Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Coronavirus


Bjornebye

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Can you get side effects 2 weeks after your vaccine or is it an immediate kind of thing.

The leaflet you get when vaccinated says be on the look out for up to 28 days post injection I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/08/2021 at 22:11, Chocoholic said:

Perhaps 'being made to feel like outcasts for not conforming' would have been a better way of wording it. Being denied access to full social activities, such as indoor dining, gigs and other events, international travel, etc which are all likely to eventually be accessed by the covid 'passport'. I would fear that access to other social functions and events, such as cinemas, theatres, even libraries will eventually be limited to only those who are vaccinated, but that remains to be seen. 

That's a much more powerful and deep-rooted fear than most people realise or want to admit. It triggers fight-or-flight responses that date back to the times when an outcast would have to face the sabre-toothed tigers without any mates to back him up. The fear of being isolated from the group gets the amygdala sending all kinds of messages that confuse and stress out the more rational, more modern parts of the brain.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will it/won't it work, flip-flopping over Ivermectin is quite odd. Can't rely on Vaccines alone so it's well past the time of keeping everything on the table until absolutely proven otherwise. 

 

https://m.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 Can't rely on Vaccines alone so it's well past the time of keeping everything on the table until absolutely proven otherwise. 

 

Just to clear it up - you think it is well past the time to keep unproven "therapies" on the table but are wary of "unproven" vaccines?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Uh - from your posts.

 

You are unvaccinated- yea?

 

And your concern is that the vaccine hasn't been "tested" comprehensively like the other vaccines you have already had - right?

 

You do know what they say about assumptions, don't you?

 

"From your posts" - fucking Hell. Clearly open discussion is something you're against. 

 

What it is about other treatments besides vaccines that make you so nervous? Given that there just might be some cheaper drug alternatives available that poorer countries worldwide could make use of (while cunts in America stockpile their vaccine doses) it makes sense to get as many treatments that work out to all areas of the planet so this thing can be under controlled. Both vaccines and therapeutics. It shouldn't be JUST vaccines and then censorship on all other treatments.

 

Or maybe that's what you support? If so, carry on and don't comment on anything I post again in this thread unless you're approaching with an open, unbiased mindset and not the total bullshit you posted above.

 

It's hilarious that anti-vaxxers (rightly) get such abuse, yet those on the opposite side of the fence are absolutely identical in their behaviours. Mmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

You do know what they say about assumptions, don't you?

 

"From your posts" - fucking Hell. Clearly open discussion is something you're against. 

 

What it is about other treatments besides vaccines that make you so nervous? Given that there just might be some cheaper drug alternatives available that poorer countries worldwide could make use of (while cunts in America stockpile their vaccine doses) it makes sense to get as many treatments that work out to all areas of the planet so this thing can be under controlled. Both vaccines and therapeutics. It shouldn't be JUST vaccines and then censorship on all other treatments.

 

Or maybe that's what you support? If so, carry on and don't comment on anything I post again in this thread unless you're approaching with an open, unbiased mindset and not the total bullshit you posted above.

 

It's hilarious that anti-vaxxers (rightly) get such abuse, yet those on the opposite side of the fence are absolutely identical in their behaviours. Mmmm

Not sure where all that came from.

 

It is simple (and at the end of the day I couldn't care less what you do individually - it does not affect me) - but these are simple questions.

 

You are unvaccinated because of concerns over "proof" of efficacy. Yes/No.

You are supportive of alternate therapies with no "proof" of efficacy. Yes/No.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Cochrane review bolsters scientists’ advice that ivermectin should not be used against the disease outside of clinical trials, while a study claiming to have found beneficial effects in patients was withdrawn following allegations of data manipulation.

 

cofford-s.png

Catherine Offord
Aug 2, 2021
159

ABOVE: © ISTOCK.COM,SEZERYADIGAR

The available scientific evidence does not support the use of ivermectin, an antiparastic drug, for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials, according to a new report from Cochrane, an international organization that reviews medical research and provides guidance about clinical practice.

Ivermectin has been the subject of much misinformation during the pandemic, prompting multiple health organizations and one of the drug’s manufacturers to issue warnings throughout the past year that there is not sufficient evidence to recommend its use for COVID-19 beyond a trial setting. In the new report, researchers in Germany and the UK sifted through the literature on ivermectin and came to broadly the same conclusion.

“Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19,” the authors write in their report, posted last week (July 28). “The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. . . . Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.”

“The hype around ivermectin is driven by some studies where the effect size for ivermectin is frankly not credible,” Paul Garner, the coordinating editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, says in a statement. “Careful appraisal is the cornerstone of Cochrane’s work, and with such extreme public demands for a drug to work during the pandemic, it remains vital that we hold onto our scientific principles to guide care.”

The Cochrane review notes an “urgent need” for good quality randomized controlled trials of the drug.

The team’s final analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,678 adults. Six of the studies were double-blinded and placebo-controlled—factors considered to improve the quality of evidence in drug trials. Nine of the 14 studies focused on moderate COVID-19 cases in hospital settings, four on mild cases in outpatients, and one on the use of ivermectin as a preventive medicine. 

The team identified an additional 38 studies that failed to meet the review’s inclusion criteria, mainly because they contained problematic comparisons or data, or otherwise didn’t meet scientific standards for strong evidence. For example, nearly a third of the studies evaluated ivermectin alongside other treatments that varied between different groups of patients, making it difficult to extract the effect of ivermectin, specifically, from the data. Several studies classified people as COVID-19 patients without testing to make sure they had the disease with a PCR or antigen test.

One of the excluded studies, a widely cited paper first posted late last year on the preprint server Research Square, was withdrawn a couple weeks ago following allegations of data manipulation. The study, led by researchers in Egypt, claimed to have found a dramatic effect of ivermectin treatment on COVID-19 outcomes. However, researchers identified multiple inconsistencies in the data, The Guardian reported in July, particularly regarding the numbers of patients and their dates of hospital admission. 

One patient was even reported to have left the hospital on the “non-existent date of 31/06/2020,” Jack Lawrence, a medical student in London who identified problems in the paper, tells The Guardian. 

Another study that was not included in the Cochrane review, this one carried out in Argentina, has come under increased scrutiny from scientists in the last few days after epidemiologist and blogger Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz documented multiple inconsistencies—including numbers of patients that don’t add up and implausible effect sizes—on Twitter. “As far as interventional observational trials go, this is probably the worst one I’ve ever seen,” he writes.

 

The Cochrane review notes an “urgent need” for good quality randomized controlled trials of the drug, and identifies more than 30 ongoing studies. They include the PRINCIPLE trial run by the University of Oxford and the National Institutes of Health ACTIV-6 study.

“The findings from these studies may help to answer more clearly the question of ivermectin and its effects in treating and preventing COVID-19 in the future,” the authors write.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2018/09/16/cochrane-a-sinking-ship/

 

'They are protesting, what they describe as, the organisation’s shift towards a commercial business model approach, away from its true roots of independent, scientific analysis and open public debate.

There are concerns that Cochrane has become preoccupied with “brand promotion” and “commercial interests”, placing less importance on transparency and delivering “trusted evidence”.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Iceman said:

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2018/09/16/cochrane-a-sinking-ship/

 

'They are protesting, what they describe as, the organisation’s shift towards a commercial business model approach, away from its true roots of independent, scientific analysis and open public debate.

There are concerns that Cochrane has become preoccupied with “brand promotion” and “commercial interests”, placing less importance on transparency and delivering “trusted evidence”.'

The main criticism of Cochrane's methodology in that article is that there's an "unfathomable bias" in favour of any given drug or intervention; the bias is introduced by the use of studies as published in journals (rather than the raw data) and these tend to skew positive, to an unknown degree.

 

This means that if they say "Drug X is effective" you might argue that it should be taken with a pinch of salt. If they say "Drug X is ineffective" it's probably worth listening to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it the Ivermectin’fans’ will only believe one study, and that’s the one that proves it works. Every other study will be dismissed as big pharma shilling. 
 

Considering that people regularly get duped into quack therapies for cancer  there’ll always be a market for this stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The downward infections and hospitalisations trend is looking very positive. 
 

Seems to be the main concern now is the winter months, when immunity from previous infection and vaccines start to wane. How long do the jabs offer immunity for? Is it annual, or still an unknown?
 

Be great if this is actually fucking off now. If that’s possible. Much brighter outlook than when we were hitting the 50k infections per day and predicting 100-200k daily cases. For it to swing the other way is massive.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, belarus said:

The downward infections and hospitalisations trend is looking very positive. 
 

Seems to be the main concern now is the winter months, when immunity from previous infection and vaccines start to wane. How long do the jabs offer immunity for? Is it annual, or still an unknown?
 

Be great if this is actually fucking off now. If that’s possible. Much brighter outlook than when we were hitting the 50k infections per day and predicting 100-200k daily cases. For it to swing the other way is massive.

Immunity can be as short as 4 months I understand. 

 

Which if so doesn't look good for autumn when kids back in school. Could be the biggest wave yet 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Daisy said:

Immunity can be as short as 4 months I understand. 

 

Which if so doesn't look good for autumn when kids back in school. Could be the biggest wave yet 

Oh well.
 

At least I’ve been to a couple of gigs and got out a bit the last few weeks. It was good while it lasted eh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Daisy said:

Immunity can be as short as 4 months I understand. 

 

Which if so doesn't look good for autumn when kids back in school. Could be the biggest wave yet 

Off the vaccine?? Jesus! Is that the double jab as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

More and more of my mates, people I respected, are showing themselves to be graduates in Corona from Facebook University. Loads of memes and bullshit stats being thrown about. Frightening. 

I try to avoid talking about it as much as I do Brexit, politics in general and religion now. Trying to discuss something as the layman I and the other converser are is fucking miserable when they start patronising you about what % of the nation need to be vaccinated and why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...