Anti-vaxx Chronicles

The place to share your thought provocations
User avatar
Prawn Connery
MPG Founder
Kosmic Karma
Kosmic Karma
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 62 times
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Prawn Connery »

roller24 wrote:
Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:08 am
Hydra, not octopus.
Yeah that was her name, Hydra. I fucked her. She was a bit clingy, but you get that with octopi. Personally, I think she sucked me in with those long legs of hers. They went all the way up to her head. I don't mind a bit of octopussy, but there's no substitute for a sexy squid.
Licensed to Krill

User avatar
Butcher Bob
Karma Bhudda
Karma Bhudda
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 158 times
Posts: 2500
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Butcher Bob »

Prawn Connery wrote:
Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:56 pm
You got the wrong John, Bob!

The rest of your links – Pfft! A couple of news articles explaining what he does and a Change.org petition...
Fuk....that was lazy of me...my bad.

Forbes is a rather distinguished news organization here in the states...and I'm pretty sure The Mirror is as well in the UK.
Admittedly the petition is a bit of a stretch...but it is one of our bigger "progressive" organizations, therefore very adamant pro-vaxxers.
And what does "Dr" Campbell have to say about prescribing Ivermectin for Covid, Bob?
He frequently indicates that decision should be made by the doctor of the patient.



I think you are missing the point. You attack Dr. Campbell's credibility like he's an anti-vaxxer. Both the article and the doctor are strongly pro-vax. But the article puts forth a premise and sources, that the doctor calls into question. He explains why, and then presents sources and shows data that would appear to directly counter the article's claim. I've seen enough of Campbell's videos that I would highly doubt he has nefarious intent. And the information sources he sites seem to be pretty sound. At the very base we have two substantially different data sets presented. You obviously believe the BBC to be right...so does that mean you think the data from the sources Campbell uses are wrong?

At least as a nurse John knows how to administer the vaccination shot correctly...unlike the one who gave Biden his booster on national TV. :p

User avatar
Prawn Connery
MPG Founder
Kosmic Karma
Kosmic Karma
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 62 times
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Prawn Connery »

I worked for The Mirror for about 10 years. I have the advantage of having worked inside the media for a quarter century.

The problem I have with Campbell is the same problem I have with your post.
Butcher Bob wrote: You obviously believe the BBC to be right...so does that mean you think the data from the sources Campbell uses are wrong?
The BBC is neither right nor wrong. It is not their opinion – they merely report on what others say.

I think it's a pretty rookie mistake of both of you to believe the BBC was editorialising when all it was doing was reporting two sides of a story. Everything in that article is attributed to a source.

If you – or "Dr" Campbell – have an issue with the article, then take issue with the source, not the messenger. The guy looks and sounds foolish when he starts talking about "seeing a journalist for an operation". Not once do either of the two authors of the BBC article give their opinion on the matter – they have simply reported on what others have said.

In fact, Campbell is a complete hypocrite. Because on the one hand he criticises journalists for not having any medical background, and yet here is Campbell – clearly with no understanding of the press – claiming an article published by the BBC is actually the authors' personal opinion.

Perhaps you guys don't know what the term "paraphrasing" means, but I can assure you, it is not the same as "opining".

The whole Campbell video is a beat-up. It is a strawman argument. Campbell should be attacking the sources, not the publisher. The best he can come up with was that one of the lead authors of the study quoted by the BBC was a student. He doesn't criticise the others, because he can't – they are more qualified than Campbell himself!
Licensed to Krill

User avatar
ben ttech
MPG Ambassador
Karma Hippie
Karma Hippie
Custom Title: godisnotwhite.com
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 62 times
Posts: 7534
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:22 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by ben ttech »

Heavy marijuana users who are also vaccinated may be more susceptible to breakthrough cases of COVID-19, a new study found.

The study, published last Tuesday in World Psychology, found that those with a substance use disorder (SUD) — a dependence on marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, opioids and tobacco — were more likely to contract the coronavirus after receiving both of their vaccination shots.

Those without an SUD saw a 3.6 percent rate of breakthrough infections, compared to a 7 percent rate in those with an SUD.



https://nypost.com/2021/10/10/covid-19- ... udy-finds/
"disaster is the mother of necessity" rSin

User avatar
ben ttech
MPG Ambassador
Karma Hippie
Karma Hippie
Custom Title: godisnotwhite.com
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 62 times
Posts: 7534
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:22 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by ben ttech »

Biden’s plan to vaccinate the world won’t work. Here’s a better one.


On Sept. 22, at a global covid-19 summit held in conjunction with the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, President Biden asked the world’s leaders to “go big” on vaccine donations: He announced a goal of vaccinating 70 percent of the world’s population by next September. The president was responding in part to growing discontent about global vaccine inequities: Some 79 percent of vaccinations have occurred in higher-income countries, compared with 0.5 percent in low-income countries. And Africa has vaccinated only 4 percent of its population.

There’s broad agreement that such a gap is intrinsically unethical, and, what’s more, that the situation could foster the creation of dangerous variants that make their way to the United States. Biden’s plan is a step forward, to be sure, but it’s clear that it will not meet the challenge before us. Fortunately, Biden possesses the authority — under the Defense Production Act — to go a lot further than his current plan. By invoking his full powers to act in the interest of national defense, he could vastly boost vaccine production both domestically and in hubs around the world, which could not only bring this pandemic under control much sooner but also help to prevent the next one.

For context, consider the sheer scale of the vaccine crisis. Reaching Biden’s 70 percent target would take around 11 billion doses (given the two-dose regimen for Pfizer, Moderna and other vaccines). And to get to true containment of the virus, we’d need 80 percent global coverage, around 12.5 billion doses. Yet the United States has so far donated only about 140 million doses. All told, Biden has pledged 1.1 billion doses — which is a long way from meeting the 70 percent goal. Our European, Canadian, and Japanese partners have done much less, donating (by my calculations) about 700 million doses combined. So, how could Biden and U.S. allies meet this vast global demand?

First, the United States is expected to have hundreds of millions of surplus doses by the end of this year. Vaccine doses designated for domestic use are not easily shipped abroad. But the White House could more accurately determine how many vaccines states actually need and arrange to ship excess vaccines overseas well before the doses are about to expire.

A more ambitious plan would involve declaring the global pandemic a threat to national security. That would allow the president — under the Defense Production Act, or DPA — both to order vaccine manufacturers to increase their capacities domestically and to enter into technology-sharing agreements with companies abroad. The DPA explicitly includes actions needed for “emergency preparedness” and to prevent debilitating impacts on “national public health.”

We won’t eradicate covid. The pandemic will still end.

Ramped up charitable donations are urgently needed but they will never be enough to meet global need. That’s why vastly increased manufacturing of vaccines abroad makes more sense than a donations-only approach. Donations — whether of personal protective equipment (PPE), oxygen or vaccines — always seem to come late and in insufficient quantities. Empowering regional hubs to manufacture their own vaccines, in contrast, would amplify supplies globally and enable countries to serve their own needs and that of their regions — whether Africa, Latin America or Asia.

The most likely vaccine candidates for regional production also happen to be the most technologically advanced. That’s because mRNA vaccines can be manufactured more rapidly, and at larger scale, more easily than traditional vaccine technologies, such as that used in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. (MRNA vaccines are produced by small chemical reactions and don’t need living components, like the weakened or inactivated viruses used in traditional vaccines). They are also more easily adapted to target emerging variants, because it’s possible to replace one sequence of mRNA in the vaccine for another in a matter of weeks. But Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have thus far kept their intellectual property and trade secrets close to the chest. (Moderna has said it will not enforce its patents related to its coronavirus vaccine, but that doesn’t mean it will share its patented information with others, let alone its manufacturing know-how.)

The vaccines were hardly developed purely by the private sector: Moderna received $2.5 billion from Operation Warp Speed, both Moderna and Pfizer benefited from over a decade of National Institutes of Health basic research funding for mRNA technologies, and NIH holds several key mRNA patents.

That strengthens the case for forcing the companies — in the name of national defense — to share their technologies. Under the DPA, the government would compensate the companies both for the costs of any additional production and for the technology-sharing arrangements. The government would determine “reasonable” compensation, and the drug companies could challenge the sum in courts, but there is nothing outrageous about this: The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires “just compensation” for a “taking,” which is simply the fair market value for the property, including intellectual property.



Some observers might worry that sharing our cutting-edge technologies in this way would lead to its being co-opted by other countries, especially adversaries such as China or Russia. We could hedge against that threat by requiring that foreign producers keep innovative technologies confidential and secure. And these producers would have to pledge to exclusively serve low-income markets, and not usurp richer markets in the United States and Europe. We’ve used that model before to empower foreign manufacturers to make antiretroviral medications for HIV.

Coronavirus vaccines work. But this statistical illusion makes people think they don’t.

Many have argued that foreign manufacturers don’t have the technical competence to produce cutting-edge vaccines. But countries including India, Brazil and Vietnam have a proven track record in vaccine production. And South Africa is already establishing a major mRNA vaccine technology transfer hub, with the support of the World Health Organization. (All it’s waiting for is cooperation from the innovator drug companies.) Countries such as Australia, Singapore and South Korea have invested in advanced vaccine technology but they, too, require cooperation from Pfizer and Moderna.

Increasing vaccine supply won’t be enough. Let’s not forget that delivering vaccine doses into arms in low-resource and rural settings is hard. A U.S.-led coalition would need to fund a strong vaccine infrastructure and train vaccinators and health communicators. MRNA vaccines need cold storage, including during transportation and at local distribution points — a logistical challenge in remote areas.

Changing policies to meet the global vaccine demand in the fashion I’ve described would be a big political lift for the president. He must convince Congress to fund a bold plan, order U.S. pharmaceutical companies to share their innovative technologies and rally the international community. But such an effort would yield immense dividends in saved lives and global economic productivity — and it would prevent ever more dangerous variants from reseeding a covid-19 surge in America. Perhaps the most enduring accomplishments would be to end the reliance of poor countries on the rich — creating more ample supplies of lifesaving medical resources by diversifying manufacturing globally. That would make the world far more resilient when the next health crisis hits.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... donations/
"disaster is the mother of necessity" rSin

User avatar
roller24
Technical Admin
Karma Shaman
Karma Shaman
Custom Title: kitchen door admin
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 138 times
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:14 pm
Contact:

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by roller24 »

Prawn Connery wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:02 am
roller24 wrote:
Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:08 am
Hydra, not octopus.
Yeah that was her name, Hydra. I fucked her. She was a bit clingy, but you get that with octopi. Personally, I think she sucked me in with those long legs of hers. They went all the way up to her head. I don't mind a bit of octopussy, but there's no substitute for a sexy squid.
Image
Historically, censorship has always been viewed as a tyrannical power grab. Ignore that, and know in your heart, that this time...this time ,it is a righteous defense of the public's health.

User avatar
Prawn Connery
MPG Founder
Kosmic Karma
Kosmic Karma
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 62 times
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 9:10 pm

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Prawn Connery »

That's her mum. She looked more like this.

Image

Admit it - you'd tap it, too.
Licensed to Krill

User avatar
Oldjoints
good karma
good karma
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:36 pm

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Oldjoints »

Big balls are one thing but:

shrimp dick
A rare medical condition where the afflicted person's penis resembles an ACTUAL shrimp, literally. Common subdivisions of common shrimp dickness are: shelled, unshelled, cooked, raw, veined, deveined, and COCKTAIL!
A penis pertaining to or replicating the image of the miniscule aquatic organism, the shrimp.

User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Awesome Karma Dude
Awesome Karma Dude
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 139 times
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Intrinsic »

Meanwhile Texas governor Abbott has the biggest Mandate of all. The biggest swingingest most encompassing Mandate of all.. it'll teabag all other mandates..
..a ban on mandates.

For some odd reason he needs to keep enough active hosts available. Texas's men women & children, jes so the misery will continue to spread uncheck. nutzo. 70,000 deaths woo woo!

Elsewhere Mothers sue after children catch Covid at Wisconsin schools with no mandates
Lawsuits say school districts created a ‘snake pit’ by ignoring coronavirus safety measures recommended by health officials

Meanwhile Before 10-year-old Kaylan Park stepped up to the microphone at the contentious meeting, she had watched other pro-mask speakers get interrupted by heckles and boos from people who oppose the district's mask mandate. A couple of those opponents ended up walking out of the meeting in anger.

"It is super weird to be here because adults don't think that their children should wear masks," Kaylan said when it was her turn to speak. "…A lot of you guys are adults. You guys should be able to know that masks save lives."  When some audience members voiced disagreement, Kaylan responded: "Can I please speak? Let me speak before you guys go off."

But some audience members continued talking, which prompted Kaylan to say emphatically: "Please be quiet…It's inappropriate that you guys can't stay quiet."

So as we can see here MAGA is fresh out of lines to cross.  All over the country we have found creepy so called adults harrassing children to take their masks.  But Kaylan Park does not worry about any of that.  She is on a mission to improve the discourse in this country and to help the common sense of basic science prevail.
And, basic manners.

User avatar
Butcher Bob
Karma Bhudda
Karma Bhudda
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 158 times
Posts: 2500
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Butcher Bob »

Prawn Connery wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:08 am
Butcher Bob wrote: You obviously believe the BBC to be right...so does that mean you think the data from the sources Campbell uses are wrong?
The BBC is neither right nor wrong. It is not their opinion – they merely report on what others say.

I think it's a pretty rookie mistake of both of you to believe the BBC was editorialising when all it was doing was reporting two sides of a story. Everything in that article is attributed to a source.
Not editorialising? :confused:
You read the fukking title, right?...
Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
What is the source of "The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud."? I don't see a reference in the article for this meta analysis. :dunno:

Campbell speculated that source, and I looked at the references:
1 - "Research Square withdrew this preprint on 14 July, 2021" Initially - "Conclusion: Early addition of Ivermectin to standard care is very effective drug for treatment of COVID-19 patients with significant reduction in mortality,rt-PCR conversion days , recovery time hospital stay compared to Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care. Early use of Ivermectin is very useful for controlling COVID 19 infections; prophylaxis and improving cytokines storm"
2 - American Journal of Therapeutics - "Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
3 - "A correction has been published: Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2021"...which stated..."Published: 06 July 2021 - On July 6, 2021, Open Forum Infectious Diseases published the article “Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection” by Hill, et al. Subsequently, we and the authors have learned that one of the studies on which this analysis was based has been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. The authors will be submitting a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted."
4 - News of the Elgazzar study from Benha University in Egypt being called into question. The single study sited for concern in references 1-3.
5 - Same source as reference 1, just an earlier version.
6 - The Iran study called into question...which states "Conclusions: Ivermectin as an adjunct reduces the rate of mortality, time of low O2 saturation, and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID-19 patients. The improvement of other clinical parameters shows that ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19."
7 - An article from a year ago that does not address meta analysis or any studies.

Campbell provided a source for a 64 study meta analysis with the questionable Egypt data removed:
https://ivmmeta.com/
Very detailed...and would appear to strongly support use of Ivermectin as a treatment. Not as a substitute to vaccination or other treatments, but rather as an additional tool for consideration.

So the BBC sites what would appear to be a non-published 26 study meta analysis...while Campbell sites a well published 64 study meta analysis.

Hmm...perhaps we should do some additional digging...

Here's a meta analysis of 10 studies:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-ar ... 91/6310839
"Conclusions - Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19."
So a negative conclusion. Uses only pre-Mar. 22, 2021 studies, but we should still consider it.

Here's a meta analysis of 17 studies:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34570241/
"Conclusions: Based on very low to moderate quality of evidence, ivermectin was not efficacious at managing COVID-19. It's safety profile permits its use in trial settings to further clarify its role in COVID-19 treatment."
So a neutral conclusion...neither advocating nor ruling out.

Here's a meta analysis of 18 studies:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
"Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."
So a positive conclusion.

Here's a meta analysis of 24 studies:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... _of.7.aspx
"Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
So another positive conclusion.

Here's a meta analysis of 49 studies:
https://kitasato-infection-control.info ... 0406_e.pdf
"Conclusion - Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment
generated results as positive as the 49 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 563 trillion (p =
0.000000000000002). As expected for an effective treatment, early treatment is more successful,
with an estimated reduction of 80% in the effect measured using a random effects meta-analysis,
RR 0.20 [0.09-0.41]."

So another positive conclusion. But to be fair, this does look like an earlier snapshot of the ongoing analysis that Campbell sites.

The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance is evidently tracking studies and gave an opinion:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... VID-19.pdf
"Fortunately, it now appears that ivermectin, a widely used anti-parasitic medicine with known
anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties is proving a highly potent and multi-phase effective
treatment against COVID-19. Although growing numbers of the studies supporting this conclusion
have passed through peer review, approximately half of the remaining trials data are from manuscripts
uploaded to medical pre-print servers, a now standard practice for both rapid dissemination and adoption
of new therapeutics throughout the pandemic. The FLCCC expert panel, in their prolonged and
continued commitment to reviewing the emerging medical evidence base, and considering the impact
of the recent surge, has now reached a consensus in recommending that ivermectin for both
prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 should be systematically and globally adopted."


And compared with other treatment options, appears to stack up fairly well...
https://c19early.com/


The more I research this info, the more fishy the BBC and their sources seem to be. If you know of data that supports their anti-Ivermectin claims, I'd like to see it. But as it stands, they appear to be talking shit. :wink:

Post Reply