Corona virus - Covid 19 discussion

[Kroffe]

' I try to think for myself ' is a more accurate description. Countering msm narrative, which is being force fed to the public, is difficult if you tend to believe and agree with it.

I don't know what swedish media is like, whether your govts and media try to control your thinking on topics everyday, it's like a battering ram in the uk, the only way of escape is to switch it off. However you can't ignore what is going on for long.

And in fact I could post a lot more negative stuff, e.g. Vaccine injury accounts. I try to be positive regarding ivermectin and Hcq and it's sometimes met with negativity, fuelled by msm narrative believers.

Me neither.
Its probably 'scary' stories like most news, i think that more or less always has been the case.
'Schocking' news gets more clicks/views than news saying 'eh things are not so bad' so thats what they print.

Used to read a bit more a couple years ago, but now most everything is behind a paywall and i dont feel like spending the money just to read something im probably not that interested in anyway.
The local news around here is usually pretty positive, might be because its not much happening here good or bad.

I think everyone tries to think for themselves.
Just different narratives attract different people.

 

[sufferinsilence]

' I try to think for myself ' is a more accurate description. Countering msm narrative, which is being force fed to the public, is difficult if you tend to believe and agree with it.

I don't know what swedish media is like, whether your govts and media try to control your thinking on topics everyday, it's like a battering ram in the uk, the only way of escape is to switch it off. However you can't ignore what is going on for long.

And in fact I could post a lot more negative stuff, e.g. Vaccine injury accounts. I try to be positive regarding ivermectin and Hcq and it's sometimes met with negativity, fuelled by msm narrative believers.

Don't agree. More like fueled by scientific research. When the most important research towards ivermectin is filled with wrong numbers and the writers plagiarised stuff it can and shall be questioned. That's not just "msm narrative".

I can't stress it enough that I've always said I'm 100% in favor of therapeutics being tested for other purposes than they were intented for but if research finds it's not suitable unless one receives upto 120x the normal human dose it's simply not safe.

If you think it's all about big pharma making quick bucks over covid... when you catch a mild to moderate case a GP will prescribe you Ventolin (made by GSK) which costs 40 cents for 200 doses and if necessary cough medicine or a nosespray which will probably set you back about the same. Is that really catering to big pharma?

I'm also fine with listening to both sides of the aisle of scientists, so to speak, but I find that both sides are just pushing their narrative most of the time. Some do it to push their inventions, like Dr. Vanden Bossche and his vaccines, and others just to be popular amongst certain groups of people.

There shouldn't be aisles of scientists tho. It's not a political thing, it's about public health.

 

[Kroffe]

Has there been any talk about Monoclonal antibodies?
Pretty sure thats what they gave Trump, and now recently Joe Rogan was talking about getting it aswell, but seems to mostly have been overlooked since he also took ivermectin (i think Trump only did the monoclonal, no ivermectin)
Maybe it doesnt fit the alternative narrative being pushed.

 

[sufferinsilence]

Has there been any talk about Monoclonal antibodies?
Pretty sure thats what they gave Trump, and now recently Joe Rogan was talking about getting it aswell, but seems to mostly have been overlooked since he also took ivermectin (i think Trump only did the monoclonal, no ivermectin)
Maybe it doesnt fit the alternative narrative being pushed.

Yes, he did get the (at that moment experimental) monoclonal antibodies treatment made by Regeneron. If I recall correctly it's now approved by the FDA and heavily used in Florida.

 

[Kroffe]

Yes, he did get the (at that moment experimental) monoclonal antibodies treatment made by Regeneron. If I recall correctly it's now approved by the FDA and heavily used in Florida.

Yeah, both Joe & Trump used a bunch of different stuff, probably not all available to the average Joe due to costs.
Joe (not the average one, the Rogan one) mentions like 10 different things he used in the video where he talks about it, but of course you will only hear ivermectin get mentioned.
Reality is maybe none of the things he took did anything at all, because the way he describes it with having 1-2 bad days and then 'bouncing back' is how it is for alot of people who dont take any of the stuff he did.

 

[mack341]

Don't agree. More like fueled by scientific research. When the most important research towards ivermectin is filled with wrong numbers and the writers plagiarised stuff it can and shall be questioned. That's not just "msm narrative".

I can't stress it enough that I've always said I'm 100% in favor of therapeutics being tested for other purposes than they were intented for but if research finds it's not suitable unless one receives upto 120x the normal human dose it's simply not safe.

If you think it's all about big pharma making quick bucks over covid... when you catch a mild to moderate case a GP will prescribe you Ventolin (made by GSK) which costs 40 cents for 200 doses and if necessary cough medicine or a nosespray which will probably set you back about the same. Is that really catering to big pharma?

I'm also fine with listening to both sides of the aisle of scientists, so to speak, but I find that both sides are just pushing their narrative most of the time. Some do it to push their inventions, like Dr. Vanden Bossche and his vaccines, and others just to be popular amongst certain groups of people.

There shouldn't be aisles of scientists tho. It's not a political thing, it's about public health.

One side has no financial motive, there are other things involved too regarding changes to personal choice and liberty. I could post data and info supportive of Hcq and ivermectin, however it won't change opinion that tends to agree with the msm verdict or big pharma's.

I can't put a positive spin on things that I think are wrong, decisions made last year and ones to be made soon, like passports, mandates, children at no risk from covid all getting jabbed etc...

Covid and the response to it has always had a political angle from day 1, because the normal scientific discussion was never allowed to happen, instead there has been mass censorship/smearing of voices with relevant backgrounds, scientific/health qualifications. Sage had no epidemiologists, immunologist or virologists afaik,

 

[Kroffe]

Seems most of the people promoting hydroxychloroquine has stopped talking about it.
Is it because these major news outlets are being censored? Or did the science catch up with them and they know they cant get away with lying about it anynmore?
If ivermectin does not turn out to be the miracle people are hoping for im sure we will see another alternative 'miracle' drug appear as the new messiah the same way ivermectin replaced hydroxychloroquine.






Edit: The ivermectin trial mentioned at the end of the video:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dealer wins]

Boris's ex bit of fluff knows the score.

 

[mack341]

The uk trials of Hcq involved giving hospitalized patients massive doses, it was too late and toxic in that quantity. Afaik the ivermectin trial will also focus on late treatment, so guaranteed to fail.

 

[Kroffe]

The uk trials of Hcq involved giving hospitalized patients massive doses, it was too late and toxic in that quantity. Afaik the ivermectin trial will also focus on late treatment, so guaranteed to fail.

"PRINCIPLE is investigating treatments for people at more risk of serious illness from COVID-19 which can speed up recovery, reduce the severity of symptoms and prevent the need for hospital admission. The study has so far recruited more than 5,000 volunteers from across the UK."

Doesnt sound like late treatment to me, sounds like the opposite.
But i guess its easier to say now that the study is set up to fail, so if it does fail, its all just part of the big evil plan and not a legit trial.

 

[Kroffe]

wrong button.

 

[mack341]

View attachment 158474

Boris's ex bit of fluff knows the score.

I was wondering briefly today, that whatever happened between them, whether there were some cosy £ grants given or not, the powers that be/establishment might be using that to blackmail boris, he was dead opposed to ID cards before, and believed in personal freedom, choice etc...

 

[mack341]

"PRINCIPLE is investigating treatments for people at more risk of serious illness from COVID-19 which can speed up recovery, reduce the severity of symptoms and prevent the need for hospital admission. The study has so far recruited more than 5,000 volunteers from across the UK."

Doesnt sound like late treatment to me, sounds like the opposite.
But i guess its easier to say now that the study is set up to fail, so if it does fail, its all just part of the big evil plan and not a legit trial.

Does it not say something abt being open to patients 'up to 14 days from test or diagnosis', I read that somewhere a while back.

 

[Kroffe]

Does it not say something abt being open to patients 'up to 14 days from test or diagnosis', I read that somewhere a while back.

" People aged 18 to 64 with certain underlying health conditions or shortness of breath from COVID-19, or aged over 65, are eligible to join the trial within the first 14 days of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or receiving a positive test."

Are you saying that is too late?
You cant really get it earlier than 1 day into symptoms right? Or do you assume they will only use people that have gone 14 days with symptoms in the study?
Since the trial is to see if ivermectin is any good at reducing severity of symptoms and reducing hospital admissions i doubt they will do that.

Guess we will see what happens, just seems a bit negative to condemn the study as set up to fail before it has even taken place.
Theres no shortage of failed and or discredited ivermectin studies out there, so i dont see why anyone would produce another one on purpose.

 

[mack341]

" People aged 18 to 64 with certain underlying health conditions or shortness of breath from COVID-19, or aged over 65, are eligible to join the trial within the first 14 days of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or receiving a positive test."

Are you saying that is too late?
You cant really get it earlier than 1 day into symptoms right? Or do you assume they will only use people that have gone 14 days with symptoms in the study?
Since the trial is to see if ivermectin is any good at reducing severity of symptoms and reducing hospital admissions i doubt they will do that.

Guess we will see what happens, just seems a bit negative to condemn the study as set up to fail before it has even taken place.
Theres no shortage of failed and or discredited ivermectin studies out there, so i dont see why anyone would produce another one on purpose.

I think on the day you have symtoms [noticeable to yourself] and can see the doc, or positive test result, I think on average they take 3 days. So my thinking would be ideally 5-7 days max.

If they want to do a late trial as well fine, but keep the two separate. I think it's asking a bit much for ivermectin to be effective in a 65+yr old, whose had symtoms for 10 days or more already, the longer the virus has to replicate and take hold the harder it is to treat it.

Edit: If i can see the flaw, what the 'f' is oxford university up to, they've had over a year to do this trial, people have died that could well have been saved. I call that damned evil.

 

[Kroffe]

I think on the day you have symtoms [noticeable to yourself] and can see the doc, or positive test result, I think on average they take 3 days. So my thinking would be ideally 5-7 days max.

If they want to do a late trial as well fine, but keep the two separate. I think it's asking a bit much for ivermectin to be effective in a 65+yr old, whose had symtoms for 10 days or more already, the longer the virus has to replicate and take hold the harder it is to treat it.

Will probably be a pretty wide range of data pouring in, differing in age, time infected before getting ivermectine etc.
Is there a point to split the study?
Its not like the data would change, if ivermectin is effective when used early this study would still show that, just that it would also show how its not effective when administered later on, if thats the case.
14 days does seem a bit too long to check how it can reduce early symptoms and hospitalisations, but hopefully most will report in to the study within the first week of getting it since most will notice symptoms the first week.

I think 3-5 days of being infected is pretty normal before you start to notice symptoms. (think incubation can be up to two weeks)

 

[mack341]

Will probably be a pretty wide range of data pouring in, differing in age, time infected before getting ivermectine etc.
Is there a point to split the study?
Its not like the data would change, if ivermectin is effective when used early this study would still show that, just that it would also show how its not effective when administered later on, if thats the case.
14 days does seem a bit too long to check how it can reduce early symptoms and hospitalisations, but hopefully most will report in to the study within the first week of getting it since most will notice symptoms the first week.

I think 3-5 days of being infected is pretty normal before you start to notice symptoms. (think incubation can be up to two weeks)

Yes, don't mix up the results, where the late treatment could skew the conclusion to 'not effective', with big msm headlines, the point about timing of treatment will be lost. You've already demonstrated a willingness to argue away this relevant point, if you don't mind me saying. The whole thing is turning into a game, just like trump and the culture wars.

I'm getting too old for it and going to retire, brexit and covid is too much. I'm going to adopt a PMA, or try to, and think about other things. I may be back in here [this thread] but hopefully be a while till then.

Edit: If my cooking improved by 200% I'd ressurect a cooking with playford type thread, but it's too bad for photographic display ?

 

[Kroffe]

Yes, don't mix up the results, where the late treatment could skew the conclusion to 'not effective', with big msm headlines, the point about timing of treatment will be lost. You've already demonstrated a willingness to argue away this relevant point, if you don't mind me saying. The whole thing is turning into a game, just like trump and the culture wars.

I'm getting too old for it and going to retire, brexit and covid is too much. I'm going to adopt a PMA, or try to, and think about other things. I may be back in here [this thread] but hopefully be a while till then.

I just prefer seeing the whole picture instead of cherrypicking data just because it happens to support ivermectin.
More data is better imo, not worse, atleast if you want to know the strengths and shortcomings of a drug/medicine.

First i was a bit unsure which abbreviation you were talking about (PMA) but luckily i solved it.
Everyone should have atleast one.

 

[mack341]

I'm back!... No here's something worth watching, heart wrenching and yet inspirational

​

 

[geordiecolin]

I find it utter madness that anyone can have an issue with folk using any semi proven methods when they have been diagnosed with having early staged covid when trying them is going to cost you less than you are prepared to lose in one sitting on gambling.
Utter stupidity

 

[dealer wins]

This immoral government/CMO/SAGE want to jab kids with an experimental vac without parental consent, and against the JCVI aka "the science". Finally a MP with a moral compass puts his neck on the line against this evil Nazi government.

 

[dealer wins]

lol, great bloody tweet.

 

[mack341]

In the US they're looking at jabbing 6 month olds, the madness will be complete by then. As someone remarked on twitter a while back 'immunity to illness is being switched to a subscription model'

 

[sledge13]

Just back from Spain again after 4 visits in the last 15 months, no 8 month outdoor sports tennis, golf ban, no hairdressers closed etc....1 first strict lockdown but have got on with life ever since.

Future lockdowns made illegal by the courts, rightly so....oh and they don't have a daily islam invasion even though Africa a stones throw over the water.

What a pathetic joke this country is.

 

[dealer wins]

Breaking news, casinos to assess 12 year olds ability to play slots under "Gillick Competence"