Official Thread: Coronavirus "COVID-19"

[12Bass]

Omi did its job at creating herd immunity for the most part. Apparently it's finally spreading in China.

Yes the country that delivered it all over the world while walling off Wuhan. Let's see what new level of hell that population can deliver us going forward, since most of the rest of the world had already been ravaged.

Are you implying that China deliberately created and/or spread SARS-CoV-2?

[Greasy]

Are you implying that China deliberately created and/or spread SARS-CoV-2?

Created? No. Did they wall off Wuhan and let flights keep going out? YES. They spread this **** after they knew it was an issue, so **** em.

[Silent-Runner]

numbers still going through the roof.

3.637.200 infected, 13.931.900 recovered, 126.142 deaths (03/16/22)

Source: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-...avirus-1738210

[Greasy]

This could be due to people just taking home tests, and not reporting it, but NC cases are way down.

https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/dashboard

[Higgy10]

Are you implying that China deliberately created and/or spread SARS-CoV-2?

if you bothered to read the CSIS report on the united front you wouldnt need to ask that question(i know i posted the link a couple times in this thread) The facts and evidence seem to indicate that the communist government knew about the severity of it while neglecting to tell the rest of the world. They were to busy ordering there pawns to loot our supply of ppe before it hit here.

Again just to reiterate, this isnt some youtube info, comes from fox news, rebel media etc. It comes for our own domestic intelligence agency

So theres no evidence that they created it, but theres sure as hell lots to indicate there was something sketchy going on for the latter.

[KAC]

Seems covid is finished. Amirite?

[Greasy]

Seems covid is finished. Amirite?

New wave starting in Europe. BA2 variant seems to be driving it. It's an omi variant. US is typically about a month behind them, so we shall see.

[Silent-Runner]

Seems covid is finished. Amirite?

[Nunz]

Can't wait for mask mandates to come back

[Cyko]

Can't wait for mask mandates to come back

Christ no. I’ll be so pissed. Luckily it’s warming up so if they do come back I’ll just eat outside if we go out. Will have to set up the home gym again, because I sure as **** can’t work out in a mask. Tried it once and almost passed out.

[shrike126]

Another day, another study that proves Ivermectin does nothing for people to pour through for something they can point to and say "bUt aCkTsHuAlLy!"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermectin-didnt-reduce-covid-19-hospitalizations-in-largest-trial-to-date-11647601200

[Sasquach]

Our case numbers have been low here for a few weeks since the mandates were lifted.

I think whoever got infected got infected, and whoever got shots got shots so theres really no one left to infect in my city

we'll get new cases every day bnut they dont seem to be rising....of course almost everything related to pandemic control has been effectively reduced so now our numbers reporting is happening once a week.....

I heard of the BA.2 variant (lets call it super omicron) but i dont think it is any worse than regular omicron, other than being more infectious....

Has there been any word on any new covid variants past omicron BA.2?

[Shadowless]

Another day, another study that proves Ivermectin does nothing for people to pour through for something they can point to and say "bUt aCkTsHuAlLy!"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermec...te-11647601200

do you have an actual link to the study instead of shitty WSJ paywall?

[shrike126]

do you have an actual link to the study instead of shitty WSJ paywall?

The WSJ is the main source, with the article being published for peer review today.

A group of researchers evaluating the effect of repurposed drugs against COVID-19 found that oral antiparasitic medication ivermectin did not improve patient outcomes in the largest trial of its kind to date, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

Ivermectin marketed by Merck (NYSE:MRK) as Stromectol for parasitic infestations sparked controversy during the pandemic prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue warnings against its excessive use.

“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, a lead investigator of the trial and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

The findings have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, and on Friday, Dr. Mills is scheduled to present the data at an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.

Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.

For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes.

Source

[Fat_Daddy_Cool]

Christ no. I’ll be so pissed. Luckily it’s warming up so if they do come back I’ll just eat outside if we go out. Will have to set up the home gym again, because I sure as **** can’t work out in a mask. Tried it once and almost passed out.

I get the opposite, when training I find that with the mask I don't get dry winded. I did a cardio test because they said my heart got damaged when I got sick. Had to wear a mask for the test, I was terrified that I was going to pass out because I would not be able to get enough air. Opposite happened I found that I could breathe easier and didn't get that dry ache in my chest and then the stitch in my back and side.

[Canesfan2020]

if you bothered to read the CSIS report on the united front you wouldnt need to ask that question(i know i posted the link a couple times in this thread) The facts and evidence seem to indicate that the communist government knew about the severity of it while neglecting to tell the rest of the world. They were to busy ordering there pawns to loot our supply of ppe before it hit here.

Again just to reiterate, this isnt some youtube info, comes from fox news, rebel media etc. It comes for our own domestic intelligence agency

So theres no evidence that they created it, but theres sure as hell lots to indicate there was something sketchy going on for the latter.

Further investigation of that report indicates it's nothing more than Trump administration mud slinging.

Because chyyyyy na

The timelines in their report don't match what the WHO said.

They claim china hid it most of January when china reported it in December, for example.

China reported it as a novel virus at the beginning of January. That's not most of January either.

We also don't know how much of it was their doctors self censoring.

[Higgy10]

Further investigation of that report indicates it's nothing more than Trump administration mud slinging.

Because chyyyyy na

The timelines in their report don't match what the WHO said.

They claim china hid it most of January when china reported it in December, for example.

China reported it as a novel virus at the beginning of January. That's not most of January either.

We also don't know how much of it was their doctors self censoring.

im unaware that the canadian security intelligence services report had anything to do with trump. Feel free to provide some evidence to support that claim or anything really that counters there report other because chyyyna

[Greasy]

Wasn't it Gyyna?

[Canesfan2020]

im unaware that the canadian security intelligence services report had anything to do with trump. Feel free to provide some evidence to support that claim or anything really that counters there report other because chyyyna

I was thinking about the DHS one. They all basically say the same things. Aside from timelines not matching, if the numbers here are correct then hoarding doesn't fit either.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/covid-19-chinas-exports-medical-supplies-provide-ray-hope#_ftn1

[12Bass]

https://www.techarp.com/science/pfizer-mrna-vaccine-dna-facts/

Did scientists prove that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine combined with the DNA of liver cells?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combined With DNA In Liver Cells!

Anti-vaccination and ivermectin proponents have gone bananas over the new study from the Lund University in Sweden.

They are sharing it as evidence (finally!) of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine actually integrating with our DNA, and changing our genome, as they had always claimed.

Let that shock and horror sink in for a minute… and then let me explain to you what the facts really are in the next section…

...

Fact #7 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Modify Our Genes

An mRNA vaccine only contains a limited number of lipid nanoparticles containing those delicate mRNA instructions. So only a limited number of cells are involved in the vaccination process.

Even if it is somehow possible for the mRNA instructions from the vaccine to enter the cell nucleus and integrate with the DNA inside, it will only affect those cells.

Our cells die and are replaced by new cells all the time, so even if hypothetically the vaccine “infects” and modifies the DNA of a few hundred thousand cells, those cells will eventually die and be replaced by new cells without the modified DNA.

It is simply not possible for mRNA vaccines to modify our genes.

Fact #8 : Viruses Integrate With Cell DNA

Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 (diagram below) integrate their genes with the host cell DNA, to hijack the cell and use it to produce copies of itself.

You can see how a typical RNA virus would infect a host cell, convert its RNA into DNA which is moved into the cell nucleus using the integrase enzyme.

Once inside, the viral DNA integrates with the host cell DNA, which gets transcribed into instructions for the cell to produce copies of the virus.

This is the same way how the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects our cells, to produce copies of itself to infect even more cells.

If you are truly worried about anything modifying your cell’s DNA, you should try to avoid viral infections like COVID-19. Better still – vaccinate yourself, and get protected against COVID-19!

[KAC]

[Ziklitschli]

At some point after 1st wave of vaccination, every 2nd random person I met seemed to be telling me about someone they know who died/ got cancer/ got complications because of the vaccine. I looked down on them a bit, like hey hysterical much, did everyone turn to shamanism or sth.

Now, literally half of my family who took Pfizer had their health significantly deteriorate in weeks to a month after the vaccine. The healthy pair in their 60s, he had a stroke she brain aneurysm, went from through hikes to hospitals and rehabilitation. Another woman in her 60s got bad arthritis straight out of it, the only one where it was suggested that it's Pfizer as probable cause. My father needed heart surgery, had a sharp worsening of very mild problem.

Now ofc it's only few anecdotes, and one can make a solid case for all of these being unrelated, especially given their age. Have to say though, a slight uncertainty makes me feel a bit bad about pushing my father to vaccinate. The cardiologist didn't help either, asking my father "why the f did you vaccinate, all we do is repair hearts now". He's a proper anti vaxxer too heh, or maybe we are a nation of natural born anti vaxxers, IDK.

[Drunken Janitor]

At some point after 1st wave of vaccination, every 2nd random person I met seemed to be telling me about someone they know who died/ got cancer/ got complications because of the vaccine. I looked down on them a bit, like hey hysterical much, did everyone turn to shamanism or sth.

Now, literally half of my family who took Pfizer had their health significantly deteriorate in weeks to a month after the vaccine. The healthy pair in their 60s, he had a stroke she brain aneurysm, went from through hikes to hospitals and rehabilitation. Another woman in her 60s got bad arthritis straight out of it, the only one where it was suggested that it's Pfizer as probable cause. My father needed heart surgery, had a sharp worsening of very mild problem.

Now ofc it's only few anecdotes, and one can make a solid case for all of these being unrelated, especially given their age. Have to say though, a slight uncertainty makes me feel a bit bad about pushing my father to vaccinate. The cardiologist didn't help either, asking my father "why the f did you vaccinate, all we do is repair hearts now". He's a proper anti vaxxer too heh, or maybe we are a nation of natural born anti vaxxers, IDK.

I don't know what to tell you. I haven't experienced this at all and we have many older family and friends who have been vaccinated with Pfizer and Moderna. Yes, my uncle did die in January. He had lymphoma. He also had quadruple by-pass in 2010, was 100 lbs over weight, drank pretty hard, smoked a pack and a half a day since he was 12 (sorta stopped after the by-pass) and ignored the symptoms of his cancer which had started before he received any covid vaccines. My wife's great aunt who has had a heart attack a few years ago and a failed stent put in didn't have any problems with any 3 of the shots. He 93 year old grandfather who had several strokes in the early 2000s didn't have a problem either. Her father who just had heart valve replacement in December has had a shot of AstraZenica, Moderna and Pfizer. Since the surgery, he has made a very good recovery at this point. More energy than he has had in several years.

[Ziklitschli]

Don't know what to tell myself either heh

Yes the other 4 in our family were good too, also 3 shots, one had 1 heart attack before and the other 2. But the drop in health in unison after the sheer amount of anecdotes suprised me, as did the number of health professionals opposed to vaccination when talking in private.

Just posting what happened, treat as another anecdote.

[ugly]

Stephen Wilhite, creator of the GIF, has died of COVID

Struggling to sleep following a COVID-19 infection? You’re not alone, experts say

"But even since I've stopped coughing, I've noticed this very, very interrupted sleep pattern."

Jen says she's able to fall asleep reasonably quickly, but often finds herself awake two hours later.

She struggles to get back to sleep and stay asleep for more than an hour, before abruptly waking again — a cycle that repeats itself throughout the night.

"I try strategies to get back to sleep, knowing that I've got work the next day and I'm feeling really tired … but I just really struggle, it's very frustrating."

Early mornings, which used to be the most productive part of her day, are now noticeably slower, on account of feeling "dozy".

Sleep disturbances are a well-documented symptom of long COVID, which is generally regarded as the persistence (or emergence) of symptoms at least three months after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But respiratory and sleep physician Megan Rees says people can also experience sleep problems during the acute phase of a COVID-19 infection and in the weeks and months that follow.

When it comes to sleep disturbances, Dr Rees says people recently recovering from COVID-19 — and those diagnosed with long COVID — experience "a mixture of problems".

"There seems to be a bit of insomnia, so difficulty being able to sleep at the time that you want, but also feeling tired and wanting to sleep during the daytime," she says.

"In addition to that, there is what we call 'phase delay' or a disruption to your natural circadian rhythm.

"People aren't always finding it easy to be awake at the time they usually like to be awake, and have difficulty being asleep at the time they want to be asleep."

Vitamin D Supplements for Prevention of Covid-19 or other Acute Respiratory Infections: a Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial (CORONAVIT)

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D metabolites support innate immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Randomized controlled trials of vitamin D to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not yet reported.

METHODS: We randomly assigned 6200 U.K. adults to receive an offer of a postal finger-prick 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) test with provision of a 6-month supply of higher-dose vitamin D (3200 IU/d, n=1550) or lower-dose vitamin D (800 IU/d, n=1550) to those with blood 25(OH)D concentration <75 nmol/L, vs. no offer of testing or supplementation (n=3100). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing at least one swab test- or doctor-confirmed acute respiratory infection (ARI) of any cause at six months. Secondary outcomes included incidence of swab test-confirmed Covid-19.

RESULTS: Of 3100 participants offered testing, 2958 (95.4%) accepted, and 2690 (86.8%) had 25(OH)D <75 nmol/L and were sent vitamin D supplements (1356 higher-dose, 1334 lower-dose). 76 (5.0%) vs. 87 (5.7%) vs. 136 (4.6%) participants in higher-dose vs. lower-dose vs. no-offer groups experienced at least one ARI of any cause (odds ratio [OR] for higher-dose vs. no-offer 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.46; lower-dose vs. no-offer 1.26, 0.96-1.66). 45 (3.0%) vs. 55 (3.6%) vs. 78 (2.6%) participants in higher-dose vs. lower-dose vs. no-offer groups developed Covid-19 (OR for higher-dose vs. no-offer 1.13, 0.78-1.63; lower-dose vs. no-offer 1.39, 0.98-1.97).

CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with a high baseline prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency, implementation of a test-and-treat approach to vitamin D replacement did not reduce risk of all-cause ARI or Covid-19.

[shrike126]

So yeah, surviving an infection (beyond the obvious of having to survive it first) doesn't seem to confer anything resembling an enhanced protection against future infection.

Unvaccinated have little protection after omicron infection, study finds

So-called "natural immunity" against COVID-19 has always been a dodgy argument for avoiding vaccination during the pandemic. But amid omicron, natural immunity is clearly rubbish.

Unvaccinated people who have recovered from an infection with the omicron coronavirus variant are left with paltry levels of neutralizing antibodies against omicron and almost no neutralizing antibodies against any of five other coronavirus variants, including delta. People who were vaccinated before getting an omicron infection, on the other hand, have strong protection against all five variants, and they are among the highest levels of neutralizing antibodies seen against omicron.

That's all according to a new study surveying neutralizing antibody profiles in people who have all recovered from an omicron infection, with or without pre-existing immunity. The study was published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine by a team of Austrian researchers. The researchers were led by virologist Janine Kimpel of the Medical University of Innsbruck.

Overall, the findings highlight that omicron is "an extremely potent immune-escape variant that shows little cross-reactivity with the earlier variants," the authors conclude. As such, unvaccinated people who have recovered from an omicron infection might not have protection from other variants. "For full protection, vaccination is warranted," they conclude.

The findings and conclusion are likely to rekindle discussion on the importance of "natural immunity," which is immune protection following an infection rather than vaccination.


Some who oppose getting COVID-19 shots argue that their prior infections gave them equal—if not superior—immunity to the pandemic coronavirus compared with vaccination. However, experts have repeatedly noted that while past infection can offer protection, that protection is not always strong and can vary widely from person to person. That is, some people who recover from COVID-19 have weak immune protection, particularly if they had mild infections. Vaccination, meanwhile, offers relatively consistent and high-levels of protection. Moreover, so-called hybrid protection—getting vaccinated after an infection—offers some of the highest levels of protection.

Source

[12Bass]

So yeah, surviving an infection (beyond the obvious of having to survive it first) doesn't seem to confer anything resembling an enhanced protection against future infection.

No mention of FREEDUMB... bogus!

[SD-[Inc]]

I am on day 11 of my infection and still not done with it. Hasn't really been scary thanks to my boosted state. But it is annoying and taking forever to clear up. The weirdest symptom I had was two days of blurred vision. It seemed like I needed a new prescription for my glasses. Luckily it cleared up and I am back to normal for me.

[acroig]

I am on day 11 of my infection and still not done with it. Hasn't really been scary thanks to my boosted state. But it is annoying and taking forever to clear up. The weirdest symptom I had was two days of blurred vision. It seemed like I needed a new prescription for my glasses. Luckily it cleared up and I am back to normal for me.

How strange

[SD-[Inc]]

How strange

It might be a BA.2 thing as I infected my wife and she is having the same problem. (I assume that’s the strain that got me).

[ugly]

The African paradox might simply be that they didn't count a lot of COVID deaths: Morgue data hint at COVID’s true toll in Africa

Lawal and other scientists speculated2 that the relative youth of Africa’s population might have helped to spare the continent, but also suspected that official numbers were under-reported. The question was by how much.

Seeking answers, Gill and his colleagues in Zambia tested bodies in one of Lusaka’s largest morgues for SARS-CoV-2 over several months in 2020 and 2021. Test positivity was 32&#37; overall — and reached around 90% during the peak of the waves caused by the Beta and Delta variants. Moreover, only 10% of the people whose bodies were found to contain the virus after death had tested positive while still alive. Some had falsely tested negative, but most had never been tested at all.

Although Gill and his colleagues can’t confirm that all of these people died of COVID-19, the results still stand in sharp contrast to official numbers. So far, there have been fewer than 4,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Zambia, a country of around 19 million people. Separate findings published on 10 March suggest that Zambia’s ‘excess’ deaths — those above what would usually be expected — from 1 January 2020 to the end of 2021 exceeded 80,0003.

The Lusaka numbers mesh with statistics from South Africa, where a 2021 study found that only 4–6% of SARS-CoV-2 infections in two communities were officially documented4. Further study of the same communities showed that 62% of study participants had been infected at least once from July 2020 to August 20215. Co-author Cheryl Cohen, an epidemiologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, says that many of these infections were asymptomatic, but that people with symptoms might also have gone undetected because of the cost and difficulty of getting tested.

Gill suspects that a major reason for the gap between his results and official counts is that most people in Zambia who die of COVID-19 do so outside medical care. Four out of five people tested in the study were never admitted to a hospital; the majority of unreported infections were in people living in Lusaka’s lowest-income neighbourhoods.

“Nobody’s vaccinated. Nobody has masks. Nobody has access to the medical care they need,” says Gill. “We’re in a population that is already stressed and unhealthy, and then — bam! In comes COVID.”

[koralis]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/pfizer-moderna-vaccines-spur-slightly-different-antibodies-study-finds/

Both vaccines generate strong levels of neutralizing antibodies, which can bind to the virus and prevent it from infecting cells. But, according to the study, the vaccines generated different antibody profiles overall. Specifically, the antibody response to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine skewed to a class of antibodies called IgG and IgM, which are often found in the blood.

The Moderna vaccine, meanwhile, generated relatively elevated levels of IgA antibodies, a class of antibodies generally found on mucosal surfaces, such as the respiratory tract—where SARS-CoV-2 infections begin. Additionally, the Moderna vaccine spurred relatively higher levels of antibodies that activate immune cells called natural killer cells. It also generated higher levels of antibodies that activate immune cells called neutrophils to ingest and kill (phagocytize) invading germs.

...

In the meantime, the findings make a case for people to mix-and-match mRNA vaccine boosters, particularly if they've started with doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Switching to a different vaccine for a future booster could diversify antibody responses, providing broader protection.

[Greasy]

Interesting. I wonder if our local pharmacy offers both? I'll have to look into that, and see if I can get Moderna if I need another booster.

[Java Cool Dude]

It's Thursday which means that once again we find out that Ivermectin does not work against COVID-19

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

[SubCog]

It's Thursday which means that once again we find out that Ivermectin does not work against COVID-19
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Yes, but that study didn't test using ivermectin while turning counter-clockwise 3 times and then standing on your head.

[Crawdaddy79]

I mean, the argument is still there. According to the text, they only tested on vaccinated patients. Even then, according to Figure 2, Ivermectin does have pretty consistent positive effect.

[Jay20016]

[ugly]

Since ivermectin has failed, can we go back to hydroxychloroquine?

Nope: Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE – Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Summary
Background
Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers.

Methods
We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540.

Findings
From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52–1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53–1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57–1·04]).

Interpretation
In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

[shrike126]

Big pharma and the MSM continue to lie; the true COVID-19 cure is a mix of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which they REFUSE to test!). Just don't be a SHEEP and get that DNA-altering experimental "vaccine". TRUST social media, where you can do your OWN research.

At first I 'ed but then I 'ed.

[Lazy8s]

I mean, the argument is still there. According to the text, they only tested on vaccinated patients. Even then, according to Figure 2, Ivermectin does have pretty consistent positive effect.

This study shows Ivermectin as being very effective in non-vaccinated subjects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3789500/