to others to any meaningful degree.
so why are we forcing kids to get a jab that looks 20X higher risk than actual disease when we could, instead, stock every school in the US with 4 drug blister packs at something like 1/50th the cost, easier logistics, safer outcomes, and probably similar efficacy? a school nurse could hand these out.
why are we not, at the very least, testing this hypothesis?
the lack of curiosity and basic scientific practice here borders on the criminal.
why are workplaces demanding jabs, not stockpiling packs? why does the government want expensive, experimental vaccines and draconian vax passports instead of affordable and safe treatment?
you can literally get a morning after pill for pregnancy risk, but not a blister pack for covid exposure?
my body, my choice*
(unless big pharma can make outside profits by denying it to you)
is not much of a rallying cry, is it?
the time for these back-bench apparatchiks and phony scientists spewing false claims in the name of crony capitalisms is long since over.
enough with the jabronis and their all encompassing monomania.
demand real science. demand real studies.
This entire time my most important question has gone unanswered: If my doctor and I both think Ivermectin can help, why is that anybody else's business?
Why do they blame the unvaccinated when the fully vaxxed infect the fully vaxxed?
Why do they continue to push the jabs when they've just admitted they don't work as advertised?
Why are they advocating another dose of the jab for last year's virus to protect against next year's virus?
Why do they continue to advocate for "vaccine passports" when they've just admitted the jabs don't prevent infection or transmission?
Why do they push mandates when they've just admitted the jabs don't prevent infection or transmission?
Why are they claiming that the Delta variant is more dangerous when the data from the UK clearly show it is less deadly?
As of 7/19/2021...
Unvaxxed: 121,402 cases/165 deaths/0.1359%
Unvaxxed <50: 119,063 cases/34 deaths/0.0286%
Unvaxxed 50+: 2,337 cases/131 deaths/5.606%
Fully Vaxxed: 28,773 cases/224 deaths/0.7785%
Fully Vaxxed <50: 15,346 cases/4 deaths/0.0260%
Fully Vaxxed 50+: 13,427 cases/220 deaths/1.6385%
24,952 Unlinked Infections
54,091 Partially Vaxxed Infections
28,773 Fully Vaxxed Infections
121,402 Unvaxxed Infections
There were 59 more deaths of fully vaxxed than unvaxxed.
124 more deaths of fully/partially vaxxed than unvaxxed.
Why do they claim that breakthrough infections are rare when they are not?
"Another estimates that there are 35,000 symptomatic infections per week among 162 million vaccinated Americans."
I don't know if money and grift and cya are sufficient to explain the reality we live in right now.
Is it failure or is it a plan?