How much will non-vaxxing by GOP reduce the population of voting age republicans

[nereo]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

This is what happens when a person's conviction drives their search for data, rather than the other way around.

It's also the primary reason why my state hit an all-time number of critical-care patients with COVID, of which 90% are unvaccinated (out state vaccination level stand just above 70%, so <30% of people are driving 90% of the most severe cases).

[GuitarStv]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

Exactly. If I forgot to take my daily dose of loratadine for seasonal allergies the day before I got vaccinated in mid-May and then had an itchy eyes–runny nose reaction when I visited a botanical garden with loads of lilacs and other flowering trees later that day, I could report that reaction to VAERS as a vaccine side effect (despite the fact that I'm all too well-aware of my seasonal allergies to flowering trees).

Of course, I wouldn't, as I have a decent understanding of logical cause and effect and no anti-vax agenda.

VAERS own guide to using it's data does indicate that it tends towards underreporting of adverse effects:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

- https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

As mentioned, major complications (death, serious illness) tend to be better reported than minor ones.

[Kris]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

Exactly. If I forgot to take my daily dose of loratadine for seasonal allergies the day before I got vaccinated in mid-May and then had an itchy eyes–runny nose reaction when I visited a botanical garden with loads of lilacs and other flowering trees later that day, I could report that reaction to VAERS as a vaccine side effect (despite the fact that I'm all too well-aware of my seasonal allergies to flowering trees).

Of course, I wouldn't, as I have a decent understanding of logical cause and effect and no anti-vax agenda.

VAERS own guide to using it's data does indicate that it tends towards underreporting of adverse effects:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

- https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

As mentioned, major complications (death, serious illness) tend to be better reported than minor ones.

I would dispute your use of "better" here. As OtherJen mentioned, she could report something that had literally nothing to do with a vaccine as a side effect, merely because she believed it to be so.

Likewise, if I am an anti-vaxxer, and my pro-vax sister got very ill or died, and I firmly believed it was because she was vaccinated -- even if that was not the case -- I could report that in VAERS. So could the other eleven members of my anti-vax family. And that would count as twelve separate reports.

I think it's very likely that a LOT of serious medical events are being reported to VAERS and falsely attributed to the vaccines. And the system has no way of correcting for that. Because it wasn't designed to.

[former player]

500 million covid vaccine doses given in the USA.  9,000 recorded deaths after receiving a vaccine (ie not even demonstrated to be because of the vaccine but potentially any cause).  That's a 0.002% chance of dying after receiving a vaccine.  Chance of dying if they catch covid significantly higher in every case of someone eligible for the vaccine.  That's how the vaccine got approved.

I wish statistics were taught in school alongside civics.

[gentmach]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

I gave them a lead on where the number came from. I would leave it up to them to make up their own mind.

[Kris]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

I gave them a lead on where the number came from. I would leave it up to them to make up their own mind.

You also stated false information. Which I corrected.

[dandarc]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

I gave them a lead on where the number came from. I would leave it up to them to make up their own mind.

When you're repeating or reinforcing dangerous misinformation such as you did here, you need to make clear right up front that what follows is discredited / wrong / misleading, and ideally you want to at least attempt to write out why what you've decided to share is wrong. And if you didn't do those things initially because you simply didn't know, the correct response is "thanks - I did not know that" not "that's not my job". Leaves the impression that you actually do not care about the veracity of what you write publicly.

All you had to do was prefix your post with "it is nonsense, but that baseless figure is being put out there by . . ." and you've achieved both giving them the lead as to where the misinformation came from and instead of spreading it, made some effort to discredit it. A few additional words turns that into a much more powerful statement.

[KarefulKactus15]

There's no sense in trying to make up peoples minds.  There are idiots catching covid, spending weeks in the ICU, LIVING somehow and then continuing to support their antivax position.   Like.... How?

Will 2020-2022 be a measurable time in history where survival of the fittest altered the gene pool towards those with higher fact determining abilities?   Idk - it's starting to seem like it though.   I guess technically it won't alter the gene pool cause most of the dead are past child rearing age.

[GuitarStv]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

Exactly. If I forgot to take my daily dose of loratadine for seasonal allergies the day before I got vaccinated in mid-May and then had an itchy eyes–runny nose reaction when I visited a botanical garden with loads of lilacs and other flowering trees later that day, I could report that reaction to VAERS as a vaccine side effect (despite the fact that I'm all too well-aware of my seasonal allergies to flowering trees).

Of course, I wouldn't, as I have a decent understanding of logical cause and effect and no anti-vax agenda.

VAERS own guide to using it's data does indicate that it tends towards underreporting of adverse effects:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

- https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

As mentioned, major complications (death, serious illness) tend to be better reported than minor ones.

I would dispute your use of "better" here. As OtherJen mentioned, she could report something that had literally nothing to do with a vaccine as a side effect, merely because she believed it to be so.

Likewise, if I am an anti-vaxxer, and my pro-vax sister got very ill or died, and I firmly believed it was because she was vaccinated -- even if that was not the case -- I could report that in VAERS. So could the other eleven members of my anti-vax family. And that would count as twelve separate reports.

I think it's very likely that a LOT of serious medical events are being reported to VAERS and falsely attributed to the vaccines. And the system has no way of correcting for that. Because it wasn't designed to.

I meant "better" in that they are less likely to be underreported, whereas mild effects are probably wildly underreported.

It's certainly possible that many serious medical events are being reported to VAERS falsely.  Do you have any real evidence for this claim, or is it just surmise?

[Kris]

I'm in the UK, but my dad is becoming more and more of an anti-vaxxer on the matter of covid by the week. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe he genuinely thinks the stuff he says lately... he told me the other day that I'm more likely to die of the vaccine than of covid and that 50000 people in the US died of the vaccine but they covered it up... genuinely I don't know where he heard this clown logic. I have had both my vaccines and plan to get the booster as soon as it's been extended to my age group.

At least we managed to get him to have his first jab back in the summer, before he was so sceptical. He never got his second jab, though.

I think the problem is the YouTube algorithm. He's always been right-wing (UK edition), but it's only since he discovered YouTube about 3 years ago and started listening to right wing US youtubers all the time that he's got steadily more and more wild in his ideas. He used to be relatively sensible. I think he must click on the YouTube recommendations a lot and never listen to any counterbalancing stuff that would take him out of the bubble.

Unfortunately, once he's made up his mind on a topic, he doesn't really listen to me any more. If I suggest that maybe some of these people he's listening to online might not be accurate, he'll just laugh at me and call me stupid, probably.

Peter McCullough (I'm paraphrasing here) points to the VAERS system which has 9,000 recorded deaths from the vaccine. It is generally accepted that what VAERS records is under estimated by a factor of 5. So that is where the ~50,000 comes from.

It is not at all "generally accepted" that the VAERS records are underestimating.

Also, this is not at all what the VAERS system is designed to do. Also, literally anyone can submit something to the system, for any reason, without any sort of proof. Also, the system would count an individual and that individual's lawyer filing an entry as two separate cases.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/some-vaccine-skeptics-are-citing-a-little-known-government-website-heres-what-vaers-really-shows/2602989/

Exactly. If I forgot to take my daily dose of loratadine for seasonal allergies the day before I got vaccinated in mid-May and then had an itchy eyes–runny nose reaction when I visited a botanical garden with loads of lilacs and other flowering trees later that day, I could report that reaction to VAERS as a vaccine side effect (despite the fact that I'm all too well-aware of my seasonal allergies to flowering trees).

Of course, I wouldn't, as I have a decent understanding of logical cause and effect and no anti-vax agenda.

VAERS own guide to using it's data does indicate that it tends towards underreporting of adverse effects:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

- https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

As mentioned, major complications (death, serious illness) tend to be better reported than minor ones.

I would dispute your use of "better" here. As OtherJen mentioned, she could report something that had literally nothing to do with a vaccine as a side effect, merely because she believed it to be so.

Likewise, if I am an anti-vaxxer, and my pro-vax sister got very ill or died, and I firmly believed it was because she was vaccinated -- even if that was not the case -- I could report that in VAERS. So could the other eleven members of my anti-vax family. And that would count as twelve separate reports.

I think it's very likely that a LOT of serious medical events are being reported to VAERS and falsely attributed to the vaccines. And the system has no way of correcting for that. Because it wasn't designed to.

I meant "better" in that they are less likely to be underreported, whereas mild effects are probably wildly underreported.

It's certainly possible that many serious medical events are being reported to VAERS falsely.  Do you have any real evidence for this claim, or is it just surmise?

I linked to an article above. I first heard an explainer about the history of VAERS many months ago on public radio, which discussed what it was, how it worked, and how anti-vaxxers have been misusing it since Andrew Wakefield first published his fake study on vaccines and autism. It was in that explainer that I learned multiple people could report the same "incident" resulting in multiple entries.

Also, here are some other sources. The second one is the one you linked. If you read to the bottom, you will see that the database makes no claim at all to accuracy.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-health/dont-fall-vaers-scare-tactic

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

ETA: I wanted to add that it was in that explainer that I learned it was a known phenomenon that there's a history of shady personal injury lawyers "seeding" the VAERS database with incident reports in order to pad the cases of their clients. Wish I could find the piece itself. I will link to it if I do.

[Posthumane]

The reports don't have to be reported falsely in order for them to be misleading. The VAERS system captures symptoms (including deaths) following a vaccination, not necessarily caused by vaccination. So, one can search the number of deaths associated with a specific vaccine, not realizing (or caring) that those deaths may have nothing to do with the vaccination other than being temporally correlated.

For example, look at the following VAERS ID numbers:
0958443-1
1478430-1
1116094-1
1535608-1
1627712-1
They all list the cause of death as "gunshot wound", one of whom was an elderly cancer patient one had PTSD and bipolar disorder. Yet they are listed as a post-vaccine death and therefore included in the VAERS figures.

[Kris]

Here is another article, which explains the origins of the VAERS system.

"There's very little control over what can be accessed and what can be manipulated," says Melanie Smith, director of analysis at Graphika, a company that tracks vaccine misinformation online. She says that she sees VAERS data being shared across a wide variety of anti-vaccine social media channels. "I would say almost every mis- and disinformation story that we cover is accompanied by some set of VAERS data."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/14/1004757554/anti-vaccine-activists-use-a-federal-database-to-spread-fear-about-covid-vaccine

[EvenSteven]

The reports don't have to be reported falsely in order for them to be misleading. The VAERS system captures symptoms (including deaths) following a vaccination, not necessarily caused by vaccination. So, one can search the number of deaths associated with a specific vaccine, not realizing (or caring) that those deaths may have nothing to do with the vaccination other than being temporally correlated.

For example, look at the following VAERS ID numbers:
0958443-1
1478430-1
1116094-1
1535608-1
1627712-1
They all list the cause of death as "gunshot wound", one of whom was an elderly cancer patient one had PTSD and bipolar disorder. Yet they are listed as a post-vaccine death and therefore included in the VAERS figures.

More evidence that the vaccines really do make you magnetic!!

[talltexan]

I learned that a family friend out in MO is currently receiving care from her doctor for COVID. Apparently doctor prescribed her Ivermectrin.

[sonofsven]

I learned that a family friend out in MO is currently receiving care from her doctor for COVID. Apparently doctor prescribed her Ivermectrin.

Sorry to hear about the covid, and the worms.

[talltexan]

I'm choosing optimism.

Doctor is probably deciding her case isn't very serious, giving her sugar pills and telling her it's ivermetcin.

[SunnyDays]

I'm choosing optimism.

Doctor is probably deciding her case isn't very serious, giving her sugar pills and telling her it's ivermetcin.

Oh, but it's a miracle drug!  My anti-vaxx friend just told me yesterday that that was the reason Israel was able to recover from a high number of cases.  Apparently it has nothing to do with their high vaccination rate.   /s

[GuitarStv]

I haven't been keeping up with it.  Is the science in on Ivermectin for covid treatment?  Last I checked there were a bunch of ongoing studies.

I remember hearing that Remdesivir was useless a while back too, but it's on the list of approved treatments for Covid by Health Canada . . . so I'm guessing that has changed?

[PDXTabs]

I remember hearing that Remdesivir was useless a while back too, but it's on the list of approved treatments for Covid by Health Canada . . . so I'm guessing that has changed?

A phase 3 Remdsivir trial just came out.

Individuals received the remdesivir treatment in the double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial and of those individuals and had an 87% reduction in risk for the composite primary endpoint of COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28. - https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/gilead-sciences-announces-results-of-phase-3-study-of-remdesivir-for-covid-19-treatment

[OtherJen]

This is the most recent publication that popped up on PubMed in a search for "ivermectin COVID-19": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709596/

It's a single-center trial in Bangladesh with only 72 subjects, sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that produces ivermectin. The 24 patients who received ivermectin alone had a statistically significantly shorter mean virological clearance time (9.7 days vs. 12.7 days with placebo alone). None of the other measured parameters—hospital stay duration, clinical symptoms—were significantly different between the ivermectin and placebo groups. The subject sample was carefully selected to exclude people older than 65 years and those with chronic illnesses that might affect their response to the virus (i.e., those most at risk). 

The published data currently are insufficient to make fully informed conclusions. I don't blame desperate physicians for trying it on hospitalized patients, especially those who've drunk the Fox News/Qcult koolaid, as it's probably safer than COVID in a controlled environment with a dose intended for humans. There's no rational excuse for taking veterinary formulations to prevent or self-treat COVID. That's ridiculous.

[GuitarStv]

There's no rational excuse for taking veterinary formulations to prevent or self-treat COVID. That's ridiculous.

It certainly would be.  But ivermectin has been used to treat various problems in humans since the late '80s, right?  It has been well studied and has a long medical use history . . . in 2017 (well before any discussion about possible usage for covid) more than 300,000 prescriptions for ivermectin were prescribed to people in the United States (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/G6aj2).

Calling a well-established human medication a "veterinary formulation" doesn't really make much sense to me.

[DaMa]

I did some research on ivermectin recently in response to questions from my son.  Here's some info I find that was sensible...

This article talks about how medical studies on ivermectin were misleading: https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/ivermectin-studies-overseas-misinformation-americans

Both the article and the review of the published studies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/) clearly state that ivermectin is not proven or unproven against COVID19, because there is not enough data. 

[GuitarStv]

Sounds like things are about where they were when last I looked into it then.

Don't get me wrong - I don't have any strong feelings about Ivermectin, or any other drug being investigated for covid treatment.  But these days there often seems to be a tendency for people to either claim effectiveness that simply isn't in evidence, or claim uselessness based upon the same inconclusive data.

[Villanelle]

There's no rational excuse for taking veterinary formulations to prevent or self-treat COVID. That's ridiculous.

It certainly would be.  But ivermectin has been used to treat various problems in humans since the late '80s, right?  It has been well studied and has a long medical use history . . . in 2017 (well before any discussion about possible usage for covid) more than 300,000 prescriptions for ivermectin were prescribed to people in the United States (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/G6aj2).

Calling a well-established human medication a "veterinary formulation" doesn't really make much sense to me.

I could be mistaken, but I read OtherJen's post as saying that a prescription for a *human* dose of Invermectin in a controlled environment when the alternative is Covid is far superior to someone taking a veterinary formulation of Invermectin. She seemed to be drawing a distinction between a human dose and a veterinary formulation, not simply referring to all Invermectin as a "veterinary formulation". 

[OtherJen]

There's no rational excuse for taking veterinary formulations to prevent or self-treat COVID. That's ridiculous.

It certainly would be.  But ivermectin has been used to treat various problems in humans since the late '80s, right?  It has been well studied and has a long medical use history . . . in 2017 (well before any discussion about possible usage for covid) more than 300,000 prescriptions for ivermectin were prescribed to people in the United States (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/G6aj2).

Calling a well-established human medication a "veterinary formulation" doesn't really make much sense to me.

I could be mistaken, but I read OtherJen's post as saying that a prescription for a *human* dose of Invermectin in a controlled environment when the alternative is Covid is far superior to someone taking a veterinary formulation of Invermectin. She seemed to be drawing a distinction between a human dose and a veterinary formulation, not simply referring to all Invermectin as a "veterinary formulation".

Thank you. Yes, you are correct. I'm a trained immunologist and science editor, so I aim to use precise language.

The data on doses and formulations of ivermectin that have been approved for humans are inconclusive. We simply don't know whether ivermectin is any better than placebo. Still, the human doses have actually been tested for safety in humans and are not likely to cause more harm than the virus itself. When prescribed by a licensed physician, ivermectin seems unlikely to cause undue harm. With more study, we may find that ivermectin in this context is useful, or it may be no better than placebo.

Contrast that with the preventative use of doses and formulations of ivermectin intended for use in livestock, which (in my country, at least) are being purchased and used by people who've been misled by quack science.

I assume that all of the regular posters here have the good sense to read my post as written and understand the difference on these scenarios.

[GuitarStv]

Sorry, I did misread you.  I've heard so many 'horse pills' comments at this point that I jumped on something that obviously wasn't there.

[RetiredAt63]

A lot of the Ivermectin stuff floating around the web talks about horse pills, so it is easy to not realize that as a really effective anti-parasitic it comes in formulations for several species, including us.  The human dosage is well established.  So it is unlikely to hurt.

[GodlessCommie]

It's often called horse pills since certain people have been buying it in farm supply stores to get around a need for a prescription.

Apparently, a human doze still can hurt: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2114907

[LennStar]

Well, I think we can fairly confidently say that - seeing the amount it was taken and the lack of big results - that it does not seem to be better than the other stuff that showed actual results in clinical tests. So take that and leave the horse pills to the poor horsies.

[RetiredAt63]

It's often called horse pills since certain people have been buying it in farm supply stores to get around a need for a prescription.

Apparently, a human doze still can hurt: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2114907

I know why it was called that.  It's just that so much of the discussion ignored the human use.  If I had parasites I would be happy to take it.

[SunnyDays]

I used to have horses and they regularly got a dose of Ivermectin in paste form with a syringe (ever try giving a horse a pill, lol?) for parasite treatment.  I wouldn't personally be keen to take it in any form.  The horses didn't seem too keen on it either.

[RetiredAt63]

I used to have horses and they regularly got a dose of Ivermectin in paste form with a syringe (ever try giving a horse a pill, lol?) for parasite treatment.  I wouldn't personally be keen to take it in any form.  The horses didn't seem too keen on it either.

We are supposed to be smarter than horses, right?  If I  were a horse I would object to having a syringe of stuff shoved down my throat too because I wouldn't know it would get rid of my parasites.  I have a med I would love to get off of because of side effects, but I take it anyway (for now! I am trying to fix the problem so I don't need it).

There is speculation on the web that Japan is doing well because of vaccination, physical distancing including masking, and Ivermectin.  But nothing definite and factual.  I'd like something more concrete before I depended on off-label use.

[LennStar]

I used to have horses and they regularly got a dose of Ivermectin in paste form with a syringe (ever try giving a horse a pill, lol?) for parasite treatment.  I wouldn't personally be keen to take it in any form.  The horses didn't seem too keen on it either.

We are supposed to be smarter than horses, right?  If I  were a horse I would object to having a syringe of stuff shoved down my throat too because I wouldn't know it would get rid of my parasites.  I have a med I would love to get off of because of side effects, but I take it anyway (for now! I am trying to fix the problem so I don't need it).

There is speculation on the web that Japan is doing well because of vaccination, physical distancing including masking, and Ivermectin.  But nothing definite and factual.  I'd like something more concrete before I depended on off-label use.

Japan is certainly doing good because of masking. Less because of distancing (seen the christmas crowds?) and definitely because of a lack of testing (if that hasn't changed in the last month).

[Abe]

The reason that ivermectin isn't used for covid-19 is because there is weak data to support even doing a randomized trial on humans, especially when we have known effective treatments.

Most of the Pubmed studies on Ivermectin are garbage, and published in garbage journals. Several have been retracted because of said garbageness. A few trials aren't garbage but under-powered, thus unable to identify any real benefits.

The Oxford and Imperial College London groups did a meta-analysis, which tries to piece together garbage into some sensible data. This showed no benefit to any endpoint (survival, hospitalization, time to clinical recovery) after combining data from 3349 patients in 23 RCTs. They also note the overall poor quality of the data, with most RCTs thrown out for various reasons due to poor design. In fact, they had to re-do the analysis after publication because it turns out one of the studies had fraudulent data and was retracted!! If you look closely, the larger the trial, the less "benefit" was seen.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796244/

Maybe when we had no effective treatments for covid-19 trying these in a non-experimental setting would be valid ethically, but at this point it is not. There is absolutely no evidence of benefit in severe COVID-19, which is the one scenario where it could even be considered (due to lack of other effective treatments).

Japan is doing reasonably well because they have a very robust track-and-trace program, a well-enforced quarantine program and high vaccination rates.

[oldladystache]

My horse always resisted her ivermectin paste when I gave it to her with the syringe but then one day I just put it on her grain and she gobbled it up. It doesn't taste particularly terrible. Kind of like vaseline.

[GuitarStv]

The reason that ivermectin isn't used for covid-19 is because there is weak data to support even doing a randomized trial on humans, especially when we have known effective treatments.

Most of the Pubmed studies on Ivermectin are garbage, and published in garbage journals. Several have been retracted because of said garbageness. A few trials aren't garbage but under-powered, thus unable to identify any real benefits.

The Oxford and Imperial College London groups did a meta-analysis, which tries to piece together garbage into some sensible data. This showed no benefit to any endpoint (survival, hospitalization, time to clinical recovery) after combining data from 3349 patients in 23 RCTs. They also note the overall poor quality of the data, with most RCTs thrown out for various reasons due to poor design. In fact, they had to re-do the analysis after publication because it turns out one of the studies had fraudulent data and was retracted!! If you look closely, the larger the trial, the less "benefit" was seen.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796244/

Maybe when we had no effective treatments for covid-19 trying these in a non-experimental setting would be valid ethically, but at this point it is not. There is absolutely no evidence of benefit in severe COVID-19, which is the one scenario where it could even be considered (due to lack of other effective treatments).

Japan is doing reasonably well because they have a very robust track-and-trace program, a well-enforced quarantine program and high vaccination rates.

Yeah, I don't recommend any drug that isn't proven.

At the same time I also remember a few months back when everything you're saying above about Ivermectin applied to Remdesivir too.  Fraudulent studies, absolutely no valid evidence of benefit, meta-analysis shows no better than placebo, WHO strongly recommends against usage in any Covid case . . . but here we are now recommending usage since it turns out that the drug works pretty well.

It'll be interesting to eventually find out if any of these other controversial drugs work or don't when all the data is in.

[Abe]

The reason that ivermectin isn't used for covid-19 is because there is weak data to support even doing a randomized trial on humans, especially when we have known effective treatments.

Most of the Pubmed studies on Ivermectin are garbage, and published in garbage journals. Several have been retracted because of said garbageness. A few trials aren't garbage but under-powered, thus unable to identify any real benefits.

The Oxford and Imperial College London groups did a meta-analysis, which tries to piece together garbage into some sensible data. This showed no benefit to any endpoint (survival, hospitalization, time to clinical recovery) after combining data from 3349 patients in 23 RCTs. They also note the overall poor quality of the data, with most RCTs thrown out for various reasons due to poor design. In fact, they had to re-do the analysis after publication because it turns out one of the studies had fraudulent data and was retracted!! If you look closely, the larger the trial, the less "benefit" was seen.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796244/

Maybe when we had no effective treatments for covid-19 trying these in a non-experimental setting would be valid ethically, but at this point it is not. There is absolutely no evidence of benefit in severe COVID-19, which is the one scenario where it could even be considered (due to lack of other effective treatments).

Japan is doing reasonably well because they have a very robust track-and-trace program, a well-enforced quarantine program and high vaccination rates.

Yeah, I don't recommend any drug that isn't proven.

At the same time I also remember a few months back when everything you're saying above about Ivermectin applied to Remdesivir too.  Fraudulent studies, absolutely no valid evidence of benefit, meta-analysis shows no better than placebo, WHO strongly recommends against usage in any Covid case . . . but here we are now recommending usage since it turns out that the drug works pretty well.

It'll be interesting to eventually find out if any of these other controversial drugs work or don't when all the data is in.

Difference for remdesivir specifically is it had a plausible mechanism of action supported by over a decade of studies in other virus families. This was confirmed in several animal models before proceeding to human trials. Similarly, molnupiravir, the newly approved (on emergency basis) oral antiviral was also developed in a similar fashion (pre-pandemic), and rapidly evaluated in multiple animal models before a large randomized trial confirmed efficacy (albeit limited - 30% relative reduction and 3% absolute reduction in hospitalization). Ritonavir is an old anti-viral with known efficacy in hepatitis B, and was repurposed in combination with other agents for COVID.

Ivermectin does not have this foundation - studies have been limited to rudimentary pre-clinical evaluations on cell lines and mosquito models for specific viruses transmitted in this way. That is more in line with HCQ, for example.

All of that needs to considered in recommendations on use. I know you understand this, but a lot of people do not. I'm just not sure why people are so caught up on ivermectin when we have multiple effective medications.


So far a brief summary:
Anti-parasitic agents:
HCQ - ineffective, potentially harmful
Ivermectin - ineffective

Anti-viral agents:
remdesivir - effective in hospitalized patients
molnupiravir - moderate efficacy for non-hospitalized patients
ritonavir - more effective for non-hospitalized patients (preferred over molnupiravir)


Other agents:
Dexamethasone - effective in hospitalized patients, not effective for outpatients
monoclonal antibodies - effective for outpatients (depending on strain)
polyclonal antibodies (from plasma of recovered COVID patients) - not effective

[SunnyDays]

^^^^^^^^^^^

My particular friend is a believer in Ivermectin and HCQ because it fits into the conspiracy theory that Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because of the huge amount of money to be made, while the former products are no longer under patent, so aren't profitable.  Plus she believes the studies for their effectiveness is sound, but they have been suppressed for the above reason.  Everything boils down to conspiracy theories in her world view.  I'm sure other people have other reasons, but that is hers.

[ChpBstrd]

^^^^^^^^^^^

My particular friend is a believer in Ivermectin and HCQ because it fits into the conspiracy theory that Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because of the huge amount of money to be made, while the former products are no longer under patent, so aren't profitable.  Plus she believes the studies for their effectiveness is sound, but they have been suppressed for the above reason.  Everything boils down to conspiracy theories in her world view.  I'm sure other people have other reasons, but that is hers.

How is it that ZERO PEOPLE in today's generation seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that there is money to be made by being a social media influencer and the way you get views/clicks is to say outlandish things and spread conspiracy theories?

Folks are taking life-and-death medical advice from Joe fucking Rogan because they think their doctor is a quack profiteer (and perhaps Joe told them so). Meanwhile Joe's a multi-millionaire.

[HPstache]

^^^^^^^^^^^

My particular friend is a believer in Ivermectin and HCQ because it fits into the conspiracy theory that Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because of the huge amount of money to be made, while the former products are no longer under patent, so aren't profitable.  Plus she believes the studies for their effectiveness is sound, but they have been suppressed for the above reason.  Everything boils down to conspiracy theories in her world view.  I'm sure other people have other reasons, but that is hers.

How is it that ZERO PEOPLE in today's generation seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that there is money to be made by being a social media influencer and the way you get views/clicks is to say outlandish things and spread conspiracy theories?

Folks are taking life-and-death medical advice from Joe fucking Rogan because they think their doctor is a quack profiteer (and perhaps Joe told them so). Meanwhile Joe's a multi-millionaire.

This is an excellent point that I may try and use down the line in conversations that require it.

[GuitarStv]

^^^^^^^^^^^

My particular friend is a believer in Ivermectin and HCQ because it fits into the conspiracy theory that Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because of the huge amount of money to be made, while the former products are no longer under patent, so aren't profitable.  Plus she believes the studies for their effectiveness is sound, but they have been suppressed for the above reason.  Everything boils down to conspiracy theories in her world view.  I'm sure other people have other reasons, but that is hers.

How is it that ZERO PEOPLE in today's generation seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that there is money to be made by being a social media influencer and the way you get views/clicks is to say outlandish things and spread conspiracy theories?

Folks are taking life-and-death medical advice from Joe fucking Rogan because they think their doctor is a quack profiteer (and perhaps Joe told them so). Meanwhile Joe's a multi-millionaire.

Remember when Fauci lied about masks at the beginning of the pandemic and then later said there was nothing wrong with lying to people for the greater good?  Or when he lied about the US funded gain of function covid research in Wuhan?  Or when youtube removed senate hearings where front line doctors were testifying about covid treatments they were using?

It's hard to convince someone that you're telling the truth when you've been publicly caught lying . . . or that you're open to the truth when you're working as hard as possible to silence dissent.  At that point they've got a choice between someone who's a known liar who they kinda like and someone who's a known liar who they don't really like.  Shouldn't be surprising that things end up the way they do.

[GodlessCommie]

^^^^^^^^^^^

My particular friend is a believer in Ivermectin and HCQ because it fits into the conspiracy theory that Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because of the huge amount of money to be made, while the former products are no longer under patent, so aren't profitable.  Plus she believes the studies for their effectiveness is sound, but they have been suppressed for the above reason.  Everything boils down to conspiracy theories in her world view.  I'm sure other people have other reasons, but that is hers.

How is it that ZERO PEOPLE in today's generation seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that there is money to be made by being a social media influencer and the way you get views/clicks is to say outlandish things and spread conspiracy theories?

Folks are taking life-and-death medical advice from Joe fucking Rogan because they think their doctor is a quack profiteer (and perhaps Joe told them so). Meanwhile Joe's a multi-millionaire.

Same logic: climate scientists cannot be trusted because grants introduce a motive to lie for profit. Oil, gas, and coal companies, on the other hand, cannot possibly be lying.

In the end, almost no one starts or stops believing things after a careful consideration of all available facts. People believe things that intuitively appeal to them, or popular in their tribe. Introduction of facts contradicting beliefs is shown to reinforce beliefs.

[GodlessCommie]

Remember when Fauci lied about masks at the beginning of the pandemic and then later said there was nothing wrong with lying to people for the greater good?  Or when he lied about the US funded gain of function covid research in Wuhan?  Or when youtube removed senate hearings where front line doctors were testifying about covid treatments they were using?

It's hard to convince someone that you're telling the truth when you've been publicly caught lying . . . or that you're open to the truth when you're working as hard as possible to silence dissent.  At that point they've got a choice between someone who's a known liar who they kinda like and someone who's a known liar who they don't really like.  Shouldn't be surprising that things end up the way they do.

Are you saying that Joe Rogan has a better score from fact-checkers? Or the army of other anti-science influencers? Why does your criteria only apply to Fauci? (setting aside your allegations for a second)

None of it is rational. People don't believe conspiracy theories because someone was caught lying. People believe conspiracy theories because they intuitively appeal to them, or because their tribe believes in them.

[PeteD01]

Remember when Fauci lied about masks at the beginning of the pandemic and then later said there was nothing wrong with lying to people for the greater good?  Or when he lied about the US funded gain of function covid research in Wuhan?  Or when youtube removed senate hearings where front line doctors were testifying about covid treatments they were using?

Everything red here is misinformation and you fell for it hook and sinker.

You are parroting right wing drivel here and I think you are promoting propaganda and that should be stopped.

I did not agree with Fauci's position on masks at the time but remember very well that, in the context of the time, he was not lying.

There was no US funded gain of function Covid research that was US funded performed at Wuhan. The US sponsored gain of function research performed at Wuhan involved viruses that are far removed from SARS-CoV-2.

I personally know members of the front line physicians and I can assure you that they are dangerous quacks who should not have been given a platform to spew their nonsense to begin with.

[simonsez]

^^^^^^^^^^^

My particular friend is a believer in Ivermectin and HCQ because it fits into the conspiracy theory that Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because of the huge amount of money to be made, while the former products are no longer under patent, so aren't profitable.  Plus she believes the studies for their effectiveness is sound, but they have been suppressed for the above reason.  Everything boils down to conspiracy theories in her world view.  I'm sure other people have other reasons, but that is hers.

How is it that ZERO PEOPLE in today's generation seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that there is money to be made by being a social media influencer and the way you get views/clicks is to say outlandish things and spread conspiracy theories?

Folks are taking life-and-death medical advice from Joe fucking Rogan because they think their doctor is a quack profiteer (and perhaps Joe told them so). Meanwhile Joe's a multi-millionaire.

Why the Rogan hate?  Do you listen to him whenever he has doctors on discussing COVID or are you just gathering "news articles" from secondary sources?

I listen to him occasionally and I think he's easily a net positive for society if we're operating under the assumption that everyone would take care of their bodies in the manner he does.  I do not follow his "advice" on many things and he says not to all the time.  Granted, anyone with a microphone that people listen to will inevitably have a degree of influence and I do wish he would own up to that more (similar to John Stewart back in the day when he initially refused the mantle of a news person and kept trying to say he was only a comic when millions of teens and 20 somethings were actually getting the "news" from him, albeit in his sarcastic and comedy show format).  He's a curious truth seeker and interacts with a fantastic range of personalities and backgrounds.  There is something to long form conversations that is better than the short sound bytes we're accustomed to.  If you think Rogan is a conspiracy theorist about COVID or at least an anti-vaxxer who is trying to convince people to join his "cause", it's really weird then how he personally took his parents to get vaccinated after they were hesitant, has recommended it to many subgroups, has tested every guest for the last 18+ months, has had doctors and scientists on to get into the weeds and discuss treatments and statistics, and there was lot more that he took when he was sick than just ivermectin but that's all everyone outside of the JRE seems to hone in on.  It's really strange.  I do disagree with his apathy toward the vaccines and wish he would be more pro (and due to his influence) but there have been many topics discussed related to COVID that he's been on the forefront on.  It's been a constantly evolving phenomenon involving illness and death, I think it can be okay to take some precaution and read more.  He likes to know the "why" behind things and does not rapidly buy in just because an official tells him to - that's his schtick.  If that's not for you, cool, don't listen but I think he gets a disproportionate amount of flak for being a hater or anti- this when really he just has a bit of a cynicism mixed in with genuine inquisitiveness.

I mean, it's really strange to take what a non-medical person says (when they're constantly saying to NOT listen to them and they're just describing their own journey) and then apply it to your own life in the hopes you will fare better than those that follow actual recommendations from medical staff.  Rogan would agree with that.  Everything gets twisted up into these farcical binary choices.  You can listen to Rogan and be vaccinated.  You can be vaccinated and also make sure you get tons of Vitamin D, zinc, etc.  You can understand that MRNA vaccines are good in general for adult society but also that the effects do not last forever. 

[GuitarStv]

Remember when Fauci lied about masks at the beginning of the pandemic and then later said there was nothing wrong with lying to people for the greater good?  Or when he lied about the US funded gain of function covid research in Wuhan?  Or when youtube removed senate hearings where front line doctors were testifying about covid treatments they were using?

Everything red here is misinformation and you fell for it hook and sinker.

You are parroting right wing drivel here and I think you are promoting propaganda and that should be stopped.

I did not agree with Fauci's position on masks at the time but remember very well that, in the context of the time, he was not lying.

You're saying that Antony Fauci himself is a purveyor of right wing drivel and that I shouldn't trust his own words describing his own advice about masks early on in the pandemic?

Why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

"Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." - Antony Fauci

  - https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

[PeteD01]

Remember when Fauci lied about masks at the beginning of the pandemic and then later said there was nothing wrong with lying to people for the greater good?  Or when he lied about the US funded gain of function covid research in Wuhan?  Or when youtube removed senate hearings where front line doctors were testifying about covid treatments they were using?

Everything red here is misinformation and you fell for it hook and sinker.

You are parroting right wing drivel here and I think you are promoting propaganda and that should be stopped.

I did not agree with Fauci's position on masks at the time but remember very well that, in the context of the time, he was not lying.

You're saying that Antony Fauci himself is a purveyor of right wing drivel and that I shouldn't trust his own words describing his own advice about masks early on in the pandemic?

Why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

"Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." - Antony Fauci

  - https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

I disagreed with the assessment that Covid was not airborne early in the pandemic. My opinion at the time was, in the absence of clearly demonstrated airborne transmission, that Covid transmission was very likely transmitted airborne. The pressure on the relevant authorities not to compromise already overstretched supplies of PPEs for medical personnel in the absence of clearly demonstrated airborne transmission is not too difficult to understand. Once it was clear that Covid is airborne and that transmission can be mitigated with cloth masks etc. the recommendations were changed.

What makes what you wrote right wing drivel and propaganda is calling it lies and disregarding the historical context, while the truth is that they made a wrong call - glaringly obvious in retrospect.
But imagine if things had turned out the other way around and Covid transmission had been fomite and droplet driven and a general recommendation for masks had been issued and led to depletion of PPEs for medical settings. That would have been a disastrous error capable of crippling the health care system much worse than we have seen.

[simonsez]

Remember when Fauci lied about masks at the beginning of the pandemic and then later said there was nothing wrong with lying to people for the greater good?  Or when he lied about the US funded gain of function covid research in Wuhan?  Or when youtube removed senate hearings where front line doctors were testifying about covid treatments they were using?

Everything red here is misinformation and you fell for it hook and sinker.

You are parroting right wing drivel here and I think you are promoting propaganda and that should be stopped.

I did not agree with Fauci's position on masks at the time but remember very well that, in the context of the time, he was not lying.

You're saying that Antony Fauci himself is a purveyor of right wing drivel and that I shouldn't trust his own words describing his own advice about masks early on in the pandemic?

Why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

"Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." - Antony Fauci

  - https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

I disagreed with the assessment that Covid was not airborne early in the pandemic. My opinion at the time was, in the absence of clearly demonstrated airborne transmission, that Covid transmission was very likely transmitted airborne. The pressure on the relevant authorities not to compromise already overstretched supplies of PPEs for medical personnel in the absence of clearly demonstrated airborne transmission is not too difficult to understand. Once it was clear that Covid is airborne and that transmission can be mitigated with cloth masks etc. the recommendations were changed.

What makes what you wrote right wing drivel and propaganda is calling it lies and disregarding the historical context, while the truth is that they made a wrong call - glaringly obvious in retrospect.
But imagine if things had turned out the other way around and Covid transmission had been fomite and droplet driven and a general recommendation for masks had been issued and led to depletion of PPEs for medical settings. That would have been a disastrous error capable of crippling the health care system much worse than we have seen.

Why the need to qualify it as which side of the political aisle it falls on?  I think that's a disingenuous dichotomy and unnecessary here and serves to quiet those who don't fall in with the tribalism of the political party that someone identifies with at least 51% (not 100%!) of the time.  In a democracy, there has to be an element of faith in that what our leaders tells us is true.  There was a decision made by our medical leaders in early 2020 to not convey full disclosure regarding facial coverings in conjunction with COVID.  You can point to the TP and hand sanitizer crazes and assume the same would've happened (and kinda did for awhile) with masks.  Of course they had their reasons!  However you want to slice it, Fauci was not honest.  That bothers some people - and they don't all come from the same side politically.  That can erode faith in the democratic process (If "they" weren't entirely truthful about X, how can we trust what "they" say about Y - and so on).  To others, that is just considered breaking a few eggs en route to an omelet and is no big deal.  Perhaps the plurality don't even pay attention and don't have an opinion nor care.
 You can argue in retrospect what would've been the optimal path all you want but it doesn't take anything away from the mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion that Fauci didn't lie (wasn't truthful, didn't give full disclosure, whatever synonymous phrase you want to insert that carries the least amount of political heft so it mitigates the distraction) in the first place. 

[GuitarStv]

Remember when Fauci lied about masks at the beginning of the pandemic and then later said there was nothing wrong with lying to people for the greater good?  Or when he lied about the US funded gain of function covid research in Wuhan?  Or when youtube removed senate hearings where front line doctors were testifying about covid treatments they were using?

Everything red here is misinformation and you fell for it hook and sinker.

You are parroting right wing drivel here and I think you are promoting propaganda and that should be stopped.

I did not agree with Fauci's position on masks at the time but remember very well that, in the context of the time, he was not lying.

You're saying that Antony Fauci himself is a purveyor of right wing drivel and that I shouldn't trust his own words describing his own advice about masks early on in the pandemic?

Why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

"Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." - Antony Fauci

  - https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

I disagreed with the assessment that Covid was not airborne early in the pandemic. My opinion at the time was, in the absence of clearly demonstrated airborne transmission, that Covid transmission was very likely transmitted airborne. The pressure on the relevant authorities not to compromise already overstretched supplies of PPEs for medical personnel in the absence of clearly demonstrated airborne transmission is not too difficult to understand. Once it was clear that Covid is airborne and that transmission can be mitigated with cloth masks etc. the recommendations were changed.

What makes what you wrote right wing drivel and propaganda is calling it lies and disregarding the historical context, while the truth is that they made a wrong call - glaringly obvious in retrospect.
But imagine if things had turned out the other way around and Covid transmission had been fomite and droplet driven and a general recommendation for masks had been issued and led to depletion of PPEs for medical settings. That would have been a disastrous error capable of crippling the health care system much worse than we have seen.

Fauci (in his own words) said above that he told people not to wear masks because he was concerned that medical professionals wouldn't have enough access to them.  I completely understand the reasoning behind why he lied, but (even assuming the best of intentions) it was still a lie.

[achvfi]

y'all need to check out this group in Reddit called Herman Cain Award. Created based on late GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain's death.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

Everyday whole lot of stories get posted about people who rail against masks and vaccines on social media overtime and finally end up in hospital or worse, dead.