Support NeoGAF

[CAB_Life]

What was uncivil about my response? I didn't insult you. I responded to your comment normally.

Do you have a better strategy than saying "I don't know" honestly? What's the right move here if we're optimizing optics?

The right move is to not bring up an emphatic list of “8 myths” then proceed to say “I don’t know“ on many of the data points that were discussed. She should’ve just let the conversation and casual/ group inquiry evolve over long form conversation—as is the way of Rogan’s interviews. That’s literally the main appeal of going on his show instead of conducting a traditional interview. Instead, she stopped the conversational flow, laid out an 8-point rebuttal no one asked for, and it quickly went off the rails.

 

[Rentahamster]

The right move is to not bring up an emphatic list of “8 myths” then proceed to say “I don’t know“ on many of the data points that were discussed. She should’ve just let the conversation and casual/ group inquiry evolve over long form conversation—as is the way of Rogan’s interviews. That’s literally the main appeal of going on his show instead of conducting a traditional interview. Instead, she stopped the conversational flow, laid out an 8-point rebuttal no one asked for, and it quickly went off the rails.

Are you basing this off the Youtube clip or the whole episode?

 

[EviLore]

She no doubt feels she has a social responsibility to clarify all the misinformation going around while she's on a platform as large as Joe's.

Would she be expecting a hardball adversarial interview from Joe? Probably not. He usually defers to his scientist guests’ expertise, since he is a comedian and MMA commentator, not a scientist.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I never said i didnt have confidence in the vaccine studies. I know vaccines work. My issues with vaccines is long term toxicity effects from the vaccine in your body, that we cannot know until several years from now. IE i dont know if these vaccines in particular are safe long term. Other vaccines, I have no issue taking.

Ivermectin has been around about a century with no conclusive data showing adverse effects on humans. On dogs however I know it is unsafe.


As for the suspicious part. This acceleration of trials is new AFAIK, the third phase typically lasts several years for "non emergency" drugs to determine safety doesnt it?

From the FDA on a simple summary:


There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong.

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.

Bro I know you are illogically anti-vaccine, but when every precaution but the vaccine is supported despite overwhelming evidence that the vaccine is better than everything, you got a problem.

 

[Razorback]

She said “I don’t know” to almost every question. That’s not a good look when you start off a clip claiming to be a medical authority present to dispel myths. She should’ve begun the conversation in a much more open way. I think she’s a brilliant woman, but this was a terrible appearance. YouTube comments, tribal and toxic as they can be, often reflect the general reception of a piece of media. In this instance they’re correct.

She said a hell of a lot more than that. She made the statistical argument many times that whatever side effects the vaccine may have, covid has all of those but much worse and affects people at a much higher rate. Like exponentially higher. Every time she made this argument Joe would respond with some anecdote and ask about that like that it has any weight compared to the central statistical claim she's making. Those are the only times she says "I don't know."

She explains some studies and how they clearly show that getting covid is far worse than being vaccinated and then Joe responds with a barrage of questions. "How many people was it? Did they control for age, ethnicity, health, did they have co-morbidities?" Yes yes they did all that! "Did they know what they were eating, each one of these people?" ... I don't know Joe. Probably not.

Ha! You don't know a thing, I guess you must not know anything. I can now safely hold on to this one snippet and carry on with my precious beliefs.

 

[BadBurger]

What's wrong with "I don't know" as an answer? There's still a lot of things we really don't know. She has a high threshold of evidence for her statements, and "I don't know" is a much more honest answer than someone claiming they do know based on flimsy data.

When in discussions or correspondence with responsible scientists one will notice that they try not to respond with confidently declarative statements if they are not completely positive of the answer in the moment. They do the same if the person questioning them is asking vague questions, or when it's clear that the person asking questions already believes some specious argument and are leading. It's how scientists are trained through years of properly performing research and reliably relaying or discussing information, or stopping to retrieve the proper information if possible before continuing. You see this often when they have to respond to the questions of quacks like flat earthers and anti vaxxers.

You can tell who is accustomed to critically thinking and who isn't by seeing how they respond to interviews like this. Those who are used to accepting information at face value from whatever sources they deem "correct" will respond negatively - such as those in Rogan's video's comments. They're used to being told what to think, so watching a real scientist in action is baffling to them. "Why aren't they so sure of their words no matter what they're talking about any second like Grifter T. Griftsalot on that YouTube channel I love to watch is?". Etc.

I use to traffic in skeptical circles online and off for years, read or personally witnessed these kinds of reactions to scientists and doctors from the uncritically thinking a million times.

She no doubt feels she has a social responsibility to clarify all the misinformation going around while she's on a platform as large as Joe's.

Would she be expecting a hardball adversarial interview from Joe? Probably not. He usually defers to his scientist guests’ expertise, since he is a comedian and MMA commentator, not a scientist.

Yes, this a way more succinct way to point out that hers is the common parlance of the scientist or science communicator; they're not going to try to comprehensively and authoritatively answer someone's line of inquiry while they're dropping anecdotes and other unverified information.

 

[Punished Miku]

The right move is to not bring up an emphatic list of “8 myths” then proceed to say “I don’t know“ on many of the data points that were discussed. She should’ve just let the conversation and casual/ group inquiry evolve over long form conversation—as is the way of Rogan’s interviews. That’s literally the main appeal of going on his show instead of conducting a traditional interview. Instead, she stopped the conversational flow, laid out an 8-point rebuttal no one asked for, and it quickly went off the rails.

She honestly didn't even get to get through any of her points, let alone all 8 of them, and why they're disinformation. The topic was changed immediately to Joe's concerns about 2 of his friends, and most of her responses to things Joe was changing the subject to was "I don't know," which is just an honest answer. Joe rattles off a lot there that isn't ever really addressed properly, because she just seemed kind of stunned that the interview was even going there. Someone would have to break down her 8 points in a written list, and then write out all the things Joe brought up and see how much of it is even related.

 

[SidViscous]

Had my 2nd Moderna jab last Saturday (so like 6 days ago) and it's been a nightmare, first couple of nights I couldn't move and was panting just staying perfectly still, headache, no strength. Phoned GP and I went to A&E for a bunch of tests, thankfully a lot of the symptoms subsided, but still having really bad chest pains and can't really do much other than walking slowly without feeling like my heart is going to explode.

Hospital (and GP) are pretty clueless, bloods showed inflammation, pulse is higher than it should be - but no signs of heart attack or clots. Chest xray didn't show anything unusual either, but I didn't have a MRI or echocardiogram so going to pester my GP for more tests tomorrow.

Sorry just wanted to vent, don't want to tell my real life friends or family so they don't use me as an example of why not to get the vaccine, but inside I'm thinking this shit has side effects which are far more common than the statistics show, as I know my GP isn't passing this up to anyone.

 

[Thesuffering79]

From the FDA on a simple summary:


There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong.

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.

Bro I know you are illogically anti-vaccine, but when every precaution but the vaccine is supported despite overwhelming evidence that the vaccine is better than everything, you got a problem.

I require proof of this. Large populations of people use ivermectin as a prophylaxis and i havent heard of major side effects let alone deaths. I have yet to see a conclusive document proving that ivermectin caused death, the only one is where 5 peopel have died and ivermectin MAY be the cause of it which another person responded that it that they couldnt replicate the study.

 

[Flash Junkins]

Wrong thread sorry.

 

[BadBurger]

Had my 2nd Moderna jab last Saturday (so like 6 days ago) and it's been a nightmare, first couple of nights I couldn't move and was panting just staying perfectly still, headache, no strength. Phoned GP and I went to A&E for a bunch of tests, thankfully a lot of the symptoms subsided, but still having really bad chest pains and can't really do much other than walking slowly without feeling like my heart is going to explode.

Hospital (and GP) are pretty clueless, bloods showed inflammation, pulse is higher than it should be - but no signs of heart attack or clots. Chest xray didn't show anything unusual either, but I didn't have a MRI or echocardiogram so going to pester my GP for more tests tomorrow.

Sorry just wanted to vent, don't want to tell my real life friends or family so they don't use me as an example of why not to get the vaccine, but inside I'm thinking this shit has side effects which are far more common than the statistics show, as I know my GP isn't passing this up to anyone.

Sorry to hear, I hope you recover soon. They didn't have any ideas what it could be, or have ideas what to prescribe to help with the symptoms?

Thankfully (I believe I discussed this here on GAF) my second Moderna shot was mild aside from this feeling of tiredness all the next day that I have trouble explaining. I wasn't exhausted, not the kind of tired in which one wants to sleep, and I wasn't weak. You know, it almost seems neurological but you know, I am not trying to self diagnose. Whatever it was it cleared up by the evening.

 

[Jaysen]

Good, during a global health crisis, people who get vaccinated should have more rights than dipshits being willfully dense and endangering the lives of everyone else.

 

[Thesuffering79]

Sorry to hear, I hope you recover soon. They didn't have any ideas what it could be, or have ideas what to prescribe to help with the symptoms?

Thankfully (I believe I discussed this here on GAF) my second Moderna shot was mild aside from this feeling of tiredness all the next day that I have trouble explaining. I wasn't exhausted, not the kind of tired in which one wants to sleep, and I wasn't weak. You know, it almost seems neurological but you know, I am not trying to self diagnose. Whatever it was it cleared up by the evening.

Moderna AFAIK is the most effective against newer Covid variations.

 

[BadBurger]

I require proof of this. Large populations of people use ivermectin as a prophylaxis and i havent heard of major side effects let alone deaths. I have yet to see a conclusive document proving that ivermectin caused death, the only one is where 5 peopel have died and ivermectin MAY be the cause of it which another person responded that it that they couldnt replicate the study.

It's coming from the FDA. They don't just say things without having the body of science behind them.

But, if you're interested in seeing if anyone ever tries to get Ivermectin approved as a treatment in the US, you can follow the FDA's Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP):

Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP)

CTAP will use every available method to move new treatments to patients as quickly as possible

www.fda.gov

To my knowledge no entity has applied for proper clinical trials for testing Ivermectin as a possible COVID treatment. There's only the studies we've already discussed, in which they were either retracted, found to be too small to be conclusive, or were focused on in vitro preliminary testing. One thing that should stand out to you however, is that any of those studies you cited throughout the thread had stood up to serious peer review, someone would have used the results to apply to the FDA for a CTAP approval for trials - because there would be a ton of money to be saved in developing countries who cannot afford the vaccines or expensive treatments like Regeneron.

 

[Thesuffering79]

It's coming from the FDA. They don't just say things without having the body of science behind them.

But, if you're interested in seeing if anyone ever tries to get Ivermectin approved as a treatment in the US, you can follow the FDA's Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP):

Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP)

CTAP will use every available method to move new treatments to patients as quickly as possible

www.fda.gov

To my knowledge no entity has applied for proper clinical trials for testing Ivermectin as a possible COVID treatment. There's only the studies we've already discussed, in which they were either retracted, found to be too small to be conclusive, or were focused on in vitro preliminary testing. One thing that should stand out to you however, is that any of those studies you cited throughout the thread had stood up to serious peer review, someone would have used the results to apply to the FDA for a CTAP approval for trials - because there would be a ton of money to be saved in developing countries who cannot afford the vaccines or expensive treatments like Regeneron.

The thing is i have never trusted the FDA. I believe they are just a wing of "Big Pharma" now. AFAIK i haven't seen a single proven instance of a person dying of Ivermectin use. Regular recommended dose or not. For Covid or not. If you can provide a single receipt of a persons death due to ivermectin use I will reconsider my stance on ivermectin. I havent even seen one from people overusing ivermectin let alone regular use.

As for ivermectin being in clinical trials, it is too cheap to make money out of so companies are probably not going pay the user fee to even start the trials. The only ones that would would be "big pharma" to stop people using ivermectin so they can sell more of the vaccine.

Large populations use ivermectin and i have linked those studies which you havent looked at.

 

[BadBurger]

The thing is i have never trusted the FDA. I believe they are just a wing of "Big Pharma" now. AFAIK i haven't seen a single proven instance of a person dying of Ivermectin use. Regular recommended dose or not. For Covid or not. If you can provide a single receipt of a persons death due to ivermectin use I will reconsider my stance on ivermectin. I havent even seen one from people overusing ivermectin let alone regular use.

As for ivermectin being in clinical trials, it is too cheap to make money out of so companies are probably not going pay the user fee to even start the trials. The only ones that would would be "big pharma" to stop people using ivermectin so they can sell more of the vaccine.

Large populations use ivermectin and i have linked those studies which you havent looked at.

Well I'd reply, firstly, that the onus is on you to prove that Ivermectin never caused a death. And as others have already pointed out, you should focus on the actual efficacy of it as a treatment for COVID.

Regarding the FDA (and by proxy the CDC), without trying to sound all gung-ho America, we're still the leader in medical research and treatment development and discovery. Even the WHO looks to the CDC and FDA for guidance. So any serious entity is going to look to get their developed or existing treatment approved by the FDA first, to prove to the world that it is effective and safe. Just as Pfizer did with their vaccine, or whoever it is that developed Regeneron did. Once that is accomplished they will move to get other nations to use it as a treatment. Edit: and in this line of discussion, the onus is, again, upon you to prove the conspiracy theory that the FDA is merely some kind of sinister agent for "BIG PHARMA" (queue spooky music)

As to reading your cited studies, there are myriad studies of all kinds with conclusions leading this way or that, but volume does not equal validity or veracity. It's been demonstrated to you over and over that no study concluding Ivermectin is an effective treatment or preventative has held up to peer review. You're the one therefore making the sensational claim, so it's on you in this discussion to provide proof. It's clear that you're not actually interested in that however, you want to believe it works, so you've made up your mind. Like that one guy who torpedoed his account the other day you're taking a position rather than accepting the facts.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I require proof of this. Large populations of people use ivermectin as a prophylaxis and i havent heard of major side effects let alone deaths. I have yet to see a conclusive document proving that ivermectin caused death, the only one is where 5 peopel have died and ivermectin MAY be the cause of it which another person responded that it that they couldnt replicate the study.

You already have the proof of people being affected but more importantly it’s not approved for covid. Taking it to deal with covid is a risk, far riskier than the vaccine. If you want to deal with covid to the best of your ability you already know what to do, and don’t have to rely on unproven meds.

 

[thefool]

Weird I had to look up an african tv for the clip but here's WHO director, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, yesterday, saying data about the boosters is inconclusive, it's not known its safety and the whole thing is immoral




Which science will they follow this time?

 

[Nobody_Important]

Weird I had to look up an african tv for the clip but here's WHO director, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, yesterday, saying data about the boosters is inconclusive, it's not known its safety and the whole thing is immoral

I thought we weren't listening toe the WHO?


Or did I miss the memo?

 

[thefool]

I thought we weren't listening toe the WHO?


Or did I miss the memo?

Who's we?

 

[Jaysen]

I thought we weren't listening toe the WHO?


Or did I miss the memo?

They listen to whoever tells them what they want to hear.

 

[Nobody_Important]

They listen to whoever tells them what they want to hear.

That's half the problem to be honest.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

 

[Thesuffering79]

Well I'd reply, firstly, that the onus is on you to prove that Ivermectin never caused a death. And as others have already pointed out, you should focus on the actual efficacy of it as a treatment for COVID.

Regarding the FDA (and by proxy the CDC), without trying to sound all gung-ho America, we're still the leader in medical research and treatment development and discovery. Even the WHO looks to the CDC and FDA for guidance. So any serious entity is going to look to get their developed or existing treatment approved by the FDA first, to prove to the world that it is effective and safe. Just as Pfizer did with their vaccine, or whoever it is that developed Regeneron did. Once that is accomplished they will move to get other nations to use it as a treatment. Edit: and in this line of discussion, the onus is, again, upon you to prove the conspiracy theory that the FDA is merely some kind of sinister agent for "BIG PHARMA" (queue spooky music)

As to reading your cited studies, there are myriad studies of all kinds with conclusions leading this way or that, but volume does not equal validity or veracity. It's been demonstrated to you over and over that no study concluding Ivermectin is an effective treatment or preventative has held up to peer review. You're the one therefore making the sensational claim, so it's on you in this discussion to provide proof. It's clear that you're not actually interested in that however, you want to believe it works, so you've made up your mind. Like that one guy who torpedoed his account the other day you're taking a position rather than accepting the facts.

1. It is the same as proving or not proving the existence of God. It is impossible to prove the non existence of God but it is possible for someone to prove the existence of God. So onus is on the person to prove the existence of God.

2. The FDA claim is that Ivermectin has caused death among humans. So the onus is on them to back it up. How exactly can i prove that Ivermectin hasn't caused death? How exactly can I prove that over last hundred years of its use that it hasn't caused death at least once?
This is a logical issue called "the evidence of abscence". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence The claim that Ivermectin has caused death is much easier to prove than the reverse. All I ask is one documented example of it and you fail to provide it.

3. I have provided proof. Those studies i have linked afaik have been well received. I do look to the peer review to see if these studies are well received or not. And FYI those numbers given by the government on the deaths of vaccinated and unvaccinated as well as infected with ivermectin and infected with other meds etc imo is far more valuable than peer reviewed studies. One is real world the other is prone to bias. I mean what can i trust more, one that has a monetary reward for doing so vs one that doesn't?

4. I looked at the Salon article which claims that the sample size is too small, with 20 i agree the sample is too small but 100 is surely not that bad. I have linked a study that had 400 or so in the study.

5. Peer review originally started as a method to weed out unethical practices in science almost entirely relegated to medicine. It has changed to something else now, but I loathe the idea of one group of people not getting any kind of treatment at all versus one that does. Any doctor that is capable of doing so is in violation of his oath imo. Why not have a study comparing those that are treated with the vaccine and a group that use ivermectin as a prophylaxis. If similar efficacy then it should be okay to use. Same goes for people being treated with remdesivir(or another drug of choice) vs a group treated with Ivermectin as a cure. Oviouslt the group treated with ivermectin should be compensated for taking the risk. I believe a lot of the ethics side of research has gone by the wayside.

 

[BadBurger]

Which science will they follow this time?

There is no "separate" science. He's a scientist amongst peers sharing his informed opinion. We let them discuss it and review the research results and eventually reach a consensus. What a weird question, heh.

As to his philosophical ponderings about wealthy nations providing their citizens with a third booster rather than first focusing on developing nations getting a better portion of the population vaccinated, I don't know if I agree: In order to stem the worldwide pandemic and future variants we will of course need to focus on the developing world eventually, but is it our responsibility? Eh.

 

[segasonic]

R.I.P.

Vaccines (or a responsible government) could have saved them.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

R.I.P.

Vaccines (or a responsible government) could have saved them.

Not sure how you can blame the government.... it is invbididual choice to get vaccine and mask.

 

[Rentahamster]

There is no "separate" science. He's a scientist amongst peers sharing his informed opinion. We let them discuss it and review the research results and eventually reach a consensus. What a weird question, heh.

As to his philosophical ponderings about wealthy nations providing their citizens with a third booster rather than first focusing on developing nations getting a better portion of the population vaccinated, I don't know if I agree: In order to stem the worldwide pandemic and future variants we will of course need to focus on the developing world eventually, but is it our responsibility? Eh.

The solution to global scarcity also isn't rationing. It's to make more. Production can be ramped up.

 

[Thesuffering79]

R.I.P.

Vaccines (or a responsible government) could have saved them.

Florida is 51% fully vaccinated. Not much different from elsewhere. Still though people need some kind of protection against covid.

 

[BadBurger]

Not sure how you can blame the government.... it is invbididual choice to get vaccine and mask.

Much of the local government in Florida, largely the governor, didn't practice common sense public health measures and has even gone out of their way to fight against them when some localities tried to practice them. The governor also used rhetoric meant to cast doubt upon the vaccines, and really, any response to the pandemic. The biggest problem was he refused to remain locked down as summer approached, and didn't acknowledge that infection rates build over time. So he opened up his state and for weeks basically said "look at how great my state is! I have opened up and we're doing great and the economy is booming here" - all the while those infection rates were getting ready to predictably explode. Now the healthcare system there is buckling, people are dying like they were when it all first started, and thanks to the delta more children and younger people are being hospitalized.

Same happened in Texas and other states in the Sun Belt.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Much of the local government in Florida, largely the governor, didn't practice common sense public health measures and has even gone out of their way to fight against them when some localities tried to practice them. The governor also used rhetoric meant to cast doubt upon the vaccines, and really, any response to the pandemic. The biggest problem was he refused to remain locked down as summer approached, and didn't acknowledge that infection rates build over time. So he opened up his state and for weeks basically said "look at how great my state is! I have opened up and we're doing great and the economy is booming here" - all the while those infection rates were getting ready to predictably explode. Now the healthcare system there is buckling, people are dying like they were when it all first started, and thanks to the delta more children and younger people are being hospitalized.

Same happened in Texas and other states in the Sun Belt.

Honestly that’s the fault of the people of Florida. It’s a Republican stronghold, and that’s what is just going to happen. Republicans are in the culture of anti vaccine. Government can make a difference but it won’t be the difference. Even here in Oregon Republicans (who are outnumbered) want exactly the same things as done in Florida, and won’t get vaccinated in a state that Is abrasive about vaccinating and requiring it, and makes it super easy. It is the fault of the people.

 

[Nobody_Important]

R.I.P.

Vaccines (or a responsible government) could have saved them.

Unbelievable shitshow.

Not sure how you can blame the government.... it is invbididual choice to get vaccine and mask.

It's shouldn't be. That's why mandates exist. Florida (and others) are shitshows right now due to their refusal to protect their people.

 

[Thesuffering79]

Unbelievable shitshow.

It's shouldn't be. That's why mandates exist. Florida (and others) are shitshows right now due to their refusal to protect their people.

Vaccine mandates cannot be enforced. They are failing in court.

 

[Rentahamster]

Vaccine mandates cannot be enforced. They are failing in court.

Yes they can. Look up Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)

 

[Rentahamster]

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed with the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) that human exposures and adverse effects associated with ivermectin reported to poison control centers have increased in 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline. These reports include increased use of veterinary products not meant for human consumption.

A recent study examining trends in ivermectin dispensing from outpatient retail pharmacies in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic showed an increase from an average of 3,600 prescriptions per week at the pre-pandemic baseline (March 16, 2019–March 13, 2020) to a peak of 39,000 prescriptions in the week ending on January 8, 2021. 1 Since early July 2021, outpatient ivermectin dispensing has again begun to rapidly increase, reaching more than 88,000 prescriptions in the week ending August 13, 2021. This represents a 24-fold increase from the pre-pandemic baseline.

In 2021, poison control centers across the U.S. received a three-fold increase in the number of calls for human exposures to ivermectin in January 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline. In July 2021, ivermectin calls have continued to sharply increase, to a five-fold increase from baseline. These reports are also associated with increased frequency of adverse effects and emergency department/hospital visits.

In some cases, people have ingested ivermectin-containing products purchased without a prescription, including topical formulations and veterinary products. Veterinary formulations intended for use in large animals such as horses, sheep, and cattle (e.g., “sheep drench,” injection formulations, and “pour-on” products for cattle) can be highly concentrated and result in overdoses when used by humans. Animal products may also contain inactive ingredients that have not been evaluated for use in humans. People who take inappropriately high doses of ivermectin above FDA-recommended dosing may experience toxic effects.

Clinical effects of ivermectin overdose include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death. Ivermectin may potentiate the effects of other drugs that cause central nervous system depression such as benzodiazepines and barbiturates.

Examples of recent significant adverse effects reported to U.S. poison control centers include the following:

• An adult drank an injectable ivermectin formulation intended for use in cattle in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection. This patient presented to a hospital with confusion, drowsiness, visual hallucinations, tachypnea, and tremors. The patient recovered after being hospitalized for nine days.

• An adult patient presented with altered mental status after taking ivermectin tablets of unknown strength purchased on the internet. The patient reportedly took five tablets a day for five days to treat COVID-19. The patient was disoriented and had difficulty answering questions and following commands. Symptoms improved with discontinuation of ivermectin after hospital admission.

Increase in Outpatient Ivermectin Dispensing in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Analysis - Journal of General Internal Medicine

link.springer.com

I would like to know what the absolute numbers for overdosing are.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

Much of the local government in Florida, largely the governor, didn't practice common sense public health measures and has even gone out of their way to fight against them when some localities tried to practice them. The governor also used rhetoric meant to cast doubt upon the vaccines, and really, any response to the pandemic. The biggest problem was he refused to remain locked down as summer approached, and didn't acknowledge that infection rates build over time. So he opened up his state and for weeks basically said "look at how great my state is! I have opened up and we're doing great and the economy is booming here" - all the while those infection rates were getting ready to predictably explode. Now the healthcare system there is buckling, people are dying like they were when it all first started, and thanks to the delta more children and younger people are being hospitalized.

Same happened in Texas and other states in the Sun Belt.

Did he ever tell people NOT to get vaxx? I don't think so. He tell people it is their choice to get vaxx. Even in extreme Blue city like Chicago have a hard time enforcing mandate

 

[Thesuffering79]

Yes they can. Look up Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)

You are absolutely right. I have no idea why I thought it wouldn't.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Vaccine mandates cannot be enforced. They are failing in court.

That was before it was approved by the FDA. That opens a variety of legal doorways.


For example the Pentagon has already announced that the Covid vaccine will be required for military service.

Pentagon mandates US military service members receive Covid vaccine immediately | CNN Politics

The Pentagon is mandating that US military service members get fully vaccinated against Covid-19 immediately, after the Food and Drug Administration fully approved the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine this week.

www.cnn.com

And there is still the ability of companies to require it for their workers and if they can't do that then they will financially incentivize it like some companies have already started to try and do. Delta airlines for example.

Delta Air Lines health surcharge for vaccines could cascade across industries

Health care costs for those infected with Covid-19 are significant, and some employers may follow Delta's lead.

www.politico.com

You can try and abstain all you want and stamp your feet if it makes you feel better, but it won't change any of this. The vaccine is approved and it will be incentivized going forward. You have the right to refuse it, but that is obviously going to be an increasingly difficult process as time goes on. So even if it cannot be "required" it will still be happening through various others means. Thank god.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

Yes they can. Look up Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)

Let be honest, it is still a very experimental vaaccine. It is a hard sell to mandate a vaccine that is made within 1 year

 

[Rentahamster]

Let be honest, it is still a very experimental vaaccine. It is a hard sell to mandate a vaccine that is made within 1 year

Let's be honest, it's not experimental because it has gone through phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials, been approved, and has been given to millions of people which kept them safe from severe illness and death.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Let be honest, it is still a very experimental vaaccine. It is a hard sell to mandate a vaccine that is made within 1 year

It's not experimental. It's been tested and approved. It is a successful vaccine by every objective measure. Anything beyond that now is just conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Thesuffering79]

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

Increase in Outpatient Ivermectin Dispensing in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Analysis - Journal of General Internal Medicine

link.springer.com

I would like to know what the absolute numbers for overdosing are.

I would like to know the death rate for overdosing too. And what counts as overdosing.

 

[BadBurger]

Vaccine mandates cannot be enforced. They are failing in court.

No, the exact opposite has been true in the United States for over a century. Compulsory vaccine mandates / laws have been upheld as constitutional since Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905. The most recent lawsuit, regarding Indiana University's vaccine mandate, was upheld by federal appeals court in early August, the highest court decision regarding college immunization mandates. It then went to the Supreme Court of the United States who declined to hear it (hence agreeing with the lower appellate court).

I don't know if you're referring to Australia, but if you were thinking of the US, you should question the source(s) of your information.

 

[Nobody_Important]

I feel like this thread has the same discussion every week with new people making the same false claims.


New faces making the same claims that were debunked two pages ago.

 

[BadBurger]

I feel like this thread has the same discussion every week with new people making the same false claims.


New faces making the same claims that were debunked two pages ago.

Yea, basically if any company, school, city, state, whatever, can show the court that they're acting reasonably in pursuing public health and safety, a vaccine mandate is upheld. That was how the Indiana lawsuit failed: the plaintiffs (a small group of students) claimed unwanted medical treatments were being forced upon them. Only vaccines are not treatments, rather an over century old, exceedingly proven and safe, preventative. It's why vaccination status isn't even considered protected health information.

Frankly I was shocked to see that lawsuit even make it the federal appeals court, since there is so much legal precedent, but hey, Indiana.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Yea, basically if any company, school, city, state, whatever, can show the court that they're acting reasonably in pursuing public health and safety, a vaccine mandate is upheld. That was how the Indiana lawsuit failed: the plaintiffs (a small group of students) claimed unwanted medical treatments were being forced upon them. Only vaccines are not treatments, rather an over century old, exceedingly proven and safe, preventative. It's why vaccination status isn't even considered protected health information.

Frankly I was shocked to see that lawsuit even make it the federal appeals court, since there is so much legal precedent, but hey, Indiana.

Yeah that battle is over. The only question now is how certain entities approach it all. Will they mandate it or will they incentivize it? Honestly I just wish it would be mandated by companies and agencies and just get it over with. People have been given every opportunity to do the right thing for months and we still have an unmitigated shitshow on our hands. But if a company doesn't want to mandate it then they should just do what Delta did and apply a stupidity tax to the vaccine.



Hell that might even be more effective than the mandates now that I think about it. If people are stupid enough to take horse medicine rather than take a free vaccine then maybe they will be greedy enough to take the vaccine instead of paying a premium.

 

[Kilau]

I was wondering when the Florida death numbers would start to balloon.

Would like to know the age ranges and vax status to get a clearer picture. Florida has a huge elderly population as we all know and even though we have 86% of the 65+ vaccinated they can still get severe covid. I'll be calling my doctor tomorrow to see about getting a booster.

 

[synchronicity]

R.I.P.

Vaccines (or a responsible government) could have saved them.

This post highlights a significant element of the divide on this issue in my opinion. What I see is that there are those who look to the "system" for safety/protection and support...individuals who feel that the world is a better place with organizations and governments looking out for them.

There are others, like myself however, that don't want the burden of responsibility (or control) on anyone other than myself/family/close connections...people that think large scale oversight and regulation is a net negative in the balance of order vs freedom.

I'm not trying to make a statement or comparison about either mindset being "right" as I don't see things in that way, but I do think that there is a basic difference in how significant portions of our population view these aspects, and I think this particular issue highlights a dividing line between two sets of fundamentally very different types of people.

Sorry for the tangent. I needed to express this, if only for my own internal clarity and processing.

 

[Punished Miku]

We got authorization to order the boosters at work today. Looks like I'll get it right on time.

 

[Nobody_Important]

We got authorization to order the boosters at work today. Looks like I'll get it right on time.

All I got from work today was a notice that someone tested positive for Covid. So I get another test on Saturday.


So excited.