Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[buymycards]

I sure hope that everyone demanding that healthy 30 year olds change their life is following their own advice and changing their lifestyle over all of the things they have a .0005% projected risk of dying from. Because wow, it's a lot of things for them to keep track of, much less act upon. There's really nothing else to say in this thread, people will feed off the public hysteria and anecdote, or take a look at the numbers and do some basic risk analysis. Neither side is really going to budge at this point.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is a huge, horrible life changing event to put on that mask. How can people possibly be free and live their life when they are wearing a mask? What a horrible thing to have to endure.

[vintagetoppsguy]

https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-...foeRqCXYIt0hp8

[irv]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-...foeRqCXYIt0hp8

Seems to be a lot of that going on lately. Even the left leaning news is now changing their tune.

"The NIH knew the effectiveness of this drug and its relatives back in 2005 when it comes to Coronavirus'! SARS COV1 (what we know as causing SARS) and SARS COV2 (what we know as the virus that causes COVID 19) are almost 85% genetically the same. They had a drug that had decades of safe use treating other illness' and they refused to use it for political and monetary reasons"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/

"Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol
Affiliations expand
PMID: 16115318

PMCID: PMC1232869

DOI: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69
Free PMC article
Abstract
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results: We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion: Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds"


Isn't the media wonderful.

"Jon Karl says aloud the obvious TRUTH about the BIASED media. They denied Covid FACTS to remain ANTI-TRUMP"

https://therightscoop.com/jon-karl-s...in-anti-trump/

"Emails show Dr. Fauci was WORRIED that NIH might have ties to Coronavirus spread in China last year"
https://therightscoop.com/emails-sho...ina-last-year/

https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/st...03904%3Fs%3D21

Seems like a lot of unwelcomed heat is on Fauci lately. Hmm, I wonder why things are improving so fast?

[Peter_Spaeth]

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

So the stuff you posted is real and factual but the stuff I post is "conspiracy crap" therefore I'm a conspiracist?
You're a lawyer, aren't you, Pete? Is that how you solve cases or come to conclusions? Just debunk the stuff that doesn't fit with your ideology nor fit your agenda and choose the ones that do?

Tell me, did you fact check any of these names from my post?
Martin J Vincent 1, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah, Stuart T Nichol.

If so, do they look like conspiracy theorists to you who don't know what their talking about?

Tell me, Peter, do you think there is more money to be made with the use of hydroxychloroquine that has been around and safely used for 80 or so odd years or in these new, never used before, non approved, except for emergency use, vaccines?

Yeah, I know, just another conspiracy theory, right?

Hydroxychloroquine is Widely Used Around the Globe

"Death rates in countries that rely on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of Covid-19 appear to be dramatically lower than death rates in countries that discourage the use of the drug"
https://fcpp.org/2020/11/08/hydroxyc...und-the-globe/

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"They."

Why don't you link to the dozens of articles and studies that concluded it wasn't a safe or effective treatment?

https://medcitynews.com/2020/08/why-...-for-covid-19/

Why hydroxychloroquine’s appeal endures despite evidence it doesn’t work for Covid-19

The drug has consistently failed to show a benefit when tested in randomized, controlled clinical trials. Social science may explain why laypeople and doctors alike continue clinging to it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/16/...xychloroquine/

I could go on and on and on posting links.

The pandemic is bad enough without all the conspiracy crap piled on top of it.

So what do you think was the motivation of the doctor who claims to have successfully treated 350+ patients at the time? I'm sure that number has grown greatly over the last year, but I'm only going by your year old article. Financial motivation? Seeking attention? Just likes spreading false information? And what about the many, many, many other doctors who've come forward since the publishing of your year old article who also claim to have successfully treated Covid patients with hydroxychloroquine?

[irv]

Medcity news.. Sounds legit.

"Founded by veteran journalists with both health carereporting and online editorial experience, MedCity News is poised to build an innovative new-media enterprise capable of taking advantage of these converging forces while building a profitable national business and brand"
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/medcity-news

I couldn't even find anything credible for AAS Science? What is that exactly?

And I found this about Stat news. Surprise surprise.
"These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Read the randomized controlled trials. Don't shoot the messenger. Plenty of shit seems to work until it's subjected to real trials. People used to swear by bloodletting. People swear by all sorts of bogus treatments. When you run a real trial they don't hold up. That's how science goes. Anecdotes don't prove much, even lots of them. The plural of anecdote is not data. There are lots of good explanations of this online. You need to control for placebo effects, regression to the mean, other confounding factors, etc.


Who exactly is the "they" who have suppressed this treatment, Dale? And how exactly did "they" go about it? Conspiracy theory. If you want to debate the science and take issue with the trials, fine. But don't throw this conspiracy junk at us.