Has anyone seen the 1,000 peer reviewed medical papers about vaccine injuries.

[sassandfaff]

community.covidvaccineinjuries.com/compilation-peer-reviewed-medical-papers-of-covid-vaccine-injuries/

Would this influence anyone from getting the next booster?

Both - I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

As I have already said, it's also moot given that human nor vetinary grade ivermectin is beneficial in treating COVID.

Ketamine isn't ivermectin, and we are not talking about ketamine.

It shouldn't be hard to understand that having people self-dosing with ivermectin paste in a formulation for farm animals (i.e., in a far more concentrated form) puts them at higher risk of toxicity than if they were taking prescribed pills.

Again, this is all moot given that neither formulation is beneficial in treating COVID.

For instance with ketamine - there is no "vetinary grade" and "human grade", it's just a drug.

@EcoTourist

I haven't read it all so might be repeating - but why are you bringing ketamine into this?

Ivermectin comes in different formulations. They are completely different drugs.

The reason grades are being referred to is because one gives a much higher risk of a person overdosing.

I feel you're being deliberately obtuse.

As has been patiently explained - yes there is vetinary grade and human grade ivermectin. The formulations are different.

No-one has said anything about different "ingredients" so unsure why you are bringing this up. There are many drugs that come in different formulations for different uses - the active ingredient is the same, but the way they behave in vivo is not.

Again I have no idea why this has become a sticking point for you when we have clear, unequivocal evidence that ivermectin is not effective in COVID prevention or treatment.

Using a formulation of ivermectin that was designed for farm animals "i.e., horse dewormer" has the double whammy of being completely useless and increasing risk of toxcity - hence the statements put out by the FDA.

I don't understand what you're trying to achieve here.

Yes, it is a different formulation. This is not just the case for ivermectin, but for other drugs for farm animals that are taken orally. It's like you think it's some huge "gotcha".

As has been said to you, numerous times and in different ways, using a formulation of ivermectin that was designed for farm animals has the double negative of being both completely useless and increasing risk of toxicity including overdose.

Veterinary formulations are more highly concentrated, making them easier to administer to large animals. This also increases the risk of toxicity/overdose in humans.

www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-ivermectin

And, it's useless as a treatment for covid.

we have clear, unequivocal evidence that ivermectin is not effective in COVID prevention or treatment.

So, @foliageeverywhere , this is where I think we can see some clear discrepancies between the standards used to assess the pharmaceutically lucrative and non-lucrative drugs. In my understanding, the "clear, unequivocal evidence" with respect to Ivermectin is anything but. There's still plenty of uncertainty. In fact, isn't the CDC still running trials to assess its efficacy? Different people have run different meta-analyses on available data, with very different results (and in fact, one of the key players in the big "it's not effective" meta-analysis has admitted he was leaned on). I believe that the analyses showing lack of efficacy depended on excluding trials which were not gold-standard RCTs? So - this is OK, as long as you apply the same standard to, for example, the jabs. But of course, if you look at the jab RCTs only, the results are not good (for instance, all-cause mortality in the vaccine arm of the original Pfizer trial at 6 months was GREATER (although not statistically significantly so) than all-cause mortality in the control group). So in order to claim efficacy of the jabs, people call on completely uncontrolled, non-RCT data. Which is apparently fine for jabs, and not fine for Ivermectin. Funny, that.

@saltedcaramel1

"For whatever reason you have decided to advertise this on MN." (You are referring to Ivermectin in this quote).

Firstly, the discussion on Ivermectin came about when I "fact-checked" the information posted by @MissConductUS, claiming that an unethical doctor prescribed horse paste to patients. That is factually incorrect and deserved to be corrected.

Secondly, since when did a "fact-check" (trying to use the verbiage you seem to appreciate) become an advertisement? By that same logic, you would be a vaccine salesperson, I assume?

I am confused by this reply - it's also full of statements that are untrue- which have been explained to you many times before.

It actually makes me cross because I know the academic you're referring to. Like lots of us, he was excited by the potential of ivermectin based on some early promising studies. These were found to be fraudalent - the study had never actually been conducted. Subsequent good quality studies demonstrated no evidence of effect. He therefore updated his opinion, based on this.

Kory et al set their various followers on him leading to an onslaught of death and tortue threats to him and his family. He had to delete all social media and now struggles with the amount of stress this has put him under. Ivermectin is one of the greatest for-profit scams in the pandemic.

We have clear, replicated, good quality evidence that ivermectin is ineffective in treating or preventing COVID.

We have clear, replicated, good quality evidene that the coronavirus vaccines are effective.

This is why vaccines are offered, but ivermectin is not.

Other cheap, off-patent drugs have been approved to treat COVID. Ivermectin is not being singled out for some inexplicable reason to be censored, whatever Russel Brand wants you to think.

For anyone new to thread, apologies if this comes across as snippy, but there must have been thousands of posts of ivermectin on MN. There are quite a few scientists on here who have explained this many times, & linked to credible experts to explain why it's not worthwhile offering it.

I have no idea why no, people are resserecting old claims when it has been discussed to death. .

Here is Andrew's first hand account of what happened - unfortunately it has got much worse since 2021:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/13/how-my-ivermectin-research-led-to-twitter-death-threats

The story of online threats and abuse is very dark. In early 2021, my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin. In the first clinical trials, this drug seemed to prevent new infections and improve survival

However, we then found several examples of medical fraud in the clinical trials of ivermectin: some of the databases had been simply made up by unscrupulous doctors. When we filtered out all the poor-quality clinical trials, there was no longer any clinical benefit for ivermectin.

After we reported on the medical fraud in July 2021, the abuse became much worse. I was sent images of Nazi war criminals hanging from lamp-posts, Voodoo images of swinging coffins, vivid threats that my family were not safe, that we would all burn in hell. This was happening most days – I opened my laptop in the morning to be confronted with a sea of hate and disturbing threats.

You are blindly following people like Kory & Brand, and actively contributing to hate and abuse @SocialConnotations Think about what you are doing & consider actually looking into claims before you repeat them.

In addition there are so many clamours of people like Malhotra being "censored" - when it's actually happening the other way around and anti-vaccine campaigners don't give a jot.

There were also threats to my scientific reputation on email. I know many other scientists who have been threatened and abused in similar ways after promoting vaccination or questioning the benefits of unproven treatments like ivermectin. If scientists cannot communicate for fear of threats and abuse, how can all the misinformation be controlled?

If we allow this misinformation to be spread unchecked, there is a real danger... – they will believe that they can take an alternative treatment and be protected, even if there is no real proof.

@foliageeverywhere

"Other cheap, off-patent drugs have been approved to treat COVID. Ivermectin is not being singled out for some inexplicable reason to be censored,"
Will you please share what these inexpensive off-patent drugs are?

I was responding to the claims about ivermectin @peppathe3rd

Clearly there was a lot to unpack in the post - second being claims that vaccines are ineffective.

It is difficult because it' clear the poster doesn't have a blind clue what they're talking about - why are they quoting "all cause mortality"?

Will you please share what these inexpensive off-patent drugs are?
You've been told this many times @peppathe3rd... And yet round and round we go.

Dexamethasone for example - with dozens of others including ivermectin being tested in RCTs like SOLIDARITY & RECOVERY.

Well clearly they are by blindly following and repeating claims that people like Brand and Kory have made, instead of looking into them themselves.

You didn't bother reading Andrew Hills account - but by saying he was "leaned on by big pharma" as anti-vaccine campaigners have falsely said, that poster is actively perpetuating the threats he and his family are getting.

@foliageeverywhere

You've been told this many times @peppathe3rd... And yet round and round we go.

Dexamethasone for example - with dozens of others including ivermectin being tested in RCTs like SOLIDARITY & RECOVERY.

No, actually this is the first time I have asked for knowledge on alternative medications, and, thus, the first time I have received this information. I do appreciate it though and will look into dexamethasone. Thank you

It's fascinating, this.

What I wrote in that post was banal to the point of tedium. I said nothing about whether or not Ivermectin or the vaccines are effective - contrary to what @foliageeverywhere is now claiming. As it happens, I think that there's considerable uncertainty around both of these (as you say, @foliageeverywhere , evidence evolves, and should be openly debated). I was making the (frankly bloody obvious) point that the types/levels of evidence seemingly required of different drugs differs, and that this is likely to be partially related to pharmaceutical industry factors. This is so clear as to be boring. We've known for years, for example, that industry funded studies tend to show drugs to be more effective than non-industry-funded ones. We know that regulators are funded in large part by the pharmaceutical industry. We know that there have been overlaps between "fact checker" organisations and pharmaceutical companies. So why would there NOT be some influence here? If a researcher is influenced by organisations related to "big pharma", we should be completely unsurprised. For this to lead to death threats and so on is horrendous - that should go without saying. That there have been death threats to people on all sides of these "debates" is a terrible situation. But when you make the points I made, I think calming and - in my understanding - quite factually, and are met with claims that you're perpetuating "hate", you've got to sit back and think. Something is not right here.

And THIS is why people are still talking about it. People know that things are not right. "The public" are not idiots, and know when what we're being told is only part of the story.

And, erm, in the midst of a deadly pandemic, on what planet is all-cause mortality not an important endpoint. @foliageeverywhere ? If a vaccine is useful to a group in terms of saving lives, you'd expect that, in a scenario in which the relevant virus is prevalent, those who have been vaccinated would be less likely to die. If that's not the case, how do we know the vaccines are doing what we're told they are?

And, erm, in the midst of a deadly pandemic, on what planet is all-cause mortality not an important endpoint. @foliageeverywhere ? If a vaccine is useful to a group in terms of saving lives, you'd expect that, in a scenario in which the relevant virus is prevalent, those who have been vaccinated would be less likely to die. If that's not the case, how do we know the vaccines are doing what we're told they are?

Because as many scientists have explained, and indeed as many posters have explained, all-cause mortality is not a useful endpoint in a trial.

COVID is not a fatal disease to most - a tiny number of people in a relatively small trial would have been at risk of death. All-cause mortality being balanced between groups means nothing in this small sample - which is why the larger datasets have been used to categorically demonstrate vaccines reduce risk of death.

This is why you can't wade into something with no background knowledge and start throwing claims around you're repeating from other people, it's just deeply frustrated.

As always, no one should get vaccinated if they don't want, but all these posts serve to do is cause anxiety and stress, and coerce people out of making an informed choice for themselves.

@EcoTourist
Thank you very much for your kind message. I attempt to ignore the hostility and condescension and focus on any facts hidden amongst the weeds. Until three days ago, I had never experienced this kind of online interaction. I don't use social media at all, but I knew about this forum due to schooling discussions. I absolutely did not know what I was walking into, but the ugliness is pervasive. I have been called a liar, unethical, a danger to people - all mixed in with inferences of stupidity, having nefarious motives, conspiring with people I have never met, blindly following people I have never heard of, and probably more that don't spring to mind immediately. I have fought against subscribing to the false binary that is us versus them, but the nastiness on here makes that a struggle. I am determined not to fall into that kind of tribalism, challenging as it may be. I really appreciate your words.

Well clearly they are by blindly following and repeating claims that people like Brand and Kory have made, instead of looking into them themselves.
You didn't bother reading Andrew Hills account - but by saying he was "leaned on by big pharma" as anti-vaccine campaigners have falsely said, that poster is actively perpetuating the threats he and his family are getting.

This is also a really interesting response. I'm sorry you feel the need to try to undermine individuals like this.

I assume you know as little about me as I do about you, @foliageeverywhere and I like to give the benefit of the doubt by imagining that you have read and appraised the papers from the trials, as I have. And that you have read and appraised the relevant researchers' accounts as well as those of the other academics who do not agree with them.

To be even more clear...

The trial you are quoting investigates the efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID, not fatal COVID.

Eligibility criteria included healthy people or those with stable medical conditions. Anyone who was immuncompromised was excluded. Only ~20% of participants had one existing medical condition. This means people at risk of death were vastly under-represented - therefore making a trial unsuitable for studying mortality.

In addition, not all participants were exposed to coronavirus.

If the trial had a higher number of participants, and was enriched for individuals at higher risk of death, mortality rates would have been higher. We already know from well designed, replicated, observational studies that the vaccines are highly effective in reducing death, and claiming otherwise is pretty ridiculous.