That is absolutely untrue.
March 17 2020
(in the April 3 2020 issue)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is absolutely untrue.
It's what I've been saying all along. Eventually people will come around.
Going to take longer for some than others...
"The transition to endemic COVID-19 is also a psychological one. When everyone has some immunity, a COVID-19 diagnosis becomes as routine as diagnosis of strep or flu—not good news, but not a reason for particular fear or worry or embarrassment either. That means unlearning a year of messaging that said COVID-19 was not just a flu. If the confusion around the CDC dropping mask recommendations for the vaccinated earlier this summer is any indication, this transition to endemicity might be psychologically rocky."
Not to mention...the vaccines aren't even enough. I'm vaccinated and still have to wear a mask because of breakthrough case potential I guess? The vaccines aren't 100%, which is fine, but they will never end Covid, even in some hypothetical world where everyone was vaccinated.
It is endemic. It became apparent early on that it could not be stopped and would become endemic.
If people don't want to take the vaccine, they are choosing to catch Covid. Their choice.
It's not a pandemic anymore. We are starting year 3. It is endemic now and time to live with it.
That is absolutely untrue.
Joe, you were wrong about Covid from the start. Yet you still double down.
So why are we shifting the discussion here, when your claim was "no one else but me said it would be endemic"?
You got your ass handed to you (again) here, didn't you?
I was telling you and others well over a year ago it was endemic. But, people didn't want to hear it.
It's what you are claiming here. "No one's been saying this"Why did you put that in quotes when I never said that?
Wouldnt know, don't need it. How is the myocarditis and negative efficacy?
It's what you are claiming here. "No one's been saying this"
Only I posted a link for you from WEEKS into the US pandemic stating the OPPOSITE.
And guess what? Flu is "endemic", yet when we have severe variants pop up, those STILL create "flu pandemics". 1918, 1957, 1968, 2009
I posted "a year ago" it was endemic.I was telling you and others well over a year ago it was endemic. But, people didn't want to hear it.
It's EXACTLY what you've been implying.You appear to not know how quotes work.
It is not. I never claimed to be the only one, or the first. I was saying it here early on, and did not get much agreement on this board for sure.It's EXACTLY what you've been implying.
Now that your claims have been fully debunked, you're going to run off onto another topic.
I posted it a year ago.It is not. I never claimed to be the only one, or the first. I was saying it here early on, and did not get much agreement on this board for sure.
YupNow, I am going to depart. Not because I'm going to run off to another topic. But because I need to run off to another topic. Getting my ass handed to me too much here.
You may not get covid, but if you do get vaccinated, you will have an increased chance of myocarditis.
It increases risk in those who do not contract covid.
That's big of you to finally admit.
😂I was telling you and others well over a year ago it was endemic. But, people didn't want to hear it.
Pretty amazing, eh?
Easy to toss up random charts, with ZERO citation, ain't it?
Here's the source.
Your buddy didn't post direct data from the CDC site.The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is a weekly epidemiological digest for the United States published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It was originally established as Weekly Health Index in 1930, changing its title to Weekly Mortality Index in 1941 and Morbidity and Mortality in 1952.Wikipedia
Wow. Let's use the ole Full Metal Jacket line of "How tall are you? I didn't know they could stack shit that high". I love how you tout your meta with "quality RCTs" (which those RCT's were NOT, just check out the China one, total woof!) but don't deny what the actual results of the RCT's were. LOL!! I already know meta's are higher quality of evidence dummy, which is why I find it funny that you ripped the 2 IVM metas. If garbage in and garbage out is your argument, you picked an excellent meta as an example!Ohh boy soo much to unpack here and def game me a laugh .... it really goes to show the #dunningkruger effect in full force....lets just unpack your post ... i have 15 min before I need to get going.
Lol the CYA from the NIH.... liver enzymes may go up....but do you know what goes up in viral infections?? I'll save you the time, its AST/ALTs.
As for them listing renal/Liver failure. The direct quote "Drug vehicle is SBECD, which has been associated with renal and liver toxicity." I hope you arent basing your renal failure on this part. SBECD can cause liver/renal and other issues....but at doses much much higher and longer than what would be given with RDV. SBECD isn't something new to manage. For a 5-10 day course there is no risk of accumulation to occur.
Continue to educate yourself
Evaluation of sulfobutylether-β-cyclodextrin (SBECD) accumulation and voriconazole pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy - Critical Care
Introduction Intravenous (IV) voriconazole is not recommended in patients with creatinine clearance <50 ml/min to avoid potentially toxic accumulation of sulfobutylether-β-cyclodextrin (SBECD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of SBECD, voriconazole, and...ccforum.biomedcentral.com
What were those rates in control group?? ohh no control group...and all the adverse events have in the vent group?? Well here is something else for you to learn. Ppl on vents tend to have have bad outcomes including but not limited to organ injury....tends to happen right after vent as well...you know since ppl usually are pretty hypoxic prior to vent .... and organs being hypo perfused is not a good outcome. Take it one step further and these patients also tend to need pressor support as well....well that pressure support can cause the arteries in the kidney to "clamp" down and thus cause more AKI
Continue to educate yourself
Ventilator Induced Kidney Injury: Are novel biomarkers the key to prevention?
Mechanical ventilation is associated with significant increases in the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). The rate of AKI due to mechanical ventilation and the associated mortality remain unacceptably high. Preventative and therapeutic strategies are ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A better question is why the WHO sat on a trial for >1 .... that showed decreased mortality...
lol "studies" Its a computer search looking key words...using a data system .... no control group what so ever and pulling certain terms.... yeah one could reasonably say they need to look at this data in a RCT to see if holds up but only a true #dunningkruger would think this is a gotcha moment.
In true #dunningkruger fashion you want to compare a retrospective/observational cohort to a meta-analysis (filled with quality RCTs)?? Yes that data should lead you to want to complete a RCT but to say it has any meaning against RCT and specifically a meta-analaysis??? Thats not how it work....
without even getting into your brand of crazy and going off the rails here...but...lets just "pretend" everything you said is true (which so far nothing you have said is true)...but lets pretend...how does this have any effect on the data the meta-analysis showed?? well it doesn't...and doesn't change results of the data
You do realize in all your dunningkruger glory that meta-analysis are superior to RCT ..... well as long as they are conducted correctly and use good studies to make up the meta... if you fill a meta with crap studies ...you will get crap results which we can look at later.
Its not like they are hiding that they funded it....but maybe your should look up the Idaho VA home and see the logical progession to why they wanted fund this trial. You know its ok for a drug company to do a trial right?? Especially if its clearly known.... can you tell me the biases them funding the trial created??
again a meta-analysis can show benefit comprised from only studies that showed none...and would be considered higher quality evidence than any of those RCTs that comprise the meta. At this time you will need to explain that the quality of evidence used in the meta is not good .... otherwise using data from RCTs in the meta against the meta is a sure fire #krugerdunning move.
fill a meta with crap...and you get crap in return...but here is another recently published gem
Lol, or one could say without remdesivir there would have been much more deaths..... a #dunningkruger statement at its finest.
I know we know this...but i dont think you know how to read and understand studies well....
ohh by all means please tell use when the viremic stage completely ends and is all inflammatory stage.... you understand they overlap for quite a bit?? Like pry why the last 2 meta-analysis have showed remdesivr benefit prior to vent....also never used in vent patients ... and very few ppl i know have either...maybe during the compassionate use days but its not like it was wide spread.
I have always advocated for early treatment you know like the vaccine...wearing a mask and trying to get into better shape/health
No, you arent answering anymore because you are truly an idiot that thinks they know something of a subject when you clearly don't. you are the poster child for #dunningkruger
(which those RCT's were NOT, just check out the China one, total woof!)
but don't deny what the actual results of the RCT's were.
because they were garbage and the garbage studies provided most to the IVM .... take those crappy studies out and it greatly favors the control.... now you are complaining about adding a study that favors the control ...so we can take it out and have greater significance for RDV... talk about going full retard again.I find it funny that you ripped the 2 IVM metas.
What's also entirely funny is that you think what I wrote about Fauci and Baric wasn't true. That one doesn't even take science to figure out yet you are woefully uneducated. Dunning Krueger in full effect!
Ivermectin@Joes Place
My 13 year old has long covid (I think). She hasn't had the covid vaccine yet.
What shot do you recommend? Her hips don't work so well and she is losing her eyesight. She also sheds a lot.
Thanks in advance!
And without attribution on the age groups, your graphic is meaningless.
Why do all your sources (Israel National News) show up as "Medium reliability" for fact checks?
And some other conflicting (with Joes Place) studies
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/356245
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/355146
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220615192108.htm
And some other conflicting (with Joes Place) studies
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/356245
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/355146
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220615192108.htm
And some other conflicting (with Joes Place) studies
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/356245
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/355146
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220615192108.htm
And some other conflicting (with Joes Place) studies
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/356245
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/355146
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220615192108.htm
Nice to see data for a change that doesn’t lump the completely unvaxxed in with partially vaxxed.
And some other conflicting (with Joes Place) studies
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/356245
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/355146
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220615192108.htm
Nice to see you're incapable (again) of looking at the age stratification of the data, where it's almost ALL 70-100 year olds getting Covid after vaccinations.Nice to see data for a change that doesn’t lump the completely unvaxxed in with partially vaxxed.
As usual, you simply reject what you disagree with.And without attribution on the age groups, your graphic is meaningless.
Those 65 and over are >95% vaccinated, and have the weakest immune systems.
It's actually quality data because it's comprehensive based on each dose.Nice to see data for a change that doesn’t lump the completely unvaxxed in with partially vaxxed.
No; I linked YOUR dataset. That is exactly what it shows - nearly ALL the breakthrough vaccinated cases are people >70 years old.As usual, you simply reject what you disagree with.
Qatar Omicron-wave study shows slow decline of natural immunity, rapid decline of vaccine immunity
A recent Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-vaccine booster provided good but temporary protection against infection by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, according to a new study.www.sciencedaily.com