COVID 'Lambda' Variant Showing Vaccine Resistence
- Thread starter Micky Mikey
- Start date
One of the biggest outcomes of this pandemic is completely ignorant, untrained people reading medical documents and then interpreting them in whatever bullshyt way suits their interests.
Addressing how your product will limit DNA damage is a normal part of such an application. Breh, fukking bacon and hot dogs can change your cell's DNA. Sunlight can change your cell's DNA. Tobacco can change your cell's DNA. Barbeque, fermented foods, alcohol, paint fumes, coal factories and other pollution, asbestos, wood dust, hanging out in a dentist/doctor office, chemicals in your drinking water, and any viral infection can change your cell's DNA. Every fukking day you're exposed to all sorts of shyt that could potentially change your cell's DNA.
Since ANY substance is potentially carcinogenic, Moderna is required to address that potential in its application document. THAT is what you are seeing. The fact that Moderna is required to explain how it limits risk of DNA damage doesn't mean, "Oh look they're admitting there's DNA damage!", it's just a NORMAL thing they should tell you as part of the application.
You, not understanding that, literally interpreted that document saying that the vaccine doesn't change your DNA to mean, "IT MUST BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO CHANGE YOUR DNA OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY THAT IT DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR DNA!!!!" Which is just an ignorant way to read the statement.
The facts are that mRNA vaccines have NOTHING to do with gene therapy and their effects have NOTHING to do with changing your cell's DNA. The mRNA doesn't even enter the nucleus of the cell where the DNA is stored. It has NO effects on your cells that Covid itself wouldn't have, indeed far less.
This article distinguishes between mRNA vaccines that DON'T change your DNA, other viruses that can change your DNA, and gene therapy.
Covid-19 Vaccines Can’t Alter Your DNA, Here’s Why
Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day
Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use
Ivermectin, a drug used to fight parasites in third-world countries, could help reduce the length of infection for people who contract coronavirus for less than a $1 a day, according to recent research by Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer.
Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba, conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial from May 15, 2020, through the end of January 2021 to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin in reducing viral shedding among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1987. The drug’s discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine for its treatment of onchocerciasis, a disease caused by infection with a parasitic roundworm.
Over the years, it has been used for other indications, including scabies and head lice. Moreover, in the last decade, several clinical studies have started to show its antiviral activity against viruses ranging from HIV and the flu to Zika and West Nile.
Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1987. The drug’s discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine for its treatment of onchocerciasis, a disease caused by infection with a parasitic roundworm.
Over the years, it has been used for other indications, including scabies and head lice. Moreover, in the last decade, several clinical studies have started to show its antiviral activity against viruses ranging from HIV and the flu to Zika and West Nile.
The drug is also extremely economical. A study published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics showed that the cost of ivermectin for other treatments in Bangladesh is around $0.60 to $1.80 for a five-day course. It costs up to $10 a day in Israel, Schwartz said.
In Schwartz’s study, some 89 eligible volunteers over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with coronavirus and staying in state-run COVID-19 hotels were divided into two groups: 50% received ivermectin, and 50% received a placebo, according to their weight. They were given the pills for three days in a row, an hour before a meal.
The volunteers were tested using a standard nasopharyngeal swab PCR test with the goal of evaluating whether there was a reduction in viral load by the sixth day – the third day after termination of the treatment. They were swabbed every two days.
Nearly 72% of volunteers treated with ivermectin tested negative for the virus by day six. In contrast, only 50% of those who received the placebo tested negative.
IN ADDITION, the study looked at culture viability, meaning how infectious the patients were, and found that only 13% of ivermectin patients were infectious after six days, compared with 50% of the placebo group – almost four times as many.
“Our study shows first and foremost that ivermectin has antiviral activity,” Schwartz said. “It also shows that there is almost a 100% chance that a person will be noninfectious in four to six days, which could lead to shortening isolation time for these people. This could have a huge economic and social impact.”
The study appeared on the MedRxiv health-research sharing site. It has not yet been peer reviewed.
Schwartz said other similar studies – though not all of them conducted to the same double-blind and placebo standards as his – also showed a favorable impact of ivermectin treatment.
His study did not prove ivermectin was effective as a prophylactic, meaning that it could prevent disease, he cautioned, nor did it show that it reduces the chances of hospitalization. However, other studies have shown such evidence, he added.
For example, the study published earlier this year in the American Journal of Therapeuticshighlighted that “a review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin ‘demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy’ against COVID-19.”
“Another recent review found that ivermectin reduced deaths by 75%,” the report said.
Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use
Ivermectin, a drug used to fight parasites in third-world countries, could help reduce the length of infection for people who contract coronavirus for less than a $1 a day, according to recent research by Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer.
Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba, conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial from May 15, 2020, through the end of January 2021 to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin in reducing viral shedding among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1987. The drug’s discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine for its treatment of onchocerciasis, a disease caused by infection with a parasitic roundworm.
Over the years, it has been used for other indications, including scabies and head lice. Moreover, in the last decade, several clinical studies have started to show its antiviral activity against viruses ranging from HIV and the flu to Zika and West Nile.
Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1987. The drug’s discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine for its treatment of onchocerciasis, a disease caused by infection with a parasitic roundworm.
Over the years, it has been used for other indications, including scabies and head lice. Moreover, in the last decade, several clinical studies have started to show its antiviral activity against viruses ranging from HIV and the flu to Zika and West Nile.
The drug is also extremely economical. A study published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics showed that the cost of ivermectin for other treatments in Bangladesh is around $0.60 to $1.80 for a five-day course. It costs up to $10 a day in Israel, Schwartz said.
In Schwartz’s study, some 89 eligible volunteers over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with coronavirus and staying in state-run COVID-19 hotels were divided into two groups: 50% received ivermectin, and 50% received a placebo, according to their weight. They were given the pills for three days in a row, an hour before a meal.
The volunteers were tested using a standard nasopharyngeal swab PCR test with the goal of evaluating whether there was a reduction in viral load by the sixth day – the third day after termination of the treatment. They were swabbed every two days.
Nearly 72% of volunteers treated with ivermectin tested negative for the virus by day six. In contrast, only 50% of those who received the placebo tested negative.
IN ADDITION, the study looked at culture viability, meaning how infectious the patients were, and found that only 13% of ivermectin patients were infectious after six days, compared with 50% of the placebo group – almost four times as many.
“Our study shows first and foremost that ivermectin has antiviral activity,” Schwartz said. “It also shows that there is almost a 100% chance that a person will be noninfectious in four to six days, which could lead to shortening isolation time for these people. This could have a huge economic and social impact.”
The study appeared on the MedRxiv health-research sharing site. It has not yet been peer reviewed.
Schwartz said other similar studies – though not all of them conducted to the same double-blind and placebo standards as his – also showed a favorable impact of ivermectin treatment.
His study did not prove ivermectin was effective as a prophylactic, meaning that it could prevent disease, he cautioned, nor did it show that it reduces the chances of hospitalization. However, other studies have shown such evidence, he added.
For example, the study published earlier this year in the American Journal of Therapeuticshighlighted that “a review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin ‘demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy’ against COVID-19.”
“Another recent review found that ivermectin reduced deaths by 75%,” the report said.
BUT IVERMECTIN is not without controversy, and hence, despite the high levels of coronavirus worldwide, neither the FDA nor the World Health Organization have been willing to approve it for use in the fight against the virus.
Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias, a Hebrew University of Jerusalem researcher, has questioned the safety of the drug.
“Ivermectin is a chemical therapeutic agent, and it has significant risks associated with it,” he said in a previous interview. “We should be very cautious about using this type of medication to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment.”
During Schwartz’s study, there was not any signal of significant side effects among ivermectin users.
Only five patients were referred to hospitals, with four of them being in the placebo arm. One ivermectin patient went to the hospital complaining of shortness of breath on the day of recruitment. He continued with the ivermectin treatment and was sent back to the hotel a day later in good condition.
The FDA said on its website it “received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin.”
The “FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans,” it said. “Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses). Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.”
The World Health Organization has also recommended against using the drug except in clinical trials.
IN CONTRAST, Schwartz said he was very disappointed that the WHO did not support any trial to determine whether the drug could be viable.
Last month, Oxford University announced a large trial on ivermectin effectiveness.
Schwartz said he became interested in exploring ivermectin about a year ago, “when everyone was looking for a new drug” to treat COVID-19, and a lot of effort was being put into evaluating hydroxychloroquine, so he decided to join the effort.
“Since ivermectin was on my shelf, since we are using it for tropical diseases, and there were hints it might work, I decided to go for it,” he said.
Researchers in other places worldwide began looking into the drug at around the same time. But when they started to see positive results, no one wanted to publish them, Schwartz said.
“There is a lot of opposition,” he said. “We tried to publish it, and it was kicked away by three journals. No one even wanted to hear about it. You have to ask how come when the world is suffering.”
“This drug will not bring any big economic profits,” and so Big Pharma doesn’t want to deal with it, he said.
SOME OF the loudest opposition to ivermectin has come from Merck Co., which manufactured the drug in the 1980s. In a public statement about ivermectin on its website in February, it said: “Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to date, our analysis has identified no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”
But Merck has not launched any studies of its own on ivermectin.
“You would think Merck would be happy to hear that ivermectin might be helpful to corona patients and try to study it, but they are most loudly declaring the drug should not be used,” Schwartz said. “A billion people took it. They gave it to them. It’s a real shame.”
And not moving forward with ivermectin could potentially extend the time it takes for the world to be able to live alongside the virus, he said.
“Developing new medications can take years; therefore, identifying existing drugs that can be re-purposed against COVID-19 [and] that already have an established safety profile through decades of use could play a critical role in suppressing or even ending the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” wrote the researchers in the American Journal of Therapeutics. “Using re-purposed medications may be especially important because it could take months, possibly years, for much of the world’s population to get vaccinated, particularly among low- to middle-income populations.”
Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias, a Hebrew University of Jerusalem researcher, has questioned the safety of the drug.
“Ivermectin is a chemical therapeutic agent, and it has significant risks associated with it,” he said in a previous interview. “We should be very cautious about using this type of medication to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment.”
During Schwartz’s study, there was not any signal of significant side effects among ivermectin users.
Only five patients were referred to hospitals, with four of them being in the placebo arm. One ivermectin patient went to the hospital complaining of shortness of breath on the day of recruitment. He continued with the ivermectin treatment and was sent back to the hotel a day later in good condition.
The FDA said on its website it “received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin.”
The “FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans,” it said. “Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses). Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.”
The World Health Organization has also recommended against using the drug except in clinical trials.
IN CONTRAST, Schwartz said he was very disappointed that the WHO did not support any trial to determine whether the drug could be viable.
Last month, Oxford University announced a large trial on ivermectin effectiveness.
Schwartz said he became interested in exploring ivermectin about a year ago, “when everyone was looking for a new drug” to treat COVID-19, and a lot of effort was being put into evaluating hydroxychloroquine, so he decided to join the effort.
“Since ivermectin was on my shelf, since we are using it for tropical diseases, and there were hints it might work, I decided to go for it,” he said.
Researchers in other places worldwide began looking into the drug at around the same time. But when they started to see positive results, no one wanted to publish them, Schwartz said.
“There is a lot of opposition,” he said. “We tried to publish it, and it was kicked away by three journals. No one even wanted to hear about it. You have to ask how come when the world is suffering.”
“This drug will not bring any big economic profits,” and so Big Pharma doesn’t want to deal with it, he said.
SOME OF the loudest opposition to ivermectin has come from Merck Co., which manufactured the drug in the 1980s. In a public statement about ivermectin on its website in February, it said: “Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to date, our analysis has identified no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”
But Merck has not launched any studies of its own on ivermectin.
“You would think Merck would be happy to hear that ivermectin might be helpful to corona patients and try to study it, but they are most loudly declaring the drug should not be used,” Schwartz said. “A billion people took it. They gave it to them. It’s a real shame.”
And not moving forward with ivermectin could potentially extend the time it takes for the world to be able to live alongside the virus, he said.
“Developing new medications can take years; therefore, identifying existing drugs that can be re-purposed against COVID-19 [and] that already have an established safety profile through decades of use could play a critical role in suppressing or even ending the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” wrote the researchers in the American Journal of Therapeutics. “Using re-purposed medications may be especially important because it could take months, possibly years, for much of the world’s population to get vaccinated, particularly among low- to middle-income populations.”
My boy got Covid after going to a music festival and he got Pfizer months ago
so what
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,040
- Daps
- 122,416
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
getmoney310cpt said:
That was entirely refuted here:
Bro it doesnt matter what you post to groups who no matter what will defend this experimental vaccine, no matter what study. You're wrong they are right, you not a expert and are misconstruing/misunderstanding/ignorant (but they are? enough to tell you you're wrong.). Look at the "ding" I got, for supposedly innappropiate behavior, even though I did nothing of the sort.
Reign_Of_The_Most_High,
Your actions in this message (COVID 'Lambda' Variant Showing Vaccine Resistence) are not appropriate. We cannot allow users to be abusive, overly aggressive, threatening, or to "troll". This does not follow our rules. Your message may have been removed or altered.
Your account's access may be limited based on these actions. Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site.
Please review the following links to make sure you are aware of our site rules.
Terms and Rules
Forum Rules
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,040
- Daps
- 122,416
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Reign_Of_The_Most_High said:
First and foremost you should use terms accurately.
Definition of experiment
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: TEST, TRIAL make another experiment of his suspicion— William Shakespeare
b: a tentative procedure or policy
c: an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE
3: the process of testing : EXPERIMENTATION
As such, you are mis-characterizing the vaccines. Those 'Authorized for Emergency Use' have already completed trials and further evaluations/testing for safety and efficacy as of December 10, 2020, so, are no longer 'experimental'.....
Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Publication of Results from Landmark Phase 3 Trial of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate in The New England Journal of Medicine | pfpfizeruscom
Your entire stance stems from a very flawed understanding of the subject which is why you're always wrong.
Your entire stance stems from a very flawed understanding of the subject which is why you're always wrong.
The truly stupid shyt is people really talking like they have 100%trust in Phizer in a vaccine they rushed out
And Phizer paying billions for multiple class action settlements for products they put out that killed people and gave them cancer, etc. And Phizer knowingly kept the products on the market even after they knew it was doing so
And Phizer paying billions for multiple class action settlements for products they put out that killed people and gave them cancer, etc. And Phizer knowingly kept the products on the market even after they knew it was doing so
Last edited:
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,040
- Daps
- 122,416
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Nat King Krueger said:
The vaccine wasn't rushed, though. That's one 'fatal' flaw in your argument. Another that makes your argument invalid is that NOTHING works as well as the vaccines at preventing infection from COVID so it isn't a matter of 'trusting' the manufacturers. The results from the trials, the actual 'experiments' performed and completed last year, proved the vaccines work and are safe.
HarlemHottie
Uptown Thoroughbred
The article disingenuously takes advantage of the lay persons ignorance. Ppl are concerned that there could be long term deleterious effects, period. They don't know enough to ask the question properly.Mrna does, in fact, degrade after a short period. But it can still cause problems and disease. The problems occur during the transcription process.
Theoretically, the administration of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA sequence can cause a cell to make a protein, which in turn could directly treat a disease or could function as a vaccine; more indirectly the protein could drive an endogenous stem cell to differentiate in a desired way.
Messenger RNA - Wikipedia
And here's a paper about the myriad diseases caused by poorly transcripted mrna.
Cellular functions depend on numerous protein-coding and non-coding RNAs and the RNA-binding proteins associated with them, which form ribonucleoprotein complexes (RNPs). Mutations that disrupt either the RNA or protein components of RNPs or the factors required for their assembly can be deleterious. Alternative splicing provides cells with an exquisite capacity to fine-tune their transcriptome and proteome in response to cues
RNA and Disease
Table 1- Trans-acting mutations affecting RNA-dependent functions that cause disease: RNA and Disease
It would be great if one of you educated folks could address these concerns.
Because the fact of the matter is fully, partially or unvaccinated people can all catch and transmit COVID.My boy got Covid after going to a music festival and he got Pfizer months ago
