4 ms·
Depending on the time since vaccination, the strain involved and the vaccine used efficacy against infection varies but for the latest batch of strains named 'O
by Ourgon 5y ago
Depending on the time since vaccination, the strain involved and the vaccine used efficacy against infection varies but for the latest batch of strains named 'Omicron' it is low even directly after vaccination. Look it up, there is plenty of research, the Pfizer CEO says as much and promised a vaccine which did work to be available in around a month from now.
To those who felt the need to press the down-vote, please explain. This is, to use a modern term, our "lived experience" and as such should not be questioned as far as I gather? Is it my voluntarily application of a forbidden substance (Ivermectin) which triggered you? Is it the fact that my anecdata seems to indicate it might have a positive effect? If so I have another piece of anecdata related to going rogue on the medical frontier:
More than a decade ago I lost a lot of weight - and I'm not overweight to begin with - and had a rapid heart beat. A bunch of tests later the conclusion was that my thyroid was acting up and that the solution lay in either radiotherapy - which would knock it out for good, and make me dependent on supplemental medicine for the rest of my life - or the application of a preparation named Thiamazole [1]. Not wanting to become medicine-dependent for the rest of my life I chose the latter, if with reticence since I do not really put much trust in the pharmaceutical industry when it comes to its claims of efficacy and absence of side effects. The doctor told me there was a very rare side effect of a decrease or cessation in the production of white blood cells but that this hardly ever happened. Sure, I thought, but for this time I will be "wise" and listen to the "expert". To cut a long story short, 2 weeks later I was put in an isolation room in the hospital because my immune system had been knocked out. I stayed there for a week, was given some preparation to jump-start the production of white blood cells which on closer examination increases the chance of getting leukaemia in later life by 50% (which I only found out about later) and was sent home. I dumped the Thiamazole into the chemical thrash and bought a bottle of... fluor mouth wash. Even though the label tells you not to swallow the stuff I did so intentionally until the bottle was finished. Why? Well, fluoride was used to treat hyperthyroidism before the ascent of Thiamazole. It has the disadvantage of making you feel quite sick (to which I can vow) but not that much else. Above all else, it does not mess with your immune system.
After swigging 1 litre of fluoride mouth wash in about 3 weeks I was free from thyroid-related complaints (as shown by blood tests) and have been ever since. Sometimes it pays off to go rogue.
[1] https://wikiless.sethforprivacy.com/wiki/Thiamazole https://wikiless.sethforprivacy.com/wiki/Thiamazole
- dTal 5y ago>To those who felt the need to press the down-vote, please explain I didn't bother to downvote but your comment left a sour taste in my mouth because you made medical assertions that 1) are extremely broad and sweeping on the basis of your extremely narrow anecdata, 2) don't agree with medical consensus or at best oversimplify the situation 3) line up neatly with a widespread political subtext that covid is overblown and we should all ignore it and get on with our lives.
- Ourgon 5y agoAgain, lived experience. What is wrong with the discourse around this subject nowadays? Since when is it not done to express doubt about the pharmaceutical industry - it used to be called Big Pharma but now suddenly they've been raised in status to be untouchable? No "oversimplification¨, just our experience, backed by quite a lot of research which has been demonised by the industry but seems to have a core of truth to it given our (and many other's) experience. Also, since when is consensus something to strive after in science, let alone medicine? Where does this one size fits all approach suddenly come from? Science progresses not through consensus by committee but through that was unexpected, let's study it some more. And then your last statement, pulling in politics... why? Let alone the fact that you seem to question whether we should go on with our lives... of course we need to go on with our lives, what else should we do? Don't you realise the incongruence of that statement? Should we just move from one panic to the next, always being afraid, always looking for shelter? Hell no, we shouldn't, nor will we. Not here at least.
- dTal 5y ago>Again, lived experience Describing your "lived experience" is fine. What's not fine is saying "I took ivermectin and felt a little better the next day, therefore it definitely works". That's not science. In fact it's the opposite of science - it's motivated reasoning. You want ivermectin to be effective, so you're eager to accept the results of an uncontrolled, unblinded trial with an n = 1. Presumably that's also why you incorrectly describe this position as "backed by quite a lot of research". >since when is consensus something to strive after in science... Where does this one size fits all approach suddenly come from? Since always. Replication is the heart of science and Truth is indeed one size fits all. The more people study a thing and get similar results, the more confident we are about that thing. When most scientists agree, we call that the "scientific consensus". >Should we just move from one panic to the next, always being afraid, always looking for shelter? ...Hell no, we shouldn't, nor will we. Your response to an accusation of political motivation is... to double down on the politics. This rather reinforces the impression that your "scientific" claims are emotionally motivated.