Jump to content
Bjornebye

Coronavirus

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Jenson said:

 

No worries, but I think your taking the word 'suggests' far too literally. The 96%/92% efficacy of the vaccines against the delta variant is calculated from data analysis of over 14,000 people. In terms of biological trials that's a pretty large number.

 Yes I am taking it literally as I have a deep distrust of the authorities. I'll be amazed if their suggestion of 96/92% efficacy translates into real world results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of getting (most) people vaccinated is getting us back to normal, and having to carry around cards to prove status or whatever, is not normal, certainly not in this country. It would be a divisive and discriminatory measure - there are many people with medical conditions who are unable to get vaccinated, for instance - and should be filed in the same toilet as ID cards and voter ID.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TK421 said:

 Yes I am taking it literally as I have a deep distrust of the authorities. I'll be amazed if their suggestion of 96/92% efficacy translates into real world results. 

Just for comparison, the largest trial study I can find for the benefits of Ivermectin against Covid19 is 1195 participants.

 

Also: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TK421 said:

Sorry, I don't know what you mean re: manners.

 

I ordered it from an online vet.  I got the horse paste version.

 

Oh OK, sound. I genuinely thought you were taking the piss with the animal stuff and mocking my interest. I know very little about the drug so was just interested. I'll have a look into it further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jenson said:

Just for comparison, the largest trial study I can find for the benefits of Ivermectin against Covid19 is 1195 participants.

 

Also: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

Dr Pierre Kory had a paper published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, it's here in full:-

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

 

It's peer reviewed and I am happy to take him for his word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

Oh OK, sound. I genuinely thought you were taking the piss with the animal stuff and mocking my interest. I know very little about the drug so was just interested. I'll have a look into it further. 

You can't get it over the counter in the UK or even from a GP without jumping through a lot of hoops.

 

It's horse paste or nothing, so I went with the former.  I had to lie to get it, though.  When I filled the form in I said I had a 3 year old 700kg horse, who I have named Carl.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I must say wariness over the vaccine comes over as a little more odd if that same person uses worming paste intended for horses.

Like Skidfingers said, these are crazy times and we all have to work our way through the quagmire and figure out our own version of the truth. 

 

I would never in a million years have envisaged myself ingesting medicine intended for horses, yet here we are.  It's not a decision I have taken lightly, it took me approximately 12 months of following the ivermectin story closely before I decided that it was the right thing to do for me personally.  I am happy to be a guinea pig on this one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Dr Pierre Kory had a paper published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, it's here in full:-

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

 

It's peer reviewed and I am happy to take him for his word. 

 

All this author has done is write a review of meta analysis of data from trials run by other researchers, the largest of which was just 400 participants.

 

Why are you happy to take the word of this author based on this paper, and dismiss the data taken from over 14,000 people on the effectiveness of the vaccines against the delta variant? It makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jenson said:

 

All this author has done is write a review of meta analysis of data from trials run by other researchers, the largest of which was just 400 participants.

 

Why are you happy to take the word of this author based on this paper, and dismiss the data taken from over 14,000 people on the effectiveness of the vaccines against the delta variant? It makes no sense.

Because I intuitively trust him and am persuaded by the data and rationale he uses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jenson said:

 

All this author has done is write a review of meta analysis of data from trials run by other researchers, the largest of which was just 400 participants.

 

Why are you happy to take the word of this author based on this paper, and dismiss the data taken from over 14,000 people on the effectiveness of the vaccines against the delta variant? It makes no sense.

That always confuses me with antivax or anticovid or similar people, total distrust of the authorities, but some retired epidemiologist or virologist on Youtube who is on a war path against the mainstream, he or she is immediately sound.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Awesome stuff from Russell Brand here.  The way he articulates his views whilst barely pausing for breath, he is a machine.  If you have twenty spare minutes I recommend watching.

 

 

I lasted 2 minutes.  Just another professional opinion-haver framing daft questions in a way that sounds like he's got some sort of insight, when he really doesn't. 

 

The whole "if they're lying about  [whether it originated in a lab accident] what else are they lying about" routine is stupid and intellectually dishonest on a lot of levels and deserves to be ignored. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SasaS said:

That always confuses me with antivax or anticovid or similar people, total distrust of the authorities, but some retired epidemiologist or virologist on Youtube who is on a war path against the mainstream, he or she is immediately sound.

He's a practicing doctor working in critical care in an American hospital treating Covid patients.  Not a retired vlogger.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I lasted 2 minutes.  Just another professional opinion-haver framing daft questions in a way that sounds like he's got some sort of insight, when he really doesn't. 

 

The whole "if they're lying about  [whether it originated in a lab accident] what else are they lying about" routine is stupid and intellectually dishonest on a lot of levels and deserves to be ignored. 

Oh right.  Well done on lasting two minutes, in that case.  

 

I find his insight remarkable but each to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TK421 said:

He's a practicing doctor working in critical care in an American hospital treating Covid patients.  Not a retired vlogger.  

I wasn't necessarily referring to you directly, but Jenson's  comment reminded me of the similar phenomenon.

After many debates, I concluded it comes down to trust in established authorities (of any kind) , because the answer is always, he/she is an expert who worked in the field for 30 years (the Tuber). Well, so are the others, I'd point out, and here the conversations almost always stops.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SasaS said:

I wasn't necessarily referring to you directly, but Jenson's  comment reminded me of the similar phenomenon.

After many debates, I concluded it comes down to trust in established authorities (of any kind) , because the answer is always, he/she is an expert who worked in the field for 30 years (the Tuber). Well, so are the others, I'd point out, and here the conversations almost always stops.

Again, each to their own.  I have the utmost respect for Dr Kory and his contemporaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Because I intuitively trust him...

 

Ok, it's at this point that the actual science/data becomes irrelevant to the conversation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I lasted 2 minutes.  Just another professional opinion-haver framing daft questions in a way that sounds like he's got some sort of insight, when he really doesn't. 

 

The whole "if they're lying about  [whether it originated in a lab accident] what else are they lying about" routine is stupid and intellectually dishonest on a lot of levels and deserves to be ignored. 

 

Overall he's promoting being open about everything and not to just accept whatever the most popular narrative is. Most people instantly dismiss Brand due to his wandering phrases but there's nothing wrong with what he's suggesting there. Nothing wrong with that video at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×