India Covid Situation - Big Improvement

smogontherhine said:
Looking at some of the other Fauci emails he makes Boris look like the king of veracity.
Click to expand...
There's well over 3000 of them. Most innocent requests for TV interviews, some mind blowing ones too. Awaiting confirmation of legitimacy before posting some of them.
 
Evil said:
If it wasn't so tragic it would be comical.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured you’d be getting your research from a few of those names.
Let me guess, you also follow Joel Smalley, PCR Claims, Hart members, Melville, Cummins,Tice, Talkradio, David Paton, Levvitt, Ioannidis, Toby Young, Desmond Swayne, Gupta, Heneghan, Rayner, Hutchinson, Steve Baker, Hinton, Hitchens...
Its ok.... you can admit it. They are some of the sources of your ‘research’ 😂
 
Randy said:
There's well over 3000 of them. Most innocent requests for TV interviews, some mind blowing ones too. Awaiting confirmation of legitimacy before posting some of them.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any question of the legitimacy of them, or at least the genuine ones gained by the freedom of information request. I believe they only run up to June 2020 so they’ll probably show a person under a lot of stress, working for an absolute nutter of a dangerous, sack-happy, lunatic boss (Trump) who doesn’t have many answers for a rapidly changing situation regarding a virus that 18 months on from its acknowledgement, we are still learning about.
Don’t know why Fauci has become some kind of poster boy for the anti lockdown, anti mask, antivax, ‘get back to work plebs, covid is no big deal! Keep grafting and making us, your rich overlords, richer, you plebs!’ crowd. ( - not labelling you as any of those, Randy). Think those behind it think they can get some traction out of him. But the reality is, of course, that he’s likely made a **** ton of mistakes, like everyone on all sides of the debate.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I don’t think there is any question of the legitimacy of them, or at least the genuine ones gained by the freedom of information request. I believe they only run up to June 2020 so they’ll probably show a person under a lot of stress, working for an absolute nutter of a dangerous, sack-happy, lunatic boss (Trump) who doesn’t have many answers for a rapidly changing situation regarding a virus that 18 months on from its acknowledgement, we are still learning about.
Don’t know why Fauci has become some kind of poster boy for the anti lockdown, anti mask, antivax, ‘get back to work plebs, covid is no big deal! Keep grafting and making us, your rich overlords, richer, you plebs!’ crowd. ( - not labelling you as any of those, Randy). Think those behind it think they can get some traction out of him. But the reality is, of course, that he’s likely made a **** ton of mistakes, like everyone on all sides of the debate.
Click to expand...
If you really believe this after reading some of the more "mind blowing" ones.... well....

One thing is for sure, the truth is starting to out, and some of these that were aligning with Fauci will soon be throwing him under the bus to protect their own @rses
 
smogontherhine said:
If you really believe this after reading some of the more "mind blowing" ones.... well....

One thing is for sure, the truth is starting to out, and some of these that were aligning with Fauci will soon be throwing him under the bus to protect their own @rses
Click to expand...
I haven’t read any of them yet, other than the one @Randy posted before. To be honest, I’ll not bother looking at them myself today. If there is anything juicy in them we‘ll all find out soon enough, either on here or Twitter or news etc. But so far, if the juiciest thing that’s come to light is him advising a lady travelling somewhere in Feb 2020, where he says there is low risk, that it’s probably not worth bothering with a mask..... it’s not very exciting stuff, is it?
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I know of 6 people who died from covid.
5 from, not with.
1 with, not from. But she undoubtedly wouldn’t have died when she did, if she didn’t have covid.
Not one of them was over the age of 80.
Only 2 were 70 +

1 had significant comorbities, but they weren’t significant enough that he couldn’t hold down full time work.
3 had fairly minor comorbidities. But hey, does being diabetic or obese or asthmatic mean it’s ok to die 20, 30, 40 yrs ahead of your time?

I know 2 people who were in ICU because of covid.
Both were otherwise fit and healthy. They were in their early 60s.
One now walks with a zimmer frame but is just grateful for being here, having been in a medically induced coma and intubated for 6 weeks.
The other chap has been in and out of hospital for 3 months with various chest issues and pain.

I know 5 people who were hospitalised (not icu).
1 in their 60s.
2 in their mid 30s (one was fit and sporty, one was a chubster)
2 in their 40s.

I know 3 people in their 20s who were completely bed ridden for between 3 and 5 days. All fit, healthy, active younguns.

That said, I also know a family member in his 70s considered extremely vulnerable having battled cancer for a decade, who had covid and was completely asymptomatic.

My wife and several of our close family and best friends work frontline NHS and GP across 4 hospital sites of varying size and locations throughout the South, and they all have different stories of how their hospital/surgery was impacted.

It’s a simplistic and naive view to measure the impact of covid just by death.

That is all fact.

Which is completely at odds with your ‘fact’ that covid victims (for want of a better term) “almost exclusively 80 or above, they quite often are already gravely ill i.e. they have a terminal illness or other serious underlying health issues.”
It also completely ignores, and insults all those young frontline NHS staff who lost their lives trying to help those 80yr old plus patients survive. Many of them were young (30,40,50 yr olds) ‘healthy people who did suddenly take gravely ill and die.

Point is, people have had different experiences and just because YOU only know anecdotal tales of old, extremely ill people dying from covid, it doesn’t mean everybody else has had the same experience. There are many posters on here who will know more people who have lost their lives than I do, or who have struggled since with long covid and likewise, many who won’t.

But for you to even say that ‘almost exclusively 80…’ sentence above shows you’ve really not been doing the research into this that you think you have. But then again, your anti-vax stance also illustrates that.

I think there are many decent people out there, like yourself, who will look back in time at this pandemic abd think ‘man, I got that wrong, didn’t I? Those grifters played me well and truly’.

I know I certainly do, regarding when I thought the likes of Yeadon, Gupta and Heneghan should be taken seriously…
Click to expand...
Great reply, saved me bothering with the chicken 👏👏👏

I'll just add that the average "time" taken from those that have died was around 10 years expected life, in the UK, and that was at the start, and it's not factoring in those that die earlier from other things missed or delayed by large covid waves.

The way that chicken talks is everyone who died was on deaths door, yet somehow in April 20, we managed to kill over twice as many people who would normally be expected to die, and we were 10% over for the calendar year. If they were all going to die anyway, then there would be no excess.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I haven’t read any of them yet, other than the one @Randy posted before. To be honest, I’ll not bother looking at them myself today. If there is anything juicy in them we‘ll all find out soon enough, either on here or Twitter or news etc. But so far, if the juiciest thing that’s come to light is him advising a lady travelling somewhere in Feb 2020, where he says there is low risk, that it’s probably not worth bothering with a mask..... it’s not very exciting stuff, is it?
Click to expand...
He also said the main benefit of masks is stopping people transmitting the virus. That seems to be the consensus from the vast majority of scientists a year later. I guess that's mind blowing that there is a view that hasn't changed 15 months later.
 
bear66 said:
He also said the main benefit of masks is stopping people transmitting the virus. That seems to be the consensus from the vast majority of scientists a year later. I guess that's mind blowing that there is a view that hasn't changed 15 months later.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly (y)

Literally, nobody is saying the mask will stop you from inhaling airborne covid (apart from massive droplets), but that's never been the main point in it, if people think it is/ was then there's no chance for them.

The main point since we starting having a mask requirement was that it would likely limit viral load out/ reduce the force/ speed/ trajectory etc, and also stop people coughing larger droplets onto contact surfaces.

I really don't see why people are so scared of a mask, it's pathetic.
 
smogontherhine said:
If you have the time and you really want to educate yourself then I'd advise this....
Click to expand...
I looked at the other one last night, just seems like the WHO and EMA were doubting the studies number, reliability, accuracy and degrees of bias, whereas that Dr Tess just was beating the Ivermectin drum, from one direction.

They seem to put a mass amount of reliance and credibility on small, South American studies, which doesn't give me the greatest of confidence to be honest, but I'm not an expert in assessing studies, and certainly not an expert in trying to spot any bias. Certainly can't reliably check on their credibility either.

Then that video you just posted:
I don't have time to listen to all of that I'm afraid, but I've seen that guy before (on the left). He's talking about Carvallo Héctor (his favourite study), but that study was done in June 1 to Aug 1 2020, why wasn't that study in the first vid from Tess? Back then there were little Covid issues in Argentina, if this lot was truthful then all the hospitals would be using it and they would surely have no problem now, except now it's much worse than ever there?

From that study:
Literally not one covid case in three hospitals, for ivermectin users, but in the other groups 92%, 78% and 30% got covid?? That seems far fetched to me. For the 92% one 600/730 had ivermectin (0 got covid :unsure: ), but out of the 130 that didn't have ivermectin, 120 did :unsure:, that doesn't sound realistic.

To be honest, I'll stick with the WHO, EMA, NHS etc and trust them to be truthful, and if there was a new wonder drug with amazing credibility then I would expect it to be in use already, or being seriously looked into. Even our (or others) idiot governments could read up on things like this and do their own trials, it might save some lockdowns and getting grief from the anti-lockdown lot or anti-vaxers etc.
 
1622738284538.png

I haven't looked at this study to be honest but it chimes with a similar one that they mentioned in the video where I believe it was 0% (with Ivermectin as a prophylactic got covid) and 56% (without)
It seems that Ivermectin is indeed that effective in preventing covid as unbelievable as it appears.
 
smogontherhine said:
View attachment 19465

I haven't looked at this study to be honest but it chimes with a similar one that they mentioned in the video where I believe it was 0% (with Ivermectin as a prophylactic got covid) and 56% (without)
It seems that Ivermectin is indeed that effective in preventing covid as unbelievable as it appears.
Click to expand...
Depends on the source, and the study volume/ quality, I suppose.

To those who seem to know most, in reputable positions it's got a seemingly relatively unproven gain, whereas to one or two, it's somehow better at everything than almost every vaccine. I don't buy that, to be honest. I do however buy that the vaccines work, judging by the number of cases turning up to hospitals with delta. It's like 75% unvaccinated, 20% x 1 vaccine, and 5% x 2 vaccines, but any of those could have had 1 or 2 jabs within the last two weeks, so won't have full immunity etc (so the protection would be even better, if everyone had time to build it up).

Would welcome much more data and a large trial though, maybe if these Invermectin supporters got together they could raise some funding by just giving or whatever, and do a blind/ placebo trial of a controlled set of people.
 
Last edited:
Randy said:
Oooops

https://twitter.com/x/status/1400475362132475912
Click to expand...
Why oops? These people are on the same side, they're working together, but each may have a varying opinion, at different times, without each of them having the full information, and the genome hasn't even been made available yet?

The good thing is they're taking it seriously and looking into extreme detail.

As far as I can tell Vietnamese authorities thought/ think it is a hybrid of Delta and Alpha, but the WHO thinks it's a mutation of Delta, with similar mutations to Alpha, but it meets their classification of Delta? The WHO did say "From what we understand, the variant they detected is the B.1.617.2 variant possibly with an additional mutation, however we will provide more information as soon as we receive it."
 
smogontherhine said:
One thing at a time....
Ivermectin is safe, it's been around for decades and has had more than 4 billion doses. The current arguments around its safety are deliberately misleading, basically around the amount, the same as saying paracetamol is not safe if you take a dose meant for a horse.
As for its effectiveness with covid, I don't see why it can't be used along with vaccines even if it is only 5% effective
The emergency treatment packages were exactly that, to treat people that had covid, Ivermectin also seems to be effective as a prophylactic and it is only in the last month or so that they have been using it in this way, i.e. to prevent covid, not just to lessen the symptoms or the duration.
Click to expand...
IVM for treating parasites has a specific dosage (12mg) which has been trialled and proven safe. The dosage that has been given for covid in the trials were 30-90 times that of a normal dose for parasites which can lead to toxicity Developing in the body.
until some decent studies with good controls and reasonably high participants takes place it shouldn’t be pushed as a miracle cure.
 
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
IVM for treating parasites has a specific dosage (12mg) which has been trialled and proven safe. The dosage that has been given for covid in the trials were 30-90 times that of a normal dose for parasites which can lead to toxicity Developing in the body.
until some decent studies with good controls and reasonably high participants takes place it shouldn’t be pushed as a miracle cure.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
0.2mg/kg is the recommended dose for preventing covid... once a week.
0.2-0.4mg/kg once a day for treating covid.
 
I'm confused by the 'big pharma doesn't want you to know this' line.

Ivermectin was produced by Merck & since the late 80's they've been giving it to countries to try & eradicate river blindness caused by parasites. The two people responsible for this have won the Nobel prize essentially for their humanitarian work.

If there was evidence that it helped & didn't cause dangerous side-effects, why wouldn't they/Merck be happy that their discovery was able to help with Covid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top