Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Yep, notions of herd immunity and stopping the thing via a vaccinated population, are pretty much dead notions at this point.  Bummer.  Delta variant sucks, we saw the possibility, but hoped it wouldn't arrive.  And it did.  'rona ain't never going away.  

The way all of this is unfolding is very concerning to me. It seems as though there is no end! Sigh. 

There has never been a successful vaccine for the common cold, or for HIV, despite many efforts. Perhaps the most promising technology I've ever read about that would treat a multitude of virus strains is called DRACO (double-stranded RNA activated caspase oligomerizer). 

Despite DRACO's excellent lab results, it has never been able to attract industry funding to complete development. Skeptics may attribute that to the reluctance of pharmaceutical companies to pursue any solutions that do not provide an ongoing money stream (i.e. develop therapeutics, not cures) but only the developing researcher at MIT (Dr. Todd Rider) would know.

COVID is a double stranded RNA virus and would theoretically be cured by the administration of DRACO, but the US government has not pursued advancing the technology. That does confuse me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Rolling Stone' Caught Peddling Fake News About Ivermectin 'Horse Dewormer' Overdoses Overwhelming ERs

image.png.11f84054a5497f8b3b9900100faf7db0.png

https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/megan-fox/2021/09/05/rolling-stone-caught-peddling-fake-news-about-non-existent-ivermectin-overdoses-but-hasnt-even-corrected-the-headline-n1476231

"Rolling Stone magazine is in hot water for publishing fake news about an alleged rash of Ivermectin overdoses that they reported were taking over the emergency rooms in Oklahoma."

" .., the story was totally false. The doctor Rolling Stone quoted, Dr. Jason McElyea, isn’t even working at the emergency room he claimed was overrun by nonexistent Ivermectin overdoses. Rolling Stone issued an update:

UPDATE: Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah issued a statement: Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months. NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose."

Amazing how the press ran with this without even checking the story out or its sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, clwnuke said:

'Rolling Stone' Caught Peddling Fake News About Ivermectin 'Horse Dewormer' Overdoses Overwhelming ERs

image.png.11f84054a5497f8b3b9900100faf7db0.png

https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/megan-fox/2021/09/05/rolling-stone-caught-peddling-fake-news-about-non-existent-ivermectin-overdoses-but-hasnt-even-corrected-the-headline-n1476231

"Rolling Stone magazine is in hot water for publishing fake news about an alleged rash of Ivermectin overdoses that they reported were taking over the emergency rooms in Oklahoma."

" .., the story was totally false. The doctor Rolling Stone quoted, Dr. Jason McElyea, isn’t even working at the emergency room he claimed was overrun by nonexistent Ivermectin overdoses. Rolling Stone issued an update:

UPDATE: Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah issued a statement: Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months. NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose."

Amazing how the press ran with this without even checking the story out or its sources.

Rolling Stone might have missed the mark, but there’s a staggering irony here. The people who call pro vaxxers “sheep” are taking a medicine created for horses. If people can’t see the humor or irony here, I feel sorry for them. 
 

And if it even needs to be said, no. You really shouldn’t take a medicine made for....horses. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

Rolling Stone might have missed the mark, but there’s a staggering irony here. The people who call pro vaxxers “sheep” are taking a medicine created for horses. If people can’t see the humor or irony here, I feel sorry for them. 
 

And if it even needs to be said, no. You really shouldn’t take a medicine made for....horses. 
 

 

What makes the ivermectin that doctors prescribe different than the ivermectin in horse medicine?

I find more irony in the crowd that says "they missed the mark, there AREN'T overwhelming issues with people taking ivermectin, but you still shouldn't take it even though it appears to work"

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It doesn't.  All your articles state "not approved and higher concentrations".   All that means is "we don't approve it and you need to be aware of your dosage".

Here's some for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Quote

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

 

Quote

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

 

It makes a rational person wonder why they rushed a vaccine through to approval and yet they are ignoring clinical trials and reports of success with ivermectin.

 

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It doesn't.  All your articles state "not approved and higher concentrations".   All that means is "we don't approve it and you need to be aware of your dosage".

Here's some for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

 

 

 

Okay, I tried at least. 
 

Please think carefully before taking this everyone. It’s a medication that really shouldn’t be used for humans. Again, your choice of course. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Grunt said:

Ivermectin has been prescribed to humans for decades.  

Just for the record - I do have a legal prescription for Ivermectin, and a supply on hand in case I get COVID. It has become too expensive to take prophylactically (demand has doubled the price in recent weeks), but I have taken the recommended dosage.

Ivermectin is tasteless, and most people probably won't notice anything after taking it unless they are sick to begin with.

Edited by clwnuke
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Grunt said:

It doesn't.  All your articles state "not approved and higher concentrations".   All that means is "we don't approve it and you need to be aware of your dosage".

Here's some for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

 

 

It makes a rational person wonder why they rushed a vaccine through to approval and yet they are ignoring clinical trials and reports of success with ivermectin.

 

It seems that if there had been a known safe and effective treatment than the vaccines couldn't have been given emergency use authorizations and the developers of those products would be out a lot of money waiting for properly vetted approval before a single shot could go into any arm and people couldn't be scared into taking them as much if an effective alternative were widely known to be available.

The sad part about this is that it's not the first nor the last time that treatments for "vaccine-preventable" illness have been largely ignored. Since vaccines are never perfect, it only makes sense to still make sure that treatments are available for all those who become sick regardless of vaccination history. Yet, historically once vaccines are entrenched as safe and effective for a particular illness state, further research into treatments is greatly inhibited, even though eradication is the exception and not the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

It seems that if there had been a known safe and effective treatment than the vaccines couldn't have been given emergency use authorizations and the developers of those products would be out a lot of money waiting for properly vetted approval before a single shot could go into any arm and people couldn't be scared into taking them as much if an effective alternative were widely known to be available.

The sad part about this is that it's not the first nor the last time that treatments for "vaccine-preventable" illness have been largely ignored. Since vaccines are never perfect, it only makes sense to still make sure that treatments are available for all those who become sick regardless of vaccination history. Yet, historically once vaccines are entrenched as safe and effective for a particular illness state, further research into treatments is greatly inhibited, even though eradication is the exception and not the rule.

And yet people keep lining up to drink the government Kool-aid.  

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 12:27 PM, estradling75 said:

For a very limited definition of effective.  It protects the person from "when" not "if" they are infected... that is a plus.

But all the reasons for mandating the vaccine personal protection isn't one of them.

We are told to get vaccinated to protect other people.  By those metrics it appears to be wholly ineffective.  The vaccinated still become infected, and are still contagious...

If want to protect grams and gramps from you accidentally bring COVID to them... you better not be depending on the vaccine and being Fully Vaccinated   

Actually, I thought we were told to get vaccinated because the Prophet and First Presidency asked us to...at least that's the most recent reason.

Of course, we were asked to do so back at the beginning of the year and many chose to ignore the Prophet.  Then more recently they came out with a more forceful message on the topic.

The question is whether we do what the prophet asks us to whether we agree with him or not.  There have been multiple instances where I do not like some of the direction the church has given or done, but I still go along with it because it's what we are instructed to do.

It is ironic that now the shoe is on the other foot how many who said they would always follow the prophet and agree with him are arguing vehemently against him (not necessarily talking about this forum, but we see it happening out West with some government officials that list their religion as Latter-day Saint).

My personal opinion is that we should mask, get vaccinaetd, and social distance, but I WILL say up front that is my PERSONAL TAKE.

In related news, we all got sent home today.  We had someone collapse in the school of what they suspect is COVID-19 and so we all have to test and quarantine until we get a negative result or have spent the requisite days. (clarification, not EVERYONE in the school got sent home, just those in the classroom.  The student collapsed apparently from lack of oxygen and had Covid-19 like symptoms.  We don't KNOW if they actually have the virus or if it was something else yet.  The paramedics came and everyone got excited for a little bit, then we all got sent home).

So now I get the fun of trying to regulate an in-person class from an online stance for a day or two.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 1:51 PM, mirkwood said:

Ok, then I will change my posted % to what has been more commonly stated (I was being lazy with 99%) to 99.7%.  The next factor goes back to all the non Covid deaths listed as Covid deaths.  That is also going to impact that figure.  So yea, I'll take my chances.  Which I did and I am still alive and probably at 90-95% back to normal after 1 month.  As a side note, I probably had Covid 19 v 1.0 last February and survived that too (nobody was testing back then yet, so no way to know for sure, but I'd say about 90% liklihood I had it.)

 

 

.3% of the US is 984,600.  Based off of 2019 numbers.

If this percentage is Delta's chance of killing you (I thought it might be slightly different than what Alpha's numbers were...unsure...have to look it up), 984,600+600,000 = 1.5 Million (actually a little more, but around that). 

More dead from Covid-19 than from WW2, WWI, or the Civil War. (Actually, the first numbers accomplishes that without any add-ons, but who's counting).

I saw a lot of dead buddies from Vietnam...guess what, my generation has a much higher chance of COVID-19 killing us than getting drafted and killed in a foreign war when we were young.

We haven't had a pandemic like that since...well...a LOOOOONG time.

The Spanish flu only killed 675, 000 in the US

On the otherhand, if percentage of population is similar...we'd be looking at around 2 million deaths today.

Numbers wise, Covid-19 is deadlier than the Spanish Flu from pure numbers...but numbers regarding percentages...once we hit 2 million than we have had something hit us far more seriously than the Spanish Flu...and THAT'S WITH MODERN MEDICINE...which means it never SHOULD have happened...if it does.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The question is whether we do what the prophet asks us to whether we agree with him or not.  There have been multiple instances where I do not like some of the direction the church has given or done, but I still go along with it because it's what we are instructed to do.

It is ironic that now the shoe is on the other foot how many who said they would always follow the prophet and agree with him are arguing vehemently against him (not necessarily talking about this forum, but we see it happening out West with some government officials that list their religion as Latter-day Saint).

Did you notice my use of the word "Mandate"?  Because if you did then your twisting of what is a clear disagreement with Civil Authorities, into Church Authorities is fundamentally dishonest... It is not my job to steady the Ark of God (aka the Church)... It is my job to hold my elected government authorities accountable... and I can fulfill both objectives at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share