Bronny James Cardiac Arrest

[RUfubar]

Curious to know if in any of the Ivermectin studies was it given as a prophylactic or at the onset of Covid diagnosis. The only people I know who administered it gave it after a patient was admitted to the hospital and had Covid for a while. I have read that Ivermectin worked if giving immediately upon symptoms or as a preventative.

For any docs or scientists, is this article legit?

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching - PubMed

In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract​

Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.
Materials and methods: We analyzed data from a prospective, observational study of the citywide COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program, which was conducted between July 2020 and December 2020 in Itajaí, Brazil. Study design, institutional review board approval, and analysis of registry data occurred after completion of the program. The program consisted of inviting the entire population of Itajaí to a medical visit to enroll in the program and to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day. In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Clinical outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death were automatically reported and entered into the registry in real time. Study analysis consisted of comparing ivermectin users with non-users using cohorts of infected patients propensity score-matched by age, sex, and comorbidities. COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were analyzed with and without the use of propensity score matching (PSM).
Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

Following is just a little tidbit Re study problems.

"It sounds promising, but experts not associated with the study pointed out serious research flaws, including leaving questions about whether those identified as having taken the ivermectin actually did as prescribed. They also raised questions about conflict of interest by some of its authors."
Paper supposedly sponsored by a group w interesting motives.

 

[RUbbFannn]

Curious to know if in any of the Ivermectin studies was it given as a prophylactic or at the onset of Covid diagnosis. The only people I know who administered it gave it after a patient was admitted to the hospital and had Covid for a while. I have read that Ivermectin worked if giving immediately upon symptoms or as a preventative.

For any docs or scientists, is this article legit?

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching - PubMed

In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract​

Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.
Materials and methods: We analyzed data from a prospective, observational study of the citywide COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program, which was conducted between July 2020 and December 2020 in Itajaí, Brazil. Study design, institutional review board approval, and analysis of registry data occurred after completion of the program. The program consisted of inviting the entire population of Itajaí to a medical visit to enroll in the program and to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day. In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Clinical outcomes of infection, hospitalization, and death were automatically reported and entered into the registry in real time. Study analysis consisted of comparing ivermectin users with non-users using cohorts of infected patients propensity score-matched by age, sex, and comorbidities. COVID-19 infection and mortality rates were analyzed with and without the use of propensity score matching (PSM).
Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

I took Ivermectin as a prophylactic when my daughter had Covid. I also took it months later when I tested positive. When Covid was raging, my pharmacist took it once a week as a prophylactic. He is convinced that is why he never got sick.

 

[RUbbFannn]

There won’t be a link bc that’s not what the feds said. They said that they can’t technically stop doctors for prescribing for Covid bc it has other approved uses. The position is they can’t affect the doctor/patient relationship after already approving its safety for other uses. So it’s not effective, the FDA still says it SHOULDN’T be used, but if consenting adults and their doctors want to take it, they probably have that right.

The FDA was forced to change their position because they were sued by a group of doctors and lost. For those who have twitter, here is a very interesting snippet from the court proceeding.

 

[toby83]

Down to only 100 schools across the country that still require healthy young adults to pump chemicals into their body unnecessarily.

RU will hang on to the very end, cue the music!!

 

[RUbbFannn]

Down to only 100 schools across the country that still require healthy young adults to pump chemicals into their body unnecessarily.

RU will hang on to the very end, cue the music!!

View embedded media

A real shame, isn’t it?

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Great post

Def

 

[RU_DIO]

Down to only 100 schools across the country that still require healthy young adults to pump chemicals into their body unnecessarily.

RU will hang on to the very end, cue the music!!

View embedded media

It's because you have a terrible administration at RU.

Following is just a little tidbit Re study problems.

"It sounds promising, but experts not associated with the study pointed out serious research flaws, including leaving questions about whether those identified as having taken the ivermectin actually did as prescribed. They also raised questions about conflict of interest by some of its authors."
Paper supposedly sponsored by a group w interesting motives.

Thank you. Are you a doctor or scientist? Just asking as it is interesting if this study was from a source who wanted a particular outcome. I've read this happens sometimes regardless of what side of the aisle the researchers are on.

What's frustrating to me is that there are people on this site who have a ton of knowledge about Covid and it's treatments and state their opinion is 100% fact and there is no disputing it. I'll then go and speak to professionals who work in their same fields and they give me different answers of what is factual.

 

[RUbbFannn]

I can't help wondering how all this antagonism, backlash & questioning the motivation of science & medicine will play out in the future - especially amongst the younger . Will the same lack of trust come with any new/novel drug development ? Will this new era of the oppositional-defiant stance against science & medicine mean more will reject allopathic therapy for their (or their family's) future cancer or other severe disease ? It is really not worth arguing about anymore. As an old girlfriend once said. "My mind's made up so don't bother me with any facts."

I think it was George Carlin who said “The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly.”

 

[RUbbFannn]

Literally nothing you said in this post was correct. You have absolutely zero understanding of medicine or science and continue to spew complete nonsense despite several of us with a high level of expertise in key areas having tried to explain the relevant COVID science and medicine to you (with links to peer reviewed articles, while you've provided nothing to back up any of your positions).

The best thing I will have ever done on this board will happen in one minute and that is when I ignore your posts Mr. self proclaimed “practically an expert on the topic.” Wow, I feel so refreshed already, eliminating the name calling, self righteous negativity from my life. Ahhh.….

 

[vic_torre42]

I think it was George Carlin who said “The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly.”

Carlin got a lot of stuff right, a man ahead of his times.

 

[RUBOB72]

That makes no sense at all. If the vent did not contribute to the death of the patient then it was not "misused" as you say. The problem was retrospective "overuse" of early ventilation in impending ARDS - allowing the patient to tolerate hypoxemia or "permit them" is a nerve wracking, "ballsy" risk that takes manpower, close observation & finger crossing. Once a patient is vented, then all bets are off unless they improve immediately. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. Ok, Dr. Bob ?
You claim you got the vaccine, got infected anyway but here you are - higher risk group you claim, not hospitalized or dead - I assume.
So, for you the vaccine was then a huge success & yet you are looking forward to a vaccine that lends itself to more protection ? Seems to me that you should be very thankful for what you got. But, some people got nothing better to do then sit in their rocking chairs and criticize everything that's not perfect - little entitled, no ?

How many patients who are placed on a ventilator for any number of instances are unsuccessful being weened / taken off them. Once you are placed on a ventilator you probably will suffer some aspect brain damage or worse … death..

 

[RU848789]

I can't help wondering how all this antagonism, backlash & questioning the motivation of science & medicine will play out in the future - especially amongst the younger . Will the same lack of trust come with any new/novel drug development ? Will this new era of the oppositional-defiant stance against science & medicine mean more will reject allopathic therapy for their (or their family's) future cancer or other severe disease ? It is really not worth arguing about anymore. As an old girlfriend once said. "My mind's made up so don't bother me with any facts."

It's certainly less worth arguing about for me, as I'm much more selective on social media in arguing most of these points than I used to be. As we were discussing awhile back, it's interesting how much more virulent the anti-science crowd is with almost all things COVID (antivaxx, anti-mask, espousing junk cures, etc.) and many believe it's largely related to many conservatives simply not wanting to be told what to do.

There's been a small decrease in support for childhood vaccinations, but nothing like the level of pushback on COVID vaccines. And I don't think we've seen much increase in pushback on other mainstream elements of medical science, i.e., we're not seeing organized opposition to antibiotics, cancer treatments, cardivascular treatments and the like - or a major rise of junk medical technologies for these conditions (unlike junk COVID treatments). But maybe that will all change - who knows?

 

[LETSGORU91]

Remember when we put up those plastic dividers at the grocery store? Can you send me the peer reviewed study showing that saved lives?

You need a peer reviewed study to determine that transmission rates would be decreased (and thus reducing sickness/death) if you put a physical barrier between two people and the virus could not be projected directly towards another persons exposed mucous membranes?

 

[SleepingGiantIsAwake]

A real shame, isn’t it?

Of course, they will. God forbid they go against the regime and jeopardize any future funding. The science doesn’t matter.

Who cares if jabbing people causes more harm than good. Keep the funds coming.

 

[RU848789]

It's because you have a terrible administration at RU.

Thank you. Are you a doctor or scientist? Just asking as it is interesting if this study was from a source who wanted a particular outcome. I've read this happens sometimes regardless of what side of the aisle the researchers are on.

What's frustrating to me is that there are people on this site who have a ton of knowledge about Covid and it's treatments and state their opinion is 100% fact and there is no disputing it. I'll then go and speak to professionals who work in their same fields and they give me different answers of what is factual.

He's an MD. With regard to ivermectin as either a treatment for infected patients or a prophylactic to prevent infections, the overwhelming evidence is that it's not effective, as per the clinical summaries from the FDA and the EMA, the two pre-eminent medical regulatory agencies in the world, as per the two links below.

As I've said many times, I have far more "skin in the game" here to want ivemectin to be a magic bullet for COVID, since I worked on the drug in the late 80s and early 90s at Merck, but as Merck has said, there are no indications that ivermectin is effective for COVID. And this is not a case of FDA/EMA only wanting expensive new drugs to be approved/recommended, since dexamethasone, a cheap generic steroid was shown to unequivocally help in treating COVID patients with inflammation.

And if you would like to explore the nitty-gritty details of the poor quality of the studies done to support ivermectin, as well as the much more robust randomized controlled clinical studies showing ivermectin to be ineffective, take a look at the 3rd link from Dr. David Gorski, who publishes "Science Based Medicine" a highly respected medical blog, where he's been debunking junk science for 20+ years, starting with the fraudulent antivaxx "research" showing links between vaccines and autism.

I understand you've heard from people in the industry saying ivermectin is effective and I can see how that would be confusing, but IMO, one has to weigh the expert opinions of the people most knowledgable in evaluating safety and efficacy much more highly than the very small minority of doctors and scientists who believe ivermectin is effective (it is generally safe at approved doses, but not at the high doses some recommended for COVID).

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...mectin for the,take large doses of ivermectin.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-the-acupuncture-of-covid-19-treatments/

 

[RUMED]

He's an MD. With regard to ivermectin as either a treatment for infected patients or a prophylactic to prevent infections, the overwhelming evidence is that it's not effective, as per the clinical summaries from the FDA and the EMA, the two pre-eminent medical regulatory agencies in the world, as per the two links below.

As I've said many times, I have far more "skin in the game" here to want ivemectin to be a magic bullet for COVID, since I worked on the drug in the late 80s and early 90s at Merck, but as Merck has said, there are no indications that ivermectin is effective for COVID. And this is not a case of FDA/EMA only wanting expensive new drugs to be approved/recommended, since dexamethasone, a cheap generic steroid was shown to unequivocally help in treating COVID patients with inflammation.

And if you would like to explore the nitty-gritty details of the poor quality of the studies done to support ivermectin, as well as the much more robust randomized controlled clinical studies showing ivermectin to be ineffective, take a look at the 3rd link from Dr. David Gorski, who publishes "Science Based Medicine" a highly respected medical blog, where he's been debunking junk science for 20+ years, starting with the fraudulent antivaxx "research" showing links between vaccines and autism.

I understand you've heard from people in the industry saying ivermectin is effective and I can see how that would be confusing, but IMO, one has to weigh the expert opinions of the people most knowledgable in evaluating safety and efficacy much more highly than the very small minority of doctors and scientists who believe ivermectin is effective (it is generally safe at approved doses, but not at the high doses some recommended for COVID).

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19#:~:text=The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the,take large doses of ivermectin.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-the-acupuncture-of-covid-19-treatments/

Thank you. Unfortunately the Ivermectin supporters will not read the science. Simpler to just tell them Ivermectin is as efficacious as horse shit for Covid.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Thank you. Unfortunately the Ivermectin supporters will not read the science. Simpler to just tell them Ivermectin is as efficacious as horse shit for Covid.

Your opinions in these threads have always been
🐴 💩

 

[RUbbFannn]

Thank you. Unfortunately the Ivermectin supporters will not read the science. Simpler to just tell them Ivermectin is as efficacious as horse shit for Covid.

What makes your science correct? There are numerous doctors who think your “science” is horseshit, my doctor being one of them. Why do people like yourself get so indignant when someone disagrees with “your science.” I’m sorry but I have a real hard time accepting science from people who believe men can become women.

 

[RUbbFannn]

Your opinions in these threads have always been
🐴 💩

Agree.

 

[RUMED]

What makes your science correct? There are numerous doctors who think your “science” is horseshit, my doctor being one of them. Why do people like yourself get so indignant when someone disagrees with “your science.” I’m sorry but I have a real hard time accepting science from people who believe men can become women.

Really no longer worth engaging with those who believe as you do. We all get to pick our own roads to hell my friend. God bless.

 

[RUMED]

Your opinions in these threads have always been
🐴 💩

I see you are still a moron after all these years.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Really no longer worth engaging with those who believe as you do. We all get to pick our own roads to hell my friend. God bless.

Buhbye bruh 😁

 

[RU848789]

What makes your science correct? There are numerous doctors who think your “science” is horseshit, my doctor being one of them. Why do people like yourself get so indignant when someone disagrees with “your science.” I’m sorry but I have a real hard time accepting science from people who believe men can become women.

You're simply too effing stupid to understand basic science. It's not my doc vs. yours, it's 99% of docs vs. 1% of docs with regard to things like COVID vaccines being safe/effective and ivermectin being a junk treatment. If you get Lyme disease or cancer are you willing to go with the 1 doc in 100 who says take some unproven supplement or are you going to go with the best that science offers (which is still not a guarantee in some cases, but it's the best we have).

 

[Scarlet1984]

How the f*ck is this thread not locked?

Without reading ALL the posts, I assume it’s safe to assume the Trumpers are drowning out all the facts and logic.

When facts and logic are prevailing, we tend to get it moved or locked.

Do I have that right?

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

How the f*ck is this thread not locked?

Without reading ALL the posts, I assume it’s safe to assume the Trumpers are drowning out all the facts and logic.

When facts and logic are prevailing, we tend to get it moved or locked.

Do I have that right?

Asses assume

And you sure did

 

[Scarlet1984]

You're simply too effing stupid to understand basic science. It's not my doc vs. yours, it's 99% of docs vs. 1% of docs with regard to things like COVID vaccines being safe/effective and ivermectin being a junk treatment. If you get Lyme disease or cancer are you willing to go with the 1 doc in 100 who says take some unproven supplement or are you going to go with the best that science offers (which is still not a guarantee in some cases, but it's the best we have).

You need to take a step back.

My friend did all the work in HS biology labs and I rode his coattails. You have a PhD.

It’s 2023 dude. We are equally qualified to “research” things, apparently.

(This is sarcasm.)

 

[RUfubar]

What makes your science correct? There are numerous doctors who think your “science” is horseshit, my doctor being one of them. Why do people like yourself get so indignant when someone disagrees with “your science.” I’m sorry but I have a real hard time accepting science from people who believe men can become women.

Do yourself a favor. If, God forbid, one day you are discovered to have, let's say, a rare retroperitoneal neuroendocrine tumor that requires intricate surgery for cure. Go to the most skilled person in that particular entity who has the most experience w that dx. It shouldn't matter if that doc is male, female, trans, etc. You would otherwise be doing yourself & your loved ones a disservice. Most docs that I know are not progressive liberals btw I don't know why a respiratory virus became such a lightning rod of division - very strange.

 

[Scarlet1984]

Asses assume

And you sure did

You are very sweet and adorable. Sorry. I’m married and straight.

 

[RU848789]

How the f*ck is this thread not locked?

Without reading ALL the posts, I assume it’s safe to assume the Trumpers are drowning out all the facts and logic.

When facts and logic are prevailing, we tend to get it moved or locked.

Do I have that right?

All the MDs and scientists are posting objective facts and referencing good science, while all of the non-scientists are posting misinformation they got from any number of non-scientific or anti-scientific sources, including, supposedly, their own docs. It's where we are today, sadly.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

You are very sweet and adorable. Sorry. I’m married and straight.

Sounds like you play for both teams tbh

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but you made a gay joke and thought it was funny like a Homophobe

 

[RU_DIO]

He's an MD. With regard to ivermectin as either a treatment for infected patients or a prophylactic to prevent infections, the overwhelming evidence is that it's not effective, as per the clinical summaries from the FDA and the EMA, the two pre-eminent medical regulatory agencies in the world, as per the two links below.

As I've said many times, I have far more "skin in the game" here to want ivemectin to be a magic bullet for COVID, since I worked on the drug in the late 80s and early 90s at Merck, but as Merck has said, there are no indications that ivermectin is effective for COVID. And this is not a case of FDA/EMA only wanting expensive new drugs to be approved/recommended, since dexamethasone, a cheap generic steroid was shown to unequivocally help in treating COVID patients with inflammation.

And if you would like to explore the nitty-gritty details of the poor quality of the studies done to support ivermectin, as well as the much more robust randomized controlled clinical studies showing ivermectin to be ineffective, take a look at the 3rd link from Dr. David Gorski, who publishes "Science Based Medicine" a highly respected medical blog, where he's been debunking junk science for 20+ years, starting with the fraudulent antivaxx "research" showing links between vaccines and autism.

I understand you've heard from people in the industry saying ivermectin is effective and I can see how that would be confusing, but IMO, one has to weigh the expert opinions of the people most knowledgable in evaluating safety and efficacy much more highly than the very small minority of doctors and scientists who believe ivermectin is effective (it is generally safe at approved doses, but not at the high doses some recommended for COVID).

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19#:~:text=The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for the,take large doses of ivermectin.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-the-acupuncture-of-covid-19-treatments/

I've never been told by one doctor or scientist or pharmaceutical vp that Ivermectin worked. In fact, I was told that it didn't work by friends who administered it in a hospital setting where the patients were admitted to the hospital because of bad Covid symptoms. According to the pro Ivermectin crowd, Ivermectin has to be given before a patient gets sick or at the onset of symptoms.

Do you know if a proper trial was run using Ivermectin as a prophylactic or upon first symptoms of Covid? A Non-Biased trial at that. No massaging of data or making the data purposely show an outcome they want it to.

I've been told information about masking and vaccines for kids plus other things that stray from the government narrative in regards to Covid. A lot of the stuff I was told over the last few years by professionals in various Healthcare and Pharmaceutical positions seem to now be coming out as being true.

 

[RUbbFannn]

You need to take a step back.

My friend did all the work in HS biology labs and I rode his coattails. You have a PhD.

It’s 2023 dude. We are equally qualified to “research” things, apparently.

(This is sarcasm.)

🤡

 

[RUbbFannn]

Really no longer worth engaging with those who believe as you do. We all get to pick our own roads to hell my friend. God bless.

Not planning on going to hell bro. I’m a good practicing Catholic. But be my guest. Eternity is a long time.

 

[RUMED]

Not planning on going to hell bro. I’m a good practicing Catholic. But be my guest. Eternity is a long time.

Glad you are a good Catholic. Did not mean to imply you are actually going to hell ( which I don’t believe exists). Just used an aphorism ( look it up) to say we all have right to make bad decisions and then live with consequences Stay well.

 

[Scarlet1984]

Sounds like you play for both teams tbh

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but you made a gay joke and thought it was funny like a Homophobe

“The lady doth protest too much”

 

[LETSGORU91]

What makes your science correct? There are numerous doctors who think your “science” is horseshit, my doctor being one of them. Why do people like yourself get so indignant when someone disagrees with “your science.” I’m sorry but I have a real hard time accepting science from people who believe men can become women.

Evidence based results greatly influence decisions in the medical world. The vast majority follow the scientific results provided the studies are conducted legitimately, because it's been proven to be more effective/safe. It very difficult to argue against muti-thousand/multi-ten thousand person studies with anecdotal evidence. For those who choose to buck their trend, what do they base their decisions on? That they decided to try it (even though it was proven to be ineffective) and it seemingly worked on some people. How do they know ivermectin worked vs. the person's immune response or maybe it was just a weakened strain/low viral exposure of the virus? And how did you jump to men becoming women, then throwing scietific decision making under the bus for it???

 

[Pancho1939]

Posts like this reveal a complete lack of knowledge of how scientific research is conducted. It's hard enough to conduct a randomized controlled study evaluating mask effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection in animals (but a few were done, showing good efficacy against the original strain, but less efficacy against omicron and varying efficacy across mask types), but ethically, one is not allowed to do such studies with humans being purposely exposed to the virus, because both the "test" subjects (with masks) and "control" subjects (without masks) would run the risk of being infected and getting very ill and/or dying. So there are no "peer reviewed" studies directly looking at any of the situations you raised.

This means that public health leaders had to try to fashion recommendations with very imperfect knowledge of mask and/or distancing efficacy and sometimes the guidances changed as more data became available (especially retrospective evaluations of infection rates in populations protected by masks vs. those not wearing masks, showing significant mask protection) - and yes, sometimes the guidances seemed illogical or inconsistent especially in different jurisdictions.

The one exception to not being allowed to do such randomized/controlled studies was with vaccines, where tens of thousands of people volunteered to participate in either getting the vax or a placebo (nobody knew who got what at the time, except the very small data safety monitoring board for the study, as is customary), but none of these people were subjected to exposure to the virus, which would be unethical - they just went about their "normal" lives and data was gathered on who got infected (and how severely) and who didn't and when the clinical trial was unblinded, it was obvious that the vaccinated group had about 95% efficacy against getting infected and, at the time, 100% prevention of death vs. the unvaccinated group (only later on, with tens of millions getting infected, including some vaccinated people did we see very small numbers of deaths in vaccinated people, although far less than in unvaccinated people).

I am an idiot I just don’t understand so please help me.

do you think that forcing players to mask and sit 6 feet apart on the bench when not playing but letting them take the mask off to play had any effect on stopping the spread of covid?

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

I am an idiot I just don’t understand so please help me.

do you think that forcing players to mask and sit 6 feet apart on the bench when not playing but letting them take the mask off to play had any effect on stopping the spread of covid?

He spends so much time trying to convince himself that he wasn’t 💯 wrong from the start.

He should just admit it and move on

 

[Pancho1939]

You need a peer reviewed study to determine that transmission rates would be decreased (and thus reducing sickness/death) if you put a physical barrier between two people and the virus could not be projected directly towards another persons exposed mucous membranes?

It has already been proven they don’t work. New York Times actually wrote an article about it.

If you think that the 2’x3’ plastic barrier is going to save you from an airborne respitory virus as you put your items on the table and the check out lady then picks them up to scan them just to give them right back to you to bag, just passing germs back and forth, than I have a bridge to sell you…

Covid is airborne and is stays airborne for an extended period of time. The only way a piece of plastic could maybe work is if you held your breath the entire time in the store until you got to the plastic then got right up to it AND the cashier had an exhaust fan above her head. . The problem is you are not the only person in the store, cashiers don’t have exhaust fans above their head and you need to breath…

Again, anyone who suggests a plastic barrier has blood on their hands. Like masks the only thing they do is provide a false sense of security. Thousands of at risk people left their homes put on masks and stood behind these plastics barriers just to get covid and die. They were lied to and it cost them their life and people to this day still defend it. Gross

 

[fsg2]

Agree.

You and Public Unemployee #1 saying that to an actual MD is all anyone needs to know about this debate.