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.
I am thinking it will have about as much impact as the judge farting. But who knows.
