Will you take the Covid Vaccine?

[IndyDave1776]

I gave you a "Like" for your post, but also for using a Doom cheat code for your username (full ammo).

Nice to see I'm not the only one who recognized IDKFA.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Nice to see I'm not the only one who recognized IDKFA.

I used to know all the good ones! I can't remember the one for basically immortality. Between that one and full ammo, that was the only way I could get all the way to the end.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I used to know all the good ones! I can't remember the one for basically immortality. Between that one and full ammo, that was the only way I could get all the way to the end.

I never could play. Between a poor sense of balance I compensate for using stationary objects for reference and some other points of frailty, Doom and Wolfenstein both made me sick to the point of hurling really quickly.

 

[rooster]

This is correct (no sarcasm).
Side effects, however, also include death, so nobody should also be surprised that people died from the vaccine.

It seems that the conversation in the public square has devolved into this:

• One side points out that vaccines are poorly studied and yet rolled out en mass and do not confer complete protection.
• The other side points out that the side effects are rare and breakthrough infections are inevitable and par for the course.

Both sides are correct -- but, as usual, to a degree.
This a problem that exists in a complex gray context, and yet implies only two outcomes: to vaccinate or not (well, at least for now it's still a choice).
And as usual, the discussion has been turned into an argument between the blind and the deaf (by and large).

The most fundamental questions are:
1) Do we need the vaccine at all?
2) If so, who needs the vaccine?
3) Is the vaccine sufficiently safe?
4) Are there any other factors that need to be taken into consideration?

In my professional opinion, the answers are:

1. With an overall survival rate of ~99.8%, this disease is of low risk to the population overall.
   Moreover, there are efficacious preventative and early treatment solutions in the form of various combinations of proven, well-established drugs and food supplements (HCQ, Ivermectin, Vitamin D, AZT, Zinc, etc.).
   These combinations (anywhere from 3 to 8 drugs) have been successfully used in multiple double-blind randomized controlled trials as well as by many doctors who relied on the then-current state of medical research and used their best judgment.
   
   
2. COVID-19 is extremely amenable to risk management.
   We know exactly who is at which risk, and there's a relatively small group of people that probably should get vaccinated.
   The vast majority of people are emphatically not at risk -- especially not children.
   
   
3. Several things to consider about the safety profile:
   1. The vaccine is an investigational drug substance (that is the official FDA terminology) distributed under the emergency use authorization.
   2. The EUA has been granted after ~2 months of safety and efficacy data have been accumulated.
   3. Typically, to be approved, a vaccine manufacturer must accumulate 2 years' worth of data.
   4. In the clinical trial which was used to issue the EUA, Pfizer used 17,511 and 17,411 people in the vaccinated and placebo groups (for the primary endpoint).
      Out of those 34,922 people, a total of 170 got COVID-19 (as per the FDA definition of a positive PCR test plus one of the typical common cold symptoms or loss of taste or loss of smell) and only 10 cases of severe COVID-19.
      Based on 170 people out of about 35 thousand developing COVID-19, 160 million doses have been administered.
   5. Very similar numbers were observed in the Moderna clinical trial.
   6. Currently, the VAERS database has over 4,800 deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccines in the US for the first 5 months of 2021.
      For the previous decade, there were ~1,500 deaths associated with all vaccines administered in the US.
4. Absolutely every aspect of the official stance on the coronavirus situation does not make sense or is downright in the realm of the dereliction of duty.
   • The official policy prescribed doing nothing until you need to go to the ICU.
     Survival rate in the ICU on a ventilator is ~10%.
   • Zuckerberg talked to Fauci about vaccine development at the end of February 2020 (when the general public was reassured everything's fine and there were barely any cases in the US).
   • Fake paper in Lancet tanked HCQ distribution and studies -- and even when it was uncovered as fake, HCQ had been sufficiently demonized.
   • Lab origin of coronavirus was taboo.
   • Using their best medical judgment was verboten for doctors under the threat of loss of job or imprisonment (depending on the country).
   • The public square was sanitized by the Big Tech.
   • Masks. F***ing masks. No masks, yes masks, yes double masks, there's no evidence on double masks, but no, still wear two masks.
     And ultimately it turns out that in a private email, Dr. Fauci laid out a compelling case against the use of masks by the general public (so the interview on 60 minutes was not a ploy to prevent people from hoarding masks).
   • Vaccinate everyone at any cost.
     Including children (not part of the original trial).
     Including pregnant women (not part of the trial).
     Free donuts.
     Free burgers.
     Lottery enrollment.
     115 million dollars in cash prizes in California.
   • Inconvenient science was ignored.
     Inconvenient facts were ignored.
     Inconvenient states were ignored.
   • The swine flu vaccine rollout was halted after just 25 deaths in 1976.

It appears, that most doctors forgot the oath they swore:
Above all, do no harm.
Cure if you can.
Care for always.

A well thought out and logical response.

you must be new here

 

[maxipum]

Senator Paul’s point about infection-conferred immunity is valid, and unfairly downplayed by public health policymakers.

That said, it doesn’t address the question of when people will believe COVID vaccines are “safe”.

Never

 

[melensdad]

This is correct (no sarcasm).
Side effects, however, also include death, so nobody should also be surprised that people died from the vaccine.

It seems that the conversation in the public square has devolved into this:

• One side points out that vaccines are poorly studied and yet rolled out en mass and do not confer complete protection.
• The other side points out that the side effects are rare and breakthrough infections are inevitable and par for the course.

Both sides are correct -- but, as usual, to a degree.
This a problem that exists in a complex gray context, and yet implies only two outcomes: to vaccinate or not (well, at least for now it's still a choice).
And as usual, the discussion has been turned into an argument between the blind and the deaf (by and large).

The most fundamental questions are:
1) Do we need the vaccine at all?
2) If so, who needs the vaccine?
3) Is the vaccine sufficiently safe?
4) Are there any other factors that need to be taken into consideration?

In my professional opinion, the answers are:

1. With an overall survival rate of ~99.8%, this disease is of low risk to the population overall.
   Moreover, there are efficacious preventative and early treatment solutions in the form of various combinations of proven, well-established drugs and food supplements (HCQ, Ivermectin, Vitamin D, AZT, Zinc, etc.).
   These combinations (anywhere from 3 to 8 drugs) have been successfully used in multiple double-blind randomized controlled trials as well as by many doctors who relied on the then-current state of medical research and used their best judgment.
   
   
2. COVID-19 is extremely amenable to risk management.
   We know exactly who is at which risk, and there's a relatively small group of people that probably should get vaccinated.
   The vast majority of people are emphatically not at risk -- especially not children.
   
   
3. Several things to consider about the safety profile:
   1. The vaccine is an investigational drug substance (that is the official FDA terminology) distributed under the emergency use authorization.
   2. The EUA has been granted after ~2 months of safety and efficacy data have been accumulated.
   3. Typically, to be approved, a vaccine manufacturer must accumulate 2 years' worth of data.
   4. In the clinical trial which was used to issue the EUA, Pfizer used 17,511 and 17,411 people in the vaccinated and placebo groups (for the primary endpoint).
      Out of those 34,922 people, a total of 170 got COVID-19 (as per the FDA definition of a positive PCR test plus one of the typical common cold symptoms or loss of taste or loss of smell) and only 10 cases of severe COVID-19.
      Based on 170 people out of about 35 thousand developing COVID-19, 160 million doses have been administered.
   5. Very similar numbers were observed in the Moderna clinical trial.
   6. Currently, the VAERS database has over 4,800 deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccines in the US for the first 5 months of 2021.
      For the previous decade, there were ~1,500 deaths associated with all vaccines administered in the US.
4. Absolutely every aspect of the official stance on the coronavirus situation does not make sense or is downright in the realm of the dereliction of duty.
   • The official policy prescribed doing nothing until you need to go to the ICU.
     Survival rate in the ICU on a ventilator is ~10%.
   • Zuckerberg talked to Fauci about vaccine development at the end of February 2020 (when the general public was reassured everything's fine and there were barely any cases in the US).
   • Fake paper in Lancet tanked HCQ distribution and studies -- and even when it was uncovered as fake, HCQ had been sufficiently demonized.
   • Lab origin of coronavirus was taboo.
   • Using their best medical judgment was verboten for doctors under the threat of loss of job or imprisonment (depending on the country).
   • The public square was sanitized by the Big Tech.
   • Masks. F***ing masks. No masks, yes masks, yes double masks, there's no evidence on double masks, but no, still wear two masks.
     And ultimately it turns out that in a private email, Dr. Fauci laid out a compelling case against the use of masks by the general public (so the interview on 60 minutes was not a ploy to prevent people from hoarding masks).
   • Vaccinate everyone at any cost.
     Including children (not part of the original trial).
     Including pregnant women (not part of the trial).
     Free donuts.
     Free burgers.
     Lottery enrollment.
     115 million dollars in cash prizes in California.
   • Inconvenient science was ignored.
     Inconvenient facts were ignored.
     Inconvenient states were ignored.
   • The swine flu vaccine rollout was halted after just 25 deaths in 1976.

It appears, that most doctors forgot the oath they swore:
Above all, do no harm.
Cure if you can.
Care for always.

I pretty much agree with every point you made except your point 1 about treatments.

• HCQ seems to be more toxic than Covid, but can be used in some early treatments at low doses. Not really proven to be very effective in most cases, and increases mortality if used during advanced stages of Covid.
• ZINC has failed to prove to be effectiveness against Covid 19. As has Selenium, Vitamin C, K and others.
• Vitamin D, PROVEN effective at greatly reducing severity by a substantial margin but only when there is sufficient levels in the blood, but most people in North America are deficient in Vitamin D, if you don't take D3 in sufficient dosages for weeks before you get Covid then it won't help you if you start when you get it.
• Ivermectin has not be studied in any large scale double blind study, but rather has been studied, mostly retroactively, or in very small clinical trials. There is some evidence it could be a very good treatment in early stage Covid but it pretty much takes a court order to get it prescribed in most areas of the US. A real, large scale, double blind study, is actually just starting at the U of Minnesota now.

 

[rooster]

Vitamin D, PROVEN effective at greatly reducing severity by a substantial margin but only when there is sufficient levels in the blood, but most people in North America are deficient in Vitamin D, if you don't take D3 in sufficient dosages for weeks before you get Covid then it won't help you if you start when you get it.

Fun fact: I’ve been dosing vitamin D And C since this started and my liver enzymes came back elevated. Doc said cut the vitamins out and the next test came back fine.

 

[nonobaddog]

HCQ seems to be more toxic than Covid,

 

[idkfa]

I used to know all the good ones! I can't remember the one for basically immortality. Between that one and full ammo, that was the only way I could get all the way to the end.

That's IDDQD

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That's IDDQD

YES!! Man I wish I still had that. Actually I had Doom II... on my old Gateway computer back around 2000 or so. Had a joystick and everything.

 

[IndyBeerman]

YES!! Man I wish I still had that. Actually I had Doom II... on my old Gateway computer back around 2000 or so. Had a joystick and everything.

Heck I have the 25th Anniversary release of Duke Nukem 3D on my computer via Steam. This is one of the games that got the PC Game craze into high gear.

 

[idkfa]

I pretty much agree with every point you made except your point 1 about treatments.

• HCQ seems to be more toxic than Covid, but can be used in some early treatments at low doses. Not really proven to be very effective in most cases, and increases mortality if used during advanced stages of Covid.
• ZINC has failed to prove to be effectiveness against Covid 19. As has Selenium, Vitamin C, K and others.
• Vitamin D, PROVEN effective at greatly reducing severity by a substantial margin but only when there is sufficient levels in the blood, but most people in North America are deficient in Vitamin D, if you don't take D3 in sufficient dosages for weeks before you get Covid then it won't help you if you start when you get it.
• Ivermectin has not be studied in any large scale double blind study, but rather has been studied, mostly retroactively, or in very small clinical trials. There is some evidence it could be a very good treatment in early stage Covid but it pretty much takes a court order to get it prescribed in most areas of the US. A real, large scale, double blind study, is actually just starting at the U of Minnesota now.

I did paint the situation with the available treatments in broad strokes.
What you're saying here is fundamentally correct: none of the drugs I listed are silver bullets by themselves.

This is, however, key to understanding what is so fundamentally awful with this COVID situation: they do work in combination.
Drug synergy is a well-known phenomenon, but unfortunately it may take years to conduct all possible studies.
This is precisely why it is the physician who determines how he is going to care for his patients.
Not CDC.
Not Fauci.
Not the entirety of the NIH.
Not Mark Zuckerberg.
But patient's physician. Granted, he can only use FDA-approved drugs (with notable exceptions), but he's free to do whatever he thinks is most appropriate.

And many brave physicians did care for their patients!
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko and Dr. Peter McCullough are the most notable examples that I know. They saved thousands of lives.
They experimented with off-label application of approved, well-known drugs with overall excellent safety profiles and GRAS substances (Generally Recognized As Safe, such as zinc and vitamins) based on the preliminary scientific data and their own clinical observations.
They conceived and adjusted the combination treatment recipes that included up to 8 ingredients.
They had not only every right to do so -- but the responsibility.

This is exactly the same thing that happened with HIV/AIDS epidemic in the early '80s.
And it was exactly the same man in charge of NIAID who was responsible for the suppression of treatment options.

Lastly, some corrections.

• HCQ
  HCQ was first approved by the FDA in 1955, and it has an overall excellent safety profile.
  The drug label says that "postmarketing cases of life-threatening and fatal cardiomyopathy have been reported."
  The CDC had this to say in 2013: " When hydroxychloroquine is used at higher doses for many years, a rare eye condition called retinopathy has occurred."
  Yes, it probably does increase mortality if used in advanced stages of COVID, especially if used by itself in elevated doses like they did in that infamous VA study.
  The entire point of my argument about the treatment options is that preventing people from needing hospitalization should have been the focus of the entire medical community.
  Instead, people were told to self-marinade at home until they got too sick to be treated.
  
  
• Ivermectin
  Ivermectin was first approved by the FDA in 1996.
  If it does take a court order to prescribe it -- this exactly the thing I am talking about.
  If the drug is approved, the doctor should be able to prescribe it without any problem.
  
  As to the clinical trials: there are 22 completed clinical trials on clinicaltrials.gov, and 46 more are either currently or soon to be recruiting.
  Such interest is probably because the completed ones showed considerable benefits, as most recently demonstrated in a meta-analysis based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 involving thousands of patients.

 

[idkfa]

YES!! Man I wish I still had that. Actually I had Doom II... on my old Gateway computer back around 2000 or so. Had a joystick and everything.

Doom II: Hell on Earth (DOS) - online game | RetroGames.cz

Doom II: Hell on Earth is an award winning first-person shooter video game and the second title of id Software's Doom franchise. It was originally released for MS-DOS computers in 1994 and Macintosh computers in 1995. The Macintosh version was developed in Austin, Texas by...

www.retrogames.cz

Enjoy!

 

[idkfa]

A well thought out and logical response.

you must be new here

Well, thank you, kind stranger!
I'm neither new nor seasoned, neither young nor old.
I've been observing these conversations since the beginning, participated at times.
For the most part, I keep my thoughts to myself, but the pressure to speak up is just too high at times.

 

[nonobaddog]

• HCQ seems to be more toxic than Covid, but can be used in some early treatments at low doses. Not really proven to be very effective in most cases, and increases mortality if used during advanced stages of Covid.

I'm pretty surprised anyone still believes this lie.

 

[BigRed]

I am about a year and a half into this so called crisis.

I've not used a mask and have not injected stuff. I have not wasted time that could be spent with family and friends by keeping them away.

I've gone on living the time we have been granted.

Time here is limited. I have not and do not have any interest in wasting it on the this bull**** or the ***holes behind the scam.

Those ***holes can spend their time in Hell for all I care.

I have more important matters to tend to.

 

[Hawkeye]

Really? I suppose you believe ****ing liars like Fauci and the CDC whose lies have repetitively been exposed?

My, my. Sounding kind of peckish about a differing opinion, aren't we.

 

[NKBJ]

Was listening to somebody a while back that was going through reporting from around the world on lab analysis of the bank bug. When he got to the parts about what appeared to have been used in modifying it and he got to malaria, the look on his face and comment about hmm, maybe THAT'S why HCQ works... It was pretty funny.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My, my. Sounding kind of peckish about a differing opinion, aren't we.

Fauci and the CDC both being repetitively caught telling bald-faced lies is not a matter of opinion.

 

[melensdad]

I'm pretty surprised anyone still believes this lie.

I'm pretty surprised that anyone actually believes it works in anything other than early stage Covid and low dose treatment scenarios but please provide some evidence to prove me wrong.