New study - the SARS-CoV-2 persists in the body for months

Thanks for the link. Perhaps a study will come out in the near future that studies the long term effect of Covid, if any, in asymptomatic persons.

 

I thought I saw one recently talking about this issue and speculating on what might be the case. I'll have to try and remember where and see if I can dig it up.

 

Yes, I did change my mind. First of all, it was discovered that some of these studies were fraudulent/retracted. I posted a thread about it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...in-are-flawed-fake-and-even-retracted.593314/
Then, better RCTs were done and showed no action.
It took me a while to make this switch.
I really hoped it would work. I guess my wishful thinking blinded me to some flaws in those earlier studies.
But unfortunately it doesn't work. It was sort of painful to see the newer RCTs showing no action. Each one that came out, was a pang in my heart. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists believe, we have no vested interest in discrediting ivermectin; we'd have loved to see it work.
Nowadays I no longer follow the MATH+ protocol; at least, not in the parts that strongly recommend ivermectin.
I think I can give you the strongest evidence of my change of heart: my young son caught Covid-19 at a time when he wasn't eligible for the vaccine yet, so he had it while unvaccinated. I did not recommend ivermectin to him.

 

The vaccine doesn't work that way.

Suggest you study it more so you don't get the wrong idea.

 

I'd rather get covid than Ebola or polio.

 

You're mixing up vaccine safety and efficacy with legal issues.

 

VAERS numbers are not a tally of vaccine side effects. Sheesh.

 

Well thanks for being man enough, or big enough, to admit you are wrong about the original science. On the flip side of that argument, you present yourself as a man of science and someone who follows it, so maybe you ought to look at it a bit more carefully before endorsing it? I'm just saying, what if you are wrong about other scientific articles you are endorsing and people take your advice because you present as an authority?

Hope you don't take offense to that.

 

There are quite a few new treatments coming onto the market at various costs and with various degrees of effectiveness.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03667-0
- I think that's the one that's been approved in the UK.

There have also been treatments that have to be given intravenously. where it's thought appropriate..
- https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2860
- I wonder if these are any different than the current monoclonals in circulation?

There are various data points there but that was in some thousands of patients, many with comorbidities and/or that were more elderly, etc. etc. and gave effectiveness up to 88% which, among that cohort, is pretty good.

Just found this article from... er... a well known newspaper that gives a better overview of it and some other treatments.
- https://www.theguardian.com/austral...vid-treatment-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work

Oh, also found this...
- https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/...xposure_prophylactic_against_covid-19_1385083
- Apparently it's also been approved for use in the US

 

Great. [Insert rolling eyes here] Do you think I was the only one fooled by the fake data???
The articles made it through the peer review process, dammit!
It took a while for the international scientific community to spot the fraud, and for the papers to be retracted.
So, people publish fraudulent results, and it's somehow my fault??? Fraud is committed, not by me, but somehow it lowers my scientific credentials in your mind? I need to "look at it a bit more carefully"???
This is like saying to me, "someone robbed a bank in North Dakota; therefore you must be a bank robber too, since you endorse that bank by having an account with them! Now I think less of you because you couldn't spot the thievery and alert the police."
Pray tell, how many fake studies have YOU identified???
And like I said, it's not just that the earlier studies were flawed. It's that NEW studies came up, bigger and better, showing no efficacy of ivermectin against Covid-19, and I commented upon them as they got published. For your information, science evolves.
Come down from your high horse, and welcome to my Ignore list.

 

Oh, and by the way, if a study is published pretending that they ran it in hospital such and such, how in the hell am I supposed to know that it is fake, until the hospital administrators come forward and say that such study was never done there??? Do you think I have a crystal ball or something??? That's exactly what happened with one of the fake studies. Since I don't personally work in that hospital, it would have been impossible for me to spot it, until the administrators publicly challenged the study. Up to that point, nobody in the scientific community had realized that the study was fake.

 

I wasn't trying to offend you so there is no need to get defensive. I'm merely pointing out no one is infallible, including you. So like the confidence you presented there was to be met with a grain of salt, so should we consider that for all other authority and conclusive stances we take. It wasn't me, but you who posted links to RCT's attesting to their good science, later retracting it, that this occurrence might apply to what you/we currently think is good science now with how fast all of this is evolving. Some of what you endorse now might be proven to be false late too. I believed the experts that said we just needed two doses and we'd be in the clear when they said it. Also that it would stop transmission. Now we know they were wrong about that too. At the moment we are being told we might need boosters indefinitely. I'm hoping the less severe Omicron is the actual answer we need.

 

No one assigned blame. No one is questioning your credentials either. We can all be something we may not be on the internet, so it's not like someone just tells you they're an expert and that we should gobble up what they say.

Like you acknowledge, you were fooled once, maybe that could happen again? If questioning you makes me a villain to be ignored, it says more about you than me.

That is why not a single person should put all their faith in ONE or even TWO people because they flash their credentials. That's not personal to you, but to everyone who does so. If you take offense to that, nothing I can do about it. If you're so soft that you need to censor anyone who questions your god complex, then so be it. I hope others can see through the posturing you've put forward here and do the same, take what you say with a grain of salt. You were wrong at least ONCE, after all.

 

There's enough data out there yet about lethality of Omicron, and that double vaxxed and elderly are now occupying most hospital beds in Israel and UK, which is why Pfizer is likely signalling a time to switch to their drug as many start to see that the vaccine isn't performing as initially advertised. Is their drug similar to Merck's an anti-malarial too?

 

I dunno, looks like it works to me

 

That's the problem, it only looks like it works. But when you look at each individual study, there are all sorts of flaws. And this, when they are truly published studies, which is not even the case of your source.
I mean, you're quoting from a site called c19ivermectin.com!!! This site, not even. Then, of course, they throw in 3 or 4 that show it doesn't work, to appear legit.

There's a lot of junk science out there, my friend.

Now, look at a truly legit journal, the British Journal of Medicine, one of the top 5 medical journals in the world:

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

"Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19"

"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings."

Read this, as well:

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...is-thats-convincing-people-to-use-ivermectin/

-----------

Sorry, Zorro. If it did work, we reputable scientists would be delighted. Unfortunately, it doesn't. This, that you are quoting, is mere propaganda with no scientific merit. That is, junk science. Don't let it fool you.

On the other hand, Paxlovid does work. Sotrovimab does work. That's solid science.

 

Point them out, because you certainly didn't point them out when you promoted them the first time. What does that tell us? That you will promote something on a whim without reading through it.

That you had no problem promoting once, and how many times since?

 

Maybe long term asymptomatic COVID will eventually have the same effect as systemic malnutrition is thought to have caused in 1348

Popularly known as the Black Death.

 

Sorry mate but most of us have better things to do than to answer demands from anonymous people on the internet.

Let me though take that graph you posted earlier - the one that in the corner says it is from “c19Ivermectin.com” and tell me why I should not think it is highly biased toward selling the idea of using Ivermectin?
A simple google search leads to this https://www.politifact.com/factchec...hecking-claim-about-use-ivermectin-treat-cov/
And ARSTECHNICA has done a sterling job of analysing that site

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...is-thats-convincing-people-to-use-ivermectin/

 

You think Covid will be black plague-esque? I don't think it's reached that level of status, but I don't wanna find out either.

 

Yes, it looks like it works. There are many doctors and notable scientists who say that ivermectin is effective. How to explain?

You mean this British Journal of Medicine here?

Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

Sotrovimab - $2400.00 for 500 mg treatment
Paxlovid -------- $530.00 per treatment
Ivermectin --------- $1.80 for 5 day treatment

 

possible, how long is the chicken pox virus in the body, it often mutates into shingles as we get older

 

this is true, short term fasting is good for the body as it helps it clean out the junk

but long term fasting can deprive the body of nutrients it needs, one must be careful, and of course one should never fast if they are malnourished to begin with

kinda like fevers, it's the bodies natural defenses at play, but can also have deadly effects

 

Very few doctors recommend fasting of any kind. Eat well but eat right all the time is the only way according to most. Diets are for the seriously ill, (which the morbidly obese are among.) Remain active too, proper exercise is as vital as healthy nutrition.

 

You're on a forum engaging and answering questions with anonymous people every day. That's laughable, but I get why some need to hide from their many mistakes, after pretending everything he says was gospel.

Sorry mate, that was someone else.