even the cdc admits you can still shed the virus after vaccination.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention...
Did you know the little northern Michigan town of Elk Rapids, where the Antrim County vote was literally flipped 30% by the Dominion voting machines...
Same county where our governor owns a summer home and was caught breaking quarantine several times, and her husband tried to pull rank on a local marine company to get their boat in the water last spring, ahead of scheduled customers.
Nothing to see here, please move along.
even the cdc admits you can still shed the virus after vaccination.
A succinct general comment on "peer-review" and science: https://mobile.twitter.com/MarinaMed...47996362903555
Ignore the stupid subtitles.
Yes, I can relate to this.
I went to engineering school at Michigan Tech in the early '80s.
My high school offered auto shop, machine shop, wood shop, welding, we even had a foundry for cast aluminum.
I was rebuilding engines and transmissions at 17 years old.
When I graduated from engineering school, and went to work for 30 years, I could not believe that most of these people could not change a burned out light bulb in their car...
Contra ivermectin: the WHO living guideline. Pro ivermectin: FLCCC's meta and their rebuttal to WHO.
The WHO throws out most of the data, and then complains there is not enough data. (What remains suggests an 80% reduction in mortality.) Meanwhile, FLCCC slings accusations of criminality and bad science, but doesn't acknowledge the serious possibility of publication bias in their included studies. In other circumstances, we wouldn’t be discussing Dr. Niaee of Iran’s Qazvin University.
The WHO's guideline is more of a dictum than a serious reference. There are negative published metas, but they seem unsettled. For example, this one claimed an RR of 1.11 on May 25. Miscalculations were immediately noticed by the public, and the RR flipped to 0.37.
The FLCCC's meta is more comprehensive and careful, but it is too slick. Basically all of the studies have multiple endpoints, but only one is displayed. They are also tossing data that they don't like - and in some cases, going against the spirit of the original studies. For example, the Lopez-Medina study focused on mild cases, and found ivermectin ineffective, but the only outcome displayed is death. FLCCC has extreme reservations about Lopez-Medina, but then why include it at all? Their “1 in 2 trillion” statement is a gross misuse of p-values.
$3000/dose remdesivir got attention and funding which ivermectin did not, with neither promise nor effectiveness. However, it's easy to criticize Gilead in hindsight.
It seems like ivermectin reduces mortality, but is not nearly as effective as the mRNA vaccines. Those vaccines are proving robust to mutations, despite generating fewer kinds of antibodies than an actual infection. Meanwhile, a theoretical, in-vitro MOA of ivermectin is claimed to be robust.
In case any one is interested, https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/st...98488614842369
https://uncoverdc.com/2021/05/31/vac...a-big-mistake/
Just shaking my head.