Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

[Mountaineer]

Another anecdote to share. A colleague works at a dental office with 4 DDS and 10 ancillary staff (chairside, hygiene, front desk). 6 of the staff are hard-core covid anti-vax. The rest of the office has been vaccinated. Masks are worn, but people are lax about it away from direct patient treatment.

So one unvaccinated staff member came in to work not sick, but feeling less than perfect one day. She was covid presymptomatic and exposed the entire staff. Anyone want to guess what happened?

Literally 100% of the vaccinated group was fine. No symptoms whatsoever.
And 100% of the anti-vax crowd not only got it, but several so severely they ended up almost being hospitalized.
Please feel free to draw your own conclusions. This colleague is someone I know well and he practices in the next suburb over from here.

Thanks the info. Another affirmation of vaccine effectiveness and communicability of the virus which seems to be much greater than the flu or a cold.

[SomeDude]

Another anecdote to share. A colleague works at a dental office with 4 DDS and 10 ancillary staff (chairside, hygiene, front desk). 6 of the staff are hard-core covid anti-vax. The rest of the office has been vaccinated. Masks are worn, but people are lax about it away from direct patient treatment.

So one unvaccinated staff member came in to work not sick, but feeling less than perfect one day. She was covid presymptomatic and exposed the entire staff. Anyone want to guess what happened?

Literally 100% of the vaccinated group was fine. No symptoms whatsoever.
And 100% of the anti-vax crowd not only got it, but several so severely they ended up almost being hospitalized.
Please feel free to draw your own conclusions. This colleague is someone I know well and he practices in the next suburb over from here.

That is actually the first positive vax story I've heard that sounds credible. Thanks PG.

[murphy_p_t]

Interesting story... Six hardcore anti-vaxxers out of 14 in a single workplace.

Who knew that skepticism of Lord Fauci is so widespread.

[jswinner]

Should I be surprised?

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2021/05/28/to ... njections/

Haven't had time to verify this report. I'm certain that the enthusiasts will let me know if it's flawed reporting.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL2N2NK1XA

Not a peer reviewed study as claimed:

"When asked about the claim, Olliaro, professor of poverty related infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health of Oxford University ( here ) told Reuters via email it was “extremely disappointing to see how information can be twisted.” He also said, “Bottom line: these vaccines are good public health interventions,” and added that in the commentary, “We do not say vaccines do not work.”

[WiseOne]

Another anecdote to share. A colleague works at a dental office with 4 DDS and 10 ancillary staff (chairside, hygiene, front desk). 6 of the staff are hard-core covid anti-vax. The rest of the office has been vaccinated. Masks are worn, but people are lax about it away from direct patient treatment.

So one unvaccinated staff member came in to work not sick, but feeling less than perfect one day. She was covid presymptomatic and exposed the entire staff. Anyone want to guess what happened?

Literally 100% of the vaccinated group was fine. No symptoms whatsoever.
And 100% of the anti-vax crowd not only got it, but several so severely they ended up almost being hospitalized.
Please feel free to draw your own conclusions. This colleague is someone I know well and he practices in the next suburb over from here.

Good story, Pug. Thanks for sharing! Out of curiousity, do you happen to know if the anti-vax staff had risk factors for COVID (obese, diabetic etc) or are racial minorities?

My beef with using COVID statistics to determine the effectiveness of vaccines is that the stats are hopelessly misleading, due to the over-reliance on testing and the incorrect definition of "case". Stories like this are far more valuable.

Curious to know whether any of the anti-vax staff was wearing a mask that day.

[yankees60]

Another anecdote to share. A colleague works at a dental office with 4 DDS and 10 ancillary staff (chairside, hygiene, front desk). 6 of the staff are hard-core covid anti-vax. The rest of the office has been vaccinated. Masks are worn, but people are lax about it away from direct patient treatment.

So one unvaccinated staff member came in to work not sick, but feeling less than perfect one day. She was covid presymptomatic and exposed the entire staff. Anyone want to guess what happened?

Literally 100% of the vaccinated group was fine. No symptoms whatsoever.
And 100% of the anti-vax crowd not only got it, but several so severely they ended up almost being hospitalized.
Please feel free to draw your own conclusions. This colleague is someone I know well and he practices in the next suburb over from here.

Good story, Pug. Thanks for sharing! Out of curiousity, do you happen to know if the anti-vax staff had risk factors for COVID (obese, diabetic etc) or are racial minorities?

My beef with using COVID statistics to determine the effectiveness of vaccines is that the stats are hopelessly misleading, due to the over-reliance on testing and the incorrect definition of "case". Stories like this are far more valuable.

Curious to know whether any of the anti-vax staff was wearing a mask that day.

From original...."Masks are worn, but people are lax about it away from direct patient treatment."

[murphy_p_t]

How many of the anti-vaxxers were taking ivermectin as a prophylactic?

I don't know, but I'm guessing zero.

Are you taking it? If so, will you just keep taking it forever?

That is available by Rx only, and my understanding is that most MDs will not script it, and certainly not prophylacticly.

Let me add to the questions you won't answer:

Are you disputing that the vaccine was actually effective in this scenario? What is your conclusion from this anecdote?
If you don't want the jab, I'm cool with that. You're an adult and that's your choice. But you should at least acknowledge the obvious.

I'm not taking it currently. If it was available over the counter like it is in so many other countries, I would be taking it. No concerns about taking it Indefinitely into the future, as there are reportedly no side effects of any consequence for most people.

My conclusion, from your anecdote, is that the experimental injection did not injure any of those people who have received it, to date.

[D1984]

How many of the anti-vaxxers were taking ivermectin as a prophylactic?

I don't know, but I'm guessing zero.

Are you taking it? If so, will you just keep taking it forever?

That is available by Rx only, and my understanding is that most MDs will not script it, and certainly not prophylacticly.

Let me add to the questions you won't answer:

Are you disputing that the vaccine was actually effective in this scenario? What is your conclusion from this anecdote?
If you don't want the jab, I'm cool with that. You're an adult and that's your choice. But you should at least acknowledge the obvious.

I'm not taking it currently. If it was available over the counter like it is in so many other countries, I would be taking it. No concerns about taking it Indefinitely into the future, as there are reportedly no side effects of any consequence for most people.

It most certainly is available over the counter in the US....albeit as a veterinary medicine (deworming paste) rather than as one designed for human use. Obviously one would need to carefully titrate the dose (since the intended recipients are horses the full dose is far too large for a human) but it's the same drug. Not that I'd recommend you do this but there are plenty of anecdotal reports online about people who took this stuff--even a heck of a lot more than the standard human sized dose--in order to cure scabies (and in at least one case, in order to kill bedbugs that fed on them) so we at least know that:

A. It works (at least against those conditions....I don't know anyone who has taken this version of ivermectin for COVID but if ivermectin is indeed useful against SARS COV-2 then I don't see why it wouldn't work....it's the exact same compound as found in prescription ivermectin), and,

B. Isn't harmful if you don't take an overdose if it (again, don't take anywhere near the full sized dose indicted on the dewormer syringe).

If you want to buy some the name brand is Durvet (although there are generics as well); both are at least as cheap if not more so than generic ivermectin and far cheaper than name brand Stromectol.

Or you could just get the vaccine instead

[Smith1776]

I ended up getting "COVID arm" about a week after my vaccine.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavir ... -1.5298613

Basically felt like a giant mosquito bite on my shoulder for a couple of days. It's interesting how the reaction is delayed.

[murphy_p_t]

"Or you could just get the vaccine instead"

Ivermectin death count: 0

Wuhan injection death count: infinitely greater

[Xan]

"Or you could just get the vaccine instead"

Ivermectin death count: 0

Wuhan injection death count: infinitely greater

Citation needed. According to this, ivermectin killed 15 out of 47 nursing home patients. That's many, many, many orders of magnitude more than any Covid vaccine.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 2/fulltext

[murphy_p_t]

Thank you for that article Xan..

The last paragraph is the most significant

[Xan]

Thank you for that article Xan..

The last paragraph is the most significant

The last paragraph being:

Our experience, unlike that of Barkwell and Shields, shows that administration of ivermectin to geriatric patients does not produce an excess of deaths. This finding accords with several other reports in the published research noting a high degree of safety for this drug in both animals and human beings.

For one thing, you didn't declare that it had a high degree of safety. You declared that the number of deaths it had ever caused was zero. Were you right or wrong?

For another, the Covid vaccines ALSO have a high degree of safety. Note that the criterion there is the production of "excess" deaths. If you're willing to accept the concept of coincidental/unrelated death for ivermectin, you need to also accept it for the Covid vaccines. And if you're not, then ivermectin absolutely gets the "credit" for killing those 15 out of 47 people who took it.

[murphy_p_t]

"
My beef with using COVID statistics to determine the effectiveness of vaccines is that the stats are hopelessly misleading, due to the over-reliance on testing and the incorrect definition of "case". Stories like this are far more valuable.

"


Of course. This puts the results of the experiment in the best possible light.

Don't make the mistake thinking that the vaccine proponents within the government are unbiased players.

[murphy_p_t]

"Note that the criterion there is the production of "excess" deaths."

What is the confirmed death rate of the study you are promoting, due to ivermectin?

they referred to it as having a high degree of safety in humans.

Unlike the *thousands* of corpses produced by the new experimental injection. Not to mention many tens of thousands of complications. Referring to the jab as "safe" is orwellian.

[Xan]

"Note that the criterion there is the production of "excess" deaths."

What is the confirmed death rate of the study you are promoting, due to ivermectin?

they referred to it as having a high degree of safety in humans.

Unlike the *thousands* of corpses produced by the new experimental injection. Not to mention many tens of thousands of complications. Referring to the jab as "safe" is orwellian.

My point is that "they" also say that the Covid vaccines have a high degree of safety in humans. You didn't answer my question about whether or not you were correct in asserting that zero people have ever died from ivermectin. It's also okay to say that you overstated things and that you don't stand by that anymore.

So where is the study with a confirmed death rate that leads you to this thousands of corpses conclusion?

If the Powers That Be are covering up thousands of corpses, then why didn't they cover up the 7 people with J&J blood clot issues?

[murphy_p_t]

So where is the study with a confirmed death rate that leads you to this thousands of corpses conclusion?


Look up vaers data


Regarding Johnson & Johnson...
Did they pay the necessary bribes to the relevant government agencies?

[murphy_p_t]

Thank you for that article Xan..

The last paragraph is the most significant

Thank you for sharing because your study shows that other studies claiming negative health outcomes from ivermectin are not repeatable.

[Xan]

So where is the study with a confirmed death rate that leads you to this thousands of corpses conclusion?


Look up vaers data


Regarding Johnson & Johnson...
Did they pay the necessary bribes to the relevant government agencies?

VAERS data is not a study and does not have a confirmed death rate. If you're going to handwave away those 15 out of 47 ivermectin deaths, then you have to do the same with people who happened to die shortly after receiving a vaccine.

Once again you have failed to answer a direct question. Are you standing by your assertion that ZERO people have EVER been killed (with "being killed", by your VAERS logic, including "died in the weeks following the treatment") by ivermectin?

On J&J: it's okay to admit you were wrong. You don't have to go inventing other rabbit holes to fall into.

[murphy_p_t]

"
If you're going to handwave away those 15 out of 47 ivermectin deaths,
"


The report of the study you shared waived those deaths away.

[Xan]

"
If you're going to handwave away those 15 out of 47 ivermectin deaths,
"


The report of the study you shared waived those deaths away.

Okay, but then the same would apply to Covid vaccine deaths. You can't say "ivermectin is safe, those deaths were coincidental" and then say "every death in the days/weeks following a Covid injection adds to the toll".

Murphy, you're getting really close to trolling. You are continually not debating in good faith. You are unwilling to ever give an inch. You do not engage, you snipe. You are being, best I can tell, intentionally obtuse when it suits your purpose.

[murphy_p_t]

Check out the latest coincidences here...

https://thecovidblog.com/

[murphy_p_t]

"

You can't say "ivermectin is safe, those deaths were coincidental" and then say "every death in the days/weeks following a Covid injection adds to the toll".

"

I acknowledge that the study you shared demonstrates that previous study showing ivermectin deaths is not repeatable. The conclusion to be drawn is that original study is rubbish

[murphy_p_t]

"Are you standing by your assertion that ZERO people have EVER been killed (with "being killed", by your VAERS logic, including "died in the weeks following the treatment") by ivermectin?"

I have seen no evidence, which has not been refuted subsequently, to demonstrate that I was mistaken.

[Xan]

"

You can't say "ivermectin is safe, those deaths were coincidental" and then say "every death in the days/weeks following a Covid injection adds to the toll".

"

I acknowledge that the study you shared demonstrates that previous study showing ivermectin deaths is not repeatable. The conclusion to be drawn is that original study is rubbish

Okay. The study I shared says that the better answer out of Colombia is that it only killed 1 out of 47. That's still several orders of magnitude more dangerous than a Covid vaccine, and completely belies your position that it has never killed anyone ever.