What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.

Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?

Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?

  • yes, gimme

    Votes: 29 31.9%

  • not yet

    Votes: 15 16.5%

  • no way

    Votes: 47 51.6%
  • Total voters
    91
  • Poll closed .
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
back on the cheap beer again, i see...and full of it as well. "with serious harmful side effects". not really impressed with your sources either. (at ALL! really? the vaccine causes AIDS? LOL!) i'm sure it is all part of the "deep state" conspiracy though, and ALL of the mainstream news media are in on it, right? a slight moving of the goal posts there. you go from stating that " tens of millions of Africans think you are full of shit" referring to ivermectin use for malaria, when no one said it was not used for that, to seemingly imply that it IS useful as an anti-viral, (which was what was being discussed) and i have yet to see any peer-reviewed research that agrees with that position.
 
Hammerhead

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Muleskinner said:
No man, I'm sorry there over 100+ studies published in medical journals on the efficacy of Ivermectin on Covid-19, and they outnumber the studies that didn't find a positive effect. I'd go find a link and post it but I'm getting tired of doing this stuff. You can find this info in seconds with an internet search.

I'm fit and healthy and personally I would not take Ivermectin, it's got some toxicity. But the studies I've seen absolutely show a positive effect on Covid-19. It is totally common and typical for prescription meds, or any med, to work on things other than what it was designed for. Look at the history of Viagra, which was developed for chest pains from angina. So many others. We don't sneer at people taking Viagra for ED and say you're taking chest pills for your dick!

The debate on Ivermectin is fine with me, it's fine if people don't see enough evidence to use it. The problem here is that doctors' right to prescribe whatever med they choose for a patient is being taken away. You don't want that type of control over doctors. This is exactly the policy that brought us the "Drug War'.

Medicine is being changed if doctors are no longer able to write prescriptions for off-label use, and not for the better. If doctors are controlled that way, our health care and treatment options will be conceded to the political or corporate crusade du jour. One day cannabis is wrong, the next dozens of pharma companies are seeking to develop it. Even today, millions of chronic pain patients have lost their access to opiates, because of a failed, sanctimonious crusade against recreational drug users. Medicine is a personal choice. The government should never get in between doctors and patients.
Click to expand...

Will just agree to disagree. No credible source I've read advocates Ivermectin to treat Covid-19.. Again if thats what you prefer to combat covid have at it. Very easy to obtain. Find a USA source ill read it. Plenty of drugs have side effects. If your Dr prescribes Viagra for chest pains id find another Dr. I'm not using it for anything unless my personal Dr recommends it.
 
Chi13

Chi13

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Risk of new heart problems jumps after COVID; mRNA shot side effects no different for cancer patients

By Nancy Lapid

Feb 9 (Reuters) - The following is a summary of some recent studies on COVID-19. They include research that warrants further study to corroborate the findings and that has yet to be certified by peer review.

Risk of new heart problems much higher after COVID recovery

Long after recovery from COVID-19, people face significantly higher risks for new heart problems, a large study has found.

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs compared rates of new cardiovascular problems in 153,760 individuals infected with the coronavirus before vaccines were available, 5.6 million people who did not catch the virus, and another 5.9 million people whose data was collected before the pandemic. An average of one year after their recovery from the acute phase of the infection, the COVID-19 survivors had a 63% higher risk for heart attack, a 69% higher risk for problematic irregular heart rhythm, a 52% higher risk of stroke, a 72% higher risk of heart failure, and a nearly three times higher risk of a potentially fatal blood clot in the lungs compared with the other two groups, according to a report published on Monday in Nature Medicine. The elevated risks among former COVID-19 patients were evident in young and old, Blacks and whites, males and females, people with and without diabetes and with and without kidney disease, as well as smokers and nonsmokers, said Ziyad Al-Aly of the VA St. Louis Health Care System and Washington University in St. Louis.

The risks were high even in people who had mild COVID-19 and did not need to be hospitalized for it, he noted in a Twitter thread. "It really spared no one," Al-Aly told Reuters. "People with COVID-19 should pay attention to their health and seek medical care if they experience symptoms like chest pain, chest pressure, palpitation, swelling in the legs, etc."

mRNA vaccine side effects no worse in cancer patients

COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology do not produce any extra short-term side effects in cancer patients, a new study suggests.

Researchers surveyed 1,753 recipients of two doses of the Pfizer (PFE.N)/BioNTech vaccine, about two-thirds of whom had a history of cancer and about 12% of whom were receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery for their disease. More than 90% of the cancers involved solid tumors. The Pfizer vaccine has been shown to work well in such cases. People with and without cancer reported similar rates of pain at the injection site, muscle pain, joint pain, fever, chills, headache, nausea, and fatigue, the research team reported in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Overall, post-vaccination symptoms were reported by roughly 73% of patients regardless of whether they had cancer, with pain at the injection site being the most common adverse event.

Earlier studies have found vaccine hesitancy among cancer patients, the researchers noted. The harms of COVID-19 are "compounded for patients with cancer who have refused vaccination," they said. "Our data, in combination with those from other sources, show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is well tolerated by patients with a history of cancer, including those receiving active treatment."

Omicron's route into cells helps explain symptom profile

The Omicron variant's method of infecting cells is different from the mechanism most often used by earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants, which could help explain Omicron's milder symptom profile, a study published in Nature suggests.

Earlier variants use the ACE2 protein on cell surfaces and an enzyme called TMPRSS2 to fuse themselves to the cell membrane and inject their genetic material inside. Omicron prefers to enter cells by creating tiny sacs in the cell membrane called endosomes that cells use to transport materials internally, researchers found. Omicron still attaches itself to ACE2 proteins, but it does not need help from TMPRSS2. In fact, Omicron multiplies most readily in tissues where TMPRSS2 is scarce, such as the nose. In the lungs, where TMPRSS2 is plentiful, Omicron has spread less effectively and caused less damage than earlier variants.

The findings help explain "why the disease is less severe and causes less pneumonia" with Omicron, said Dr. Ravindra Gupta of the Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Diseases in the UK. Gupta also noted that drugs targeting TMPRSS2, such as camostat mesylate, a pancreatitis treatment that has shown some benefit in COVID-19 patients, may be less useful with Omicron.
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/s...na-shot-side-effects-no-different-2022-02-09/
 
mexcurandero420

mexcurandero420

See the world through a puff of smoke
Veteran
Chi13 said:
Risk of new heart problems jumps after COVID; mRNA shot side effects no different for cancer patients

By Nancy Lapid

Feb 9 (Reuters) - The following is a summary of some recent studies on COVID-19. They include research that warrants further study to corroborate the findings and that has yet to be certified by peer review.

Risk of new heart problems much higher after COVID recovery

Long after recovery from COVID-19, people face significantly higher risks for new heart problems, a large study has found.

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs compared rates of new cardiovascular problems in 153,760 individuals infected with the coronavirus before vaccines were available, 5.6 million people who did not catch the virus, and another 5.9 million people whose data was collected before the pandemic. An average of one year after their recovery from the acute phase of the infection, the COVID-19 survivors had a 63% higher risk for heart attack, a 69% higher risk for problematic irregular heart rhythm, a 52% higher risk of stroke, a 72% higher risk of heart failure, and a nearly three times higher risk of a potentially fatal blood clot in the lungs compared with the other two groups, according to a report published on Monday in Nature Medicine. The elevated risks among former COVID-19 patients were evident in young and old, Blacks and whites, males and females, people with and without diabetes and with and without kidney disease, as well as smokers and nonsmokers, said Ziyad Al-Aly of the VA St. Louis Health Care System and Washington University in St. Louis.

The risks were high even in people who had mild COVID-19 and did not need to be hospitalized for it, he noted in a Twitter thread. "It really spared no one," Al-Aly told Reuters. "People with COVID-19 should pay attention to their health and seek medical care if they experience symptoms like chest pain, chest pressure, palpitation, swelling in the legs, etc."

mRNA vaccine side effects no worse in cancer patients

COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology do not produce any extra short-term side effects in cancer patients, a new study suggests.

Researchers surveyed 1,753 recipients of two doses of the Pfizer (PFE.N)/BioNTech vaccine, about two-thirds of whom had a history of cancer and about 12% of whom were receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery for their disease. More than 90% of the cancers involved solid tumors. The Pfizer vaccine has been shown to work well in such cases. People with and without cancer reported similar rates of pain at the injection site, muscle pain, joint pain, fever, chills, headache, nausea, and fatigue, the research team reported in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Overall, post-vaccination symptoms were reported by roughly 73% of patients regardless of whether they had cancer, with pain at the injection site being the most common adverse event.

Earlier studies have found vaccine hesitancy among cancer patients, the researchers noted. The harms of COVID-19 are "compounded for patients with cancer who have refused vaccination," they said. "Our data, in combination with those from other sources, show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is well tolerated by patients with a history of cancer, including those receiving active treatment."

Omicron's route into cells helps explain symptom profile

The Omicron variant's method of infecting cells is different from the mechanism most often used by earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants, which could help explain Omicron's milder symptom profile, a study published in Nature suggests.

Earlier variants use the ACE2 protein on cell surfaces and an enzyme called TMPRSS2 to fuse themselves to the cell membrane and inject their genetic material inside. Omicron prefers to enter cells by creating tiny sacs in the cell membrane called endosomes that cells use to transport materials internally, researchers found. Omicron still attaches itself to ACE2 proteins, but it does not need help from TMPRSS2. In fact, Omicron multiplies most readily in tissues where TMPRSS2 is scarce, such as the nose. In the lungs, where TMPRSS2 is plentiful, Omicron has spread less effectively and caused less damage than earlier variants.

The findings help explain "why the disease is less severe and causes less pneumonia" with Omicron, said Dr. Ravindra Gupta of the Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Diseases in the UK. Gupta also noted that drugs targeting TMPRSS2, such as camostat mesylate, a pancreatitis treatment that has shown some benefit in COVID-19 patients, may be less useful with Omicron.
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/s...na-shot-side-effects-no-different-2022-02-09/
Click to expand...

https://www.icmag.com/forum/talk-ab...-mrna-vaccines-yes-no?p=18068164#post18068164
 
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Chi13 said:
Yes, I read it. How about adding a link so we can check where you got it? Sorry, but I rarely trust any of yours or Trichriders articles, as they often seem to come from nutjob sites.
Click to expand...

you should check out the "link" tricks put up, the "Washington Standard". it was the one claiming "childrens risk of death rises by 5100 % after vaccination". they also said (to improve their credibility i assume) that being vaccinated gives you AIDS...nothing but clickbait horseshit...
"oh, and hippy, more people have died under this administration than under President Trumps administration, chew on that."- by trich.

couldn't have anything to do with the former president ignoring all medical advice he got & stopping the plan to combat the next epidemic from being implemented much earlier? nope, gotta be somebody else's fault, in your "reasoning", such as it is. chew on it? lol...you know what you can do with it.😎
 
C

CaptainDankness

Well-known member
Still not getting vaccinated and I'm Covid positive right now. :D Honestly I probably had it several times cause I've been sicker than this during the pandemic, I just happened to have a few test kits. Just figured I'd stop by and tell you hardcore vaxxers that I'm still unscared, actually just more disappointed in society to be honest. :smokeit:
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
Hammerhead said:
NOT BY ANY CREDIBLE SOURCE. Why this is even an issue no clue.. If anyone wants to use ivermectin to combat a virus have at it.. You won't find me doing that. It all boils down to our choices. You make yours ill make mine.
Click to expand...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7251046/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33427370/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34395311/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34428682/

so no studies you would read anyway.
here is one you need not click on.

2022 Jan; 14(1): e21272.
Published online 2022 Jan 15. doi: 10.7759/cureus.21272
PMCID: PMC8765582
PMID: 35070575

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching
Monitoring Editor: Alexander Muacevic and John R Adler
Lucy Kerr,[SUP]1[/SUP]Flavio A Cadegiani,[SUP]
corrauth.gif
[/SUP][SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP]Fernando Baldi,[SUP]4[/SUP]Raysildo B Lobo,[SUP]5[/SUP]Washington Luiz O Assagra,[SUP]6[/SUP]Fernando Carlos Proença,[SUP]7[/SUP]Pierre Kory,[SUP]8[/SUP]Jennifer A Hibberd,[SUP]9[/SUP] and Juan J Chamie-Quintero[SUP]10[/SUP]

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
Go to:
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.

Keywords: coronavirus, prevention, prophylaxis, ivermectin, sars-cov-2, covid-19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8765582/
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
CaptainDankness said:
Still not getting vaccinated and I'm Covid positive right now. :D Honestly I probably had it several times cause I've been sicker than this during the pandemic, I just happened to have a few test kits. Just figured I'd stop by and tell you hardcore vaxxers that I'm still unscared, actually just more disappointed in society to be honest. :smokeit:
Click to expand...

sorry you feel bad, it will pass.
just don't take any off label drugs! lol vitamin D, B12, C, and zinc could help.
fluids, smoke or maybe edibles, and rest.
are your symptoms flu like or cold like? or both?
 
C

CaptainDankness

Well-known member
trichrider said:
sorry you feel bed, it will pass.
just don't take any off label drugs! lol vitamin D, B12, C, and zinc could help.
fluids, smoke or maybe edibles, and rest.
are your symptoms flu like or cold like? or both?
Click to expand...

Not even as bad as a cold. I feel like I have a hangover really. Slight headache and barely a fever, little bit tired. Just been smoking hash, ate a few Ibuprofen and a little exercise.

Edit: next morning, I feel like I'm not even sick anymore, no headache, no fever, plenty of energy. Of course I'm sure I will still test positive just like my wife who thought it was gone too. :D, My wife and daughter didn't even get a fever, I got the worst of it so far and it was nothing and we're all unvaxed.

We did have colds during the pandemic, just nothing bad enough to get tested. We wouldn't have gotten tested on this one either, but we had been given at home test kits. So most likely not our first go with Covid 19, the cold I had just before the lockdowns was pretty bad.
 
flylowgethigh

flylowgethigh

Non-growing Lurker
ICMag Donor
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/wake-up-call/


Some powerful counter-information to The Official Narrative emerged last week from the US military’s own Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) when several whistleblower doctors revealed to attorney Tom Renz heretofore suppressed statistics on the shocking increase in vaccine injuries among young, otherwise able-bodied soldiers. Have a look at the list reported out of Dr. Robert Malone’s Substack newsletter.
  • Total Number of Diseases & Injuries Reported By Year (Hospitalization) up 37%
  • Diseases of the Nervous System By Year up 968%
  • Malignant Neuroendocrine Tumor Reports By Year up 276%
  • Acute Myocardial Infarct Reports By Year up 343%
  • Acute Myocarditis Reports By Year up 184%
  • Acute Pericarditis Reports By Year up 70%
  • Pulmonary Embolism Reports By Year up 260%
  • Congenital Malformations Reports By Year up 87%
  • Nontraumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Reports By Year up 227%
  • Anxiety Reports By Year up 2,361%
  • Suicide Reports By Year up 227%
  • Neoplasms for All Cancers By Year up 218%
  • Malignant Neoplasms for Digestive Organs By Year up 477%
  • Neoplasms for Breast Cancer By Year up 469%
  • Neoplasms for Testicular Cancer By Year up 298%
  • Female Infertility Reports By Year up 419%
  • Dysmenorrhea Reports By Year up 221.5%
  • Ovarian Dysfunction Reports By Year up 299%
  • Spontaneous Abortion Reports By Year DOWN by 10%
  • Male Infertility Reports By Year up 320%
  • Guillian-Barre Syndrome Reports By Year up 520%
  • Acute Transverse Myelitis Reports By Year up 494%
  • Seizure Reports By Year up 298%
  • Narcolepsy & Cataplexy Reports By Year up 352%
  • Rhabdomyolysis By Year up 672%
  • Multiple Sclerosis Reports By Year up 614%
  • Migraine Reports By Year up 352%
  • Blood Disorder Reports By Year up 204%
  • Hypertension (High Blood Pressure) Reports By Year up 2,130%
  • Cerebral Infarct Reports By Year up 294%
This is not the first time the nation has learned about vaccine injuries — the CDC’s VAERS registry has reported out massive problems with the Moderna, Pfizer,and J & J “vaccines” since early summer of 2021. (In fact, adverse events are notoriously under-reported by perhaps 100-times.) Now the FDA has gone and issued a full approval of the Moderna vaccine, without convening the customary expert advisory panel. The documents explaining the FDA’s decision were scrubbed from the FDA’s website. The FDA spox responded to questions about it saying, “We are aware of the issue and hope to have the document reposted as soon as possible.” So far, the docs are still missing-in-action.
 
Muleskinner

Muleskinner

Active member
Veteran
I must say I've enjoyed this thread and reading everyone's perspectives very much! Very good conversation, thank you.

I would like to urge people to not seek "credible sources' or the *right* authority to direct their thinking. Many friends of mine have said "all the pro's are saying this, or all the pro's are saying that". How about looking at the data yourself. Data doesn't lie, humans do. People that worked to end cannabis prohibition know this.

For example, Reuters was known to me for many years to be one of the most rabidly Prohibitionist news sources. AP close behind. UPI used to be much more fair about cannabis news, I think it's not even around anymore. NY Times also the most rapidly Prohibitionist newspaper, along with Boston Globe, LA Times. USA Today was better. Every single one of these sources, plus the NIH and NIDA and FDA, told horrible lies about cannabis for decades. Nowadays I use PubMed directly to search for medical information and published studies. I used to go the Harvard Medical School library to read the journals, where I found studies from the 1970's attesting to the efficacy of cannabis for asthma - confirming what I first heard in a Peter Tosh reggae song.

I had to study applied mathematics for 4 years to get through engineering school, I've got an excellent brain and I'm not going to let anyone tell me what to think. I took 8 semesters of Calculus in college and passed! and I fucking hated it!😀 Studies show that the smarter a person is, the LESS sure they are of their convictions. We should all be this way. Don't get wedded to any one line of thinking. Keep that mind open, that's how science works.

As Bill Maher points out - 15 to 30 years ago all the government health authorities urged us to eat transfats - my parents ate "I can't believe it's not butter" for 10 years. Now transfats are illegal! Thank god my parents fed us kids real butter during that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top