I’ve never said all the vaccine research was rubbish what I’ve said is pharma have a history of harming the public which is why they have been sued so many times they have falsified safety reports , hidden undesirable side effects, bribed doctors etc etc because money is at stake big time . There is now a number of people left damaged or dead after vaccination of which I have personnel experience and some doctors will not admit this probably through fear of demonisation or the spot light being turned on them .
Ivermectin , covid cure
- Thread starter bobk
- Start date
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Who says, apart from you drawing erroneous conclusions, that she is either a proponent of Ivermectin or indeed anti-vaccine? I have seen no such claim made apart from yourself.
Your disingenuous posts are getting more and more ridiculous.
ollie989898
Member
No, I'm saying you are.
ollie989898
Member
Yes, anti-vaccine agenda to the fore here. I see.
primmiemoo
Member
- Location
- Devon
Mystic primmie senses that the double blind, fully credible Together study will flush out much more about how bad the work was in the badly conducted observational study in Itajai, Brazil, and shed light on the vested intersects of ivermectin pushers behind it ~ 
About clinical trials ~ Without looking it up, iirc, Pfizer conducted around 70 clinical trials of their covid vaccine in the UK alone. There's no suggestion of misconduct in those ~ in fact I know someone who took part who remains impressed by the care and efficiency of every aspect of her participation. The vaccines were trialled across the globe. One of the trials in the US appears poorly conducted, and has been called out for investigation. Proves that the overwhelming evidence is that the work was conducted correctly overall.
About clinical trials ~ Without looking it up, iirc, Pfizer conducted around 70 clinical trials of their covid vaccine in the UK alone. There's no suggestion of misconduct in those ~ in fact I know someone who took part who remains impressed by the care and efficiency of every aspect of her participation. The vaccines were trialled across the globe. One of the trials in the US appears poorly conducted, and has been called out for investigation. Proves that the overwhelming evidence is that the work was conducted correctly overall.
ollie989898
Member
Breaking news.
www.cureus.com
Amazing! 44% reduction in covid from prophylactic use. But hold on:
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching
Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of...
www.cureus.com
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching
Lucy Kerr, Flavio A. Cadegiani, Fernando Baldi, Raysildo B. Lobo, Washington Luiz O. Assagra, Fernando Carlos Proença, Pierre Kory, Jennifer A. Hibberd, Juan J. Chamie-QuinteroAmazing! 44% reduction in covid from prophylactic use. But hold on:
Attachments
primmiemoo
Member
- Location
- Devon
Curiuser and curiuser...
Hi. What was your symptoms after useing it ty
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Welcome to the farming forum. Davie hasn’t been online for some months so he is unlikely to respond to your question. Please don’t take any medical advice from the internet though - find a trusted doctor and rely on them. As to the idea of using cattle wormer to prevent Covid, it’s fair to say that the evidence is not robust, much of the early work with positive suggesting results has been found lacking, and to do so would be inadvisable.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
2 jags to freedom remember
Remarkably some scientists in Qatar working with counterparts in New York have undertaken a study asking vital questions.
They decided to study only the unvaccinated.Objectively considered, what they discovered should change the exclusively pro-mRNA vaccination policies which currently dominate the entire world.
90% of Qataris are vaccinated, but the authors tracked several hundred thousand unvaccinated individuals and studied how well they were protected from infection, reinfection, and serious Covid illness.
The authors began by noting that:
“The future of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic hinges on virus evolution and duration of immune protection of natural infection against reinfection.”
In other words: How well does natural immunity work?
They found:
“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% (95% CI: 94.9- 98.6%), irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning. Similar results were found in subgroup analyses for those ≥50 years of age.”
The authors concluded that protection at this 97.3% level will last for three years, possibly longer depending on the course of Covid viral evolution.
The resounding significance of this is:
Once infected by Covid, if you are unvaccinated, you are very highly protected from serious illness even if reinfected.
Following initial infection, Covid becomes no more dangerous to the unvaccinated than other corona viruses such as the common cold.
Conversely, an unrelated study of five million clients of US Veterans Affairs health services found that for the vaccinated, reinfection resulted in more serious health outcomes than their initial infection.
In other words, vaccination including boosters did not decrease the risk of reinfection but did increase the severity of symptoms. Nor did vaccination provide any more protection against reinfection than the unvaccinated had.
These two studies are not strictly comparable in every sense because the two groups being studied are demographically very different from one another.
For example, the US Veterans were already enrolled in a health support programme which suggests that a proportion of them might already be ill.
Nevertheless, the two studies together should correct the current presumption of governments that mRNA vaccination is the only way out of the pandemic.
Governments are Promoting More mRNA Vaccination Without Adequate Evidence of Effectiveness
Yet, outgoing British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced new measures to encourage boosters and said the rollout will ‘keep our defences strong’ over autumn and winter and ensure ‘Covid can never haunt us in the same way again’.
- Location
- sw scotland
That is not the conclusion that vaccination increased the severity. You have jumped ahead there. It was simply noted that they were a more frail population and had more severe symptoms. It could have been there had already been some deaths in earlier waves of those who were unvaccinated and therefore more at risk leaving a population more susceptible but who were not going to die.
I accept that infection gives a good immune response but surely better to get at least some protection from a vaccine rather than an acute illness?
Interesting but pointless programme this week about 7 people who refused vaccination to explore their use of social media to get information and to see if they could look behind some of the 'facts.'
2 were pregnant women who were happily chatting away on a bus with no seatbelt on. Obviously weighed up the risk of an accident. Another who thought we were all being microchipped and hundreds of healthy athletes had died after vaccination. Well there is no point getting into that discussion. Death rate after vaccination 1 in 30,000 - complete rubbish. Another asking why she should be vaccinated just to protect some old people. Long live society.
When the ICU doctor said that 19 out of 20 patients were unvaccinated you might have seen a bell ring but no...
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
Thankyou for the story about the interesting but pointless story 
I can't really comment on "surely better to get at least some protection" angle.
The control group has [infinitely] less chance of side-effects, and pretty good immunity to a virus that had either outsmarted the mRNA tool before it was rolled out, or did so very quickly afterwards.
The immunised group have a small chance of side-effects, and are no more immunised than they would have been otherwise.
Major "problems" include the reliability of the PCR tests (mainly used at the beginning) as a disgnostic test, figures overstating the jabbed % of population being overstated.... makes it largely impossible to perform meaningful studies - here anyway - with any greater accuracy than swapping stories and anecdotal stuff.
I can't really comment on "surely better to get at least some protection" angle.
The control group has [infinitely] less chance of side-effects, and pretty good immunity to a virus that had either outsmarted the mRNA tool before it was rolled out, or did so very quickly afterwards.
The immunised group have a small chance of side-effects, and are no more immunised than they would have been otherwise.
Major "problems" include the reliability of the PCR tests (mainly used at the beginning) as a disgnostic test, figures overstating the jabbed % of population being overstated.... makes it largely impossible to perform meaningful studies - here anyway - with any greater accuracy than swapping stories and anecdotal stuff.
ollie989898
Member
I'll reiterate what I have posted on this forum (and probably this thread) a dozen times already.
The UK healthcare system, looking after UK residents, is regulated by dances to to the tune of NICE and the DHSC. Whatever DHSC/NICE recommend is what UK anyone working in the UK healthcare sector will do except in the case of a regulated and properly conducted trial for which the methodology will be published and approved by regulators long before the recruitment phase.
Whatever the people of Ukraine/Zimbabwe/Estonia/Latvia/Russia/America/Omicron Persii 8 do for their own citizens is entirely up to them and good luck to them. They will of course be doing so entirely within the regulatory envelope they are obliged to function within. There are some parallels but also contrasts with the way the UK and say, the USA work when it comes to healthcare. What is approved for use in the USA may or may not be available, licensed or even legal to prescribe or sell in the UK. As a UK citizen, I am very glad that healthcare is regulated by the UK government and UK regulators when it comes to what is or is not allowed to be prescribed, given or inserted into a human body. There have been scandals in the past where citizens of a country have been harmed by medicines or devices which were approved by an overseas regulator but not their own domestic organisation: the French PIP implant scandal is one such example that springs to mind.
And lastly, you can be sure that further mRNA vaccines will be appearing in an arm near you very shortly as they present a novel and easy way to create new vaccines and even personalised variations of them which opens up an entire new way of dealing with problematic and often terminal health conditions.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
It is very common to prescribe off-label and unapproved medicines in the UK of course. It is almost entirely up to the doctor.
ollie989898
Member
I don't think you quite understand what off-label means... This comes as some surprise to me what with your extensive clinical knowledge gleaned from your youtube education from Dr Campbell.