Coronavirus

[Baloo]

Two in New Mexico Die from Ivermectin Overdose

The New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) began requiring the reporting of overdoses from Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug commonly used in pets and livestock. While Ivermectin does exist as medicine for humans, online misinformation is touting it as a treatment for COVID-19. Ivermectin is...

www.leacountytribune.com

Top ivermectin expert says the drug does not treat COVID-19​

Dr. Timothy Geary, one of the world's foremost experts of Ivermectin, says the drug does not have any effectiveness fighting viruses.
Geary, who is the Research Chair in Parasite Biotechnology at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, says that the 2020 study which spawned much of the Ivermectin-craze is not being correctly read.

© Provided by Daily Mail (
He told DailyMail.com that the study did show that Ivermectin could inhibit the replication of COVID-19 virus cells, which is what many are reading from the study that makes them believe the drug has virus killing properties.
Geary explained, though, that the concentration of the drug used in the study were so high that it could not be used for treatment in a human, and would likely cause an overdose.
'In that study they showed that in cell cultures, Ivermectin could inhibit [Covid] replication, but the concentrations required for that effect were in a range called the micromolar range - very high concentrations relative to what you would find in the plasma of a treated person or an animal, which would be 20 to 50 times lower.'
He does not see too much harm in people using the drug in human-sized doses, though, as Geary assures that it is safe for consumption.
It is safe to use in doses of around 200 micrograms, and even people who are using it to incorrectly treat Covid are unlikely to suffer any major symptoms.
'There's no significant toxicity from those doses,' Geary says.
He also mentioned that the drug has been used billions of times in between humans and animals, and has never shown any ability to combat viruses outside of the laboratory.

MSN

Ivermectin Research Has a Big Fraud Problem, Scientists Say

Numerous studies suggesting ivermectin can treat or prevent covid-19 have dodgy data behind them, according to an international group of researchers.

gizmodo.com

Big Pharma bribed him to say that.

 

[MD Jazz]

It’s fashionable to be a victim; a few have been AOTY lately.

And of course they have a right to protest given BLM went ahead unimpeded, as knuckleheaded as it is in the circumstances. It’s when they get violent that they lose any neutral support they might have. Putting coppers in hospital with broken bones… I mentioned bullets earlier. If that’s what it comes to, there is only themselves to blame.

Anti-authoritarianism isn’t uniquely Australian but the current runs deep here. I just think you need to pick your battles. This one reeks of dumb.

Yeh, the right to protest is for all. And IMO police show enormous restraint under the circumstances. At work its amazing how some warehouse guys are defending the protests and trying to highlight police being out of order! They are anti-vax and big facebook users. Its hard to discuss with them. Will be an interesting few months.

I have no doubt they won't believe a guy from the protests is in hospital with covid. They'll argue its just the media making it up.

 

[AngryAnt]

It’s fashionable to be a victim; a few have been AOTY lately.

Agree on the right to protest, but this BS is not on.

Drawing a parallel between very deserving Australians of The Year and these self-entitled morons is pretty disgusting. I'm guessing you are referring to people like Grace Tame, Rosie Batty and (perhaps) Adam Goodes - it would fit your anti-women and anti-indigenous agenda.

These people received awards for their advocacy and other works for society, not because they were victims. I'd imagine they'd strongly objected to being labelled as "victims", and certainly claiming they received their AOTY awards because they are "victims" is a disgusting statement. You should withdraw it.

 

[Rancey18]

When you think the world is *smile*..... at least we have hope!

These young fellas were just on the ABC..... Impressive!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1440916985471062016

Wow thats incredible. Good on them!

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Not sure whether today's choice of venue - All Nations Park in Northcote - was influenced by the coppers shooting a delinquent kid dead there some years back.

 

[mrposhman]

Two in New Mexico Die from Ivermectin Overdose

The New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) began requiring the reporting of overdoses from Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug commonly used in pets and livestock. While Ivermectin does exist as medicine for humans, online misinformation is touting it as a treatment for COVID-19. Ivermectin is...

www.leacountytribune.com

Top ivermectin expert says the drug does not treat COVID-19​

Dr. Timothy Geary, one of the world's foremost experts of Ivermectin, says the drug does not have any effectiveness fighting viruses.
Geary, who is the Research Chair in Parasite Biotechnology at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, says that the 2020 study which spawned much of the Ivermectin-craze is not being correctly read.

© Provided by Daily Mail (
He told DailyMail.com that the study did show that Ivermectin could inhibit the replication of COVID-19 virus cells, which is what many are reading from the study that makes them believe the drug has virus killing properties.
Geary explained, though, that the concentration of the drug used in the study were so high that it could not be used for treatment in a human, and would likely cause an overdose.
'In that study they showed that in cell cultures, Ivermectin could inhibit [Covid] replication, but the concentrations required for that effect were in a range called the micromolar range - very high concentrations relative to what you would find in the plasma of a treated person or an animal, which would be 20 to 50 times lower.'
He does not see too much harm in people using the drug in human-sized doses, though, as Geary assures that it is safe for consumption.
It is safe to use in doses of around 200 micrograms, and even people who are using it to incorrectly treat Covid are unlikely to suffer any major symptoms.
'There's no significant toxicity from those doses,' Geary says.
He also mentioned that the drug has been used billions of times in between humans and animals, and has never shown any ability to combat viruses outside of the laboratory.

MSN

Ivermectin Research Has a Big Fraud Problem, Scientists Say

Numerous studies suggesting ivermectin can treat or prevent covid-19 have dodgy data behind them, according to an international group of researchers.

gizmodo.com

Sorry Ant, but what does that guy REALLY know about Ivermectin. I mean theres high school dropouts on YT that just sound so much more convincing than he does

 

[eZyT]

Agree on the right to protest, but this BS is not on.

You should withdraw it.

It'd take a fair while to withdraw about 11,000 posts.

 

[TrialByVideo]

Wow thats incredible. Good on them!

Here they are for anyone interested....

Probably read about these kids becoming billionaires selling some 5 buck start up in a few years

 

[TigerMasochist]

There is only one medical expert who counts in Vic and that is Prof Sutton.

Do you mean the Fluffy Doc who's expert medical advice no - one but Dan has ever seen?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I'm guessing you are referring to people like Grace Tame, Rosie Batty and (perhaps) Adam Goodes

Yes. They represent fairly specific causes and would've continued their work regardless. It's just my opinion that these choices are a bit of a downer, but perhaps that was the intention.

 

[tigerlove]

Two in New Mexico Die from Ivermectin Overdose

The New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) began requiring the reporting of overdoses from Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug commonly used in pets and livestock. While Ivermectin does exist as medicine for humans, online misinformation is touting it as a treatment for COVID-19. Ivermectin is...

www.leacountytribune.com

Top ivermectin expert says the drug does not treat COVID-19​

Dr. Timothy Geary, one of the world's foremost experts of Ivermectin, says the drug does not have any effectiveness fighting viruses.
Geary, who is the Research Chair in Parasite Biotechnology at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, says that the 2020 study which spawned much of the Ivermectin-craze is not being correctly read.

© Provided by Daily Mail (
He told DailyMail.com that the study did show that Ivermectin could inhibit the replication of COVID-19 virus cells, which is what many are reading from the study that makes them believe the drug has virus killing properties.
Geary explained, though, that the concentration of the drug used in the study were so high that it could not be used for treatment in a human, and would likely cause an overdose.
'In that study they showed that in cell cultures, Ivermectin could inhibit [Covid] replication, but the concentrations required for that effect were in a range called the micromolar range - very high concentrations relative to what you would find in the plasma of a treated person or an animal, which would be 20 to 50 times lower.'
He does not see too much harm in people using the drug in human-sized doses, though, as Geary assures that it is safe for consumption.
It is safe to use in doses of around 200 micrograms, and even people who are using it to incorrectly treat Covid are unlikely to suffer any major symptoms.
'There's no significant toxicity from those doses,' Geary says.
He also mentioned that the drug has been used billions of times in between humans and animals, and has never shown any ability to combat viruses outside of the laboratory.

MSN

Ivermectin Research Has a Big Fraud Problem, Scientists Say

Numerous studies suggesting ivermectin can treat or prevent covid-19 have dodgy data behind them, according to an international group of researchers.

gizmodo.com

Take enough of any drug and it will kill the virus. And you.

 

[MB78]

Over 100,000 doses in Victoria. Our best number. And hopefully the new benchmark on week days for the next 6 weeks.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1441285797236252672

 

[DavidSSS]

I don't get some of the comments about potential mandating of vaccines. A few people have been saying that if the government mandates vaccination it would somehow contravene some laws.

What laws exactly? You do understand that parliament makes the laws?

The government can certainly mandate vaccines if it wants to. There would be some question over whether the Feds could do it given the constitution sets out federal powers, but I have no doubt the states could.

There is no law which would stop them. The only law which the Australian parliament has to abide by is the Australian constitution and there's no Bill of Rights in that sad document. As for state constitutions, in most (if not all, only really familiar with Victoria) the state constitution is an act of state parliament so it can simply be changed.

Before someone chimes in with some notion that it would contravene a UN treaty we have signed or the like - just look at the way we treat refugees and then read the refugee convention we helped draft and are a signatory of, Australia contravenes that one every day.

As for the vaccine, I am yet to hear rational argument against taking one of the vaccines on offer. Somehow I doubt there is one.

DS

 

[TigerMasochist]

I agree. It is still really complicated and there will be legal and contractual issues that have to be tested and managed. As examples

1. A person has a contract with an employer which says nothing about vaccinations. Is making it mandatory a breach of contract? Can that employee sue the employer?
2. If the employer then backs off and says that the employee can come to work unvaccinated are they then in breach of workplace health and safety laws which require them to provide a safe workplace?
3. If the unvaccinated worker returns what does the employer do if staff refuse to work with that person?
4. Number 2 and 3 also relate to an employee with a legitimate medical exemption
5. What does an employer do when their policy does not allow fulltime working from home and an unvaccinated employee says that they will just work from home ?

I could go on. This is going to be a lot of extra work for the lawyers in the end.

If a Government mandates vaccines I am sure there will be legal challenges to any legislation as well as the above. It may be good if there are in the end because at least it will provide a legal framework going forward

Will be an absolute legal nightmare n the lawyers will be making a fortune out of all the technical nit picking for years to come no matter which way things are done.

 

[22nd Man]

we reach a utopian endpoint where our society is run by logic, reason and rational thought.

that wouldn't be utopia. and then everyone would barrack for the Tigers! Its only superstition and tradition that people follow any team other than the Tigers.

 

[22nd Man]

NSW had a good solution that is apparently encouraging vaccination for construction workers without the heavy-handed mandatory approach. Those building sites that allowed unvaccinated workers to be on-site were required to operate at 50% capacity. I don't believe those individuals were identified but they knew they were stopping others from working so they soon fell into line and got vaccinated. That approach could be costly for the co. if it goes on too long and won't work on selfish nuts who don't care about anyone else but it has worked so perhaps should be tried here. It's the heavy-handed orders that these workers object to so it's worth a try.

all for pragmatic solutions, but from day one of the pandemic I am not sure why politicians have been bending backwards to sustain that industry over any other.
Only two weeks the medical advice in Victoria was that it was safe for major Infrastructure projects to run at 100% capacity when commercial projects were at 25%. Cannot see the difference in risk building a hospital v an apartment tower myself but then I'm not a doctor.

 

[TigerMasochist]

I don't get some of the comments about potential mandating of vaccines. A few people have been saying that if the government mandates vaccination it would somehow contravene some laws.

What laws exactly? You do understand that parliament makes the laws?

The government can certainly mandate vaccines if it wants to. There would be some question over whether the Feds could do it given the constitution sets out federal powers, but I have no doubt the states could.

There is no law which would stop them. The only law which the Australian parliament has to abide by is the Australian constitution and there's no Bill of Rights in that sad document. As for state constitutions, in most (if not all, only really familiar with Victoria) the state constitution is an act of state parliament so it can simply be changed.

Before someone chimes in with some notion that it would contravene a UN treaty we have signed or the like - just look at the way we treat refugees and then read the refugee convention we helped draft and are a signatory of, Australia contravenes that one every day.

As for the vaccine, I am yet to hear rational argument against taking one of the vaccines on offer. Somehow I doubt there is one.

DS

Was reading an article in this mornings Hun n some ex copper was banging on about using water cannons n tear gas etc on the protesters. There was mention made of some charter of human rights that affects all of the decisions n actions that the Plod can take when dealing with the unruly heaving unwashed. Got me a feeling that any such charter would amount to about 20,000 pages of convoluted legal gibberish that can never be unpicked by anyone with half an ounce of logical sanity.

 

[22nd Man]

Golfers on hold for a few more days.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I don't get some of the comments about potential mandating of vaccines. A few people have been saying that if the government mandates vaccination it would somehow contravene some laws.

What laws exactly? You do understand that parliament makes the laws?

The government can certainly mandate vaccines if it wants to. There would be some question over whether the Feds could do it given the constitution sets out federal powers, but I have no doubt the states could.

There is no law which would stop them. The only law which the Australian parliament has to abide by is the Australian constitution and there's no Bill of Rights in that sad document. As for state constitutions, in most (if not all, only really familiar with Victoria) the state constitution is an act of state parliament so it can simply be changed.

Before someone chimes in with some notion that it would contravene a UN treaty we have signed or the like - just look at the way we treat refugees and then read the refugee convention we helped draft and are a signatory of, Australia contravenes that one every day.

As for the vaccine, I am yet to hear rational argument against taking one of the vaccines on offer. Somehow I doubt there is one.

The concept of government effectively strapping you down and medicating you, with or without your consent, is a troubling one. Such things are the foundation of Americans' attachment to their guns - distrust of government. It's a gateway to all sorts of unthinkable things that, thankfully until now, have only happened in other countries. After they medicate you, what's next? Taking one of your kidneys to preserve the life of a preferred recipient? You've got another one, stop complaining!

TBH I'm a little surprised at the silence of human rights mobs who routinely stand in the way of e.g. deporting a poor misunderstood murderer who was born elsewhere.

 

[22nd Man]

Just had a look at https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/sites/d...-19-mandatory-vaccination-directions-no-3.pdf covers mainly Aged Care and construction

Seems compulsory vaccine rules are made by CHO in accordance with emergency powers arising from declared state of emergency.
So as long as we are in this state the CHO can mandate whatever he wants - no need for any parliamentary debate or motion.
Wondering if / when / if the state of emergency ends whether all those rules lapse or they survive until repealed by some other Act?
If they lapse then separate legislation will be needed?

[The aged care inclusion shows that despite what some think that sector isn't exclusively "run" by the federal government. Aged care centres aren't Commonwealth territory like Jervis Bay]