Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative
-
@kiwiwomble can we unpack that mate? There are a lot of variables in your most obvious point.
If it's clear then many people on here will know the answers, easily.
How infectious is an asymptomatic carrier?
Compared to a symptomatic carrier how infectious is the asymptomatic one?
Are the viral loads the same?
Where is the evidence that masks are effective?
The only randomized trial is the Danish one that i know of. You must know of others. The Danish trials dismissed cloth masks and had a higher but not statistically significant benefit for properly fitted high grade masks.
What materials should the mask be made of?
How should it be worn?
What are the studies that show covid is transmitted outdoors?
I only know of the US DARPA study of soldiers in enclosed settings showing transmission rates.I don't expect you to know the answers mate but at some point the people who told you your info must have referenced some science.
There are a lot of decisions being made with no science being cited.
What do you know about infections being spread by asymptomatic people and why do you believe what you know?
I haven't seen any trials about a vaccine tested for transmission. Have you?
To the original point, why mask when vaccinated? Why lock down when vaccinated?
I'm not badgering you mate, but your language suggests you know these things.
Is it that you've studied this or just repeating sound bites? By the way I'm just repeating too. But I'm repeating things i heard in long form from doctors.This thread is challenging the narrative. I'm challenging the narrative and I sense you know more than me. That should not be challenging to answer.
-
@tim said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Clinical trials generally fail, especially in large trials. Anti-virals have a history of being particularly difficult to develop (disrupting cellular processes or membranes is risky). There is a larger trial recruiting now (PRINCIPLE), but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
That's great news. Dr Kory has been banging on this for over 6 months, as of last week some action. Well done to the UK people involved. Kudos to them.
-
@majorrage said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
I was quite ready to ignore this thread, but then thought why not take a look and challenge all that I know. A couple of questions jump out at me:
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
He says he, and many other Drs throughout the world have conducted randomized control trials on the use of ivm as both a prophylactic (preventative medicine - e.g. we'd all take a pill a week as of now) and an effective treatment for covid infections. He claims, among other things over 55 RCT studies administered to frontline covid health personnel with 800 subjects in one study. In the ivm administered group, no covid infections. In the control group 56 covid infections. For those with covid, a meta analysis (looking at many RCT's, very high on the evidence pyramid) he reports a 62% decrease in death (the UK could have gone from 138000 deaths to 40k with ivm in use).
so 62% decrease in deaths, if we'd all taken this right at the start. So lets be fair, thats not really likely. Assume it was ready to go at the end of wave one, and the infrastructure was there to get it into everybody, all are willing to take it & govt funding went into this instead of vaccine (is it realistic to think they'd fund both)? Latest estimate of vaccine saves is around 14k. So that means UK is 142k deaths with nothing, and hence your number is 40k + (142-40) * 0.38 = just under 80k. So 60k vs 14k with vaccine. Significant.
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Here's a study done with ivm and health care workers in India conducted in October November 2020:
Watching the video is not necessary but the Dr summarises the findings in the description in an easily readable way. 10 seconds of reading.
Basically:
3000+ subjects, all health care workers2384 took ivm, 1147 non takers
2 oral doses ivm 300ug(micrograms = 21 mg for a 70 kg person)/kg 72 hours apart. Apparently ivm costs $183 per kilogram = less than 1 cent per dose
Developed covid symptoms: 331 workers
6% ivm takers 131 workers
15% non takers 200 workersTested positive: PCR test 201 workers
Ivm 2%
Non takers 11.7%Was this done using official methods? Were each subject confined to exactly the same life and with the same demographics? I won't criticise you for being wary of MSM reporting, but standards apply to drug testing as well. An article I'll post below says it's untested. So perhaps it hasn't gone through the official channels for general population use. Remember it's all a game of probability. A virus which kills 1% and hospitalises 5% is much worse than a vaccine which kills 0.01% and hospitalises 0.1%. Where are the IVM stats on this?
Side effects: 1.8% reported adverse effects, mild and self limiting ( that means no medical intervention)
Conclusion
2 doses of ivm (300 ug/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophalyxis among health care workers reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.Earlier, at least 20 -25 HCWs were getting infected with virus daily. After the workers started taking ivm the infection rate is 1 or 2 per day.
No other factors have changed at all?
Worth noting ivm is recommended WITH and alongside a vaccine.
Nowhere have I found recommendations that ivm replaces a vaccine. It's a tool to help health effects of COVID-19
If the results above are spot on, why would you need a vaccine?
You'll note Ivermectin trials are now underway in Britain, sitting with Oxford scientists.
If it proves to be as effective as you research indicates, then it'll be fascinating to see the traction is gains as to whether or not this should have been the right process. The UK media may be a bunch of awful self serving fuckwits, but they do hold people to account & it's telling that there is very little available information on this.
Mate would like to reply in some depth, but...umm...arr...can you please tell me how to do the multi quote thing?😒
-
@siam I fucking hate masks. They are uncomfortable and feel dehumanising. And maybe there isn't enough studies around them being effective.
But I certainly haven't read anything that says they make things WORSE, and in reality, they really don't cause too much drama. I have no issue with being told to wear one when in close quarters with others - if it makes someone else feel safer, then whatever.
And personally, it keeps me from touching my own face which I'd typically do about 7,000 times per day without a mask on.
-
@voodoo I've read a bit where they make it harder to breathe, especially for old people. That's making things worse. Masks do dehumanise human interactions. That's making things worse. Old masks used everyday harbour other germs. That's making things worse. People being harassed and fined for a non proven garment. That's making things worse
My point mate is that government covid responses have been an affront and an assault on science and the scientific method. All it would take is a government spokesman or agency to explain the science of mask wearing, exactly like they did for seatbelts, bike helmets and cleanliness in restaurant kitchens, to name some comparable examples.
But they haven't.
As it stands, replace the word masks with rosary beads and look at your post.
I'm not having a go mate, but masks are a prime example of mixed messages from authorities. And with thousands of vaccinated people currently locked up in Australia, vaccines are another example of broken promises and substandard science communication.
I have absolutely no problem with masks ( or rosary beads) being voluntary. Fine when visiting hospitals and nursing homes too.
-
Ok. Stupid analogy time😀
Let's say covid strategies are like rugby tactics.
All our governments are playing Gatland style rugby.
(The current covid strategies - lockdowns, masks, vaccinations, etc)
We all know these strategies because we are living them and Gatling is trustworthy as a coach and his credentialsare perfectly proven and adequate.Well, here's Graham Henry, or better yet Wayne Smith. John Ioannidis is recognised as the world leader in epidemiology. Most cited, most published and a huge reputation and record. Like Henry and Smith.
Here are his thoughts on rugby tactics, I mean covid strategies.
Like Henry and Smith, this is the guy who should be running the show, not Scott Johnson, who is analogous to Ferguson and Hancock for example.
Challenging the narrative
-
@majorrage said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
I was quite ready to ignore this thread, but then thought why not take a look and challenge all that I know. A couple of questions jump out at me:
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
He says he, and many other Drs throughout the world have conducted randomized control trials on the use of ivm as both a prophylactic (preventative medicine - e.g. we'd all take a pill a week as of now) and an effective treatment for covid infections. He claims, among other things over 55 RCT studies administered to frontline covid health personnel with 800 subjects in one study. In the ivm administered group, no covid infections. In the control group 56 covid infections. For those with covid, a meta analysis (looking at many RCT's, very high on the evidence pyramid) he reports a 62% decrease in death (the UK could have gone from 138000 deaths to 40k with ivm in use).
so 62% decrease in deaths, if we'd all taken this right at the start. So lets be fair, thats not really likely. Assume it was ready to go at the end of wave one, and the infrastructure was there to get it into everybody, all are willing to take it & govt funding went into this instead of vaccine (is it realistic to think they'd fund both)? Latest estimate of vaccine saves is around 14k. So that means UK is 142k deaths with nothing, and hence your number is 40k + (142-40) * 0.38 = just under 80k. So 60k vs 14k with vaccine. Significant.
I meant this to be 1 small snippet from a large conversation. An example of one of the 60 studies he mentions and is championing. Totally agree that it's an exercise in hindsight and wishful thinking.
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Here's a study done with ivm and health care workers in India conducted in October November 2020:
Watching the video is not necessary but the Dr summarises the findings in the description in an easily readable way. 10 seconds of reading.
Basically:
3000+ subjects, all health care workers2384 took ivm, 1147 non takers
2 oral doses ivm 300ug(micrograms = 21 mg for a 70 kg person)/kg 72 hours apart. Apparently ivm costs $183 per kilogram = less than 1 cent per dose
Developed covid symptoms: 331 workers
6% ivm takers 131 workers
15% non takers 200 workersTested positive: PCR test 201 workers
Ivm 2%
Non takers 11.7%Was this done using official methods? Were each subject confined to exactly the same life and with the same demographics? I won't criticise you for being wary of MSM reporting, but standards apply to drug testing as well. An article I'll post below says it's untested. So perhaps it hasn't gone through the official channels for general population use. Remember it's all a game of probability. A virus which kills 1% and hospitalises 5% is much worse than a vaccine which kills 0.01% and hospitalises 0.1%. Where are the IVM stats on this?
Yeah, I don't know mate. I simply copied the description in the video to save people watching it. Just used it as an example of 1 study done nearly 12 months ago. Notable features are the study on health care workers. Evidence that this should be studied, as Tim pointed out it is, which is good and all one could ask for.
Not sure about comparing media standards with scientific ones.Side effects: 1.8% reported adverse effects, mild and self limiting ( that means no medical intervention)
Conclusion
2 doses of ivm (300 ug/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophalyxis among health care workers reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.Earlier, at least 20 -25 HCWs were getting infected with virus daily. After the workers started taking ivm the infection rate is 1 or 2 per day.
No other factors have changed at all?
No idea mate
Worth noting ivm is recommended WITH and alongside a vaccine.
Nowhere have I found recommendations that ivm replaces a vaccine. It's a tool to help health effects of COVID-19
If the results above are spot on, why would you need a vaccine?
You'll note Ivermectin trials are now underway in Britain, sitting with Oxford scientists.
If it proves to be as effective as you research indicates, then it'll be fascinating to see the traction is gains as to whether or not this should have been the right process. The UK media may be a bunch of awful self serving fuckwits, but they do hold people to account & it's telling that there is very little available information on this.
It's not my research, I'm just offering examples of some of the work being done outside of what we're feed "officially".
All the videos I've posted illuminate other work and considerations in the world other than the narrative.
Rage, I was prompted to look into this because I saw a frontline doctor who has real experiences watching people die from covid. A guy who personally devised care and treatment protocols and I had to wonder why his message differs from the official ones.
There is a hiearchy of credible information and the guy spending 14 hours a day treating people is way higher than a government spokesman in my assessment. It's like you asking the mechanic what's best for your car or taking advice from the showroom manager. We're all searching for simple solutions for a complex problem and listening to these guys is far more enlightening than listening to health policy experts.It's the disconnect between the mechanic with filthy hands vs the manager with manicured fingernails that gets my noggin joggin.
-
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
@kiwiwomble can we unpack that mate? There are a lot of variables in your most obvious point.
If it's clear then many people on here will know the answers, easily.
How infectious is an asymptomatic carrier?
Compared to a symptomatic carrier how infectious is the asymptomatic one?
Are the viral loads the same?
Where is the evidence that masks are effective?
The only randomized trial is the Danish one that i know of. You must know of others. The Danish trials dismissed cloth masks and had a higher but not statistically significant benefit for properly fitted high grade masks.
What materials should the mask be made of?
How should it be worn?
What are the studies that show covid is transmitted outdoors?
I only know of the US DARPA study of soldiers in enclosed settings showing transmission rates.I don't expect you to know the answers mate but at some point the people who told you your info must have referenced some science.
There are a lot of decisions being made with no science being cited.
What do you know about infections being spread by asymptomatic people and why do you believe what you know?
I haven't seen any trials about a vaccine tested for transmission. Have you?
To the original point, why mask when vaccinated? Why lock down when vaccinated?
I'm not badgering you mate, but your language suggests you know these things.
Is it that you've studied this or just repeating sound bites? By the way I'm just repeating too. But I'm repeating things i heard in long form from doctors.This thread is challenging the narrative. I'm challenging the narrative and I sense you know more than me. That should not be challenging to answer.
I can’t answer everyone point, if I’m honest some of your posts are just too long and you might be doing yourself a disservice
The two things on did pick out, and I’m not arguing the point, just my understanding
Where are the studies mask work? I have to admit I didn’t think this needed to be studied more than was already accepted, surgeons have worn masks to avoid infecting their patients for how long? It might be me being a sheep but I just thought it was fact
And for several other points, I guess I just think we need to play to the lowest common denominator, I feel some of your question kind of don’t matter (to me) we need rules and approach’s that are easy to explain (haven’t done the best job of that to start with), having different rules for lots of different ages and those that have had one/two/no shots, those that are asymptomatic or symptomatic just makes things hard to understand and hard to enforce
I understand masks help stop spreading bugs, so I’m happy to wear them
-
@kiwiwomble good calls and thanks for the reply.
I'm very suspect on masks being worn outside in large areas.
I think there's a hypothesis that no one has been infected in public outdoors due to it's vulnerability in UV light and observations like sporting events ( state of origin), and protests (blm at the height of the pandemic). I think there's evidence that it's vectored by aerosol, not droplets and certainly not on surfaces. I think the G7 summit barbecue footage shows the leaders don't think so either.Making outdoor mask use voluntary, with awareness of distancing, would do a lot for mental health and anxiety.
-
@siam yeah, id concede outdoors things get a bit more questionable with the only caveat being you shouldn't have people taking them on and off, touching them etc or forgetting to put them on when they go inside, once again the actual benefit MIGHT be outweighed in a practical sense by the other things it prevents
I'll also add those point probably take it more to the political rather than the technical which you were really aiming for
back to lurking
-
@kiwiwomble great point. A health/scientific problem that has been taken over by politicians is probably the most apt description of this pandemic.
Thanks for contributing man👍
-
@kiwiwomble said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
@no-quarter the most obvious point to that is the idea of being asymptomatic, you might not know when you are sick
That's a fair point mate. I'm not sure where they landed in the end with how contagious asymptomatic people are. TBH there's so much noise about Covid I've just kind of tuned out and focused on other things as much as I can.
-
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Reasons against ivm use by the WHO, CDC and NIH:
Not enough studies
Studies not high quality
Studies too short
No peer review of studies
As of last week, not so safe from WHO and Merck (who made billions as the patent holder over the previous 40 years)
we are working on another new covid oral medicine - Fauci announced a 3.2 billion dollar grant to discover a new drug from scratch, just last week.Amazing. Ivm and hydroxychloroquine (which the media told us not only isn’t effective against Covid, but worse! will KILL you (until we learned Saint Fauci said it IS effective and prescribed it to his entire family last year)) have been around for decadess, but NO, we need more studies. whereas the current miracle vaccines they are experimenting using human guinea pigs, hey, that’s perfectly acceptable. Shut up, stop asking questions, bend over and take the needle.
-
Why would ivermectin be effective against a virus? If I replace ivermectin with paracetamol, cheese, beer, coffee, penicillin, you’d think wtf. But let’s take an anti worming drug and claim it helps against viruses.
-
@billy-tell said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Why would ivermectin be effective against a virus? If I replace ivermectin with paracetamol, cheese, beer, coffee, penicillin, you’d think wtf. But let’s take an anti worming drug and claim it helps against viruses.
@billy-tell said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Why would ivermectin be effective against a virus? If I replace ivermectin with paracetamol, cheese, beer, coffee, penicillin, you’d think wtf. But let’s take an anti worming drug and claim it helps against viruses.
I gather it has now been discredited
-
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
@voodoo I've read a bit where they make it harder to breathe, especially for old people. That's making things worse. Masks do dehumanise human interactions. That's making things worse. Old masks used everyday harbour other germs. That's making things worse. People being harassed and fined for a non proven garment. That's making things worse
My point mate is that government covid responses have been an affront and an assault on science and the scientific method. All it would take is a government spokesman or agency to explain the science of mask wearing, exactly like they did for seatbelts, bike helmets and cleanliness in restaurant kitchens, to name some comparable examples.
But they haven't.
As it stands, replace the word masks with rosary beads and look at your post.
I'm not having a go mate, but masks are a prime example of mixed messages from authorities. And with thousands of vaccinated people currently locked up in Australia, vaccines are another example of broken promises and substandard science communication.
I have absolutely no problem with masks ( or rosary beads) being voluntary. Fine when visiting hospitals and nursing homes too.
It was interesting that in the UK masks were only mandated quite late compared to other countries. And the scientists were open that the jury was very much out on the effectiveness of mask wearing by the public for many months - possibly because the masks liked to be used by Joe Public wouldn't be good enough. (As an aside, I think the way the top people advising the UK government have been able to be questioned by the media and members of the public has been done incredibly well and has boosted public confidence.)
So perhaps it's a psychological thing and mask-wearing is far less effective than people think, but mandating masks pushes people into a safety-first mindset to protect against Covid. Which seems a legitimate thing to do on public health grounds.
-
@billy-tell said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Why would ivermectin be effective against a virus? If I replace ivermectin with paracetamol, cheese, beer, coffee, penicillin, you’d think wtf. But let’s take an anti worming drug and claim it helps against viruses.
Following article throws serious doubt on what is purported to be the largest randomised controlled trial of ivermectin to date (@Catogrande
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602According to the author if you take this trial out the meta data shows no benefit.
Article was promoted in tweet by Jordan Peterson who seems to be sympathetic to the anti-mask, anti-lockdown philosophy.
Author hints at how ivermectin's price has skyrocketed, which amuses me as the conspiracy theorists can see the conspiracy in ivermectin being suppressed, but not in it being promoted for profit.
If you believe he's not part of the conspiracy of course.
-
@victor-meldrew isnt it more effective in stopping YOU spreading it rather than protecting you?
I guess if it stops transmission by even 5%, isnt that a good thing?