Probably because they don't test as much in Africa.  So they don't know.

They test more than you think.
Actually, I was just trying to read up on it, and it seems the problem is more that they don't count their dead very well, pandemic or not.  I'm only seeing real numbers from Tunisia and South Africa.  The other countries, I can't find anything on their death rate.

Africa has had every disease known to man and then some. Actually, if you want to get cynical about it, they are the perfect testing ground for all manner of virulent bacteria and viruses. AIDS was purported to have originated there, from the slaughtering of apes and the mingling with the blood. Makes you wonder about that now, since Fauci was presiding over the AIDS epidemic. Don't recall if there were any NIH funded labs anywhere in Africa back in the 80's. It is interesting that a lot of medicines get a good trying out there in Africa before they are deemed safe for consumption elsewhere. Sort of like going to the student dentist at the Dental school to have your teeth worked on. It's cheap (free), but might have long-term ramifications if botched. Human medical experimentation, all in the name of philanthropy. Somewhere, Lord Gates is smiling.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Probably because they don't test as much in Africa.  So they don't know.

They test more than you think.
Actually, I was just trying to read up on it, and it seems the problem is more that they don't count their dead very well, pandemic or not.  I'm only seeing real numbers from Tunisia and South Africa.  The other countries, I can't find anything on their death rate.

It's not what I think; I looked up the numbers.  

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/full-...OZ~TZA~NGA

---

What medication does Africa hand out like candy? What could it be?

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

LOL, Could it be....ivermectin?  Hydroxycloroquin?  Infused urine??? Wait wait wait, the virus itself is supposed to be the vaccine over there, according to Lord Gates.  Or, maybe it could be.......wait for it.....natural immunity!  Proudly brought to you by the designer of the immune system, not the designer of vaccines.

1. The continent was already on a Public Health Awareness footing because of the Ebola outbreak of 2013-2017. Further they are exceptionally vigilant of infectious diseases like Polio and had response teams already in place to deal with Covid. They were also already screening border crossers for contagions as a result.
2. The people there are far more compliant with public health directives including all the ones we rejected here. Almost 90% of the population masked and nearly everyone was willing to isolate or quarantine, and to allow contact tracing.
3. Africa is a far younger continent, the median age is just 19. They also don't dump all their old people into group homes.
4. The climate is a factor as the virus does not proliferate as quickly in warm and humid climate.

Anyway, carry on.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We knew this already but yeah.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-fin...03424.html

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

I'll take a closer look at the actual study, but change your news, man. Any headline that opens with "the horse drug" is not shooting straight with you.

---

I'll take a closer look at the actual study, but change your news, man. Any headline that opens with "the horse drug" is not shooting straight with you.

It's an antiparasitic originally developed for use in animals. It's been approved for use in humans for lice and some other parasites. No evidence it has any affect on viruses. Joe is wrong.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

Who cares what Joe thinks? It's a protease inhibitor, which means it keeps protease from cutting strands of data into shorter strands that is more easily managed by the virus. The Merck pill that came out did the EXACT same thing but using a different chemical. Clearly the makers of the new drug believe the science behind it makes sense. Whether it works or not, that's a different story. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that I think that it only reduces negative results by 20-25%. That's what the greater body of literature suggests. Coincidentally, that's about the same effectiveness as the new Merck pill. It's not the be all end all, but I do think it could have prevented a lot of deaths. I still haven't found a large study that does a good job of removing the bias from this question. Until these larger research institutions start to nail down their methodology, I have been favoring the larger body of smaller work.

---

Who cares what Joe thinks? It's a protease inhibitor, which means it keeps protease from cutting strands of data into shorter strands that is more easily managed by the virus. The Merck pill that came out did the EXACT same thing but using a different chemical. Clearly the makers of the new drug believe the science behind it makes sense. Whether it works or not, that's a different story. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that I think that it only reduces negative results by 20-25%. That's what the greater body of literature suggests. Coincidentally, that's about the same effectiveness as the new Merck pill. It's not the be all end all, but I do think it could have prevented a lot of deaths. I still haven't found a large study that does a good job of removing the bias from this question. Until these larger research institutions start to nail down their methodology, I have been favoring the larger body of smaller work.

So, ready to give us the lowdown on why you think TOGETHER is wrong?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

For the most part, this study is conducted better than some of the other studies. Edward Mills, one of the study authors said there is a clear signal that Ivermectin works in COVID patients, but that the study didn't achieve significance due to the sample size. He estimated a 17% reduction in hospitalizations, which is not far off from what I claimed above. IF true, that is a HUGE number of deaths that could have been prevented by a really, really safe drug that, for some reason, was politicized and rejected by the medical community.

That said, I do have some questions about the protocols. In the criteria, it doesn't say anything about screening for people who are already using Ivermectin. This study was done in Brazil, where Ivermectin is available over the counter. So, were the researchers able to adequately account for that conflict? I saw a link on twitter where they said they took that into account (after people started pointing out this flaw), but you don't see this mentioned in any of the literature, only after the fact. To make this worse, it is pretty clear that they didn't successfully blind the study. About 60 people dropped out of the Ivermectin group. Around 400 dropped out of the placebo group. I think that's a flaw that might account for the discrepancy between my number and the study's author.

It should never take 2 years to do a study on a drug that doctors have been using a very specific way. Just do it the way it's prescribed. Use the right dose. Include zinc. Use it within 3 days of symptoms. Use it until symptoms stop or until COVID becomes too severe to administer. This is not difficult. Even still, if I said this paper is 100% accurate, can you agree with the author's perception that there could be up to a 17% reduction in hospitalizations? Why would that not be worth prescribing to every COVID patient as soon as they test positive?

---

For the most part, this study is conducted better than some of the other studies. Edward Mills, one of the study authors said there is a clear signal that Ivermectin works in COVID patients, but that the study didn't achieve significance due to the sample size. He estimated a 17% reduction in hospitalizations, which is not far off from what I claimed above. IF true, that is a HUGE number of deaths that could have been prevented by a really, really safe drug that, for some reason, was politicized and rejected by the medical community.

That said, I do have some questions about the protocols. In the criteria, it doesn't say anything about screening for people who are already using Ivermectin. This study was done in Brazil, where Ivermectin is available over the counter. So, were the researchers able to adequately account for that conflict? I saw a link on twitter where they said they took that into account (after people started pointing out this flaw), but you don't see this mentioned in any of the literature, only after the fact. To make this worse, it is pretty clear that they didn't successfully blind the study. About 60 people dropped out of the Ivermectin group. Around 400 dropped out of the placebo group. I think that's a flaw that might account for the discrepancy between my number and the study's author.

It should never take 2 years to do a study on a drug that doctors have been using a very specific way. Just do it the way it's prescribed. Use the right dose. Include zinc. Use it within 3 days of symptoms. Use it until symptoms stop or until COVID becomes too severe to administer. This is not difficult. Even still, if I said this paper is 100% accurate, can you agree with the author's perception that there could be up to a 17% reduction in hospitalizations? Why would that not be worth prescribing to every COVID patient as soon as they test positive?

Could you share the link to those comments?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm trying to find a respectable source for those comments. The internet is hard sometimes.

---

You know what else bothers me about this study? We are 2 years in. So many people have gotten Covid by this point that there's a really good chance that most of the people in that study already had some form of natural immunity. Our scientific community really failed us, imo.

---

You know what else bothers me about this study? We are 2 years in. So many people have gotten Covid by this point that there's a really good chance that most of the people in that study already had some form of natural immunity. Our scientific community really failed us, imo.

I know for a fact that it works for at least some people. A family member finally got it and they were feeling terrible, most colds are bad for them because they can't take a lot of otc meds. They got their doctor to give it to them with hcq also. With zinc and those 2, they were feeling better within 6 hours and within 24 hours only had a little leftover congestion to clear out. That doesn't happen for any cold with them.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

I'm trying to find a respectable source for those comments. The internet is hard sometimes.

Indeed.

---

You know what else bothers me about this study? We are 2 years in. So many people have gotten Covid by this point that there's a really good chance that most of the people in that study already had some form of natural immunity. Our scientific community really failed us, imo.

I know for a fact that it works for at least some people. A family member finally got it and they were feeling terrible, most colds are bad for them because they can't take a lot of otc meds. They got their doctor to give it to them with hcq also. With zinc and those 2, they were feeling better within 6 hours and within 24 hours only had a little leftover congestion to clear out. That doesn't happen for any cold with them.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

That is an anecdote, not a fact.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Stressful last few days

My grandfather caught covid just few weeks off comming off a massive heart operation...he is fully vaxxed... classed as a High risk patient, anything above a fever they have to contact emergency service immediately...but he is 4 days into getting it at the moment, and seems to be quite fine

---

I'm trying to find a respectable source for those comments. The internet is hard sometimes.

Indeed.

---

I know for a fact that it works for at least some people. A family member finally got it and they were feeling terrible, most colds are bad for them because they can't take a lot of otc meds. They got their doctor to give it to them with hcq also. With zinc and those 2, they were feeling better within 6 hours and within 24 hours only had a little leftover congestion to clear out. That doesn't happen for any cold with them.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

That is an anecdote, not a fact.

It's a fact for this person but not necessarily true for everyone. It definitely helped in this case but yes there wasn't any scientific method used to determine dosage, mixture of drugs, timing, etc. The symptoms were getting worse and then immediately stopped after taking the meds. It wasn't like they were on the mend before taking it.

It's sad that the real studies in the beginning got shutdown or just gave lethal doses to people to get the outcome that it doesn't save anyone.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Indeed.

---

That is an anecdote, not a fact.

It's a fact for this person but not necessarily true for everyone. It definitely helped in this case but yes there wasn't any scientific method used to determine dosage, mixture of drugs, timing, etc. The symptoms were getting worse and then immediately stopped after taking the meds. It wasn't like they were on the mend before taking it.

It's sad that the real studies in the beginning got shutdown or just gave lethal doses to people to get the outcome that it doesn't save anyone.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

This is not a fact, it's a case study in logical fallacy.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

New Antiviral Drug Can Get Rid Of COVID-19 In Just 3 Days: Study

A new anti-viral drug has been shown in early testing to eliminate COVID-19 infections in just a few days, the fastest so far identified.

The drug, molnupiravir, “effectively neutralized infections of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID) among a sample group by day three after starting therapy,” Study Finds reports. “Meanwhile, other COVID-19 patients taking a placebo took up to five days to make the same medical progress. For some patients in the control group, their recovery took even longer.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-antiv...eMFKItJMOU

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

New Antiviral Drug Can Get Rid Of COVID-19 In Just 3 Days: Study

A new anti-viral drug has been shown in early testing to eliminate COVID-19 infections in just a few days, the fastest so far identified.

The drug, molnupiravir, “effectively neutralized infections of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID) among a sample group by day three after starting therapy,” Study Finds reports. “Meanwhile, other COVID-19 patients taking a placebo took up to five days to make the same medical progress. For some patients in the control group, their recovery took even longer.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-antiv...eMFKItJMOU

Invalid, unless you can provide a Pfizer or Johns Hopkins link to corroborate. You know, the same organizations that are trying to block release of thier vaccine data for the next 75 years, or publishing studies that showed little to no vaccine benefit over natural immunity.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

New Antiviral Drug Can Get Rid Of COVID-19 In Just 3 Days: Study

A new anti-viral drug has been shown in early testing to eliminate COVID-19 infections in just a few days, the fastest so far identified.

The drug, molnupiravir, “effectively neutralized infections of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID) among a sample group by day three after starting therapy,” Study Finds reports. “Meanwhile, other COVID-19 patients taking a placebo took up to five days to make the same medical progress. For some patients in the control group, their recovery took even longer.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-antiv...eMFKItJMOU

Wonderful, let's hope this holds up better than the last attempts.

---

New Antiviral Drug Can Get Rid Of COVID-19 In Just 3 Days: Study

A new anti-viral drug has been shown in early testing to eliminate COVID-19 infections in just a few days, the fastest so far identified.

The drug, molnupiravir, “effectively neutralized infections of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID) among a sample group by day three after starting therapy,” Study Finds reports. “Meanwhile, other COVID-19 patients taking a placebo took up to five days to make the same medical progress. For some patients in the control group, their recovery took even longer.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-antiv...eMFKItJMOU

Invalid, unless you can provide a Pfizer or Johns Hopkins link to corroborate.  You know, the same organizations that are trying to block release of thier vaccine data for the next 75 years, or publishing studies that showed little to no vaccine benefit over natural immunity.

Do you know the problem with Natural Immunity?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato