Select to expand quoteairsail said..kiterboy said..airsail said..kiterboy said..airsail said..
The unvaxed will be in the minority...
Only until the long term vaccination experimental therapy issues that will cause mass drop offs happens.
But what if that doesn't happen kiterboy? With the rate of vaccination take up it is looking more and more unlikely.
Why does the rate of vaccination short term take up mean anything in regards to long term adverse effects looking more and more unlikely?
Long term is more than 3-6 months.
Pfizer was approved in Oz on the 25 Jan 2021, it has been approved for much longer overseas. So just taking Oz for instance, that's almost 7 months ago. You might want to edit your post as we are now past your long term.
Even I had my first AZ 4 months ago so I guess I'm part of the experiment too, oh, and no side effects at all long term.
Oh wow! 7 months...4 months!!!
That's definitely long term...
Approved was it? For what? Emergency use. Got that? It was approved for emergency use, bypassing all the long term trials to ensure any effects, positive or negative were as fully understood as could be, like any other bona fide vaccine should be handled.
All of the revision statements to the 'vaccines'' efficiency and effects that have come out since it's/their release into the greater population, clearly shows that the clinical trials are ongoing, just using the general population as willingly ignorant participants.
Uh, yeah, you are definitely part of the experiment, a model participant at that.
^ True. We only know the short-term effects of the vaccines, which are (practically) zero. Moderna's is "a sore arm".
We do however know the long term-effects of COVID. I personally know someone in their thirties who has lost most of her lung capacity. This is not uncommon.
Australia has been greatly spared. So far.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..evlPanda said..
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
No, it's not.
They're touted as being HIGHLY EFFECTIVE at preventing severe illness and death, not preventing all transmission -- the CDC acknowledges this.
Full vaccination in California is 53% (#21), Florida is 49% (#27); there are almost half as many states less vaccinated than Florida. Vermont has the highest number of vaccinated people, but leads the 14-day number of hospitalized, and is fourth for new cases.
As Florida has almost double the population of over 60s than California, and we know this disease is much worse the older you get, it would be surprising if hospitalizations weren't high.
...play with the State Trends: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
In favor of... what?
If you're talking about potential benefit vs risk of adverse reaction, then you need to understand that people have different risk adversity profiles that influences their decisions. It seems that a lot of the "very pro-vaccine whatever the costs" people have a strange calculus that boils the options down to a binary of "get infected with, or without, being vaccinated", like 90% of the population haven't managed to avoid it altogether.
Assessing the odds: we just had IFR on the previous pages -- 1 in 2000 chance of death to COVID for me, versus 1 in 520 death by vaccine (0.0005% vs 0.0019% according to CDC/VAERS). www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
You can see how people might struggle with the numbers.
Yes, that's what the media is saying but look at recent trends in the interactive map: it's all over the place. I'm remaining agnostic on that too.
Is it? To me it doesn't seem as simple as the media is making it out to be. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Kami.... I thought you were normally more accurate in your responses....
Your addition of all to Pandas comment has changed the context altogether.... From my limited understanding I believe it is correct that being vaccinated does greatly reduce the potential of transmission.... but I would also agree that it is a bit too early to say that with absolute certainty.... need more time to confirm data on that. No one is saying it will prevent all transmission or that every person will be equally protected by the vaccine.... its an impossible statement.
Also,.... from the link you provided.... the chance of death from the vaccine is not even close to the number you quoted. That number is how many people who have died from any cause and had also had the vaccine.....
More than 346 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 2, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.
Select to expand quoteEmeboy said..Kamikuza said..evlPanda said..
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
No, it's not.
They're touted as being HIGHLY EFFECTIVE at preventing severe illness and death, not preventing all transmission -- the CDC acknowledges this.
Full vaccination in California is 53% (#21), Florida is 49% (#27); there are almost half as many states less vaccinated than Florida. Vermont has the highest number of vaccinated people, but leads the 14-day number of hospitalized, and is fourth for new cases.
As Florida has almost double the population of over 60s than California, and we know this disease is much worse the older you get, it would be surprising if hospitalizations weren't high.
...play with the State Trends: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
In favor of... what?
If you're talking about potential benefit vs risk of adverse reaction, then you need to understand that people have different risk adversity profiles that influences their decisions. It seems that a lot of the "very pro-vaccine whatever the costs" people have a strange calculus that boils the options down to a binary of "get infected with, or without, being vaccinated", like 90% of the population haven't managed to avoid it altogether.
Assessing the odds: we just had IFR on the previous pages -- 1 in 2000 chance of death to COVID for me, versus 1 in 520 death by vaccine (0.0005% vs 0.0019% according to CDC/VAERS). www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
You can see how people might struggle with the numbers.
Yes, that's what the media is saying but look at recent trends in the interactive map: it's all over the place. I'm remaining agnostic on that too.
Is it? To me it doesn't seem as simple as the media is making it out to be. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Kami.... I thought you were normally more accurate in your responses....
Your addition of all to Pandas comment has changed the context altogether.... From my limited understanding I believe it is correct that being vaccinated does greatly reduce the potential of transmission.... but I would also agree that it is a bit too early to say that with absolute certainty.... need more time to confirm data on that. No one is saying it will prevent all transmission or that every person will be equally protected by the vaccine.... its an impossible statement.
Also,.... from the link you provided.... the chance of death from the vaccine is not even close to the number you quoted. That number is how many people who have died from any cause and had also had the vaccine.....
More than 346 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 2, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.
A simple way to work out the numbers is to divide the total doses by the number of deaths 346million / 6490 = 53312
So there was 1 death per 53312 doses, including unrelated deaths as you say.
Select to expand quotesun fisher said..Emeboy said..Kamikuza said..evlPanda said..
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
No, it's not.
They're touted as being HIGHLY EFFECTIVE at preventing severe illness and death, not preventing all transmission -- the CDC acknowledges this.
Full vaccination in California is 53% (#21), Florida is 49% (#27); there are almost half as many states less vaccinated than Florida. Vermont has the highest number of vaccinated people, but leads the 14-day number of hospitalized, and is fourth for new cases.
As Florida has almost double the population of over 60s than California, and we know this disease is much worse the older you get, it would be surprising if hospitalizations weren't high.
...play with the State Trends: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
In favor of... what?
If you're talking about potential benefit vs risk of adverse reaction, then you need to understand that people have different risk adversity profiles that influences their decisions. It seems that a lot of the "very pro-vaccine whatever the costs" people have a strange calculus that boils the options down to a binary of "get infected with, or without, being vaccinated", like 90% of the population haven't managed to avoid it altogether.
Assessing the odds: we just had IFR on the previous pages -- 1 in 2000 chance of death to COVID for me, versus 1 in 520 death by vaccine (0.0005% vs 0.0019% according to CDC/VAERS). www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
You can see how people might struggle with the numbers.
Yes, that's what the media is saying but look at recent trends in the interactive map: it's all over the place. I'm remaining agnostic on that too.
Is it? To me it doesn't seem as simple as the media is making it out to be. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Kami.... I thought you were normally more accurate in your responses....
Your addition of all to Pandas comment has changed the context altogether.... From my limited understanding I believe it is correct that being vaccinated does greatly reduce the potential of transmission.... but I would also agree that it is a bit too early to say that with absolute certainty.... need more time to confirm data on that. No one is saying it will prevent all transmission or that every person will be equally protected by the vaccine.... its an impossible statement.
Also,.... from the link you provided.... the chance of death from the vaccine is not even close to the number you quoted. That number is how many people who have died from any cause and had also had the vaccine.....
More than 346 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 2, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.
A simple way to work out the numbers is to divide the total doses by the number of deaths 346million / 6490 = 53312
So there was 1 death per 53312 doses, including unrelated deaths as you say.
So far...
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
We only know the short-term effects of the vaccines, which are (practically) zero.
I love it!
It's certainly looking like that more every day. 
Look, I'm not debating that SARS-COV2 is a nasty piece of s**t.
I wouldn't wish the gamble of contracting it on anyone.
However I'd rather do my best at avoiding getting it as much as possible before submitting to a desperation gamble on unproven, rushed out therapies being peddled by pharmaceutical companies with a history of deceit and indifference to the harm and suffering they cause, that are looking less reliable every day.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..psychojoe said..Mr Milk said..
I'm a bit puzzled by the people in here who bang on about the "experimental" vaccine and potential side effects in the future. By and large, they're the same people who were pro nuclear power in HW. Why are they suddenly so scared of risks?
Well, there's only 118 elements on the periodic table and a person who understands all of them can reliably predict a nuclear outcome.
But can you reliably predict the integrity of a waste storage vessel? A problem that gets caused by a dose of vaccine will be pretty reliably limited to the person who gets it.
I wasn't saying that to push the anti Vax agenda.
Get the vaccine, vaccines save lives, even these second rate current vaccines are mostly saving lives, but do it because you chose to, not because you were forced or coerced or in any way manipulated. That said, and just to play devil's advocate, the possibility of post vaccination shedding causing problems may exist.
A smarter man than me suggested the waste can be repurposed instead of just stored but his understanding of nuclear power was so far beyond my grasp that I just went and had a beer and forgot most of what he said. Maybe he was right. Who knows.
Select to expand quotesun fisher said..
You should check your maths there.
A 0.0019% rate equates to approx 1:52631.
Also in australia with total cases of around 36630 there have been 940 deaths, or about 1:39 (about 2.5%)
Thanks. Then both my ratios are out by a factor of 100, but still correct relative to each other.
That's your case fatality ratio, which is of course going to be higher than the infection fatality ratio I used from the CDC.
As far as CFR goes, we've seen just recently that even those figures are susceptible to errors...
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..sun fisher said..
You should check your maths there.
A 0.0019% rate equates to approx 1:52631.
Also in australia with total cases of around 36630 there have been 940 deaths, or about 1:39 (about 2.5%)
Thanks. Then both my ratios are out by a factor of 100, but still correct relative to each other.
That's your case fatality ratio, which is of course going to be higher than the infection fatality ratio I used from the CDC.
As far as CFR goes, we've seen just recently that even those figures are susceptible to errors...
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I want you to be aware of what the numbers actually mean.
You said you had a 1 in 2000 chance of dying from covid, which is equivalent to a 0.05% chance of death.
www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/percentage.php
So not correct in relative terms, yes the numbers were both out by a factor of 100 but in opposite directions.
If we compare a 1 in 2000 chance of death (from COVID) vs a 1 in 53000 chance of death (from the vaccine and other unrelated issues combined)
It means you have 26.5 times (2650%) higher chance of death from COVID than from the vaccine, plus any unrelated issues which happen in the time period after you had the vaccine.
I still find it Astounding that most of our budding epidemiologists will fuss over a 1/50,000 chance of this or a one in a million chance of that but completely exclude from their modelling the 1/140 chance people in developed countries have of dying of old age every year. Yep, I did intentionally exclude age based risk stratification, most epidemiologists are doing that now.
Select to expand quotesun fisher said..Kamikuza said..sun fisher said..
You should check your maths there.
A 0.0019% rate equates to approx 1:52631.
Also in australia with total cases of around 36630 there have been 940 deaths, or about 1:39 (about 2.5%)
Thanks. Then both my ratios are out by a factor of 100, but still correct relative to each other.
That's your case fatality ratio, which is of course going to be higher than the infection fatality ratio I used from the CDC.
As far as CFR goes, we've seen just recently that even those figures are susceptible to errors...
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I want you to be aware of what the numbers actually mean.
You said you had a 1 in 2000 chance of dying from covid, which is equivalent to a 0.05% chance of death.
www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/percentage.php
So not correct in relative terms, yes the numbers were both out by a factor of 100 but in opposite directions.
If we compare a 1 in 2000 chance of death (from COVID) vs a 1 in 53000 chance of death (from the vaccine and other unrelated issues combined)
It means you have 26.5 times (2650%) higher chance of death from COVID than from the vaccine, plus any unrelated issues which happen in the time period after you had the vaccine.
That's 2650% of practically no chance.
Which is still practically no chance... unless you are in an at risk group.
Select to expand quotepsychomub said..sun fisher said..Kamikuza said..sun fisher said..
You should check your maths there.
A 0.0019% rate equates to approx 1:52631.
Also in australia with total cases of around 36630 there have been 940 deaths, or about 1:39 (about 2.5%)
Thanks. Then both my ratios are out by a factor of 100, but still correct relative to each other.
That's your case fatality ratio, which is of course going to be higher than the infection fatality ratio I used from the CDC.
As far as CFR goes, we've seen just recently that even those figures are susceptible to errors...
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I want you to be aware of what the numbers actually mean.
You said you had a 1 in 2000 chance of dying from covid, which is equivalent to a 0.05% chance of death.
www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/percentage.php
So not correct in relative terms, yes the numbers were both out by a factor of 100 but in opposite directions.
If we compare a 1 in 2000 chance of death (from COVID) vs a 1 in 53000 chance of death (from the vaccine and other unrelated issues combined)
It means you have 26.5 times (2650%) higher chance of death from COVID than from the vaccine, plus any unrelated issues which happen in the time period after you had the vaccine.
That's 2650% of practically no chance.
Which is still practically no chance... unless you are in an at risk group.
Agreed the chance of death is still pretty low, especially if you are not in an at risk group.
But the numbers in Australia are not looking great, up to about 2.5 deaths per 100 cases.
And the thing that concerns me the most are the reports of what they call "long covid" people who stay sick for a long time and have ongoing health issues.
Plus there are healthy young people dying from this new variant. Apparently in Indonesia lots of small children and babies have died from COVID.
www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-08/indonesia-grapples-with-high-covid-rates-among-children/100272142
So comparing that to the miniscule chance of issues from the vaccinations it's easy for me to justify getting vaccinated.
Obviously if I lived out in the middle of nowhere and had no family to worry about I might look at it differently.
Select to expand quotesun fisher said..
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I want you to be aware of what the numbers actually mean.
You said you had a 1 in 2000 chance of dying from covid, which is equivalent to a 0.05% chance of death.
www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/percentage.php
So not correct in relative terms, yes the numbers were both out by a factor of 100 but in opposite directions.
If we compare a 1 in 2000 chance of death (from COVID) vs a 1 in 53000 chance of death (from the vaccine and other unrelated issues combined)
It means you have 26.5 times (2650%) higher chance of death from COVID than from the vaccine, plus any unrelated issues which happen in the time period after you had the vaccine.
No worries, thanks for pointing it out. It was late, I was tried and in a hurry, I made a mistake 
The point I was trying to communicate was that the odds of (reported) COVID deaths due to vaccine are still non-trivial: 0.0005% (500 per million) vs 0.0019% (18 per million)... and while that might be good enough odds for most people, there are many whose personal risk aversion profile would find that unacceptable. I'd buy more lottery tickets if the odds were 18 in a million
As I said elsewhere, it's my personal opinion that it also depends on whether you fall into the "everyone is going to get COVID so here are the odds" versus "I haven't gotten COVID so far the odds are 0 vs 1:53000".
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
You forgot about the 'washing in engine oil' bit.
This is a forum and its good to hear other opinions, even if I disagree with them, or hate the person with a passion, or even agree with them, its good to see the logic behind it.
I must admit I do cringe when I meet people that tell me something 'just because it is'. I like to understand the reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. Wouldn't you find it personally boring if people just posted links and had no personal input?
You are typing all this on a phone keyboard? There's the first problem.
Good to hear you are not onboard with memes. You are now higher in my esteem, which I am sure disappoints you.
(Hey if you are Japan, can you send me a LWB Delica?)
...huh?
Sure.
No. I'm not interested in personal input on facts
Yep.
Not disappointed. But now I think you're far too cynical.
(I can't but I know people who can...)
Select to expand quoteEmeboy said..
Kami.... I thought you were normally more accurate in your responses....
Your addition of all to Pandas comment has changed the context altogether.... From my limited understanding I believe it is correct that being vaccinated does greatly reduce the potential of transmission.... but I would also agree that it is a bit too early to say that with absolute certainty.... need more time to confirm data on that. No one is saying it will prevent all transmission or that every person will be equally protected by the vaccine.... its an impossible statement.
Also,.... from the link you provided.... the chance of death from the vaccine is not even close to the number you quoted. That number is how many people who have died from any cause and had also had the vaccine.....
More than 346 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 2, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.
I'm not perfect, as has been demonstrated perfectly
"No one is saying it will prevent all transmission or that every person will be equally protected by the vaccine"
That's exactly the point I was addressing by adding and emphasizing "all" -- it's my opinion that people do very much believe that the vaccines are a perfect shield that protects completely and totally.
Yeah I know 
"unclear whether the vaccine was the cause"
My personal bias -- they're very happy to claim that for the vaccines, but not for COVID deaths; see the young guy recently. But the good news is that's the far end of the worst case scenario... probably.
I know a person that went and got the covid Vax, died a few minutes after leaving the clinic as they been hit by a truck while crossing the road. So shows clearly that getting the Vax can kill you.
I know a person who trusted a company, with a proven track record for lying, manipulating results/data and causing serious health issues and death, to inject them with an experimental treatment with unknown long term effects.
I know of someone that outright made up a lie about having caught and recovered from Covid on this very forum, somehow thinking that this was a valid way to respond to people's first hand experience with being vaccinated.
I am not sure what reality makes this an acceptable form of information, but I guess we each have our own perceptions.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
I know a person who trusted a company, with a proven track record for lying, manipulating results/data and causing serious health issues and death, to inject them with an experimental treatment with unknown long term effects.
So do I, wouldn't happen to have worked for Merck?
From 2002 through 2005, the Australian affiliate of Merck paid publishing house Elsevier an undisclosed amount to produce eight issues of a medical journal, the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. Although it gave the appearance of being an independent peer-reviewed journal, without any indication that Merck had paid for it, the journal actually reprinted articles that originally appeared in other publications and that were favorable to Merck. The misleading publication came to light in 2009 during a personal injury lawsuit filed over Vioxx; 9 of 29 articles in the journal's second issue referred positively to Vioxx.[63][64] The CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, Michael Hansen, admitted that the practice was "unacceptable".[65]
Merck is known for its partnership in development of ivermectin, manufacturing and distribution of ivomectin .. so let's rule that option out for treatment, going from past history of misleading and lying as the basis of what we should or shouldn't accept as the benchmark for suitable treatments or options.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I know of someone that outright made up a lie about having caught and recovered from Covid on this very forum, somehow thinking that this was a valid way to respond to people's first hand experience with being vaccinated.
I am not sure what reality makes this an acceptable form of information, but I guess we each have our own perceptions.
I know someone too stupid to tell the difference between an example statement of equivalency being made, and an out right lie.
Select to expand quotecwamit said..kiterboy said..
I know a person who trusted a company, with a proven track record for lying, manipulating results/data and causing serious health issues and death, to inject them with an experimental treatment with unknown long term effects.
So do I, wouldn't happen to have worked for Merck?
From 2002 through 2005, the Australian affiliate of Merck paid publishing house Elsevier an undisclosed amount to produce eight issues of a medical journal, the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. Although it gave the appearance of being an independent peer-reviewed journal, without any indication that Merck had paid for it, the journal actually reprinted articles that originally appeared in other publications and that were favorable to Merck. The misleading publication came to light in 2009 during a personal injury lawsuit filed over Vioxx; 9 of 29 articles in the journal's second issue referred positively to Vioxx.[63][64] The CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, Michael Hansen, admitted that the practice was "unacceptable".[65]
Merck is known for its partnership in development of ivermectin, manufacturing and distribution of ivomectin .. so let's rule that option out for treatment, going from past history of misleading and lying as the basis of what we should or shouldn't accept as the benchmark for suitable treatments or options.
Rather than rule it out, wouldn't it be better to look at the long term data of possible negative effects, just like we have with the covid vaccines...
looking at it as a treatment for parasites for its historical long term effects is not the same as an anti viral drug, or viral supresion drug . The reason being is the dosages and how often is required as a treatment. After a third infection of covid will your liver throw it in because of the levels in ivermectin from past historic usage? Lab tests showed promise at high dosage rates not safe for humans, just like paracetamol can kill if the label isn't being followed.
PBS price of ivermectin is $22.99 , pension benefits it comes down to $5.99 , so there money in them hills for a pharmacy company to have it labelled as usage against covid if it indeed seemed a suitable and realistic alternative. Isn't astravenca vax about $4.50 a dose?
Ivermectin still has patents too, so there's that also for a company to make money from if it indeed works as suitable virus suppression.
Select to expand quotecwamit said..
looking at it as a treatment for parasites for its historical long term effects is not the same as an anti viral drug, or viral supresion drug . The reason being is the dosages and how often is required as a treatment. After a third infection of covid will your liver throw it in because of the levels in ivermectin from past historic usage? Lab tests showed promise at high dosage rates not safe for humans, just like paracetamol can kill if the label isn't being followed.
PBS price of ivermectin is $22.99 , pension benefits it comes down to $5.99 , so there money in them hills for a pharmacy company to have it labelled as usage against covid if it indeed seemed a suitable and realistic alternative. Isn't astravenca vax about $4.50 a dose?
Ivermectin still has patents too, so there's that also for a company to make money from if it indeed works as suitable virus suppression.
Select to expand quotecwamit said..
looking at it as a treatment for parasites for its historical long term effects is not the same as an anti viral drug, or viral supresion drug . The reason being is the dosages and how often is required as a treatment. After a third infection of covid will your liver throw it in because of the levels in ivermectin from past historic usage? Lab tests showed promise at high dosage rates not safe for humans, just like paracetamol can kill if the label isn't being followed.
PBS price of ivermectin is $22.99 , pension benefits it comes down to $5.99 , so there money in them hills for a pharmacy company to have it labelled as usage against covid if it indeed seemed a suitable and realistic alternative. Isn't astravenca vax about $4.50 a dose?
Ivermectin still has patents too, so there's that also for a company to make money from if it indeed works as suitable virus suppression.
Patents. No it doesnt. Been around since the 70s man, no patent on the drug bud. No money to be made.
Ivermectin has 12 patents still registered, patents are associated with labels listed for usage, so a company can patent ivermectin as an anti viral drug and make money if they have approval from a countries health system for a label licence to be used as such. . another example of the labeling is glysophate labels, one company has label approval to use as a spray on crops, but if the end user uses a competing brand it could result in jail time for not following the registered label of that brand which is generic for most glysophate brands, So the registered label company sells it at a premium because that did the research , trials and testing for its to obtain registered approval.
Select to expand quotecwamit said..
Ivermectin has 12 patents still registered, patents are associated with labels listed for usage, so a company can patent ivermectin as an anti viral drug and make money if they have approval from a countries health system for a label licence to be used as such. . another example of the labeling is glysophate labels, one company has label approval to use as a spray on crops, but if the end user uses a competing brand it could result in jail time for not following the registered label of that brand which is generic for most glysophate brands, So the registered label company sells it at a premium because that did the research , trials and testing for its to obtain registered approval.
There is no patent on Ivermectin.
There are many patented medicines containing ivermectin as an ingredient.
Select to expand quotecwamit said..
looking at it as a treatment for parasites for its historical long term effects is not the same as an anti viral drug, or viral supresion drug . The reason being is the dosages and how often is required as a treatment. After a third infection of covid will your liver throw it in because of the levels in ivermectin from past historic usage? Lab tests showed promise at high dosage rates not safe for humans, just like paracetamol can kill if the label isn't being followed.
PBS price of ivermectin is $22.99 , pension benefits it comes down to $5.99 , so there money in them hills for a pharmacy company to have it labelled as usage against covid if it indeed seemed a suitable and realistic alternative. Isn't astravenca vax about $4.50 a dose?
Ivermectin still has patents too, so there's that also for a company to make money from if it indeed works as suitable virus suppression.
Generic Ivermectin is priced the same as any other generic medicine. As say aspirin.
The price is subject to demand. Any smart commercial operative could negotiate a contract price which would match the price paid in Africa.
Cents per tablet.
Do a little delving around and read up on the leaked Pfizer contracts.
Select to expand quotecwamit said..
Ivermectin has 12 patents still registered, patents are associated with labels listed for usage, so a company can patent ivermectin as an anti viral drug and make money if they have approval from a countries health system for a label licence to be used as such. . another example of the labeling is glysophate labels, one company has label approval to use as a spray on crops, but if the end user uses a competing brand it could result in jail time for not following the registered label of that brand which is generic for most glysophate brands, So the registered label company sells it at a premium because that did the research , trials and testing for its to obtain registered approval.
I don't think you understand what a patent is.
Select to expand quotecwamit said..
Ivermectin has 12 patents still registered, patents are associated with labels listed for usage, so a company can patent ivermectin as an anti viral drug and make money if they have approval from a countries health system for a label licence to be used as such. . another example of the labeling is glysophate labels, one company has label approval to use as a spray on crops, but if the end user uses a competing brand it could result in jail time for not following the registered label of that brand which is generic for most glysophate brands, So the registered label company sells it at a premium because that did the research , trials and testing for its to obtain registered approval.
Patents are applicable per country, so what you have said is probably correct. Just because there may not be a patent on a drug in one country for one use does not mean that there are not patents for its use in other countries and for other uses.
I guess you could get confused when you read the headline 'Ivermectin is off-patent' unless you knew how patents worked.
That said, there must be a lot of this stuff in production, so even though there is no money to be made from it, access would be easy.
I was reading this article and it doesn't really seem clear if Ivermectin is the miracle cure that some people think it is:
whyy.org/segments/some-doctors-think-theyve-found-a-cheap-generic-drug-which-treats-covid-19-so-why-hasnt-anyone-heard-of-it/
