Covid 19 - counter arguments

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Groupie
Patron
Completely different kettle of fish but whilst browsing another forum(sad as it was about BA flights) they were anecdotally talking about the impacts it’s had on crew who have come back from furlough and started working flights which are staffed by fewer staff than pre-pandemic currently with varying loads. Staff sickness is up and general well-being is dramatically down even after people have had “x months off” that people are suddenly back into different work patterns with different work pressures than they’ve experienced in maybe up to 2 years. Is it a fight or flight(pardon the pun) response from peoples bodies and minds that is affecting lots of different industries and walks of life in different ways
That's a very interesting idea. Isn't overactive fight/flight linked to quite a few mental conditions? Maybe the psychology folks here will know more.

Add in stress, lack of exercise during lockdown, overwork, and a number of other factors which might play a role, IMO.

One other potential angle is that immunity might be low due to lack of exposure to viruses during lockdown and social distancing etc.
Maybe people are getting knocked sideways by bugs that they would normally shrug off, especially if being mentally rundown is affecting the immune system further.
 

jakehake

Preachs PA
Staff member
Patron
That's a very interesting idea. Isn't overactive fight/flight linked to quite a few mental conditions? Maybe the psychology folks here will know more.

Add in stress, lack of exercise during lockdown, overwork, and a number of other factors which might play a role, IMO.

One other potential angle is that immunity might be low due to lack of exposure to viruses during lockdown and social distancing etc.
Maybe people are getting knocked sideways by bugs that they would normally shrug off, especially if being mentally rundown is affecting the immune system further.
Yep all very plausible, still focusing on airlines you could also say they have a very specific footprint that people are contained in airports, then aircraft, then more airports which will act as both stressful but also high possible risks of transmissions. Then factor in these stories about air crew in some places and you then have the scenario where people must be actively avoiding trying to work on certain flights and then if rostered, experiencing higher stress factors about where they are going

 

jakehake

Preachs PA
Staff member
Patron
Should add that these are specific stories of post lockdown/furlough type businesses. Would be interesting what the stats are for welfare in places like the hospitals and care homes where you could argue they had the same factors, I.e. enclosed, close encounter groups with high risks of transmissions and little choice in your working environment. Spreadsheet and a half in the offing
 
OP
sliper

sliper

Advisor to the Owner
Ok, just for a second - humour me.

What do you mean "....if ivermectin works..." ?

Works at what? (In the context of covid.)


"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."
 

pnewortham

Forum Patron
Patron

"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."
I quite like the sound of Zagazig University in Egypt.

The issue that plagues all those studies is the low statistical power, low patient numbers, and accusations of plagiarism and impropriety discussed in this Nature article, where one of the main studies (Elgazzar) was removed from pre-print due to such accusations.

But that aside - here's the thing - despite the paper discussing prophylaxis and treatment, it really does no such thing. The vast majority of anything known about Ivermectin is around treatment of active or likely-active covid cases. i.e. the virus is already in circulation, in people already hospitalised or at serious risk of exposure to live cases in clinical settings. That is treatment. Not prevention, despite them trying to frame it as such.

So who knows - perhaps it can be thrown into the same bucket as antiviral drugs and all the other clinical treatments for active infection. It could well prove a useful tool in the armoury. No issue with that, if any preliminary data opens a pathway for large scale clinical trials and regulatory approval. Great stuff.

But this is just a million miles away from what you keep saying. "Why do we focus on vaccines but not ivermectin?" They're at opposite ends of the clinical pathway. Nothing to do with each other. There could well be room for both, but don't allow this to detract from vaccines and the role they have to play.

True prophylaxis is the ability to indiscriminately protect broad sections of the population, before disease takes hold, and to take viral load out of circulation. Ivermectin is not that. (Yet.)

 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
I quite like the sound of Zagazig University in Egypt.

The issue that plagues all those studies is the low statistical power, low patient numbers, and accusations of plagiarism and impropriety discussed in this Nature article, where one of the main studies (Elgazzar) was removed from pre-print due to such accusations.

But that aside - here's the thing - despite the paper discussing prophylaxis and treatment, it really does no such thing. The vast majority of anything known about Ivermectin is around treatment of active or likely-active covid cases. i.e. the virus is already in circulation, in people already hospitalised or at serious risk of exposure to live cases in clinical settings. That is treatment. Not prevention, despite them trying to frame it as such.

So who knows - perhaps it can be thrown into the same bucket as antiviral drugs and all the other clinical treatments for active infection. It could well prove a useful tool in the armoury. No issue with that, if any preliminary data opens a pathway for large scale clinical trials and regulatory approval. Great stuff.

But this is just a million miles away from what you keep saying. "Why do we focus on vaccines but not ivermectin?" They're at opposite ends of the clinical pathway. Nothing to do with each other. There could well be room for both, but don't allow this to detract from vaccines and the role they have to play.

True prophylaxis is the ability to indiscriminately protect broad sections of the population, before disease takes hold, and to take viral load out of circulation. Ivermectin is not that. (Yet.)


Is the website quoted by sliper not particularly reliable then? It’s words sound convincing.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
The article Sliper links to is from Jan 2021. Since then a significant number of Ivermectin studies have been found to be seriously flawed (as outlined in the article from Nature)

blooming heck - every time he starts to he starts to gain a bit of my trust, he slips one past me!
 

KeithLard

Forum Patron
Patron
Huh? That crap? What, that the pharmaceutical industry develops treatments & cures that saves millions of lives every year.

The genuine medical advancement that you'd prefer to interpret as conspiracy theory, corner-cutting and made-up shit.

Keep enjoying Facebook (y)

Not had Facebook since 2017 :)
 
OP
sliper

sliper

Advisor to the Owner
blooming heck - every time he starts to he starts to gain a bit of my trust, he slips one past me!

There are basically two positions in all this.

The first is that the restrictions are solely aimed at controlling a health crisis.

The second position is "that something very wrong is happening".
And that the last two years are part of a much wider plan to bring in unelected global governance, digital ID's a currency reset, etc. That it has been in planning for at least two decades. We had some posts a couple of pages back outlining how people like Tony Blair admitted to having "his people" embedded in governments around the world and separately that we need "a new system of global governance". To this group the pronouncements of the WEF on the lines of "the pandemic is a narrow window of opportunity to build society back better" and "people owning nothing but being happy" etc are just to conveniently timed to be co incidental. This global group of billionaires is amorphous and appears under several titles.. technocracy inc, the Tri Lateral Commission, the WEF, but they all share the similar aims. There is little doubt that senior politicians from different parties in this country are members of the TLC.

So this second group believe that legislation, media output and official reports are now controlled by these super wealthy global interests. So opposition to this tends to be from later career expert individuals rather than official bodies. These brave souls have put their careers and reputations on the line in an effort to alert the population. So when a consultant (I posted a link to the interview yesterday) interviewed say's that researchers are unwilling to publish findings that support this counter narrative because they fear losing future funding then this fits in with this view. This is countered with claims that these expert individuals have dubious beliefs, are doing it for personal gain, aren't as expert as they claim. They include more than one Nobel Prize winner.

So when Essex comes up with recent studies that counter claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment then not unsurprisingly this first group use this to support their argument. But the second group already believe it is now almost impossible to get a balanced report from official sources. Similar happened with face masks.. and I expect it will shortly happen with claims of increased heart problems. Hancock claimed that studies also proved that Vit D had no effect but has never produced the actual studies to confirm this..

That the response appears to be globally co-ordinated, that vaccine passports will morph into digital ID's.. and your expenditure will switched on and off by our self appointed controllers are central claims of this second group.

I would genuinely like to believe the former position and hope to ultimately be proved wrong.. but I'm afraid my alarm bells have been ringing far too long now for that to easily happen. In the end it comes down to each person to decide which position they believe. I don't bear any malice to people who believe the first argument.
 
Last edited:

PNEESSEX

Forum Patron
Patron
There are basically two positions in all this.

The first is that the restrictions are solely aimed at controlling a health crisis.

The second position is "that something very wrong is happening".
And that the last two years are part of a much wider plan to bring in unelected global governance, digital ID's a currency reset, etc. That it has been in planning for at least two decades. We had some posts a couple of pages back outlining how people like Tony Blair admitted to having "his people" embedded in governments around the world and separately that we need "a new system of global governance". To this group the pronouncements of the WEF on the lines of "the pandemic is a narrow window of opportunity to build society back better" and "people owning nothing but being happy" etc are just to conveniently timed to be co incidental. This global group of billionaires is amorphous and appears under several titles.. technocracy inc, the Tri Lateral Commission, the WEF, but they all share the similar aims. There is little doubt that senior politicians from different parties in this country are members of the TLC.

So this second group believe that legislation, media output and official reports are now controlled by these super wealthy global interests. So opposition to this tends to be from later career expert individuals rather than official bodies. These brave souls have put their careers and reputations on the line in an effort to alert the population. So when a consultant (I posted a link to the interview yesterday) interviewed say's that researchers are unwilling to publish findings that support this counter narrative because they fear losing future funding then this fits in with this view. This is countered with claims that these expert individuals have dubious beliefs, are doing it for personal gain, aren't as expert as they claim. They include more than one Nobel Prize winner.

So when Essex comes up with recent studies that counter claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment then not unsurprisingly this first group use this to support their argument. But the second group already believe it is now almost impossible to get a balanced report from official sources. Similar happened with face masks.. and I expect it will shortly happen with claims of increased heart problems. Hancock claimed that studies also proved that Vit D had no effect but has never produced the actual studies to confirm this..

That the response appears to be globally co-ordinated, that vaccine passports will morph into digital ID's.. and your expenditure will switched on and off by our self appointed controllers are central claims of this second group.

I would genuinely like to believe the former position and hope to ultimately be proved wrong.. but I'm afraid my alarm bells have been ringing far too long now for that to easily happen. In the end it comes down to each person to decide which position they believe. I don't bear any malice to people who believe the first argument.
It's abundantly clear that the early studies which lauded Ivermectin were riddled with problems. The article from Nature that Pnewortham posted shows this very clearly. Studies that were suppsedly proving efficacy actually were based upon scientifically dodgy work, much of which has been wholly debunked. The outcome is that proper studies are now being undertaken. Pretending that it's some deep state, Gates/Blair/technocratic plot is idiocy.

Given that you told us all in a post a few days ago this: "The evidence from Israel and other countries is that the jabs have little if any beneficial effect", then you'll have to forgive me for filing anything you ever post on this topic in the bin.
 

pnewortham

Forum Patron
Patron
There are basically two positions in all this.

The first is that the restrictions are solely aimed at controlling a health crisis.

The second position is "that something very wrong is happening".
And that the last two years are part of a much wider plan to bring in unelected global governance, digital ID's a currency reset, etc. That it has been in planning for at least two decades. We had some posts a couple of pages back outlining how people like Tony Blair admitted to having "his people" embedded in governments around the world and separately that we need "a new system of global governance". To this group the pronouncements of the WEF on the lines of "the pandemic is a narrow window of opportunity to build society back better" and "people owning nothing but being happy" etc are just to conveniently timed to be co incidental. This global group of billionaires is amorphous and appears under several titles.. technocracy inc, the Tri Lateral Commission, the WEF, but they all share the similar aims. There is little doubt that senior politicians from different parties in this country are members of the TLC.

So this second group believe that legislation, media output and official reports are now controlled by these super wealthy global interests. So opposition to this tends to be from later career expert individuals rather than official bodies. These brave souls have put their careers and reputations on the line in an effort to alert the population. So when a consultant (I posted a link to the interview yesterday) interviewed say's that researchers are unwilling to publish findings that support this counter narrative because they fear losing future funding then this fits in with this view. This is countered with claims that these expert individuals have dubious beliefs, are doing it for personal gain, aren't as expert as they claim. They include more than one Nobel Prize winner.

So when Essex comes up with recent studies that counter claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment then not unsurprisingly this first group use this to support their argument. But the second group already believe it is now almost impossible to get a balanced report from official sources. Similar happened with face masks.. and I expect it will shortly happen with claims of increased heart problems. Hancock claimed that studies also proved that Vit D had no effect but has never produced the actual studies to confirm this..

That the response appears to be globally co-ordinated, that vaccine passports will morph into digital ID's.. and your expenditure will switched on and off by our self appointed controllers are central claims of this second group.

I would genuinely like to believe the former position and hope to ultimately be proved wrong.. but I'm afraid my alarm bells have been ringing far too long now for that to easily happen. In the end it comes down to each person to decide which position they believe. I don't bear any malice to people who believe the first argument.

That's all too much for my science brain. So back to the Elgazzar study:

It's been roundly dissected, have a quick read of this. It's basically fraud. I wonder where that sits in the 2 positions you painted?


And bearing in mind this one study has acted as a seed for many other studies & reports, the whole thing got built on shifting sand. But the good news for Ivermectin fans - Oxford University is currently conducting a clinical trial (the PRINCIPLE trial) which includes Ivermectin under proper, RCT conditions. It's for treatment, not prophylaxis, i.e. can it help people already diagnosed with covid. I don't think anybody wants to see it fail.

 
OP
sliper

sliper

Advisor to the Owner
It's abundantly clear that the early studies which lauded Ivermectin were riddled with problems. The article from Nature that Pnewortham posted shows this very clearly. Studies that were suppsedly proving efficacy actually were based upon scientifically dodgy work, much of which has been wholly debunked. The outcome is that proper studies are now being undertaken. Pretending that it's some deep state, Gates/Blair/technocratic plot is idiocy.

Given that you told us all in a post a few days ago this: "The evidence from Israel and other countries is that the jabs have little if any beneficial effect", then you'll have to forgive me for filing anything you ever post on this topic in the bin.

And yet many doctors (when they are allowed) are prescribing ivermectin and firmly belief it is beneficial.. there appears to be a plausible mechanism as to how it works and several governments are now allowing it to be used... with what appears to be good results.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So what is wrong with Tess Laurie's review ?
 

PNEESSEX

Forum Patron
Patron
And yet many doctors (when they are allowed) are prescribing ivermectin and firmly belief it is beneficial.. there appears to be a plausible mechanism as to how it works and several governments are now allowing it to be used... with what appears to be good results.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So what is wrong with Tess Laurie's review ?
The Tess Laurie that demanded that all Covid vaccinations should be halted in the UK? No thanks
 

pnewortham

Forum Patron
Patron
And yet many doctors (when they are allowed) are prescribing ivermectin and firmly belief it is beneficial.. there appears to be a plausible mechanism as to how it works and several governments are now allowing it to be used... with what appears to be good results.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So what is wrong with Tess Laurie's review ?

I just don't understand what point you're trying to make with all this.

Did you read the stuff about the Oxford trial?
 
OP
sliper

sliper

Advisor to the Owner
The Tess Laurie that demanded that all Covid vaccinations should be halted in the UK? No thanks
On that note I will leave it and let others decide whether the Nature article or Tess Laurie provides us with the more comprehensive analysis of the data on Ivermectin.

The irony is that Tess Laurie and John Campbell almost certainly where much nearer to your position than mine 18mths ago.
 
Top