I was very eager to get the vaccine myself but it only helps prevent infection, it doesn't eliminate your chance of getting Covid-19. Dr. Fauci agrees. He is advocating that vaccinated Americans traveling to unvaccinated areas continue to use masks.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
A study — actually a review of trials done with ivermectin on COVID-19 patients — claims large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are “possible using ivermectin.”
The study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use, and they did not declare that affiliation in their study. Experts said ivermectin trials on which the review is based were not high quality.
The FDA warns against taking ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.
"Methods The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3 days vs. placebo in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab was obtained at recruitment and then every two days. Primary endpoint was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day (third day after termination of treatment) as reflected by Ct level>30 (non-infectious level). The primary outcome was supported by determination of viral culture viability."
Evidently, your time must have been short, as the title of your citation suggests: " IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT". Read your entire reference and point out why the Israeli team's research is not a double blind study as you suggest.
You will find that your citation does not address the article I referenced.
Or are you going to proffer the Politifact citation as a strawman argument ?
"Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.
Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing
other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community."
On their "About" page, they have this highlighted:
"Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."
The gold standard, "peer review". Have there been any peer reviewed studies regarding the mRNA therapy?
From your post:
"Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review,"
In that the mRNA therapies have not been approved by the FDA, should they not be administered?
Or is the gold standard of FDA approval not necessary?
Yes, and a simple
search of PubMed
will find plenty of references to peruse.
FredHayek wrote: I was very eager to get the vaccine myself but it only helps prevent infection, it doesn't eliminate your chance of getting Covid-19. Dr. Fauci agrees. He is advocating that vaccinated Americans traveling to unvaccinated areas continue to use masks.
This is kind of misleading the way you stated it FH. No vaccine "eliminates" 100% of your chance of getting a virus, but they do significantly, and drastically reduce your chances, particularly if most of the population gets vaccinated as well so we provide herd immunity to each other (and those who cannot get vaccinated). That's why wearing a mask will continue to help and should be worn in areas where the risk of infection is higher because there are active cases and a lower population vaccination percentage.
COVID-19 is going to become endemic in our population just as the flu is, but the faster we stop this wave, the more likely we nip it before it has a chance to mutate to something far worse. There are long-term effects of this virus that we are still discovering and evaluating, and the vaccines have proven safe enough (safer than getting the actual virus) and far more effective than probably most people could've hoped they would be.
Regarding ivermectin, if you aren't medically incapable of receiving a vaccine, why would you refuse treatment that prevents a disease from happening rather than risk becoming infected and then having to take a drug that has potentially serious/lethal side effects, isn't proven to reduce your risk of hospitalization, and isn't proven to prevent infection? Drugs cause far more deaths than vaccines do, it's a no-brainer when weighing the costs vs benefits. Not to mention that the vaccine is completely free, while ivermectin costs you.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill