COVID-19 vaccine discussion

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

lol.  Social media has been censoring ivermectin talk for months now.  

Who gives a fuck about what social media does?

Medical treatments aren't developed on Facebook.  They are developed in lab and clinical settlings, by professionals.  You could silence all talk of chemotherapy cancer treatment on FB, it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the fact that 1) medical professionals are developing them, and 2) they are disseminating the proper treatment protocols for them and using them.  And there's NO blocking of that.

And by they way, the REASON that social media is blocking SOME of the invermectin talk is exactly what I pointed out: it is being touted as an alternative to a PROVEN method of reducing COVID cases/harm (vaccines).  "Don't get vaccinated, invermectin cures COVID!" is a terrible, damaging, dangerous, and FALSE message.  Shit, even if it HELPS with COVID recovery (like Tamiflu helps with the flu), it is not a replacement for prevention.  

Again, there's no blocking of discussion of actual, valid therapeutics.  There's no blocking of studies on various potential  therapeutics.

Post a valid study of invermectin in a clinical setting, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts no major social media outlet will block that post.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Brisketexan

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Post a valid study of invermectin in a clinical setting, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts no major social media outlet will block that post.

There have been 27 various clinical trial reports on Inver that have been brought up that you know nothing about.  So yes, many give a fuck what social and the MSM media do to selectively allow certain pieces of information.  

Dollar to donuts?  My guess is you had no idea of the case reduction count in Delhi.  As if you had, you wouldn't have posted that stupid remark earlier about some "magical" therapeutic that could reduce case counts by up to 90%.  In Delhi, it was 97% with a vax rate in single digits. 

• And BTW, this is great - took you exactly two posts to move the goalposts.  That must be a record.  

Ummmm.....there's not? 

Who gives a fuck about what social media does?

the REASON that social media is blocking SOME of the invermectin talk 

Edited August 13, 2021 by BabaYaga

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Who gives a fuck about what social media does?

Medical treatments aren't developed on Facebook.  They are developed in lab and clinical settlings, by professionals.  You could silence all talk of chemotherapy cancer treatment on FB, it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the fact that 1) medical professionals are developing them, and 2) they are disseminating the proper treatment protocols for them and using them.  And there's NO blocking of that.

And by they way, the REASON that social media is blocking SOME of the invermectin talk is exactly what I pointed out: it is being touted as an alternative to a PROVEN method of reducing COVID cases/harm (vaccines).  "Don't get vaccinated, invermectin cures COVID!" is a terrible, damaging, dangerous, and FALSE message.  Shit, even if it HELPS with COVID recovery (like Tamiflu helps with the flu), it is not a replacement for prevention.  

Again, there's no blocking of discussion of actual, valid therapeutics.  There's no blocking of studies on various potential  therapeutics.

Post a valid study of invermectin in a clinical setting, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts no major social media outlet will block that post.

Seems like there was an incentive against therapeutics to obtain emergency authorization for a vaccine. I get it. We need everyone vaccinated. But to pretend like there isn't pushback against therapeutics is being obtuse. Once again, it's a decision between a physician & patient. I know a pulmonogist & professor who said she's used ivermectin & it works on the margins. Not a miracle cure. Seems to work for some people & in certain situations. In classic American fashion therapeutics are now a binary political position. This country sucks. 

Just asking questions to foment controversies that don't exist.

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Medical treatments aren't developed on Facebook.

My Mother-in-Law would like to have a word with you.

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

There have been 27 various clinical trial reports on Inver that have been brought up that you know nothing about.  So yes, many give a fuck what social and the MSM media do to selectively allow certain pieces of information.  

I have read about the initial study that showed that it may have a positive effect IN VITRO at very high doses.  I also read about the latest study, that showed almost no benefit at known safe dosing levels.  And I'm familiar with others out there that arguably showed varying levels of effect, from zero to some.  But you know what?  It doesn't matter what I think.  I am not a treating physician.  I will never have any say over whether invermectin is prescribed or not.  And the vast majority of doctors are not touting it as anything close to a miracle therapeutic.  They don't want their patients to die.  They want them to be healthy.  If aspirin cured this thing, they'd be dishing out Bayer like candy.

 

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Dollar to donuts?  My guess is you had no idea of the case reduction count in Delhi.  As if you had, you wouldn't have posted that stupid remark earlier about some "magical" therapeutic that could reduce case counts by up to 90%.  In Delhi, it was 97% with a vax rate in single digits. 

So, we're gonna walk down the "correlation does not equal causation" logical fallacy?  Shit, numerous regions saw high case counts that then dropped by a massive percentage BEFORE vaccines, and WITHOUT any miracle therapeutics -- because that's how viruses and viral control methods (reducing physical contact, masks, etc.) work.

COVID BURNED through India, brutally and quickly.  Case counts were insanely high.  Then they dropped.  You posit that was BECAUSE of invermectin.  The burden of proof is yours.

I have no problem with any physician trying invermectin to treat a patient - if a doc wants to give it a shot, go for it.  But the dueling narratives sure as shit seem to be "invermectin is a miracle cure, and they're only suppressing it because thee evildoers want us to take their vaccines!" vs. "invermectin hasn't been proven to have a significant therapeutic effect, so it is no substitute for getting the vaccine."

One of those is based in truth.

Oh, and here's the official US government position on ivermectin (also, I've been misspelling it, dammit).  You'll notice, much to your disappointment, that it is not focused on any repression or discouragement against using ivermectin.  Instead, it's a rational and objective analysis that gets to exactly what I've said above: an initial study in vitro showed that it might be promising, subsequent in vivo studies have been mixed and/or insufficient in terms of data/reliability.  But it IS a possible therapeutic if you want to try it.  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

Quote

Ivermectin

• Drug Info
• Clinical Data

Last Updated: February 11, 2021

Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.¹ It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of malaria transmission by killing mosquitoes that feed on treated humans and livestock.² For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.^1,3 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.

Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19

Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.^4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.⁶ Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.^4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.^10-12

Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Data from some of these studies can be found in Table 2c.

Recommendation

• There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Rationale

Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.¹³ However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.^14,15 Even though ivermectin appears to accumulate in the lung tissue, predicted systemic plasma and lung tissue concentrations are much lower than 2 µM, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.^16-19 Subcutaneous administration of ivermectin 400 µg/kg had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in hamsters. However, there was a reduction in olfactory deficit (measured using a food-finding test) and a reduction in the interleukin (IL)-6:IL-10 ratio in lung tissues.²⁰

Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,^21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,^25-27 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,²⁶ shorter time to viral clearance,²¹ or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.^21,27

However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:

• The sample size of most of the trials was small.
• Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
• Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
• Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
• The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
• The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.

Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Monitoring, Adverse Effects, and Drug-Drug Interactions

• Ivermectin is generally well tolerated. Adverse effects may include dizziness, pruritis, nausea, or diarrhea.
• Neurological adverse effects have been reported with the use of ivermectin for the treatment of onchocerciasis and other parasitic diseases, but it is not clear whether these adverse effects were caused by ivermectin or the underlying conditions.²⁸
• Ivermectin is a minor cytochrome P 3A4 substrate and a p-glycoprotein substrate.
• Ivermectin is generally given on an empty stomach with water; however, administering ivermectin with food increases its bioavailability.
• The FDA issued a warning in April 2020 that ivermectin intended for use in animals should not be used to treat COVID-19 in humans.
• Please see Table 2c for additional information.

Considerations in Pregnancy

In animal studies, ivermectin was shown to be teratogenic when given in doses that were maternotoxic. These results raise concerns about administering ivermectin to people who are in the early stages of pregnancy (prior to 10 weeks gestation).²⁹ A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed the incidence of poor maternal and fetal outcomes after ivermectin was used for its antiparasitic properties during pregnancy. However, the study was unable to establish a causal relationship between ivermectin use and poor maternal or fetal outcomes due to the quality of evidence. There are numerous reports of inadvertent ivermectin use in early pregnancy without apparent adverse effects.^30-32 Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish the safety of using ivermectin in pregnant people, especially those in the later stages of pregnancy.

One study reported that the ivermectin concentrations secreted in breastmilk after a single oral dose were relatively low. No studies have evaluated the ivermectin concentrations in breastmilk in patients who received multiple doses.

Considerations in Children

Ivermectin is used in children weighing >15 kg for the treatment of helminthic infections, pediculosis, and scabies. The safety of using ivermectin in children weighing <15 kg has not been well established. Ivermectin is generally well tolerated in children, with a side effect profile similar to the one seen in adults. Currently, there are no available pediatric data from clinical trials to inform the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in children.

Clinical Trials

Several clinical trials that are evaluating the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 are currently underway or in development. Please see ClinicalTrials.gov for the latest information.

And a link to the tables, summarizing ALL of the clinical trials: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/

This information isn't being suppressed.  It's being published, openly, by the NIH.  Any physician can pull this up at any time. 

COVID BURNED through India, brutally and quickly.  Case counts were insanely high.  Then they dropped.  You posit that was BECAUSE of invermectin.  The burden of proof is yours.

I like that this theory is based on the prerequisite that India is at a level of efficiency and competence well above of, say, Switzerland, in order to distribute invermectin to 1.5 BILLION people within a few weeks.

19 minutes ago, lmao said:

I know a pulmonogist & professor who said she's used ivermectin & it works on the margins. Not a miracle cure. Seems to work for some people & in certain situations.

Oh, and this is great.  Seriously, I say it with no sarcasm.  That's how it's supposed to work.  If a doc examines the available evidence and decides to try a therapy on a patient, that's how it's supposed to work.  And I suspect that her experience is how this is ultimately going to pan out -- ivermectin, and perhaps some other therapies, can have some marginal benefit (maybe something along the lines of tamiflu, more or less).  Not a cure.  Not a big life saver.  But another tool in the tool box that may help some patients.  Add it to the box, along with monoclonal antibody treatments.  But do so knowing that not a single one of these is anywhere close to a neutralizer of the hideous effects of COVID.  Which, of course, is COUNTER to the narrative of the massive crowd pushing ivermectin INSTEAD of vaccines.

24 minutes ago, lmao said:

Seems like there was an incentive against therapeutics to obtain emergency authorization for a vaccine. I get it. We need everyone vaccinated. But to pretend like there isn't pushback against therapeutics is being obtuse. Once again, it's a decision between a physician & patient. I know a pulmonogist & professor who said she's used ivermectin & it works on the margins. Not a miracle cure. Seems to work for some people & in certain situations. In classic American fashion therapeutics are now a binary political position. This country sucks. 

I just don’t think that’s true at all. We have been searching for therapeutics the entire time. Hell it was announced that trump got like 3 of them during the course of his treatment. HCQ was tested and came up bad, not that it stopped the flow of info that it works. 
 

doctors would love nothing more than an effective therapeutic to pit with an effective vaccine. 

31 minutes ago, lmao said:

Seems like there was an incentive against therapeutics to obtain emergency authorization for a vaccine

Holy made up nonsense batman. Tell me, what was the incentive you discovered Detective?

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and this is great.  Seriously, I say it with no sarcasm.  That's how it's supposed to work.  If a doc examines the available evidence and decides to try a therapy on a patient, that's how it's supposed to work.  And I suspect that her experience is how this is ultimately going to pan out -- ivermectin, and perhaps some other therapies, can have some marginal benefit (maybe something along the lines of tamiflu, more or less).  Not a cure.  Not a big life saver.  But another tool in the tool box that may help some patients.  Add it to the box, along with monoclonal antibody treatments.  But do so knowing that not a single one of these is anywhere close to a neutralizer of the hideous effects of COVID.  Which, of course, is COUNTER to the narrative of the massive crowd pushing ivermectin INSTEAD of vaccines.

Works on the margins.  AKA the ones that have parasites that are holding back their immune response?  It's not a miracle cure, and it's incredibly dangerous all the people trying to "cure themselves" with horse paste, or use it as a COVID prophylactic instead of getting the vaccine.

Edited August 13, 2021 by JesusSweatDuck
typo

2 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

Works on the margins.  AKA the ones that have parasites that are holding back their immune response?  It's not a miracle cure, and it's incredibly dangerous all the people trying to "cure themselves" with horse paste, or use it as a COVID prophylactic instead of getting the vaccine.

But at that point, the Ivermectin is more just removing a debuff than it is granting some extra strength. But come to think of it again, knowing the history of endemic parasite infestations in the south, maybe it's just good in general to deworm 'em

1 hour ago, lmao said:

Why is there so much pushback on therapeutics?

 

Only pushback is on therapeutics that don't appear to work after being subjected to study, and the aggy sending people in search of a cure to tractor supply for apple flavored horse dewormer. 

I was very hopeful when the early HCQ signals came out because the early results were compelling, although the studies had limitations that warranted further and more rigorous research.  Shit man we were riding early pandemic and any hope for an easy parachute ride out sounded pretty fucking good. When well designed studies were completed...no matter what angle they took...pre-exposure prophy, post-exposure prophy, early treatment, late treatment....it failed to separate almost every time. The early signals needed to be followed up on, sadly ended up being a dead end. I wish that was not the case, but that's how the data shook out.  Again, I was very hopeful that HCQ was going to be the silver bullet. Same with ivermectin at this point.  I would love for it to work.  I have yet to see compelling data.  Here is the pre-release of results from the TOGETHER trial. If Ivermectin has an effect, its effect size is very small.

I am not pushing back on therapeutics.  One that I think has largely flown under the radar is fluvoxamine. Early results are positive, further studies are ongoing. Nobody is pushing back on therapeutics, and sure as shit not for some imaginary reasons about undermining vaccines EUAs.  Finding an effective therapeutic would have ABSOLUTELY ZERO IMPACT on the vaccine EUAs. I am not sure where that nonsense came into the discussion. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Holy made up nonsense batman. Tell me, what was the incentive you discovered Detective?

money 

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I have read about the initial study that showed that it may have a positive effect IN VITRO at very high doses.  I also read about the latest study, that showed almost no benefit at known safe dosing levels. 

It's to be administered early.  Both those studies administered much later in the life cycle as the virus took root.  Much like Tami flu must be administered early to have any positive effect.  This has already been covered.

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, we're gonna walk down the "correlation does not equal causation" logical fallacy?  Shit, numerous regions saw high case counts that then dropped by a massive percentage BEFORE vaccines, and WITHOUT any miracle therapeutics -- because that's how viruses and viral control methods (reducing physical contact, masks, etc.) work.

COVID BURNED through India, brutally and quickly.  Case counts were insanely high.  Then they dropped.  You posit that was BECAUSE of invermectin.  The burden of proof is yours.

So we're back to the virus gonna' virus argument?  

2 minutes ago, Bill Brasky said:

money 

The NIH is literally publishing all kinds of stuff on ivermectin -- and other therapeutics -- that is the opposite of "blocking therapeutics."  There are numerous ongoing studies/trials -- funded studies, by the way -- on multiple therapeutics.

There is no great anti-therapeutic conspiracy.

Just now, BabaYaga said:

It's to be administered early.  Both those studies administered much later in the life cycle as the virus took root.  Much like Tami flu must be administered early to have any positive effect.  This has already been covered.

So we're back to the virus gonna' virus argument?  

Yes and no.  Yes, virus gonna virus.....influenced by things with some known effect (e.g., reduced contact reducing transmissibility, vaccinations doing the same, etc.).  

Again, I posted the NIH page in ivermectin, with a summary of what looks to be every available study.  The NIH PUBLISHING these studies, for consumption by physicians, sure doesn't look like suppression of info to me.

56 minutes ago, lmao said:

Seems like there was an incentive against therapeutics to obtain emergency authorization for a vaccine. I get it. We need everyone vaccinated. But to pretend like there isn't pushback against therapeutics is being obtuse. Once again, it's a decision between a physician & patient. I know a pulmonogist & professor who said she's used ivermectin & it works on the margins. Not a miracle cure. Seems to work for some people & in certain situations. In classic American fashion therapeutics are now a binary political position. This country sucks. 

There wasn't, though. Stop repeating bullshit.

A friend told me last night she went ahead and got her 11 year old vaccinated with school about to start. She turns 12 in December.  Randall's didn't ask for any proof of age in case you're interested.

If my youngest was close enough in age to look 12, you can be guarandamnteed, she'd be getting it too.

 

2 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

A friend told me last night she went ahead and got her 11 year old vaccinated with school about to start. She turns 12 in December.  Randall's didn't ask for any proof of age in case you're interested.

If my youngest was close enough in age to look 12, you can be guarandamnteed, she'd be getting it too.

 

How old?  I’ve seen 12 y.o. kids with vastly different appearances.

Goddamn im not a smart man but there are a fuck ton of stupid people on this thread

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The NIH is literally publishing all kinds of stuff on ivermectin -- and other therapeutics -- that is the opposite of "blocking therapeutics."  There are numerous ongoing studies/trials -- funded studies, by the way -- on multiple therapeutics.

There is no great anti-therapeutic conspiracy.

 

Both is probably the correct answer

 

Not to derail this thread LOL.. For people getting the vaccine today, what one is recommended? 

Moderna

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

It's a pill.  Any doctor or PA can write a script for it.  Most countries take a combo of Iver, z-packs, and zinc at the onset of symptoms.  Hardly complicated to dole out and each has been around for decades?  I want to say Iver and z-packs are listed on the WHO as "essential medicine".  I know Iver is at least.  

How many people in India are on ivermectin? 100s of millions?

1 hour ago, lmao said:

Why is there so much pushback on vaccines?

It's confounding, to be sure.

49 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

I like that this theory is based on the prerequisite that India is at a level of efficiency and competence well above of, say, Switzerland, in order to distribute invermectin to 1.5 BILLION people within a few weeks.

 

You're forgetting that much of India is still rural so their tractor supply stores per capita is much larger than most developed nations.

How about this for a wager: I am on FB (I am an old, and use it to stay in contact with family, old friends, and professional contacts).

I will post a link to the NIH page, with the following text: "There is much discussion about ivermectin as a therapeutic treatment for COVID.  If you would like to "do your own research," I suggest that you start with the NIH page, which has a full summary discussion of ivermectin as a potential treatment as well as a link to summary of all known major studies thus far.  Feel free to read and review, as many medical professionals have already done."

Wanna bet how long it stays up?  I'm going to bet "forever," but we probably need a cutoff.  Say, 48 hours?  Who wants to bet the other way, that it will be "censored" by FB?

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

It's confounding, to be sure.

Agree with that as well. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by lmao

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And by they way, the REASON that social media is blocking SOME of the invermectin talk is exactly what I pointed out: it is being touted as an alternative to a PROVEN method of reducing COVID cases/harm (vaccines).  "Don't get vaccinated, invermectin cures COVID!" is a terrible, damaging, dangerous, and FALSE message.  Shit, even if it HELPS with COVID recovery (like Tamiflu helps with the flu), it is not a replacement for prevention.  

Bingo. If there's been pushback against Ivermectin, it's likely because it has become the hype du jour among the vaccine-resistant crowd. It's this month's HCQ + ZInc or Redmesivir. My (vaxxed) Dad was asking me about it just a few days ago because all his late 60's golf buddies were talking about how you just need to go get Ivermectin if you start feeling sick.

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about this for a wager: I am on FB (I am an old, and use it to stay in contact with family, old friends, and professional contacts).

I will post a link to the NIH page, with the following text: "There is much discussion about ivermectin as a therapeutic treatment for COVID.  If you would like to "do your own research," I suggest that you start with the NIH page, which has a full summary discussion of ivermectin as a potential treatment as well as a link to summary of all known major studies thus far.  Feel free to read and review, as many medical professionals have already done."

Wanna bet how long it stays up?  I'm going to bet "forever," but we probably need a cutoff.  Say, 48 hours?  Who wants to bet the other way, that it will be "censored" by FB?

That'snothowanyofthisworks/GIF 

Here's how suppressed the discussion of therapeutics is.....there was a story about a therapeutic on the 10:00 news just last night: https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/austin-doctors-are-working-on-a-new-shot-for-treating-covid-19-patients/

Quote

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Austin doctors are part of a nationwide study for COVID-19 antibody therapy that can help keep patients out of the hospital and is more easily administered than current treatments.

Currently, COVID-19 infusion therapy is dispensed through an IV.

“So far, we have shown great benefit for the antibodies decreasing the risk of hospitalization or worse by 70 to 87%, if given early,” said Dr. Robert Gottlieb, Baylor Scott & White principal investigator for COVID-19 therapeutic trials.

He said although data already shows antibody treatment helps reduce the risk of severe illness and even death for COVID-19 patients, the current process takes a lot of time and staffing.

As cases rise, Austin COVID-19 antibody infusion center to reopen 

“That requires coming to a facility that can place an IV, and then monitor the infusion,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The 11-county trauma service area covering Austin has a record number of COVID patients in the ICU.

Baylor Scott & White said it’s been giving out 40% more antibody treatment doses in the last few weeks.

Dr. Gottlieb working on a new antibody drug given through a shot in the stomach that he hopes can eventually be self-administered, like an insulin shot.

SUPPRESSION!

For anyone needing to push back against some bullshit they've heard from people:

Regarding the argument that the government has covered up the effectiveness of any therapeutics because finding a therapeutic would require them to terminate the EUA for the vaccines, as of December 2, 2020, the FDA had granted EUAs for eight different therapeutics. And yet the vaccines still were granted EUAs. 

This took me literally five seconds to find. The people who push bullshit like this are either brazen liars or absolute fucking idiots. Like, "they should be under constant adult supervision for their own safety" stupid. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by wildcat09

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There is no great anti-therapeutic conspiracy.

This.  And if ivermectin is demonstrated to be a useful therapeutic, it will be widely deployed.  If you are dead set on getting ivermectin or fluvoxamine or any other unproven treatment, enroll in one of the scientific trials underway in the US. Recruitment is a real pain in the ass and the rate limiting step to getting the evidence out there.  Sign up and contribute to finding the answer. 

 

Here is a link to the recruitment for a big therapeutics study. They mail you the fucking drugs, you don't even have to make the trip to tractor supply and eat horse paste.

https://covidout.umn.edu/

What is involved?

The study is 14 days of taking the study drugs or placebo pills twice per day. All of these medications are FDA-approved for both adults and children.

You are randomly assigned to 1 of 6 possible treatment groups:

Metformin (*immediate release)

Ivermectin

Fluvoxamine

Fluvoxamine + Metformin*

Ivermectin + Metformin*

Placebo

*There is an FDA recall of metformin extended release, but not immediate release (the kind used in this study). The recall has to do with a substance in the water purification process, not the metformin itself.

No clinic or office visits are necessary! This is a contact-free, at-home trial.

We will send you a symptom survey for you to record your symptoms and a pre-addressed envelope for you to return it to us.

You can also give optional, additional, self-collected labs. We will provide materials and shipping.

You will receive $400 for completing the study.

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This.  And if ivermectin is demonstrated to be a useful therapeutic, it will be widely deployed.  If you are dead set on getting ivermectin or fluvoxamine or any other unproven treatment, enroll in one of the scientific trials underway in the US. Recruitment is a real pain in the ass and the rate limiting step to getting the evidence out there.  Sign up and contribute to finding the answer. 

 

Here is a link to the recruitment for a big therapeutics study. They mail you the fucking drugs, you don't even have to make the trip to tractor supply and eat horse paste.

https://covidout.umn.edu/

What is involved?

The study is 14 days of taking the study drugs or placebo pills twice per day. All of these medications are FDA-approved for both adults and children.

You are randomly assigned to 1 of 6 possible treatment groups:

Metformin (*immediate release)

Ivermectin

Fluvoxamine

Fluvoxamine + Metformin*

Ivermectin + Metformin*

Placebo

*There is an FDA recall of metformin extended release, but not immediate release (the kind used in this study). The recall has to do with a substance in the water purification process, not the metformin itself.

No clinic or office visits are necessary! This is a contact-free, at-home trial.

We will send you a symptom survey for you to record your symptoms and a pre-addressed envelope for you to return it to us.

You can also give optional, additional, self-collected labs. We will provide materials and shipping.

You will receive $400 for completing the study.

They are recruiting?  For a giant therapeutic study?  And they'll even mail you the drugs and even PAY YOU MONEY?

See, SUPPRESSION!  "THEY" don't want you to know about these!  It's right in front of you, you just refuse to see it!

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

The point you were trying to make is NOT supported by any clinical data or studies.

Just like your assertion that covid is dangerous for children. You're exactly like the guy you're arguing with. 

4 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

Just like your assertion that covid is dangerous for children. You're exactly like the guy you're arguing with. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/front-line-workers-warn-significant-increase-pediatric-covid/story?id=79398140

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I am on FB (I am an old, and use it to stay in contact with family, old friends, and professional contacts).

Facebook shaming intended. 

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/front-line-workers-warn-significant-increase-pediatric-covid/story?id=79398140

From your link: 

"in states that reported virus-related deaths by age, 0.00% to 0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death."

 

7 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

From your link: 

"in states that reported virus-related deaths by age, 0.00% to 0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death."

 

3 in 10,000 isn’t all that great for kids. And again, death is not the only adverse outcome.  Though I freely admit to not knowing the rate pediatric long haul cases or other traumatic instances. 
 

what was the rate of pediatric myocarditis in the vax trial that caused some apprehension?

Edited August 13, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

5 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

From your link: 

"in states that reported virus-related deaths by age, 0.00% to 0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death."

Kids getting seriously sick with COVID is still bad. Hospitals stretched to the limit with COVID patients, to the detriment of their pediatric units is still bad. 

Don't get the compulsion to die on this hill. It's an incredibly contagious respiratory disease with known long-running side effects. Considering that our state level policy making towards children is "COVID can't hurt them", I encourage you to reevaluate why you feel abbott is doing the right thing. 

6 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

From your link: 

"in states that reported virus-related deaths by age, 0.00% to 0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death."

 

Yeah.  As a parent, is your benchmark for success when it comes to an illness "sure, it put them in the hospital, and even the ICU, but hey, they aren't dead!"?  As a parent who has had a child hospitalized with a peculiar and serious illness, but who survived.....I'm very glad that she lived.  I am horrified that she had to go through that.

Pediatric COVID hospitalizations are unquestionably on the rise.  That is a bad outcome.  We should take all reasonably available and performable measures to avoid it.  Things like....getting all eligible people vaccinated and requiring masks among those who can't be (school-age kids).

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Kids getting seriously sick with COVID is still bad. Hospitals stretched to the limit with COVID patients, to the detriment of their pediatric units is still bad. 

Don't get the compulsion to die on this hill. It's an incredibly contagious respiratory disease with known long-running side effects. Considering that our state level policy making towards children is "COVID can't hurt them", I encourage you to reevaluate why you feel abbott is doing the right thing. 

I completely agree that serious illness in children is terrible. I just haven’t seen any data to support that it’s happening at a frequency that makes the risk calculation change for how my children live their lives. If that exists, and I’m wrong, so be it. 
 

This is coming from someone that is staunchly pro-vax, supports masks in schools, and a virtual learning option for those who feel their children need one. 

This took me literally five seconds to find. The people who push bullshit like this are either brazen liars or absolute fucking idiots.

4 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

I completely agree that serious illness in children is terrible. I just haven’t seen any data to support that it’s happening at a frequency that makes the risk calculation change for how my children live their lives. If that exists, and I’m wrong, so be it. 
 

This is coming from someone that is staunchly pro-vax, supports masks in schools, and a virtual learning option for those who feel their children need one. 

Some are getting sick.  Most with comorbidities.  Some not.  

"kids in ICU beds" is also misleading.  From a physician in the neighborhood, they require the COVID admissions, even asymptomatic ones that test positive, to be housed in the ICU rooms because of the advanced air filtration systems in those rooms.  So a kid with a fever or is dehydrated but otherwise feeling fine might spend a few hours in the ICU wing, often because their family physician won't physically see them (ours tested through a glass wall with holes for their arms to administer the tests).

SIAP but I found this on ivermectin

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/

 

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

SIAP but I found this on ivermectin

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/

 

Good stuff.  Anyone with knowledge care to hazard an opinion on why ivermectin alone had a noticeable effect, but the same dose of ivermectin plus another drug had no effect?  I only read the abstract at this time. 
 

Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm when compared to the placebo group (9.7 days vs 12.7 days; p = 0.02), but this was not the case for the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; p = 0.27)

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

For anyone needing to push back against some bullshit they've heard from people:

Regarding the argument that the government has covered up the effectiveness of any therapeutics because finding a therapeutic would require them to terminate the EUA for the vaccines, as of December 2, 2020, the FDA had granted EUAs for eight different therapeutics. And yet the vaccines still were granted EUAs. 

This took me literally five seconds to find. The people who push bullshit like this are either brazen liars or absolute fucking idiots. Like, "they should be under constant adult supervision for their own safety" stupid. 

It's so amazing how the I DID MY RESEARCH crowd cannot be bothered to do anything other than read the title of an article or YouTube.

My dipshit anti-vax brother has yelled at me 3 diff times that "Bill Gates is the largest owner of farmland in America".  My response, obv, was "sure, no shit, the richest person in the world has invested in a lot of appreciable assets OH WOWWWW!!!"  He says, nah, it's because he is freezing food production in America to starve the anti-vaxxed after all the vaxxed die from vax. I ask him "what % of farmland do you think Bill Gates owns?"  He ballparks 15%.  The actual answer is 242k acres of 900 million US farmland acres.  1/3700. Took me 2 minutes to find this info. I DID MY RESEARCH.

On a better note, my 14 year old overcame her traumatic phobia of needles to join #TeamPfizer today and I couldn't be prouder of her. 

1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

How old?  I’ve seen 12 y.o. kids with vastly different appearances.

8.  She looks like an 8 YO fortunately/unfortunately.