What's the deal with Ivermectin and COVID?
halifaxexaminer.ca
halifaxexaminer.ca
Is't that kind of bad?
Say, if by pure chance, there is an intervention that is equally effective as Ivermectin, wouldn't it cause the whole thing to zero out, or show very little benefit for the Ivermectin?
EDIT:
They also say..
> It would not take much of a clinical trial to know whether that was true or not, and almost every physician would be able to spot really quickly whether there was a drug that miraculously was helping people. But we’re not getting that feedback from physicians
Isn't that the exact kind of feedback that is being neglected right now?
I keep seeing this stuff being pushed by anti vaxxers on Facebook as an alternative to getting vaccinated.
Do we see drugs being pushed for smallpox or measles? No. Because the vaccine is cheap and more effective.
Get vaccinated.
Can you give me a good reason why Covid vaccines are not included here in "The Reportable Events Table (RET) reflects what is reportable by law"
https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_...
So does not make sense to exclude them (in law) from being reported.
Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you.
"We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses.
You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers
Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky.
>If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision
I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.
Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks
Please provide citation for this claim.
If that's true, it seems backwards. It should be that they should be on the list by default until they are proven to not have risks.
But then again, every medical treatment has risks, so they should probably be on the list.
Quite frankly, that is not the case.
In almost all communication that try to promote covid vaccines, they include a statement that amounts to "All healthcare professionals are required by law to report adverse events...".
And this table kind of prove that to be a lie, and you also seem to agree, at least with respect to that point.
>Where does it say that? I've never seen it.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi...
>In the current pandemic, these reports are being used to monitor the occurrence of both known adverse events, as providers of COVID-19 vaccines are required to report serious adverse events to VAERS.
By the way, this also blows your main argument out of the water.
> Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)],
It's not on the pdf because it's either outdated or because COVID vaccines are on emergency authorization. There's not a giant conspiracy because something isn't on a random pdf, like I was saying
So why not stop adding to it.