The data is out there. It’s not “magical thinking” induced by fear. If anything, I’d say people considering a 4th or 5th booster are engaging in fear induced reasoning, in my opinion, literally being coerced by the state to comply or lose their ability to provide for themselves and their family.
So now the vaccine narrative is shifting from “it will stop the pandemic” to “its llike a flu shot”.
How can anyone justify denying early treatment works, reducing access to the early treatments in favor of mandating a product that does not work as promised?
We should make everything available and let patient/doctor decided, not a one-size fits all mandate and censorship of any questioning of authorities (who have been dramatically wrong over and over).
Ivermectin has small but severe incidences of side effects, and the dosage at which it would need to be administered as a covid prophylatic make those more likely, and the totality of studies is mixed.
The website you cite with 75 studies does not recommend ivermectin as a replacement for vaccines.
The news article you cite, contrary to your claims, does not claim a 4th booster is “ineffective.” It says that it does indeed defend but not as effectively against omicron.
Your interpretation is “the narrative” is just a handful of vague claims being interpreted in bad faith, and ignores underlying context: there was a period when it was possible to keep the pandemic under control, and that opportunity slipped away due to a combination of antivax misinformation and public resistance, which is not the same thing as a vaccine not working.
Here is latest observational study showing efficacy of Ivermectin: https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
Not enough? Here are 75 other studies: https://ivmmeta.com/
The data is out there. It’s not “magical thinking” induced by fear. If anything, I’d say people considering a 4th or 5th booster are engaging in fear induced reasoning, in my opinion, literally being coerced by the state to comply or lose their ability to provide for themselves and their family.
New study from Isreal acknowledges 4th booster is ineffective at preventing infection from omicron: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/israel-study-4th-vaccine-shows-limited-results-omicron-82312196
So now the vaccine narrative is shifting from “it will stop the pandemic” to “its llike a flu shot”.
How can anyone justify denying early treatment works, reducing access to the early treatments in favor of mandating a product that does not work as promised?
We should make everything available and let patient/doctor decided, not a one-size fits all mandate and censorship of any questioning of authorities (who have been dramatically wrong over and over).
Ivermectin has small but severe incidences of side effects, and the dosage at which it would need to be administered as a covid prophylatic make those more likely, and the totality of studies is mixed.
The website you cite with 75 studies does not recommend ivermectin as a replacement for vaccines.
The news article you cite, contrary to your claims, does not claim a 4th booster is “ineffective.” It says that it does indeed defend but not as effectively against omicron.
Your interpretation is “the narrative” is just a handful of vague claims being interpreted in bad faith, and ignores underlying context: there was a period when it was possible to keep the pandemic under control, and that opportunity slipped away due to a combination of antivax misinformation and public resistance, which is not the same thing as a vaccine not working.
You’re an antivax crank.