New CDC study states natural immunity was superior to vaccines for protection from Delta

originally posted by: Xtrozero
in reply to: v1rtu0s0

No, roll the dice with the virus if you are in the group that has been like 95% of the deaths and extreme illness.

You mean, all of the ones that the hospitals and 'official policy' of zero treatment (with the exception of the expensive remdesivir that kills people in the same exact way that cov-pneumonia does)?

Ivermectin sill hasn't had great clinical results, so OK.

Except, that is a bald faced lie, and there are numerous doctors and doctors groups that have developed protocols that save 99.99% of those very same people, and had these protocols been followed, 99% of those who died during this scamdemic would have lived and been just fine.

Anyone - everyone - who supports these lies by mindlessly repeating them without evidence, and in the face of massive evidence to the contrary - is just as guilty of murder as those who initiated and pushed this madness.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Xtrozero
in reply to: v1rtu0s0

No, roll the dice with the virus if you are in the group that has been like 95% of the deaths and extreme illness.

You mean, all of the ones that the hospitals and 'official policy' of zero treatment (with the exception of the expensive remdesivir that kills people in the same exact way that cov-pneumonia does)?

Ivermectin sill hasn't had great clinical results, so OK.

Except, that is a bald faced lie, and there are numerous doctors and doctors groups that have developed protocols that save 99.99% of those very same people, and had these protocols been followed, 99% of those who died during this scamdemic would have lived and been just fine.

Anyone - everyone - who supports these lies by mindlessly repeating them without evidence, and in the face of massive evidence to the contrary - is just as guilty of murder as those who initiated and pushed this madness.

Exactly, this guy is basically supporting murder. The evidence is crystal clear.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
You mean, all of the ones that the hospitals and 'official policy' of zero treatment (with the exception of the expensive remdesivir that kills people in the same exact way that cov-pneumonia does)?

Whatever dude, every hospital is in on it..OK I get it...lol I think there has only been one good treatment so far and that is monoclonal antibody. The rest are kind of hit or miss to include ivermectin with some good results but not some mind-blowing cure, but I really have not been following the newer drug treatments coming out to see what is working or not.

Except, that is a bald faced lie, and there are numerous doctors and doctors groups that have developed protocols that save 99.99% of those very same people, and had these protocols been followed, 99% of those who died during this scamdemic would have lived and been just fine.

True clinical studies on ivermectin where not being published until late last year. I'm not talking about exploratory in vitro studies or just general observations with zero control aspects to it. When we talk real studies we mean "Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled RCT of Ivermectin to Prevent Hospitalizations in Patients With COVID-19". Even the best clinical studies are highly acceptable to confounding in their results, so even the best can be bad, but anything less than that might as well just be random observations that can be just about anything. That is kind of what has been happening as someone posts random observations and conclusions and that gets reposted are a truism of facts, or worst. Such as suggesting ivermectin is a 100% cure and the Goverment is trying to hide the fact.

Here are 6 international real clinical studies and their results. It was published in Dec 2021, so it is not like we had any real data to suggest one way or another based on my paragraph above. As you can see these studies are outside of the US and below are the primary outcomes of each, so is ivermectin the end all be all life saver that you and other suggest or is it more along the lines as I suggest?

Studies


PRIMARY OUTCOMES
Argentina
COVID-19-related hospitalizations: 5.6% in IVM arm vs. 8.3% in placebo arm (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.32–1.31; P = 0.23)

Columbia
Median time to symptom resolution: 10 days in IVM arm vs. 12 days in placebo arm (HR 1.07; P = 0.53)
Symptoms resolved by Day 21: 82% in IVM arm vs. 79% in placebo arm

Bangladesh
Mean time to negative PCR result: 9 days in both arms
In patients who were symptomatic at baseline, mean time to negative PCR result: 9 days in IVM/DOX arm vs. 10 days in HCQ/AZM arm (P = 0.07)
Mean time to symptom recovery: 6 days in IVM/DOX arm vs. 7 days in HCQ/AZM arm (P = 0.07)
Patients who received IVM/DOX had fewer AEs than those who received HCQ/AZM (32% vs. 46%).

India
Negative RT-PCR result on Day 6: 24% in IVM arm vs. 32% in placebo arm (rate ratio 0.8; P = 0.348)

India
Proportion with negative PCR result on Day 5: 48% in IVM 24 mg arm vs. 35% in IVM 12 mg arm vs. 31% in placebo arm (P = 0.30) VL at enrollment did not impact conversion to negative RT-PCR on Day 5. No significant difference between arms in VL decline by Day 5.

Brazil
No difference between IVM, CQ, and HCQ arms in:
Proportion requiring supplemental oxygen: 88% vs. 89% vs. 90%
ICU admission: 28% vs. 22% vs. 21%
Need for MV: 24% vs. 21% vs. 21%
Mortality: 23% vs. 21% vs. 22%
Mean number of days of supplemental oxygen: 8 days for each arm

Iran
Median duration of hypoxemia was shorter in IVM arms than in placebo arm (P = 0.025).
Median duration of hospitalization was shorter in IVM arms than in placebo arm (P = 0.006).
No difference between the arms in number of days of tachypnea or number of days to return to normal temperature.
Mortality was higher in SOC and placebo arms (18%) than in IVM arms (3%; P < 0.001).

Anyone - everyone - who supports these lies by mindlessly repeating them without evidence, and in the face of massive evidence to the contrary - is just as guilty of murder as those who initiated and pushed this madness.

Agreed when applicable

originally posted by: Xtrozero
in reply to: tanstaafl

Whatever dude, every hospital is in on it.

Yes, every hospital obeyed the dictates put forth by the CDC/FDA/WHO.

Those hospital administrators, and those that obeyed them, are guilty of mass murder.

Believe what you will.

True clinical studies on ivermectin where not being published until late last year. I'm not talking about exploratory in vitro studies or just general observations with zero control aspects to it. When we talk real studies we mean "Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled RCT of Ivermectin to Prevent Hospitalizations in Patients With COVID-19".

I honestly couldn't care less about your so-called studies, because as anyone who is even remotely self-aware knows, most studies aren't worth the electrons they consume in cyberspace.

I trust the actual real world results of those like the FLCCC and Dr. Pierre Kory than I do any stupid fake 'study.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

I trust the actual real world results of those like the FLCCC and Dr. Pierre Kory than I do any stupid fake 'study.

I provided you 7 clinical studies from 6 other countries, and you say you only trust actual real world results...I don't know whether to laugh at that or have concerns. One thing that is for sure is you seem to have zero clue as to what could be good data or not, and my concern is there are many more like you that just kind of pick and choose what fits their confirmation bias the best and call it real world facts.

a reply to: Xtrozero

This is ONE dose of Ivermectin.

The mean durations of dyspnea were 2.6 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group and 3.8 (0.4) days in the control group (P = 0.048). Also, persistent cough lasted for 3.1 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group compared to 4.8 (0.4) days in control group (PP = 0.019). The mean durations of hospital stay were 7.1 (0.5) days versus 8.4 (0.6) days in the ivermectin and control groups, respectively

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

I provided you 7 clinical studies from 6 other countries,

Paid for and controlled by whom?

Anyone who believes propaganda from the same ones pushing their jabs is a fool.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Xtrozero

This is ONE dose of Ivermectin.

Exactly. Whoever controls the 'study' and writes the summary/conclusions can 'prove' whatever they want, unless you know exactly how to read this garbage. Little things like the difference between absolute and relative risk is one of many ways that studies are manipulated. Another one is relying on observational studies to claim to prove causality, when only properly constructed and managed interventional studies can do that.

I don't know how to rip these crap-studies apart, so look for trustworthy people that actually do... like Bart Kay.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The one dose of Ivermectin was actually extremely effective in that study.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

The one dose of Ivermectin was actually extremely effective in that study.

See, I told you I couldn't read these things for crap.

But I know, from what experts have said about other studied purporting to show Ivermectin as being ineffective, that those studies are total crap-crud.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

This is ONE dose of Ivermectin.

The mean durations of dyspnea were 2.6 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group and 3.8 (0.4) days in the control group (P = 0.048). Also, persistent cough lasted for 3.1 (0.4) days in the ivermectin group compared to 4.8 (0.4) days in control group (PP = 0.019). The mean durations of hospital stay were 7.1 (0.5) days versus 8.4 (0.6) days in the ivermectin and control groups, respectively

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Did you read the whole report? I'm not sure the point you are making as you added nothing to your post? My point all along has been that it wasn't until mid last year that the actual clinical trials basically started and so many were published towards the end. Ivermectin does have some positive results, but not a cure all as many were saying way before the first trials.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Paid for and controlled by whom?

Anyone who believes propaganda from the same ones pushing their jabs is a fool.

They are from all over the world. I guess you can just keep living the belief you have created.

originally posted by: ketsuko
We can go even deeper. Depending on how your vaccine is made, the immunity produced will vary in effectiveness too. Vaccines made with whole virus will produce a better immune response than those made with only partial virus. So it stands to reason that the COVIS vax would not necessarily be great.

It's never really been part of the official narrative that natural immunity is better or worse than vaxxed immunity, it's always been about the vax being a more reliable way to get large numbers of people up to a minimum level of immunity as quickly and consistently as possible.

It's a one size fits all strategy that isn't all the much different form any other one size fits all strategy that governments usually do.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Busted, yes, but if a clock is just 5 min slow, its only right every 20 weeks.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

They are from all over the world.

Yes... and paid for and managed by... whom?

But I guess you can just keep living the belief you have created.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ketsuko
We can go even deeper. Depending on how your vaccine is made, the immunity produced will vary in effectiveness too. Vaccines made with whole virus will produce a better immune response than those made with only partial virus. So it stands to reason that the COVIS vax would not necessarily be great.

It's never really been part of the official narrative that natural immunity is better or worse than vaxxed immunity, it's always been about the vax being a more reliable way to get large numbers of people up to a minimum level of immunity as quickly and consistently as possible.

It's a one size fits all strategy that isn't all the much different form any other one size fits all strategy that governments usually do.

That's simply not true.

They have been denying natural immunity this whole time. The WHO changed their official definition of herd immunity from natural immunity + vaccination to solely vaccination in 2020.

WHO changes definition of "herd immunity" to exclude natural immunity in 2020

National governments across the world, and cities, are mandating vaccines without exemption for natural immunity or recovery from Covid, except in a few locations I believe (Germany, Italy). Can you show me where Biden's mandates exempted those with natural immunity? I missed the memo where NYC and DC also provide such sober, balanced analysis of how neither vaccination or natural immunity are better, and therefore you just need proof of one or the other.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

THIS is what we were dealing with in 2020 through much of 2021, sociopaths and useful idiots in the media attacking or denying the validity of naturally acquired immunity.

Dangerous conspiracy theory natural immunity

POLITICS
MAY 12, 2020
Anti-Vaxxers Have a Dangerous Theory Called “Natural Immunity.” Now It’s Going Mainstream

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Yes... and paid for and managed by... whom?

But I guess you can just keep living the belief you have created.

You are not even interesting to debate. You are so far off and basically a parrot in your approach it isn't even fun to try.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You are not even interesting to debate. You are so far off and basically a parrot in your approach it isn't even fun to try.

What is hilarious is you think this is a debate.