The Covid cure has arrived! (4 Viewers)

AccessBlaster said:
Why is it the places with the highest vaccine rates also have the highest re-infection rates? Israel comes to mind, or is that just right-wing propaganda?
Click to expand...
Google it. You may not like it but it will answer your question.

Heres a hint:
The Facebook post was . . .
Click to expand...
 
Pat Hartman said:
The bigger question is why are doctors not treating patints with any of the therapeutics that are showing promise in testing like Hydroxichloriquine and Ivermectin?

Why do countries in the malaria belt have much lower deaths per 100,000 than we do. Is it because their medical systems are so much better? I don't think so
Click to expand...

Other Hypotheses​

Drugs Against Parasitic Infections​

Infections with parasites have been suggested to be associated with less severe COVID-19 in an as yet non-peer-reviewed Ethiopian study although this finding requires replication in other locales.80 SSA countries within the tropical and equatorial regions appear to have the lowest proportion of confirmed COVID-19 cases and the highest burden of malaria infection.81 Several factors have been posited to contribute to the low incidence of COVID-19 in these malaria-endemic countries, including cross-protection from consistent use of antimalarial medication.81 However, the failure of hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 in randomized studies makes this hypothesis less likely.82 In addition, ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, such as onchocerciasis, strongyloidiasis, and lymphatic filaria,83,84 has been widely used across SSA since the 1990s.85 A study conducted by Caly et al.86 found ivermectin to be an inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in vitro. Despite the hypothesized association between antiparasitic medications and COVID-19, at present, there is still only limited evidence to support it.87,88

Mobility​

It also has been hypothesized that lower mobility and spending a greater amount of time outdoors may have reduced the risk of COVID-19, especially in impoverished rural areas.93 Reduced travel between African countries due to limited visa-free relationships may have also limited spread across the continent.94 Further study would be necessary to confirm these hypotheses.

CONCLUSIONS​

In reviewing the totality of the evidence, we believe that it is suggested that in SSA the overall death rate is lower than in most other regions primarily due to the demographic structure with a low median age and a small percentage of vulnerable elderly, although as noted, other factors likely also play a role.
Click to expand...
The median age in Africa is 19.7years. U.S 38.1
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pat Hartman said:
The bigger question is why are doctors not treating patints with any of the therapeutics that are showing promise in testing like Hydroxichloriquine and Ivermectin?

Why do countries in the malaria belt have much lower deaths per 100,000 than we do. Is it because their medical systems are so much better? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
The biggest question is why isn't self-immunity taken into consideration when restricting people's rights.
 
Funny Confessions Time:

During a 6 mo. period when both Black Lives Matter and COVID were still co-occurring at a shared peak, I ordered a box of 1000 "Black Lives Matter" facemasks from China and sold them online. Just saying it out loud makes me laugh at myself.

I do like to try experiments. I learned a little and earned a little, but it was mostly just a fun experiment. Unfortunately, 46,000 other people had the same idea.

Sorry guys, I've got none left except one I saved as a souvenir for myself.
 
1631917153027.png

What is also disturbing is that many of the unvaxxed are people of color, meaning that the Biden administration is proposing a negative disparate impact (racist policy) on the minority communities. That is the very same hyperbolic accusation that Democrats make to (falsely) accuse Republicans of "suppressing the vote". So when a Black person shows up to vote and ID is required, that is racist according to Democrats; now when a Black person has to show proof of vaccination (ID) to eat, that amazingly is not racist. Real repulsive pretzel logic from the Demorats.
 
Last edited:
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19

Home

FLCCC is The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: Dedicated to COVID prevention & treatment, empowering individuals for better health.
covid19criticalcare.com covid19criticalcare.com
 
Let's face it - big Pharma doesn't like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine because these already-developed palliatives would reduce reliance on vaccination, and you KNOW that big Pharma makes money off of the new expensive vaccines (regardless of who actually pays the bills). But the idea that something would reduce the severity of COVID-19 such that death rates would shrink without that expensive vaccine? Oh, that's not good for business. It would give the illusion big Pharma is in this strictly to make a buck... oh, wait - they ARE. I actually don't question the science of the vaccines but I might question the motives of their makers.

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I think vaccines are generally a good idea, a good strategy. But how do you know whether it is safe? Your individualized test for deciding is this: Have you had "ordinary" flu vaccines within the last 3 years without a reaction? If yes, then the COVID-19 vaccine will not hurt you. If you had a reaction? Be more skeptical. Why? Because at least for Pfizer's offering, and I believe also for Moderna's offering, they use the same general method to make COVID-19 vaccine as various companies have used for influenza vaccines.

Because of all of the flip-flopping going on, I understand why folks are hesitant. They don't know which pundits to trust - and the fault lies firmly in the laps of the pundits themselves. Politicians must think that the public has an even worse memory than the pols themselves, who can't remember their own foibles from one day to the next.

So as a believer that the past is at least a partially effective predictor of the future, consider your own personal history with flu vaccines.

@moke123 - your post #489 linked to an article that contained a scientific error. This quote: "However, the failure of hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 in randomized studies makes this hypothesis less likely" uses the wrong purpose. HCQ was a palliative, to reduce symptoms. It was not a preventive drug to block the disease. Careless statements like that indicate that someone either (a) is ignorant of the intent of the drug or (b) is duplicitous in trying to misdirect attention away from what the drug REALLY does. Neither duplicitous nor ignorant people need to give folks bad advice, yet all too often that is exactly what they try.
 
For the record I'm not an anti-vaxxer either, I am fully vaccinated against C19. I have also taken the occasional flu jab.
 
If anyone tells you not to do your own research, they might not have your best interests in mind.
Just sayin.

The eunuch at CNN needs for you to trust his "unReliable Sources" :D

1632334003884.png
 
I seem to remember the Republicans trying hard to include a business no-liability clause in various bills related to COVID. So that they wouldn't be flooded with lawsuits of people who think they got COVID was the business owner's fault. Doubt they were ever successful.

Also, I think there's still hope on liability. I remember a long section of my Torts and Contracts classes, which contained a LOT of interrelated stuff, dealing with the concept of liability even after you have supposedly signed it away. All kinds of exceptions - unconscionability, duress, and no other options come to mind but I think there was more. Lawyers can always try to argue that despite having signed a waiver, liability might still exist. Like every other legal argument, it all depends....and usually isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as laypeople (nor cops, for example) believe.
 
Isaac said:
I seem to remember the Republicans trying hard to include a business no-liability clause in various bills related to COVID. So that they wouldn't be flooded with lawsuits of people who think they got COVID was the business owner's fault. Doubt they were ever successful.

Also, I think there's still hope on liability. I remember a long section of my Torts and Contracts classes, which contained a LOT of interrelated stuff, dealing with the concept of liability even after you have supposedly signed it away. All kinds of exceptions - unconscionability, duress, and no other options come to mind but I think there was more. Lawyers can always try to argue that despite having signed a waiver, liability might still exist. Like every other legal argument, it all depends....and usually isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as laypeople (nor cops, for example) believe.
Click to expand...
www.fisherphillips.com

Pending California Case Could Upend Workers’ Compensation “Exclusive Remedy” for COVID-19 Claims

One silver lining for employers during the pandemic has been the reality that they shouldn’t fear any potential tort liability for COVID-19 cases stemming from the workplace – or should they? Most…
www.fisherphillips.com www.fisherphillips.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Interesting artical about what government can and can't do. It's a bit longish, but worth the read.
2
Replies
38
Views
4,870
AccessBlaster
A
S
Mask vs Corona virus. Wear or Not.
10 11 12
Replies
232
Views
18,718
The_Doc_Man
The_Doc_Man
Steve R.
Coronavirus - Time to Reflect on the Initial Reactions
2
Replies
30
Views
4,297
Steve R.
Steve R.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top Bottom