(09-03-2021, 11:27 AM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-02-2021, 11:43 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's just it. The medical community does inform our opinions. The MSM takes one opinion and twists it to fit their narrative, and the right wing media takes a different opinion to fit their narrative. Ivermectin is a safe drug. The vaccine is effective at reducing the severity of covid. The risk of the vaccine seems small at this point. The vaccine does little to stop the spread of Covid. Occasionally, people who are dumb kill themselves by playing doctor. The variants seem to come from unvaccinated populations that haven't been hit hard by covid. Natural immunity is superior to the vaccination. All of those things are true.
There are so many people on this board that are misinformed, both right and left. It doesn't matter that there are a bunch of conflicting studies. Everyone thinks they know everything. Instead of saying we aren't sure, and letting people make choices in their best interests, they all take one stance and then shift it to fit their point of view. Some of that makes sense as the data is unknown, but it's astounding to me that people can't shift their views as they learn new information. It's like thinking becomes stuck. We have to become less dogmatic in our approach to life. Society has never thrived where people are restricted.
Blaming the media or government for distortions is fine but anyone has the option of finding out for themselves. The CDC has tons of information. The WHO has their own website with information. There have been many legit academic and hospital studies both US-based and international, confirming the benefits of the vaccine. None of those are likely to recommend Ivermectin as a treatment. Hydrogen peroxide in a nebulizer will not make you immune. Nor will methylene chloride.
Natural immunity has not been proven superior to vaccination (I know there's an un-peer reviewed Israeli study you referenced that says otherwise, but that contradicts previous studies). Moreover, natural immunity requires you to first get the virus which people should be trying to avoid due to the unnecessary risk of death, disability or passing it on to others. The CDC recommends the vaccine even for people that have previously been diagnosed with the virus because there's not enough known about how long natural immunity will protect those people. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...s/faq.html
There's irony in that you're right that everyone thinks they know everything which is why I keep mentioning the data and the science. Look at the CDC information. Look at the studies (not just one). Take questionable sources such as fly by night websites with several large grains of salt. It's Critical Thinking 101.
Marley, I have posted many, many studies. I am perfectly capable of changing my mind when new data comes out. I have done it multiple times in this thread. I have conceded points to pro-vax positions, and even aided in their defense when I feel like the covid anti-vaxxers are missing something. I have been right about almost every position I have claimed. I was two weeks early with regards to the idea that the vaccinated were spreading the virus. FSG argued with me. He was wrong. That's because he was following the CDC. I was looking at the data. That's one example of many. If I went through this thread, I think I am 5 for 5 on predictions, depending on if you count my concerns about ADE, but, personally, I don't consider myself making any claim there. It's always just been a concern I want to follow. Other people might see it differently.
On the things that I don't know, I say I don't know. Let's clarify what I mean there: Reserving judgement is a perfectly fine thing to do when the data is unclear. The problem is people aren't doing that. They claim the know the TRUTH. They are looking at mixed data, then completely dismissing the opposing point of view. That's not wise. I am not dismissing any data that is presented until I've looked at the methodology. If that's bad, then I am more inclined to dismiss it, but I still keep it in the back of my mind. Just because the methodology is bad, doesn't meant it's wrong. If the methodology seems sound and goes against what I think, I have to adjust what I think.
Just yesterday, I did that in this thread when I started looking up the origins of the variants. I was hoping to show that some of them corresponded with large vaccine rollouts, but that's not what I found. I found that all of them occurred prior to the vaccination, and the one that didn't developed in a nation where only 4% of the populations was vaccinated. So, I now think that it's much more likely to get variants in an unvaccinated population. But you know what? I can't know that. I really need to watch this year and see what happens now. Don't you agree the picture will become more clear this year now that most western populations are vaccinated? We will be able to see where the variants break out. Which ones are breaththroughs. Which ones are more deadly or more contagious. Then you can start to paint a picture of what's happening. You can't do that right now.
When data is unclear, I feel you should err on the side of caution. FSG again is claiming Ivermectin does nothing. He doesn't actually know that. I admit I don't know, but, when prescribed properly it isn't going to hurt anyone. If I'm wrong, it's probably not a big deal. On the flip side, I don't know if ADE is going to be a problem with the vaccine. FSG knows it isn't, but he doesn't really. If he's wrong, it could be a big deal. Now, I know he hates it when I speak of ADE. The longer this goes on, the less I become concerned with it, but you actually have to watch how something is developing to know how it's going to do, especially when there was never a long-term test for this vaccine in humans.
One more thing: The very few, stupid people that are killing themselves with Ivermectin are doing so because they mistrust our institutions that much. A drug that is perfectly safe, labeled for off-brand use, and MIGHT have some potential for treating a novel disease is attempting to be banned by the AMA. It's [BLEEP] dumb. That perpetuates mistrust, and people who are smart enough to know they are being lied to, but too dumb to do basic math are suffering from it. If FSG wanted to do some good, he'd bite the bullet and let people take that mild drug, even if only as a placebo, because the odds of anyone dying when prescribed properly is basically zero. But instead of considering the damage these institutions are causing by trying to create ironclad rules, he'll just get on here and mock them.
Sorry for busting your balls, FSG. I think you're intelligent and well meaning. Just think you're not being fair minded about this.