Roar. Just want to say thanks for your response. I just want to touch on it before I take a break,
1. Yeah that was a truism rather than a truth but amazingly many see a questioning of efficacy of a particular vaccine as questioning vaccines generally. There are many competing vaccines out there and hopefully survival of the fittest means the better ones survive. I am a little bit worried about how Pfizer seems to get approvals easier than others. The recent FDA full approval which was rushed is concerning. The FDA has a rule that it will not approve a drug with less than 50% efficacy. It had Israeli data showing only 39% efficacy after 6 months and was sitting on similar data. It pushed through the approval anyway and surprise surprise US data drops yesterday showing Pfizer only 47% effective against infection after 6 months. At least they blocked the third booster for anyone other than vulnerable groups. We're 9 months in to vaccination and Israelis are already on their third shot. It is worrying.
The FDA should demand adequate, controlled studies with long term follow up, and make data publicly available, before granting full approval to covid-19 vaccines, says Peter Doshi On 28 July [...]More...
blogs.bmj.com
2. Yep again the science historically showed natural infection is usually as good or better than vaccines in relation to adaptive immune response longevity. The issue is you have to actually get sick or worse to get the antibodies. There was a fairly robust retrospective trial in Israel recently looking at over 2.5 million in a health fund. They matched two cohorts of about 16,000 each for age, sex, co morbidities etc. One was fully vaccinated, One had natural infection only. The vaccinated group had about 260ish breakthrough infections and the previously infected group about 19. So even though that notionally shows a 13 times benefit we can probably safely state that natural immunity it at least as good as vaccination. Makes sense too when the vaccine only targets the spike proteins as antigens to introduce into the body while I believe there are 28 proteins of the virus that are targeted by the body in infection which would indicate a more robust immune response. Level of immunity of course is very individual. The question is for the mandatory vaccination brigade what is the public health rationale for having previously infected people get the jab considering there is also research showing vaccine side effects are more significant for previously infected folk.
3. Yes Ivermectin is much safer than the vaccines. If you use epidemiological data via the Vigiaccess WHO database at about 4 billion doses each adverse events for Ivermectin were around 5,600 and the covid vaccines about 1.8 million , so about 300 times safer. Database below if anyone wants to play with it and check any drug.
www.vigiaccess.org
There are also RCTs and other studies
Interestingly the review by the French Toxicolgist stated this ' It is noteworthy that no deaths have seemingly ever been reported after an
accidental or
suicidal overdose of ivermectin.
Yet we know that although rare standard doses of the covid vaccine kill people (about 1 in a million) plus there are clotting events for every 1 in 50,000 for AZ and overseas data suggests myo and peri carditis in about every 10,000 people under 39 when taking a second shot of pfizer (although first and third shot appear to have much less prevalence)
Information about the TGA's safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines.
www.tga.gov.au
So that begs the question why would our Chief Medical Officer say Ivermectin is unsafe. if the answer is it is a noble lie to encourage vaccination are we happy as a socitey for our chief medical advisers to misrepresent the facts? They are not politicians. They are there to provide accurate medical advice.
Also why the confected Ivermectin overdose scares which have disappeared as miraculously as they arrived. This is an over the counter drug in many countries around the world and is probably safer than aspirin.
Finally Roar on that excess deaths document you sent through yesterday the article seemed to indicate initially it had FOI'd only 24 districts. UP has about 75 I think, but then it stated this "Twenty districts, including Muzzaffarnagar, Sitapur, Harboi, Chandauli, and Budaun, registered a 2% to 48% drop in deaths when compared to 2019-20. " I cant make head or tails of it. Are those 20 districts part of the 24 or are they additional to the 24? Do they have data on the other 31 districts but are not reporting. Grateful if you had any idea why the data appears cherry picked.
Cheers!
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
