effie

46 ms·

511.
by effie 5y ago
> the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise Efficacy of post-vaccine follow-up and reporting may change with time, and hopefully will. The problem is that there is no meticulous data gather
512.
by effie 5y ago
Indeed, on the surface the argument is sound, but when you look back into past, it's clear it is not how things have to work. Web can exist even without pervasive surveillance. It would be different, no huge ad companies growing like c
513.
by effie 5y ago
> Knowing a vaccine is considered by experts to be effective is sufficient. The exact rates of reinfection aren’t important and can be confusing. Sufficient to whom? Experts often disagree and if they disagree, I want to know where and w
514.
by effie 5y ago
> At the end of the day, what really matters is vaccinating as many people as soon as possible. This position is absolutist and a mark of a totalitarian thinking and a large portion of population does not share it. For most people, indiv
515.
by effie 5y ago
And you are not repeating stuff you read from other people? Details on safety and efficacy of vaccines for different sub-populations are still subject of study, new data is being generated, and as new information comes out, our ideas on the
516.
by effie 5y ago
It's examples of how WHO is unreliable on multiple fronts. Regarding ivermectin, this is documented here. https://ivmmeta.com/#who
517.
by effie 5y ago
There are effective treatments available now, it is not clear that well-treated infections would lead to more deaths than vaccinations.
518.
by effie 5y ago
See also interview with prof. dr. Eli Schwartz from the team that did the study, on the Drbeen youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htt1mlvBwBA
519.
Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin(medrxiv.org)
2 points by effie 5y ago|1 comments
520.
by effie 5y ago
Witness testimony is evidence, these are respectable and accomplished people. You are wrong about the needs of the public. Public does need to be able to communicate about this. There are levels of evidence, not everything is presented thro
521.
by effie 5y ago
OK I could have worded that better, but I certainly did not want to get into a flamewar. I think there is a well visible point there still.
522.
by effie 5y ago
Ask and it shall be given to you. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-investigator-adm...
523.
by effie 5y ago
Ivermectin is known to be safe (for decades now) when taken in small enough doses.
524.
by effie 5y ago
That study by Roman et al. is heavily criticized in the comments (link to comments is on that page), apparently they made some mistakes.
525.
by effie 5y ago
We are talking about scientists presenting important evidence about existing and useful treatments, and about the public discussing it, and about large companies censoring that debate. That is not anywhere near "selling miracle cures&q
526.
by effie 5y ago
> are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic Can you make an argument that people going for natural immunity and relying on currently used COVID treatment protocols in case they decide it is neede
527.
by effie 5y ago
> All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Please read this site terms of use. Post only substantive comments that contribute to discussion and avoid name-calling, and shallow dismissals.
528.
by effie 5y ago
> And side effects have been tracked. How can we find this number? We already have it. Oh, that is great! Where can I find this tracker and the reports of side-effects? And this number we have, what is it? Can you write it here? Should
529.
by effie 5y ago
> pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists. How do you know the audience are nonscientists? Why would that be so bad,are nonscientists to be kept dark until 100% agreement a
530.
by effie 5y ago
Youtube is the dominant medium, we are stakeholders and should have a say.
531.
by effie 5y ago
WHO has very low credibility at this point.
532.
by effie 5y ago
> Millions of people have been vaccinated so we know it's safe In those millions we are missing the number of people that get seriously harmed, and killed due to getting the vaccine. So we do not know it is 100% safe, we only know t
533.
by effie 5y ago
> other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted. That is quite naive, the "due course" here would mean very costly trials that usually big pharma pays for. I'm not holding my br
534.
by effie 5y ago
Other experts are at work... so let the youtube with no science credentials or credibility judge and censor vocal scientists instead? How is that a desirable process?
535.
by effie 5y ago
Maybe, but do you know how many have died from the vaccine-induced side effects? How could we find this number?
536.
by effie 5y ago
> vaccines being "experimental" Under the PREP act, pharma companies have total immunity from liability. Why would that be. Maybe because the vaccines are still only in stage 3 of clinical trials? Because the long term effects
537.
by effie 5y ago
> there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science. What the hell are you trying to say? That doctors treating patients observations can be dismissed because they don't talk the academic language or their results
538.
by effie 5y ago
Since you believe in science, this discussion (of very knowledgeable science-respecting and science-informed people) may interest you, it is about the increasing evidence of problems of the current gene therapy COVID vaccines and other stra
539.
by effie 5y ago
> Private business owners can put whatever restrictions they want on their spaces. Not "whatever restrictions". For example, you cannot announce "only white people". And similarly should be that you cannot announce &q
540.
by effie 5y ago
Well who has time and energy to verify that. Just overwrite it several times, or destroy the drive.

More ›