PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (2 Viewers)

[Sparky Polastri]

Neither should a system that actively manipulated factual support. Hopefully that changes soon.

Like this one @The Gator

 

[BlackCrowes]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

I hope the irony of just how spectacularly the vaccines failed to prevent EVERYONE from contracting the virus prevents us from having a control group isn't lost on anyone.

Well, this isn't true either. Originally, they were 90%+ effective, in line with all other vaccines. Then mutations happened and happened and happened. You'd need new vaccines for the mutations and it seems like that'd be tough for a lot of you to accept. Imagine coming out with ANOTHER mRNA vaccine with the amount of people who still insist that this one is more harmful than helps. Boosters kept you out of the hospital, so that was good enough to get through the pandemic.

It is true. We were supposed to have beaten Covid with the vaccines. We didn't, not by a long shot.

Vaccine uptake declined rapidly year over year over year. Most people don't bother to get it because it doesn't work, not because they think it causes Turbo Cancer or anything else.

Your mental gymnastics will not change the past.

Just so I’m clear what you’re saying. The current vaccine doesn’t work correct?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Who cares?

Joe cares.

He's asked people to provide links to support their statements.

I've seen him ask people for links to support something you claim as fact but not opinions. There's a big difference in the two.

I don't think this is an opinion and should have a source/link.

I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000

Looks like an opinion to me.

The amount of time spent harping on this kind of stuff is amazing. No one is going to win the thread no matter how much one tries.

 

[LawFitz]

Assertion
noun
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

 

[turnjose7]

I most certainly did not run Lurker off and would be shocked if he reads through this conversation and feels I was one who treated him in any way that led to him leaving.

(In fact, the only even juvenile ribbing I gave to him was some good natured FBG humor at the end... he then showed he got the joke by leading off his last comment with the same joke although my own comment got deleted.)

You were cool man. I got the joke and shook my head . Lots of "my last post here" stuff. I kind of knew it wasn't after i posted it, but it was too late to delete in good faith. What are you gonna do.......

I'm going to leave you guys with this though. Helping was my intention, but this isn't the venue for the way I wanted to do that. It's ok, pretty normal reaction to what I've said. No ill will towards anyone regardless of how my time here ended.

Two tests, TAT (thrombin antithrombin) and a test to measure VEGF. @Sparky Polastri can confirm or refute these tests if he desires, that will carry more weight here than me. They can be ordered very simply by a pcp, or yourself through quest lab.

If you get covid, a covid vaccine and suspect something isn't right and all other tests are clear these could show irregularities if there's an issue related to clotting, or your vasculature in general. Best advice i can give and I'll get off my soap box and let everyone get back to having the discussion.

I'll leave things at that.

Why do you think these tests have any utility at all? Neither has a role in clinical medicine, probably because they aren't useful clinical tests. Seems like a bad idea to advocate for these over a well-established test with very well understood clinical significance like d-dimer.

I'll respond since you're talking to me directly

Rhetorical question, but what do you want me to say? You want me to go into an indepth answer? The way your question is phrased isn't to learn anything from me. It's to **** on me and take a victory lap if i tried.

I really don't have anything left to add. Don't get the tests, simple. I hope you're never in a position where it might matter.

I presumably won't be in a position where these tests matter because they don't have any clinical utility. What you could say is to explain the basis for why you think these tests should be used to make clinical decisions (which is presumably your position given that you used them to determine the should should be on medication, and are now advocating for other people to get these same tests). What are you basing that on?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I most certainly did not run Lurker off and would be shocked if he reads through this conversation and feels I was one who treated him in any way that led to him leaving.

(In fact, the only even juvenile ribbing I gave to him was some good natured FBG humor at the end... he then showed he got the joke by leading off his last comment with the same joke although my own comment got deleted.)

You were cool man. I got the joke and shook my head . Lots of "my last post here" stuff. I kind of knew it wasn't after i posted it, but it was too late to delete in good faith. What are you gonna do.......

I'm going to leave you guys with this though. Helping was my intention, but this isn't the venue for the way I wanted to do that. It's ok, pretty normal reaction to what I've said. No ill will towards anyone regardless of how my time here ended.

Two tests, TAT (thrombin antithrombin) and a test to measure VEGF. @Sparky Polastri can confirm or refute these tests if he desires, that will carry more weight here than me. They can be ordered very simply by a pcp, or yourself through quest lab.

If you get covid, a covid vaccine and suspect something isn't right and all other tests are clear these could show irregularities if there's an issue related to clotting, or your vasculature in general. Best advice i can give and I'll get off my soap box and let everyone get back to having the discussion.

I'll leave things at that.

Why do you think these tests have any utility at all? Neither has a role in clinical medicine, probably because they aren't useful clinical tests. Seems like a bad idea to advocate for these over a well-established test with very well understood clinical significance like d-dimer.

I'll respond since you're talking to me directly

Rhetorical question, but what do you want me to say? You want me to go into an indepth answer? The way your question is phrased isn't to learn anything from me. It's to **** on me and take a victory lap if i tried.

I really don't have anything left to add. Don't get the tests, simple. I hope you're never in a position where it might matter.

I presumably won't be in a position where these tests matter because they don't have any clinical utility. What you could say is to explain the basis for why you think these tests should be used to make clinical decisions (which is presumably your position given that you used them to determine the should should be on medication, and are now advocating for other people to get these same tests). What are you basing that on?

Then consider yourself lucky.

I can't be anymore clear about my stance here going forward, so I'm not sure why you want to continue to engage with me.

I have no idea who you are and what your qualifications to make your claims are. I suspect you're no more qualified than I am. My doctors, regular pcp's at a regular family practice seemed to think they carried clinical value. It's a simple blood test and not harmful and should be interpreted by a doctor no matter how the test results are arrived at. Nobody is suggesting a diy approach to Healthcare.

Don't get the tests man. I really don't care your thoughts on that matter, so you don't need to reply or quote me. What more do you want me to say? I tagged sparky in the post as he's given his qualifications to make an assessment. If you want to have this conversation try him. He can shoot it down or give you the explanation you're trying to bait me into.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Let's go in a different direction as this is getting more contentious.
Is the argument really about being forced to get a vaccine? I feel like a lot of people opposed to the vaccines just don't want the government telling them what to do.
So the questions to me are:
1) Is it OK for a private company to require a vaccine? Can American Airlines require it before you get on their plane? Can a private school require the measles vaccine?
2) Is it OK for the government to require a vaccine? Is there a threshold that needs to be reached before it's considered in the realm of greater public good, like eminent domain?

 

[Max Power]

Let's go in a different direction as this is getting more contentious.
Is the argument really about being forced to get a vaccine? I feel like a lot of people opposed to the vaccines just don't want the government telling them what to do.
So the questions to me are:
1) Is it OK for a private company to require a vaccine? Can American Airlines require it before you get on their plane? Can a private school require the measles vaccine?
2) Is it OK for the government to require a vaccine? Is there a threshold that needs to be reached before it's considered in the realm of greater public good, like eminent domain?

1) yes, but it might not be in the best interest of their business model.

2) I'd say also yes assuming it's fully approved, necessary and consistency applied. Those were some of the hurdles the government faced with Covid.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Agree on both your takes. Thanks.

 

[AAABatteries]

Amazing that 4-5 years later we are arguing this.

 

[Max Power]

Amazing that 4-5 years later we are arguing this.

I feel like some time needed to pass so we can reflect on the pandemic with less emotion.

A lot of mistakes were made (by everyone) and we should want to learn from it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Let's go in a different direction as this is getting more contentious.
Is the argument really about being forced to get a vaccine? I feel like a lot of people opposed to the vaccines just don't want the government telling them what to do.
So the questions to me are:
1) Is it OK for a private company to require a vaccine? Can American Airlines require it before you get on their plane? Can a private school require the measles vaccine?
2) Is it OK for the government to require a vaccine? Is there a threshold that needs to be reached before it's considered in the realm of greater public good, like eminent domain?

I have a better question.....why all of a sudden are mandates a problem for those who have been mandated to take things for decades already? Private companies can do what they want as far as I'm concerned, which includes choosing not to hire people if they are vaccinated. Do what you want!

 

[Battersbox]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

I hope the irony of just how spectacularly the vaccines failed to prevent EVERYONE from contracting the virus prevents us from having a control group isn't lost on anyone.

Well, this isn't true either. Originally, they were 90%+ effective, in line with all other vaccines. Then mutations happened and happened and happened. You'd need new vaccines for the mutations and it seems like that'd be tough for a lot of you to accept. Imagine coming out with ANOTHER mRNA vaccine with the amount of people who still insist that this one is more harmful than helps. Boosters kept you out of the hospital, so that was good enough to get through the pandemic.

It is true. We were supposed to have beaten Covid with the vaccines. We didn't, not by a long shot.

Vaccine uptake declined rapidly year over year over year. Most people don't bother to get it because it doesn't work, not because they think it causes Turbo Cancer or anything else.

Your mental gymnastics will not change the past.

Please point the parts of the comments you quoted that are incorrect? Do you really believe the subset of people who are unwilling to take vaccines would take a booster? The rest is documented fact so I assume that's the part you take issue with.

You said the vax was 90% effective. It may have been 90% effective in testing, but in practice it wasn't even close to that. By the time the general population got the vaccines in their arms in Spring 2021, it was not nearly 90% effective. which is why 70% of cases that summer were 'breakthrough'.

It didn't work. It was a vaccine that targeted an earlier form of the virus and the stated goal of 'beating' covid didn't happen--the virus changed too quickly. Put simply, we were told to get a shot and we'd beat Covid. Instead, many/most of us got the shot and got Covid anyway. That's an undeniable fact. The early testing with the control group that was allegedly 95% effective is absolutely irrelevant...the shots came too late.

The boosters have nothing to do with this either. People got the first two shots in March/April 2021, then contracted Covid later that year anyway, before they could even have chosen to get a booster. This happened all over the place. The vaccines didn't do what was promised, not even close.

 

[Battersbox]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

I hope the irony of just how spectacularly the vaccines failed to prevent EVERYONE from contracting the virus prevents us from having a control group isn't lost on anyone.

Well, this isn't true either. Originally, they were 90%+ effective, in line with all other vaccines. Then mutations happened and happened and happened. You'd need new vaccines for the mutations and it seems like that'd be tough for a lot of you to accept. Imagine coming out with ANOTHER mRNA vaccine with the amount of people who still insist that this one is more harmful than helps. Boosters kept you out of the hospital, so that was good enough to get through the pandemic.

It is true. We were supposed to have beaten Covid with the vaccines. We didn't, not by a long shot.

Vaccine uptake declined rapidly year over year over year. Most people don't bother to get it because it doesn't work, not because they think it causes Turbo Cancer or anything else.

Your mental gymnastics will not change the past.

Just so I’m clear what you’re saying. The current vaccine doesn’t work correct?

It never worked as intended, except perhaps for the initial trials which are irrelevant for 99% of the population.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

I hope the irony of just how spectacularly the vaccines failed to prevent EVERYONE from contracting the virus prevents us from having a control group isn't lost on anyone.

Well, this isn't true either. Originally, they were 90%+ effective, in line with all other vaccines. Then mutations happened and happened and happened. You'd need new vaccines for the mutations and it seems like that'd be tough for a lot of you to accept. Imagine coming out with ANOTHER mRNA vaccine with the amount of people who still insist that this one is more harmful than helps. Boosters kept you out of the hospital, so that was good enough to get through the pandemic.

It is true. We were supposed to have beaten Covid with the vaccines. We didn't, not by a long shot.

Vaccine uptake declined rapidly year over year over year. Most people don't bother to get it because it doesn't work, not because they think it causes Turbo Cancer or anything else.

Your mental gymnastics will not change the past.

Please point the parts of the comments you quoted that are incorrect? Do you really believe the subset of people who are unwilling to take vaccines would take a booster? The rest is documented fact so I assume that's the part you take issue with.

You said the vax was 90% effective. It may have been 90% effective in testing, but in practice it wasn't even close to that. By the time the general population got the vaccines in their arms in Spring 2021, it was not nearly 90% effective. which is why 70% of cases that summer were 'breakthrough'.

It didn't work. It was a vaccine that targeted an earlier form of the virus and the stated goal of 'beating' covid didn't happen--the virus changed too quickly. Put simply, we were told to get a shot and we'd beat Covid. Instead, many/most of us got the shot and got Covid anyway. That's an undeniable fact. The early testing with the control group that was allegedly 95% effective is absolutely irrelevant...the shots came too late.

The boosters have nothing to do with this either. People got the first two shots in March/April 2021, then contracted Covid later that year anyway, before they could even have chosen to get a booster. This happened all over the place. The vaccines didn't do what was promised, not even close.

We are clearly living in two different worlds. I don't know where the bold came from, but the goal in the world of science and those engineering vaccines was to minimize deaths and hospitalizations. Using language like you do here makes me wonder if you were listening a bit too much to the political talking heads and those appointed by the political talking heads. I really wish JMU had their dashboard up for historical purposes. The reality was very different. These vaccines did wonders through the most violent and dangerous strands (like Delta). They did what they were supposed to do.

 

[Battersbox]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

I hope the irony of just how spectacularly the vaccines failed to prevent EVERYONE from contracting the virus prevents us from having a control group isn't lost on anyone.

Well, this isn't true either. Originally, they were 90%+ effective, in line with all other vaccines. Then mutations happened and happened and happened. You'd need new vaccines for the mutations and it seems like that'd be tough for a lot of you to accept. Imagine coming out with ANOTHER mRNA vaccine with the amount of people who still insist that this one is more harmful than helps. Boosters kept you out of the hospital, so that was good enough to get through the pandemic.

It is true. We were supposed to have beaten Covid with the vaccines. We didn't, not by a long shot.

Vaccine uptake declined rapidly year over year over year. Most people don't bother to get it because it doesn't work, not because they think it causes Turbo Cancer or anything else.

Your mental gymnastics will not change the past.

Please point the parts of the comments you quoted that are incorrect? Do you really believe the subset of people who are unwilling to take vaccines would take a booster? The rest is documented fact so I assume that's the part you take issue with.

You said the vax was 90% effective. It may have been 90% effective in testing, but in practice it wasn't even close to that. By the time the general population got the vaccines in their arms in Spring 2021, it was not nearly 90% effective. which is why 70% of cases that summer were 'breakthrough'.

It didn't work. It was a vaccine that targeted an earlier form of the virus and the stated goal of 'beating' covid didn't happen--the virus changed too quickly. Put simply, we were told to get a shot and we'd beat Covid. Instead, many/most of us got the shot and got Covid anyway. That's an undeniable fact. The early testing with the control group that was allegedly 95% effective is absolutely irrelevant...the shots came too late.

The boosters have nothing to do with this either. People got the first two shots in March/April 2021, then contracted Covid later that year anyway, before they could even have chosen to get a booster. This happened all over the place. The vaccines didn't do what was promised, not even close.

We are clearly living in two different worlds. I don't know where the bold came from, but the goal in the world of science and those engineering vaccines was to minimize deaths and hospitalizations. Using language like you do here makes me wonder if you were listening a bit too much to the political talking heads and those appointed by the political talking heads. I really wish JMU had their dashboard up for historical purposes. The reality was very different. These vaccines did wonders through the most violent and dangerous strands (like Delta). They did what they were supposed to do.

Perhaps you're too young to remember where the bolded came from. Your Dad would remember though.

If you are saying politicians oversold what the vaccines would do, I can get on board with that. But, it wasn't just politicians: go check out what reps from Pfizer and Moderna were saying, then come back to us. Heck, put in minimal effort and you'll find several claims from Fauci himself that implied strongly these vaccines would do more than they did.

I don't know why you want to defend these vaccines to the end. Perhaps they are an incremental step forward in medicine (I sure hope they are), but they didn't do what Pifizer, Moderna, government officials, and myriad people form your stated 'world of science' said they'd do.

 

[jhib]

I mean, I guess we can go back and forth about the messaging surrounding the vaccines early on and whether the vaccines lived up to what some felt was promised, but it's still widely accepted that, in the words of the Yale scientists in the study linked by the OP,
"COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths." Sounds like it worked for something.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If I may. Article dated 1-7-21. Notice the language used, not limit, but prevent infection. That seems important.

And how about "We believe there will be protection potentially for a couple of years," ?

That's what i remember being sold on.

Moderna CEO says COVID-19 vaccine protection may last years

Moderna is close to proving its vaccine is effective against other variants of the coronavirus, CEO Stephane Bancel also said.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Battersbox]

I mean, I guess we can go back and forth about the messaging surrounding the vaccines early on and whether the vaccines lived up to what some felt was promised, but it's still widely accepted that, in the words of the Yale scientists in the study by the OP,
"COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths." Sounds like it worked for something.

Yes, I agree there may be a net benefit for what we did. My point is that it's a shame we'll never really know if the benefit outweighed the relative damage some folks are experiencing from the vaccine itself. The very fact that we don't have a viable control group to study vax injury because virtually everyone got Covid anyway is to me quite ironic.

I tend to lean toward the side of yes, there was probably a net benefit. Maybe. But I'll also say I don't know anyone who died from Covid, but I do know several folks who say they are suffering from vax injury of varying degrees. I'm lucky enough that I took the shots and 1 booster and I don't think it damaged me in any way.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Preventing millions of deaths seems like a decent benefit.

 

[jhib]

I mean, I guess we can go back and forth about the messaging surrounding the vaccines early on and whether the vaccines lived up to what some felt was promised, but it's still widely accepted that, in the words of the Yale scientists in the study by the OP,
"COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths." Sounds like it worked for something.

Yes, I agree there may be a net benefit for what we did. My point is that it's a shame we'll never really know if the benefit outweighed the relative damage some folks are experiencing from the vaccine itself. The very fact that we don't have a viable control group to study vax injury because virtually everyone got Covid anyway is to me quite ironic.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I would think there would be value in comparing rates of various outcomes between unvaccinated having had Covid and vaccinated having had Covid, controlling for numbers of exposures and other potential variables. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

I tend to lean toward the side of yes, there was probably a net benefit. Maybe. But I'll also say I don't know anyone who died from Covid, but I do know several folks who say they are suffering from vax injury of varying degrees. I'm lucky enough that I took the shots and 1 booster and I don't think it damaged me in any way.

And I don't know anyone personally who says they are suffering from vaccination injury in any way, and I definitely don't know anyone who died from Covid, even though I have a decent number of elderly family members who could have been at a heightened risk. I'd also acknowledge that my limited experience is insignificant when talking about population matters like Covid, just a few data points among millions and millions.

 

[Nugget]

Without going through 14 pages, is there something actionable I should be doing? I have an annual checkup this week - I'm getting normal bloodwork done and I'm going to ask for the calcium picture for my heart.

 

[LawFitz]

The very fact that we don't have a viable control group to study vax injury because virtually everyone got Covid anyway is to me quite ironic.

The Pfizer/Moderna clinical trial control groups were unblinded and vaxxed by Pfizer/Moderna well before the multiyear window of observation passed. They deleted their own control groups midway through the longer-term control period.

Preventing millions of deaths

I beleive this isn't objectively provable, at minimum, and an intentially misleading rallying cry (by those higher-up the pharma/medical pyramid, not you).

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

Beyond that, the overwhelming majority of said prevented deaths were the very old and/or otherwise unhealthy. Not that their lives don't matter. Of course they do. But they were already compromised and I strongly *believe* we then compromised huge swaths of the young and otherwise healthy to try to protect the former. This while knowing and misleading the public from go that these experimental vax technologies did NOT stop contagion.

So much to be learned from that period of time if we can objectively look back.

 

[Joe Schmo]

The very fact that we don't have a viable control group to study vax injury because virtually everyone got Covid anyway is to me quite ironic.

The Pfizer/Moderna clinical trial control groups were unblinded and vaxxed by Pfizer/Moderna well before the multiyear window of observation passed. They deleted their own control groups midway through the longer-term control period.

Preventing millions of deaths

I beleive this isn't objectively provable, at minimum, and an intentially misleading rallying cry (by those higher-up the pharma/medical pyramid, not you).

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

Beyond that, the overwhelming majority of said prevented deaths were the very old and/or otherwise unhealthy. Not that their lives don't matter. Of course they do. But they were already compromised and I strongly *believe* we then compromised huge swaths of the young and otherwise healthy to try to protect the former. This while knowing and misleading the public from go that these experimental vax technologies did NOT stop contagion.

So much to be learned from that period of time if we can objectively look back.

Any links for any of this?

 

[LawFitz]

Let's not get side-tracked too much here about past mistakes and focus more on the next play...

is there something actionable I should be doing? I have an annual checkup this week - I'm getting normal bloodwork done and I'm going to ask for the calcium picture for my heart.

Have you had PVS symptoms?

D-dimer test for clotting is something I would do at minimum, had I been Covid vaxxed. Hopefully, others here can give you other helpful suggestions, which was an original goal of this thread.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

I hope the irony of just how spectacularly the vaccines failed to prevent EVERYONE from contracting the virus prevents us from having a control group isn't lost on anyone.

Well, this isn't true either. Originally, they were 90%+ effective, in line with all other vaccines. Then mutations happened and happened and happened. You'd need new vaccines for the mutations and it seems like that'd be tough for a lot of you to accept. Imagine coming out with ANOTHER mRNA vaccine with the amount of people who still insist that this one is more harmful than helps. Boosters kept you out of the hospital, so that was good enough to get through the pandemic.

It is true. We were supposed to have beaten Covid with the vaccines. We didn't, not by a long shot.

Vaccine uptake declined rapidly year over year over year. Most people don't bother to get it because it doesn't work, not because they think it causes Turbo Cancer or anything else.

Your mental gymnastics will not change the past.

Please point the parts of the comments you quoted that are incorrect? Do you really believe the subset of people who are unwilling to take vaccines would take a booster? The rest is documented fact so I assume that's the part you take issue with.

You said the vax was 90% effective. It may have been 90% effective in testing, but in practice it wasn't even close to that. By the time the general population got the vaccines in their arms in Spring 2021, it was not nearly 90% effective. which is why 70% of cases that summer were 'breakthrough'.

It didn't work. It was a vaccine that targeted an earlier form of the virus and the stated goal of 'beating' covid didn't happen--the virus changed too quickly. Put simply, we were told to get a shot and we'd beat Covid. Instead, many/most of us got the shot and got Covid anyway. That's an undeniable fact. The early testing with the control group that was allegedly 95% effective is absolutely irrelevant...the shots came too late.

The boosters have nothing to do with this either. People got the first two shots in March/April 2021, then contracted Covid later that year anyway, before they could even have chosen to get a booster. This happened all over the place. The vaccines didn't do what was promised, not even close.

We are clearly living in two different worlds. I don't know where the bold came from, but the goal in the world of science and those engineering vaccines was to minimize deaths and hospitalizations. Using language like you do here makes me wonder if you were listening a bit too much to the political talking heads and those appointed by the political talking heads. I really wish JMU had their dashboard up for historical purposes. The reality was very different. These vaccines did wonders through the most violent and dangerous strands (like Delta). They did what they were supposed to do.

Perhaps you're too young to remember where the bolded came from. Your Dad would remember though.

If you are saying politicians oversold what the vaccines would do, I can get on board with that. But, it wasn't just politicians: go check out what reps from Pfizer and Moderna were saying, then come back to us. Heck, put in minimal effort and you'll find several claims from Fauci himself that implied strongly these vaccines would do more than they did.

I don't know why you want to defend these vaccines to the end. Perhaps they are an incremental step forward in medicine (I sure hope they are), but they didn't do what Pifizer, Moderna, government officials, and myriad people form your stated 'world of science' said they'd do.

My first lab assignment was given me in July 2020. We were looking at impacts of the cirus on the heart. Was around for the whole event.

I'd be a fool to think that the politicians and drug execs wouldn't be trying to sell their product. Why would I expect any less? I also have no idea why anyone would be putting stock in what they were saying. "Consider the source" seems wholly appropriate here.

Conflating that with the scientists doing the work in the labs and research facilities is something I'll always push back on because it's completely wrong to do so and a HUGE part of why the distrust exists today.

 

[RCon]

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

 

[BlackCrowes]

T

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

New study shows ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in COVID-19 treatment — Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

New research led by the University of Oxford has concluded that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not provide clinically meaningful benefits for treating COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population.

www.phc.ox.ac.uk

 

[Joe Bryant]

T

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

New study shows ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in COVID-19 treatment — Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

New research led by the University of Oxford has concluded that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not provide clinically meaningful benefits for treating COVID-19 in a largely vaccinated population.

www.phc.ox.ac.uk

Is this a thing where there are different studies?

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - PMC

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19​

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.

 

[RCon]

Is this a thing where there are different studies?

No. Actual, peer-reviewed studies are more or less unanimous that HCQ and Ivermectin are/were not beneficial.

 

[Joe Bryant]

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

Not sure this is helpful. Sometimes people like me spend 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Maybe the site is bogus and they are indeed "bad actors". But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

 

[RCon]

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

Not sure this is helpful. Sometimes people like me spend 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Maybe the site is bogus and they are indeed "bad actors". But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

With all due respect, you can't have it both ways. If it's cool to post "Ivermectin is a viable treatment", then it's cool to post "Ivermectin is not a viable treatment".

 

[Joe Bryant]

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

Not sure this is helpful. Sometimes people like me spend 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Maybe the site is bogus and they are indeed "bad actors". But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

With all due respect, you can't have it both ways. If it's cool to post "Ivermectin is a viable treatment", then it's cool to post "Ivermectin is not a viable treatment".

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

You posted, "

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

 

[RCon]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

If I may. Article dated 1-7-21. Notice the language used, not limit, but prevent infection. That seems important.

And how about "We believe there will be protection potentially for a couple of years," ?

That's what i remember being sold on.

Moderna CEO says COVID-19 vaccine protection may last years

Moderna is close to proving its vaccine is effective against other variants of the coronavirus, CEO Stephane Bancel also said.

www.cbsnews.com

The "prevent infection" language is from the author of the article, whereas the Moderna CEO's quote just refers to "protection." I'm only noting this because I think the idea that vaccines failed because people later contracted COVID is one of the most common strawmen we see from the anti-vaccine side. When I was considering the vaccine I only went to one single source - my personal doctor. I didn't care about anything I read or saw anywhere else. I am a professional and tell my clients that if they disagree with my advice they should find a different lawyer. That's just recognition that the relationship has to be based on trust and if the client wants something other than what I'm comfortable doing (which happens), he should absolutely find someone that is better-suited to his style and I'll help with that. I feel the same way about my Dr. I made an appointment with him to specifically discuss the vaccine and I followed his advice. If I didn't trust him, I would have found a new Dr.

I'm certain what my Dr. said to me at the time - the vaccine will protect me from getting COVID and, if I get COVID, it will protect me from getting sick or being hospitalized. I think that message was consistent but was often twisted in the popular media. Its odd to me because I expect most of us have had the experience of getting the flu after getting an annual flu vaccine. We know the flu bug mutates constantly and sometimes the version that was in our shot is not effective against a new strain.

 

[jhib]

All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors.

Not sure this is helpful. Sometimes people like me spend 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

Maybe the site is bogus and they are indeed "bad actors". But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

The actual site you linked to is simply a library of articles from various publications.

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.

I don't think bogus or bad actor should pertain to that site, but of course people can and do (intentionally or not) use it to give a greater sense of legitimacy to articles.

The review itself is from the American Journal of Therapeutics. As far as I'm aware, it is generally respected (please someone with more knowledge correct me if I'm wrong.) That review was in the May/June 2021 issue. An updated review was posted in the Nov/Dec issue of the same Journal. The summary (I bolded the final sentence):

The trials published in 2022 were performed in 3 continents (North America, South America and Asia) and involved 2,425 patients treated with ivermectin and 2,368 patients who received placebo. The severity spectrum of COVID-19 infection was wide, and included asymptomatic persons, outpatients and hospitalized patients with mild-to moderate severity, as well as individuals with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonias. None of these trials indicated that ivermectin was better than placebo regarding mortality and frequency of severe presentations of the infection. Ivermectin is not effective and should not be prescribed for acute COVID-19 infection.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If I may. Article dated 1-7-21. Notice the language used, not limit, but prevent infection. That seems important.

And how about "We believe there will be protection potentially for a couple of years," ?

That's what i remember being sold on.

Moderna CEO says COVID-19 vaccine protection may last years

Moderna is close to proving its vaccine is effective against other variants of the coronavirus, CEO Stephane Bancel also said.

www.cbsnews.com

The "prevent infection" language is from the author of the article, whereas the Moderna CEO's quote just refers to "protection." I'm only noting this because I think the idea that vaccines failed because people later contracted COVID is one of the most common strawmen we see from the anti-vaccine side. When I was considering the vaccine I only went to one single source - my personal doctor. I didn't care about anything I read or saw anywhere else. I am a professional and tell my clients that if they disagree with my advice they should find a different lawyer. That's just recognition that the relationship has to be based on trust and if the client wants something other than what I'm comfortable doing (which happens), he should absolutely find someone that is better-suited to his style and I'll help with that. I feel the same way about my Dr. I made an appointment with him to specifically discuss the vaccine and I followed his advice. If I didn't trust him, I would have found a new Dr.

I'm certain what my Dr. said to me at the time - the vaccine will protect me from getting COVID and, if I get COVID, it will protect me from getting sick or being hospitalized. I think that message was consistent but was often twisted in the popular media. Its odd to me because I expect most of us have had the experience of getting the flu after getting an annual flu vaccine. We know the flu bug mutates constantly and sometimes the version that was in our shot is not effective against a new strain.

Thank you. That's a well reasoned response and I appreciate the explanation you gave. It is a bit tricky when you see an article like this and don't pick it apart like we are here. At a glance it would appear they're saying it will prevent infection and last for years. That's how i interpreted it at the time and like i said i wasn't alone in my personal life.

I see your point on it though and do i ever wish i had a do over on the media and what was opinion vs what was fact. I'll admit i was naive and took whatever was being said as gospel and didn't do any due diligence at the time.

I've gotten a flu shot every year and will continue to, but again my ignorance of mRNA tech had me believing that it was somehow a miracle compared to the standard flu shot and offered "different" "better" protection.

 

[Joe Bryant]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

No, I'm not.

You went well beyond "not beneficial". You wrote:

"All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

"This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors."

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"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."

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Maybe someone here can answer this for me. Why don't we use mRNA technology with the flu? Or why don't we use the same technology for covid as we do the flu?

 

[RCon]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

No, I'm not.

You went well beyond "not beneficial". You wrote:

"All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

"This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors."

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"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."

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

This is exactly the problem, Joe. You spent "5 seconds Googling", but didn't bother to spend enough time to thoroughly evaluate what you found. And that's exactly why false info needs to be repeatedly called out. Because anyone can post something untrue and it's impossible to debunk them all.

 

[Joe Bryant]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

No, I'm not.

You went well beyond "not beneficial". You wrote:

"All of those were shown not to have any preventative value with regard to COVID. HCQ and Ivermectin were also shown not to have any therapeutic value.

"This is the stuff that needs to be called out every single time it's pushed. It's blatantly false info pushed by bad actors."

I spent 5 seconds on google looking for studies.

That yielded. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"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."

Maybe the site is bogus and the people at the site are indeed "bad actors". I don't know. But I think some of us are like me and are asking questions.

This is exactly the problem, Joe. You spent "5 seconds Googling", but didn't bother to spend enough time to thoroughly evaluate what you found. And that's exactly why false info needs to be repeatedly called out. Because anyone can post something untrue and it's impossible to debunk them all.

So you're saying this conclusion is "false info"?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
With this conclusion:

"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."

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes, you are. The poster directly before me posted that Ivermectin was beneficial. I posted that it was not. Yet here you are only throwing one flag.

This has been a repeated occurrence throughout this thread. You refrain from criticizing certain posters who repeatedly do exactly what you criticize in others.

Maybe you haven't been able to read the whole thread.

Interesting you and @fatness want to claim I'm playing one side.

When I've gone out of my way to try to be even handed on both sides.

There was accusation about "vaccine bootlickers"

Post in thread 'PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome'

Mar 2, 2025

I believe Vaccine bootlickers need to be shot down

Please do better than this. We don't want the thread locked due to derogatory insults to other points of view.

Just responding to all the "anti-vaxxers" nonsense that are just using that term to push their own views.

Yes, neither of those terms are very helpful when used to smear the other side. Certainly not all people in support of vaccines are "bootlickers". And certainly not all people who had a negative experience with vaccines are "anti-vaxxers". Like most things, we do better if we have discussion and...

• Joe Bryant

• 
• 

Yes, neither of those terms are very helpful when used to smear the other side. Certainly not all people in support of vaccines are "bootlickers". And certainly not all people who had a negative experience with vaccines are "anti-vaxxers". Like most things, we do better if we have discussion and not jump to labels.

 

[LawFitz]

Its odd to me because I expect most of us have had the experience of getting the flu after getting an annual flu vaccine. We know the flu bug mutates constantly and sometimes the version that was in our shot is not effective against a new strain.

Your annual flu vaccine does not include Spike proteins.

And it is not mRNA.
(but could soon be)

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"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."

That's why I asked the question.

 

[MTskibum]

With this conclusion:

"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."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Why/how?... Because I also believe many of said deaths could also have been prevented if the same pyramid had not ignored and/or demonized existing and effective prophylactics such as vit C, D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

Have been keeping up with my C, D and Zinc regimen since the pandemic. One good thing that came from it.

 

[LawFitz]

With this conclusion:

"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."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

If you have tried Ivermectin the last few years, you know it works to fight flu and Covid. Very well. My opinion. No links.

 

[BlackCrowes]

With this conclusion:

"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."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

If you have tried Ivermectin the last few years, you know it works to fight flu and Covid. Very well. My opinion. No links.

<----- me

 

[Joe Schmo]

With this conclusion:

"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."

The science study you link was a very real science study that showed a ton of promise. Because it showed promise it prompted much follow up research into the same topic, however the follow up research did not turn out as well.

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

Research into the use of ivermectin (a drug that has an established safety and efficacy record in many parasitic diseases) for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of COVID-19 has illustrated this problem well. Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin1, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses

If you have tried Ivermectin the last few years, you know it works to fight flu and Covid. Very well. My opinion. No links.

I drink orange juice and eat dark chocolate and I stay healthy.

 

[BlackCrowes]

And to be clear, maybe this actually is false information spread by bad actors as @RCon says.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/

With this conclusion:

"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."

That's why I asked the question.

it wasn't (intentionally) false information from bad actors. it was just a flawed review that included now-withdrawn studies.