Jump to content

COVID rants /shares 2.0 thread


Recommended Posts

FINALLY got the 1st shot scheduled.  One of the Fire departments started doing a drive-in clinic a couple of weeks ago, but the appts were getting filled almost as soon as they were posted.  Today I got lucky and hit the website as it was getting updated for showing available appts this week. I know they had just updated it because initially the first page listed this week's dates, but the subsequent page listed last week.  I had to go back in to that second page 4 times before it was also finally updated to this week's dates.  Thus I pretty much had my pick of times from Wed on.

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
spelling
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This thread has been locked for failing to stay on topic, and the negative commentary.  Please be better to one another! Disagreements should be dropped or addressed away from the forums. Thanks for y

Holy hell, Nalates. Why did you post a reference to support your contention? You misspelled two of the three keywords in your reference (a Google search for "faucu prohibits hydroy") which produc

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. J&J makes both the scrutinized vaccine and Tylenol. Like it or not, public policy can both reflect and affect public perception, even intentiona

Posted Images

12 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

Why do people believe their doctor on all kinds of medical treats, but when it comes to a simple vaccination there are so many theories about what can go wrong?

Why anyone believes anything is an individual decision.  And not all people believe a doctor just because they are a doctor. I, for instance, research any medication I am prescribed.

There are a lot of theories about vaccinations, fake information and myths too. But there are also a number of facts and laws related to vaccinations. ADE and EUA are facts.

ADE is an unknown when it comes to the Pfizer, Moderna, and A-Z vaccines. Law requires you be informed of the risks from ADE and other risks when becoming part of a medical study. The EUA does not relieve vaccinators of that responsibility to inform and it CLEARLY states these vaccines are approved for use on humans in an investigative study. You can find the FDA approvals online and read them.

12 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

There is no medicine in the world that has no possible side effects. And the long term ones always show after years of use, just like the very seldom ones. That is all totally normal.

Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca are used many million times already and show good results and very minor\acceptable side effects. The rest is pure guessing and making people totally unnecessary afraid, all happeing from outside the medical world.

True. All medications are a risk reward scenario. That is normal. But what is also normal is informing the patient of the risk-benefit ratios. That part is being omitted and it is illegal and lawsuits are being considered and filed.

True the 3-brands of vaccine have been used millions of times. But only over a period of weeks. We haven't had time to know if they will induce ADE or serialize a significant percentage of the population. These were significant problems with the first vaccines for the first SARS epidemic which were denied FDA approval based on these problems in the animal studies. Were you told any of this when you rolled up your sleeve?

Unnecessarily afraid... all happening outside... You obviously didn't read my post listing the doctors and medical journals writing about these concerns. Most of the concern is coming from the medial field.

And who gets to decide when a fear is unnecessary for me? We know that a SMALL percentage of people have any adverse reaction to the vaccines. But we also know a tiny tiny percentage react so badly they die. Find the stats on that. So a disease that has a 99.82% survivability rate (take out the 80+ demographic group and that jumps to 99.9#%) requires I take a risk of __?__% dying to to avoid something I most likely will survive any way?

12 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

If you read the list of possible side affects for simple every day pain killers ....... and you compare them with the covid vaccines.
And what to gain from them. I role up my sleeve.

If my doctor says I should take the vaccine (and he did) then I take it. I studied teaching and he medicine.
So he is the competent one in that field.

The problem is you have never been told of the risks the experimental CoVid vaccines pose. I am always amazed that people rely solely on whoever they consider and expert. Especially when experts are so often wrong.

Did your Doctor talk to you about ADE? If not, you have no knowledge about your possible risks. Did he explain ADE is a possible side effect and we simply do not know how to evaluate that risk? Did he provide you the stats on the percentage of ADE induced in the first SARS vaccine tests and that we have NO STATS for these SARS vaccines? Did he explain what the results were long term for the animals test subjects?

Did he talk to you about the possibility of the vaccine sterilizing you? Did he explain that we do not know if it will be temporary or permanent?

You will likely hear there is no proof these horrible things are going to happen. TRUE. Absolutely true. But that is the problem. We have no studies and there has not been enough time to know either way. We can't even put a number on the risks. We blindly decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody is forced to take a vaccine in the NL and that will not likely happen either.
If someone takes it or not?  In the end I could not care less. I'm getting mine and that will give me back some of my old life.

I don't want to stay at home in self isolation because the virus might kill me when I get ill from it (I'm in several high risk groups).
Such a life is not worth living year after year. So I took the first jab and will take the second one in May.
I've been in a supermarket for the first time since March last year during daytime hours.
And I have visited some people because I had my first jab and should be reasonable safe now.

If there are enough people that take the vaccine to get herd immunity, even better.
In the NL they expect that around 70%  will take theirs. That might do the trick, if that percentage is reached in the surrounding countries as well.

If not, so be it, but then the anti vaxxers should not complain about restrictions for people who did not take the jabs.
The EU is planning to come with a vaccine passport that allows you to travel for business and recreation, visit stadiums, concerts, museums etc.
In the near future people not vaccinated need to do a quick test every time they want to participate in these things..

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

People who tout herd immunity before the vaccine yet when the vaccine finally comes around are opposed to it.   Simply astounding.  Does this mean they believe in survival of the fittest?   Isnt that Darwinian?

Either way, it definitely deserves a rant.

 

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

People who tout herd immunity before the vaccine yet when the vaccine finally comes around are opposed to it.   Simply astounding.  Does this mean they believe in survival of the fittest?   Isnt that Darwinian?

Either way, it definitely deserves a rant.

 

People who tout virus research and when the research is shown to them oppose it with random opinions found on the internet. Simply astounding indeed! 

 

HCQ.png

Ivectin.png

dsummary (1).png

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Facts" from a website whose sole purpose is to push for the use of HCQ?  Really?  

They fail to mention which studies have been peer reviewed and they hide who is actually behind the website.

They fail to mention what type of study, controlled trials, observational reports.

They basically throw a ton of information out, appear to analyze then toss out their results.  

"The COVIDAnalysis network’s list of studies has repeatedly misrepresented the conclusions of clinical trials that found that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for COVID-19 patients."

"the websites described a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota as being “positive” for the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19, when the actual study reached a negative conclusion."

The COVIDAnalysis network includes the websites in your post.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

"Facts" from a website whose sole purpose is to push for the use of HCQ?  Really?  

They fail to mention which studies have been peer reviewed and they hide who is actually behind the website.

They fail to mention what type of study, controlled trials, observational reports.

They basically throw a ton of information out, appear to analyze then toss out their results.  

"The COVIDAnalysis network’s list of studies has repeatedly misrepresented the conclusions of clinical trials that found that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for COVID-19 patients."

"the websites described a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota as being “positive” for the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19, when the actual study reached a negative conclusion."

The COVIDAnalysis network includes the websites in your post.

1. They don't "push" anything, simply report the data from multiple studies.

2. I see at the bottom of each page what type of study and whether they have been reviewed. In their faq they specifically mention why they need to stay anonymous. The constant death threats seem to be a bit of a bother. Go figure.

3. Maybe you should look there again then as I see more links and information then I would know what to do with.

4. Perhaps the information from datasets they found to be relevant, was different then that from the original authors. That happens. Conclusions can differ depending on who is doing the concluding. Scientific biases come in different shapes and sizes. I guess that's why they have peer reviews.

Why do you seem so adamant on proving them wrong? All the drugs and vitamins they study are all approved as safe for other uses and have multiple years of safety data and dosages. Taken in the recommended dosages they should be safe for the majority of people. Do you not get that there are going to be thousands if not millions who will not be able to get vaccinated at all or in time and that these optional remedies may be the only choice they have for surviving another day?  USA alone has thousands dying per day while solutions are readily available.

I really, really do not get your resistance.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a treatment after you've already contracted the virus.  My comment you originally quoted was concerning the vaccine and her resistance to that.  

I have no resistance to what works.  My resistance is always to the questionable websites you continue to post.  Nothing more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 3:01 PM, FairreLilette said:

I hope kitty, you and everyone is alright.

Thanks, I think she's going to pull through, though she sure hates this feeding tube.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

True the 3-brands of vaccine have been used millions of times. But only over a period of weeks. We haven't had time to know if they will induce ADE or serialize a significant percentage of the population. These were significant problems with the first vaccines for the first SARS epidemic which were denied FDA approval based on these problems in the animal studies. Were you told any of this when you rolled up your sleeve?

What do you even think you're talking about? Why should anybody be informed about adverse reactions to a totally different vaccine for a completely different virus?

We may as well worry about contracting Guillain-Barré, once thought (probably erroneously) to be an adverse effect of the vaccine for the 1976 swine flu epidemic.

I'm convinced. All COVID-19 vaccines have one disastrous effect: hysterical paranoia among the hesitant.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 3:43 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

I suggest you visit America's Frontline Doctors and read up. You can talk to one of the member doctors and likely be prescribed one of the effective medications proven to be effective in treating CoVid.

I think I'll pass speaking with one of the member doctors, like this one:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Thanks, I think she's going to pull through, though she sure hates this feeding tube.

Awwwwwww, poor baby.  I hope she pulls through too.  

 

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

I'm convinced. All COVID-19 vaccines have one disastrous effect: hysterical paranoia among the hesitant.

Yeah, I may be complaining about fatigue but I feel fatigue for weeks from the regular flu shot, so this felt similar to that, and it's not really a complaint mine was more of an observation and it could be because I have chronic fatigue syndrome which I have been under a doctor's care for years about.   I mentioned my symptoms because actually I was expecting none as I had with the first shot but also because every other vaccine I've ever had I had no symptoms (side-effects) whatsoever excluding the flue shot.  I've had the Pneumo-Vax vaccine several times and had zero side effects plus vaccines I had as a kid with zero side-effects.  This one, I have read, may cause a bit of sluggishness or feeling under the weather.   But, I think I would have been hysterical without it.  I want to go on with my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Oh new fact checking! 

First link @ Newsweek fact checked a claim that AJM recommends Hydroxycloroniquine  based on an article it published wherein it was stated :

"1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality. In a retrospective inpatient study of 2541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, therapy associated with an adjusted reduction in mortality was HCQ alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.46, P <0.001) and HCQ with azithromycin (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, P <0.001).23 HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm. Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm."

AJM's response to the accusation:

"This article does not mean the journal recommended this therapy," he said. "The authors recommended it just as others recommend other interventions. We just publish their findings and recommendations."      Alpert said the journal often presents multiple sides of a scientific argument.

So the study published in the American Journal of Science, basically states exactly the same thing as the site I was referencing . No fire here, move along.

The Newswise article and attendant study is interesting from the perspective of the fourth point I mentioned in my previous post in that though the study itself was attempting to ascertain whether  HCQ or HCQ/AZ would help with shortening the length of time people had the virus, they had to cancel the whole thing because of a lack of disease progression among the study participants.

"We designed the trial to explore whether HCQ and HCQ/AZ decreased the frequency of disease progression to clinically significant endpoints – LRTI, hospitalization, and death. Although we recruited a population at substantial risk for developing severe COVID-19, few participants progressed, resulting in trial discontinuation for operational futility."

Our results indicate that HCQ/AZ does not hasten viral clearance as was hypothesized based on observational studies [8,9], similar to findings by Omrani et al.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537021000535

So basically looks like they were trying to determine whether Hydroxycloronique worked to clear the covid virus faster than without but that didn't pan out but they seemed to miss the point that in spite of that, noone died when they should have based on the participants conditions. 

Anyway this is also not a refutation of the results I posted before that show various anti-viral drugs listed at https://c19early.com/ could save a lot of lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Yeah, I may be complaining about fatigue but I feel fatigue for weeks from the regular flu shot, so this felt similar to that, and it's not really a complaint mine was more of an observation and it could be because I have chronic fatigue syndrome which I have been under a doctor's care for years about.   I mentioned my symptoms because actually I was expecting none as I had with the first shot but also because every other vaccine I've ever had I had no symptoms (side-effects) whatsoever excluding the flue shot.  I've had the Pneumo-Vax vaccine several times and had zero side effects plus vaccines I had as a kid with zero side-effects.  This one, I have read, may cause a bit of sluggishness or feeling under the weather.   But, I think I would have been hysterical without it.  I want to go on with my life.

Oh, I'm sure there are reactions to the shots as the immune system responds; I wouldn't call that hysterical. On the other hand, it's so heavily influenced by expectations it's difficult to be honest and unbiased with oneself:

 

Instead, what drives me crazy is the idea[*] that it's all about one's cherished freedom to make all choices about one's own body, without consideration for the population as a whole. A pandemic is way bigger than any one individual's body, and it's a cultural defect to only consider oneself when one's decision affects the fate of many people in circumstances much less privileged than one's own.

Right now, as vaccines are in such short supply, it's academic: somebody will gladly take any jab to be found. But once there's any supply not immediately absorbed by demand, delaying use of the vaccine makes time for mutation, and mutations make variants, and variants render vaccines less effective, and that will cause deaths—possibly many times more than the original strain of this virus could ever have caused.

We have a brief window of efficacy while this generation of vaccines can reduce the virus and limit the emergence of even more lethal variants. Then we'll need new vaccines, some of which are even now being tested for the already known variants... but there's no guarantee every mutation can be stopped by another application of current vaccine technology.

[* ETA: Just in case it's not clear, this is in no way a reference to any post in this forum. It's just stuff we hear in the aether.]

Edited by Qie Niangao
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Oh new fact checking! 

First link @ Newsweek fact checked a claim that AJM recommends Hydroxycloroniquine  based on an article it published wherein it was stated :

"1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality. In a retrospective inpatient study of 2541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, therapy associated with an adjusted reduction in mortality was HCQ alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.46, P <0.001) and HCQ with azithromycin (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, P <0.001).23 HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm. Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm."

AJM's response to the accusation:

"This article does not mean the journal recommended this therapy," he said. "The authors recommended it just as others recommend other interventions. We just publish their findings and recommendations."      Alpert said the journal often presents multiple sides of a scientific argument.

So the study published in the American Journal of Science, basically states exactly the same thing as the site I was referencing . No fire here, move along.

The Newswise article and attendant study is interesting from the perspective of the fourth point I mentioned in my previous post in that though the study itself was attempting to ascertain whether  HCQ or HCQ/AZ would help with shortening the length of time people had the virus, they had to cancel the whole thing because of a lack of disease progression among the study participants.

"We designed the trial to explore whether HCQ and HCQ/AZ decreased the frequency of disease progression to clinically significant endpoints – LRTI, hospitalization, and death. Although we recruited a population at substantial risk for developing severe COVID-19, few participants progressed, resulting in trial discontinuation for operational futility."

Our results indicate that HCQ/AZ does not hasten viral clearance as was hypothesized based on observational studies [8,9], similar to findings by Omrani et al.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537021000535

So basically looks like they were trying to determine whether Hydroxycloronique worked to clear the covid virus faster than without but that didn't pan out but they seemed to miss the point that in spite of that, noone died when they should have based on the participants conditions. 

Anyway this is also not a refutation of the results I posted before that show various anti-viral drugs listed at https://c19early.com/ could save a lot of lives.

Still missing the point.  Stop posting crap websites.  This isn't the first thread you've done that.  Citing studies or videos is fine but research the site itself before posting.  I consider all sources then check those sources. Then recheck.   Citing obviously biased websites is not how you research anything.  That includes researching the website itself.

It's not rocket science.  It's basic investigative technique.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see LL is still providing a platform for the spread of dangerous misinformation.     You would think the loss of 400k lives due to misinformation would be enough but nope. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm, yes .... because oh so many people will be looking to the Second Life Forum for their information needs on the Pandemic and treatments ....

They're not providing a single thing. At all.

No one external to Second Life is going to come here for their information nor is this forum any sort of news source.

You may believe otherwise - that does not make it true. You can choose to refute the misinformation as it comes along (among other 'responses') but do kindly try not to pretend this tiny little space has any real importance to the world at large.

It doesn't.

Edited by Solar Legion
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

About c19early.com

Did a "massive international study" show a much lower COVID-19 mortality rate in countries where hydroxychloroquine was prescribed to patients? No, that's not true: The "C19study" is not a massive international study. It is an anonymous collection of words and graphics referring to other scientific papers, but does not itself qualify as a scientific paper or study: No medical expert has taken responsibility by putting their name on the contents; no data source is given for the information conveyed by the graphic chart in the study; the written material in the "C19study" misstates the results of at least two real scientific studies it lists as proof of its claims.

This is what I mean.  Check your sources.  I'm all for using any means necessary to fight Covid.  With supporting FACTS.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I see LL is still providing a platform for the spread of dangerous misinformation.     You would think the loss of 400k lives due to misinformation would be enough but nope. 

546,000 lives if you talking American which I assume you are. That is how misinformation gets started!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

546,000 lives if you talking American which I assume you are. That is how misinformation gets started!

https://www.salon.com/2021/03/29/deborah-birx-says-trumps-covid-response-may-have-cost-400000-lives-did-she-do-enough/

That was the second link returned by googling "400,000".

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...