The Covid cure has arrived!

[AccessBlaster]

The department of homeland security science and technology released their master question list for covid-19 Jan 05, 2021. Page 10, 22 makes a reference to ivermectin.

Here are the government's quotes:

"Ivermectin reduced viral shedding duration in a small clinical trial (n=72)."

"Ahmed, S.; Karim, M. M.; Ross, A. G.; Hossain, M. S.; Clemens, J. D.; Sumiya, M. K.; Phru, C. S.; Rahman, M.; Zaman, K.; Somani, J.; Yasmin, R.; Hasnat, M. A.; Kabir, A.; Aziz, A. B.; Khan, W. A., A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness. Int J Infect Dis 2020."

No mention of humans being turned into horses, weird....

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Pat Hartman - you asked me about the effectiveness of masks before and I didn't have the answer at hand. Further, Hurricane Ida was a distraction because I had to evacuate the area. So please forgive me for letting this important question slide this long. Here is your answer.

The Masks Were Working All Along

Now we have definitive proof that masks really are effective.

www.theatlantic.com

Masks have a statistically significant effect. They reduce the odds of spreading infection. Not to zero - but lower than without the masks.

I understand that NOTHING is perfect against COVID-19. All we can do is "play the odds." There are gamblers anywhere. My wife and I are gambling conservatives, not high-risk takers.

You made the comment about "only 500 child deaths" being a statistical blip. To which my response is "not to the families who lost their children."

As to the people we knew who had lost family members, I didn't intrude into their grief to ask if their parents had been vaccinated but at least for some of them, the emergency authorizations hadn't occurred yet.

And, just for the record, my wife and I got our vaccinations because we both have some of the risk factors that are credited with causing COVID to lead to hospitalization. Age, blood pressure, and (in my case) liver conditions are risk multipliers. We definitely avoid going out too often, but we have to get supplies. And we had to evacuate after the storm because the house was unlivable and we were low on non-perishable food. Not out, but running low. But we had chosen to stay in the house because the shelters would have been a room full of unknowns, a potential super-spreader event, so we didn't go to a shelter. A serious case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

 

[AccessBlaster]

Dr. Fauci said in an email On Feb. 4, 2020, to Sylvia Burwell, a former secretary of Health and Human Services under Barack Obama.

“The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep[ing] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.”

Of course, he has since contradicted himself.
Full story here.

 

[AccessBlaster]

and vitamin D...

 

[Jon]

@The_Doc_Man I'm with you on this one, having a similar opinion. For me, my understanding is that masks provide some personal protection from Covid by reducing the amount of water particles, on which Covid hitchhikes. However, the biggest effect is by reducing the distance these water particles travel when you breath, cough or sneeze. i.e. You wearing a mask protects others, and so a collective effort reduces transmission.

If masks only cut the viral spread by 10% to 20%, that can have a huge impact further down the line, since you reduce the compounding effect.

eg. 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 verses 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 = 2

Or, 1.2 to the power of 52, if you didn't cut the weekly transmission rate by 20%, would be 13104. In a years time, you could have 1 case verses 13104. Poorly explained, but maybe someone will understand what I'm getting at!

If masks have no effect, why are they used throughout the medical field? Not sure how many surgical operations happen without everybody masked up.

I keep reading people debating that masks are ineffective. Is the argument of the naysayers that masks do not reduce transmission of airborne contagions like Covid, or just that they are ineffective at protecting you personally?

Regarding golf analogies due to their inherent risk, I can say for one that you should ban it! When I go for my daily walk on the local golf course (also a common), there is risk. I'm sure they are taking aim at me! If golf was so enjoyable that it went viral like Covid, then the risk would also go viral. I did some Googling a while back to calculate my risk of death from walking on the golf course. It was very low. Apparently, one person gets hit every two years at the average golf club (from memory), and there is no indication if being hit by a golf ball actually caused any harm or not.

To compare virally spreading risk vs non-virally spreading risk is comparing apples with oranges.

I personally don't think that any explanations change anybodies opinion on this matter as everybody has already made up their minds already. New opinions, or angles are just filtered out, discarded and labelled as misguided. Just throwing my view into the pool of anarchy.

 

[moke123]

Surgical masks work very well in preventing spread of COVID-19, biggest ever study finds - Salon.com

In a real-time study of 350,000 people in Bangladesh, real-world results wowed researchers

www.salon.com

Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows

Researchers found that surgical masks impede the spread of COVID-19 and that just a few, low-cost interventions increase mask-wearing compliance.

med.stanford.edu

 

[Isaac]

The department of homeland security science and technology released their master question list for covid-19 Jan 05, 2021. Page 10, 22 makes a reference to ivermectin.

Here are the government's quotes:

"Ivermectin reduced viral shedding duration in a small clinical trial (n=72)."

"Ahmed, S.; Karim, M. M.; Ross, A. G.; Hossain, M. S.; Clemens, J. D.; Sumiya, M. K.; Phru, C. S.; Rahman, M.; Zaman, K.; Somani, J.; Yasmin, R.; Hasnat, M. A.; Kabir, A.; Aziz, A. B.; Khan, W. A., A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness. Int J Infect Dis 2020."

No mention of humans being turned into horses, weird....

Wow, very interesting! I did not know this at all.

And here all the left wing folks had me fooled into thinking ivermectin was a crackpot thing entirely invented by crackpots.
Turned out the government sciences had already mentioned it as a treatment against COVID 19.

Amazing. Almost daily I see more reasons for the phrase "fake news"

 

[AccessBlaster]

Wow, very interesting! I did not know this at all.

And here all the left wing folks had me fooled into thinking ivermectin was a crackpot thing entirely invented by crackpots.
Turned out the government sciences had already mentioned it as a treatment against COVID 19.

Amazing. Almost daily I see more reasons for the phrase "fake news"

"The 2015 Nobel prize for physiology or medicine has been awarded to three researchers whose work has had a huge effect on the treatment of parasitic diseases that affect many millions of people in poor countries.

One half of the prize goes jointly to William Campbell, emeritus research fellow at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey, and Satoshi Omura, professor emeritus at Kitasato University in Japan, “for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites.” The agent they discovered was avermectin, later chemically modified to create the drug now in widespread use, ivermectin".

Poor countries always seem to get the best drugs! And still no signs of people turning into horses.

 

[moke123]

Turned out the government sciences had already mentioned it as a treatment against COVID 19.

the (n=72) refers to the number of people included in the study conducted in Bangladesh. The conclusion was that it needed to be studied in a larger study. Hardly sounds ground breaking but if the FLCCC recommends it . . .

As far as the Gov. document , its pupose...

The information contained in the following table has been assembled and evaluated by experts from publicly available sources to include reports and articles found in scientific and technical journals, selected sources on the internet, and various media reports. It is intended to serve as a “quick reference” tool and should not be regarded as comprehensive source of information, nor as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the DHS or the U.S. Government. DHS does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this document. All sources of the information provided are cited so that individual users of this document may independently evaluate the source of that information and its suitability for any particular use. This document is a “living document” that will be updated as needed when new information becomes available.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Pat, you are over-thinking it. Wife and I play the odds. No preventative is absolute for any disease. Even dead folks can be contagious except if you cremate the remains with a 3000-degree fire.

We wear cleaned cloth masks when approaching indoors where people gather. We take masks off when outside. Since we have both been vaccinated, we do not wear masks in our house - and our grandkids and kids have also been vaccinated so they unmask in the house. Your choice to wear or not wear a mask in public is your choice. Forgive me if we meet at a bridge table, you are unmasked, and I decline to accept you as a partner - but that is MY choice.

The late Will Rogers, the cowboy humorist and philosopher, once offered a really good PRACTICAL definition of freedom:

Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Your decision to not wear a mask to affect your odds of NOT spreading COVID-19 (because we know even the vaccinated people can be spreaders) is swinging your "COVID fist" where someone else's nose - and fragile respiratory system - begins.

Freedom in isolation is not freedom - it is selfishness. Freedom to speak your mind is not protected by Freedom of Speech. You are not permitted to speak in a way that endangers others (e.g. - yelling "fire" in a crowded public venue) or that improperly damages someone's reputation (e.g. libel and slander laws). I specifically exclude political correctness from this discussion because that is something else entirely.

People look for absolute freedom, but there is only one place where freedom truly IS absolute. In a true wilderness, you are free to live or die based solely on your abilities without regard to law or custom. Not sure I want to go there. I would rather live in a society where other people exist who are also willing to act more civilized than apex predators.

 

[Jon]

I also view it as a probability game. I've no interest in the stance of any particular political party on this issue. I just do what I feel will maximise my chances of survival. We only get one go at it on this earth, and so don't do anything you might end up regretting. Then again, I have low risk tolerance so make of that what you will.

 

[Isaac]

it needed to be studied

I agree with that.

 

[Isaac]

People look for absolute freedom, but there is only one place where freedom truly IS absolute. In a true wilderness, you are free to live or die based solely on your abilities without regard to law or custom. Not sure I want to go there. I would rather live in a society where other people exist who are also willing to act more civilized than apex predators.

Yes, and even there, we cannot get away from ourselves. Parts of our soul, or our thoughts, that were troubling us - they might still be there.
Addictions, fears, resentments, bad memories, sadness - various and sundry forms of trouble within: We could not maybe still get away to be free.

 

[AccessBlaster]

American Freedom is an Illusion​

It is a painful reality when you begin to understand and process that today your God given right to your American freedom are merely an illusion. It is an illusion created by elected representatives who had sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Instead of protecting our freedoms over time they decided to slowly remove the freedoms we once had. They could not change the Constitution, but they could change the rules by which they ran congress, the courts, the elections, and the power they granted to themselves. In doing so they have through the use of laws as a group made themselves untouchable, unaccountable, and unredeemable.

These political elites have created more problems than they solved and broke most things they tried to fix.

 

[moke123]

Paste Eaters Beware: Ivermectin Is Coming For Your Sperms

Now who's trying to depopulate the planet?

www.wonkette.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

Paste Eaters Beware: Ivermectin Is Coming For Your Sperms

Now who's trying to depopulate the planet?

www.wonkette.com

Isn't that the point, population decline? Whether it be horse paste or the jib, sperm counts are down worldwide for many years.

 

[Steve R.]

Gutfeld rips Rolling Stone over Ivermectin false reporting | Fox News Video

'Gutfeld!' panel reacts to the magazine's erroneous reporting

video.foxnews.com

In 2015 the developers of ivermectin received a Nobel prize for its use as an antimalarial treatment, yet many media outlets contemptuously condemn ivermectin, only mentioning it in a negative construct as an animal de-wormer medication as if had no other use. What happened to follow the science?

The media outlets don't seem to care about the science. They are wildly spewing disgusting political disinformation. As Gutfeld notes, those condemning ivermectin are not journalists. The Rolling Stones article, above, being an example.

Note: the efficacy of any drug takes time to develop. How well ivermectin works as a Covid therapeutic has not been well established, but work is being done. Yet, for some reason, much of the media has no apparent interest in examining the efficacy of ivermectin, only in loudly condemning it and vilifying anyone who attempts to document the efficacy of ivermectin.

 

[moke123]

In 2015 the developers of ivermectin received a Nobel prize for its use as an antimalarial treatment,

Incorrect, or as you like to put it, Fake News!

The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award

the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

with one half jointly to

William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura
for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites

and the other half to

Tu Youyou
for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria​

William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura discovered a new drug, Avermectin, the derivatives of which have radically lowered the incidence of River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, as well as showing efficacy against an expanding number of other parasitic diseases. Tu Youyou discovered Artemisinin, a drug that has significantly reduced the mortality rates for patients suffering from Malaria.

 

[Steve R.]

In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world’s most devastating tropical diseases.

Playing word parsing games. So the award was shared. They still have a Nobel. Bid deal. The receipt of a Nobel prize, even if shared, rebukes the fake news claims that ivermectin was a simply a de-worming agent for animals thereby implying that it was not fit for human use. The posting of the image below is just another futile attempt to fuhrer stigmatize ivermectin. Science does not support the image below. Ivermectin, after appropriate clinical trials, may prove to be an effective therapeutic, based on science.

View attachment 94064