₦airaland Forum

KingAzubuike:
Una don come again. Despite the vaccine, despite the "booster".

Na that booster just weak me pass. Despite taking two jabs of morderna/astrazenica una come months later say there's another jab called booster lol.. very soon they go say another dey called super duper booster.

Abi na how a so-called variant una call omicron just came out of thin air we wan talk.?

sometimes I really don't blame those who call this thing a scam. There are so many questions marks.

write with English oga

lalasticlala:
https://oneresearch.org/2021/12/29/recovered-patients-of-severe-covid-19-infection-233-more-likely-than-negative-counterparts-to-die-within-year/

They should go and rest joor.
Their own research is to discover the negative aspect. Meanwhile, they are unable to research and discover a single positive aspect like the cure

halfcurrent:
They should go and rest joor.
Their own research is to discover the negative aspect. Meanwhile, they are unable to research and discover a single positive aspect like the cure

There is a medication developed by Merck that looks promising, and another one too under development

Chloroquine and ivermectin don't work. All the RCTs done show both don't work

bayonet:
It is a VIRUS, not a bacteria nor fungi, Viruses are so weird you will think they have brains, when you attack a virus, it will learn from it will learn and build and strengthen it's own weakness and keep fighting and multiplying at a geometric progression.

Was Arteta Vaccinated at any point? I do not think so because he never mentioned if he was vaccinated or not.

Being vaccinated doesn't mean you should go around licking hand rails and sucking out saliva out of people's mouth. The vaccine gives you a good fighting chance against the virus, that's the whole point of all vaccines, vacvines are not for cures, they are for prevention from severe symptoms.

Lexy2014,is irredeemable don't waste your time go through his post on any covid related thread everyone has tried to help him understand vaccines and the virus and the fact that it is still a novel one and scientist are learning about it everyday but Mr lexy doesn't care the vaccines are a cure to him and if it doesn't cure you the vaccines are fake according to Mr Lexy.I won't waste my time on nairaland educating anybody on the virus.

He wears his badge of ignorance with honour and he is best ignored and not taken seriously on this topic because his aim is to be mischievous.

bayonet:
I hope you know policies are meant to be changed, just like paliarments in every country change their laws year in year out.

Going by what you are saying, they should have allowed the whole world to keep dying rather than approve a vaccine under an emergency policy to accommodate it.

Do you also understand that science has leapt a long distance forward since polio days?

You want to site a link you are siting Christianity dailies for me, now I know where your challenge lies.

Why you dey waste your time on that one?
No need educating them their lives their choice abeg.

[quote author=bayonet post=108932465][/quote]You dey mind am 5 million people have died those ones are not human beings and have families since according to them because the disease isn't very fatal we shouldn't try to stay safe

AmazonTopaz:
Lexy2014,is irredeemable don't waste your time go through his post on any covid related thread everyone has tried to help him understand vaccines and the virus and the fact that it is still a novel one and scientist are learning about it everyday but Mr left doesn't care the vaccines are a cure and if it doesn't cure you the vaccines are fake according to Mr Lexy.I won't waste my time on nairaland educating anybody on the virus.

Who are the "everyone" you are referring to? can u pls mention them? you also mentioned vaccine being cure? can u kindly produce where we had any discussion about vaccine being a cure?

if you would oblige me and the individual you responded to, kindly tell us what a cure is and what a vaccine is.

lexy2014:
Who are the "everyone" you are referring to? can u pls mention them? you also mentioned vaccine being cure? can u kindly produce where we had any discussion about vaccine being a cure?

if you would oblige me and the individual you responded to, kindly tell us what a cure is and what a vaccine is.

Me oblige you?

Bye boy.

AmazonTopaz:
Me oblige you?

Bye boy.

u havent answered the questions:

Who are the "everyone" you are referring to? can u pls mention them? you also mentioned vaccine being cure? can u kindly produce where we had any discussion about vaccine being a cure?

if you would oblige me and the individual you responded to, kindly tell us what a cure is and what a vaccine is.

Lexy2014,go back to school and learn the skill of basic comprehension I never said the vaccines were a cure I said many on this forum have tried to enlighten you that vaccines are not meant to be a cure for anything but in your irredeemable mind it is hence you ask silly questions to question the efficacy of the vaccines.

If you cannot understand this clarification you are beyond redeemable now get lost.

Kingpin1000:
Fear mongers.
Despite the forced vaccination no improvement.
People who took the vaccine are getting the disease more than we that will not take it.

the vaccine are disease it's self

lexy2014:
u havent answered the questions:

Who are the "everyone" you are referring to? can u pls mention them? you also mentioned vaccine being cure? can u kindly produce where we had any discussion about vaccine being a cure?

if you would oblige me and the individual you responded to, kindly tell us what a cure is and what a vaccine is.

Lol, I won't waste my time on you I have learnt.


Keep asking your questions maybe a kind fellow will choose to waste their time schooling you but not me.

AmazonTopaz:
Lol, I won't waste my time on you I have learnt.


Keep asking your questions maybe a kind fellow will choose to waste their time schooling you but not me.

still doesnt answer the questions:

Who are the "everyone" you are referring to? can u pls mention them? you also mentioned vaccine being cure? can u kindly produce where we had any discussion about vaccine being a cure?

if you would oblige me and the individual you responded to, kindly tell us what a cure is and what a vaccine is.

AmazonTopaz:
Lexy2014,go back to school and learn the skill of basic comprehension I never said the vaccines were a cure I said many on this forum have tried to enlighten you that vaccines are not meant to be a cure for anything but in your irredeemable mind it is hence you ask silly questions to question the efficacy of the vaccines.

If you cannot understand this clarification you are beyond redeemable now get lost.

its because u have gone back to school and u have learnt the skill of basic comprehension that i am asking u the following questions. how come u cant answer the questions?

Who are the "everyone" you are referring to? can u pls mention them? you also mentioned vaccine being cure? can u kindly produce where we had any discussion about vaccine being a cure?

if you would oblige me and the individual you responded to, kindly tell us what a cure is and what a vaccine is.

bayonet:
It is a VIRUS, not a bacteria nor fungi, Viruses are so weird you will think they have brains, when you attack a virus, it will learn from it will learn and build and strengthen it's own weakness and keep fighting and multiplying at a geometric progression.

Was Arteta Vaccinated at any point? I do not think so because he never mentioned if he was vaccinated or not.

Being vaccinated doesn't mean you should go around licking hand rails and sucking out saliva out of people's mouth. The vaccine gives you a good fighting chance against the virus, that's the whole point of all vaccines, vacvines are not for cures, they are for prevention from severe symptoms.

If all viruses from nature were generally as you have described, all human life would have been wiped out a long time ago. The reason the coronavirus is difficult to defeat is because it was engineered to be difficult to defeat. This virus did not evolve on its own rather it was tweaked to be more transmissible and deadly. Contrary to your expectation people have taken the vaccines and still died from COVID related complications. So if the vaccines do not prevent transmission, do not prevent COVID-related deaths, are associated with myocarditis (heart disease) and do not prevent you from contracting COVID, then what is the purpose of the vaccines? Many of the people we label conspiracy theorists are people who have visited hospitals, taken drugs and take doctor's advice seriously but because they are skeptical about injecting politically motivated vaccines into their bodies we regard them as being stupid. Science is founded on informed doubt and in the light of the ineffectiveness of the vaccines in preventing transmission and contracting of COVID, the dissenting voices of some medical scientists and the push by world governments for forced vaccinations, I have enough reason to doubt the acclaimed purpose of the vaccines.

backbencher:
There is a medication developed by Merck that looks promising, and another one too under development

Chloroquine and ivermectin don't work. All the RCTs done show both don't work

RCTs? Okay provide the paper indicating the results of ONE, ONLY ONE, RCT showing that Ivermectin doesn't work. I don't need two or three papers. Show me just ONE paper, published in a reputable journal, indicating that Ivermectin doesn't work. I dey wait you. If you cannot provide any then you are spreading misinformation.

Really

efficiencie:
RCTs? Okay provide the paper indicating the results of ONE, ONLY ONE, RCT showing that Ivermectin doesn't work. I don't need two or three papers. Show me just ONE paper, published in a reputable journal, indicating that Ivermectin doesn't work. I dey wait you. If you cannot provide any then you are spreading misinformation.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19

Above is a Cochrane meta-analysis from 2021 July

The meta-analysis found no evidence that ivermectin worked in COVID treatment

I also found a lot of papers, some for and some against, but they were all pre print and had not been peer reviewed at all.

Cochrane meta-analysis are very reliable. Used them in my work too myself

Mikel Arteta has gotten the vaccine and has been tested positive again. Is there an explanation for that?

To die now and to die later no be the same?

backbencher:
https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19

Above is a Cochrane meta-analysis from 2021 July

The meta-analysis found no evidence that ivermectin worked in COVID treatment

I also found a lot of papers, some for and some against, but they were all pre print and had not been peer reviewed at all.

Cochrane meta-analysis are very reliable. Used them in my work too myself

Dude I appreciate you sharing this link but as soon as I opened it this is what I saw:

We found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19 infection, but the evidence base is limited .Evaluation of ivermectin is continuing in 31 ongoing studies, and we will update this review with their results when they become available.

Now this indicates the following:

(1) the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin to treat COVID patients or as a means of prophylaxis could be due to limited evidence base.

(2) the meta analysis did not indicate how they controlled for patients that had underlying conditions and how these confounding factors could have dampened the effect of ivermectin as a means of treatment.

(3) despite having data on hundreds of thousands of deaths (from all over the world) and having the opportunity to test the ivermectin effectiveness from the outset of the outbreak, it is amazingly disappointing that the results of this study, despite being based on evidence current up to May 26, 2021 (over 410 days since the outbreak), we still have a weak evidence base for studying the effectiveness of Ivermectin.

(4) the paper you shared does not actually provide any evidence from the meta analysis that refutes the effectiveness of ivermectin over a placebo/no treatment and they admitted this themselves as shown in the snippet below:

We don't know whether ivermectin leads to more or fewer deaths compared with no drug (1 study, 304 people); no participant died 28 days after the drug.

So dude we are back to square one. The mere fact that we have had hundreds of thousands of deaths and over 690 days so far to test ivermectin's effectiveness in a very robust manner (whilst leveraging international cooperation in COVID research) but all we have are a handful of studies with samples that will most likely not be externally valid, that may not have, thoroughly, dealt with confounding health factors of subjects and that may still be undergoing peer review is an embarrassment to medical science.

We are talking about the lives of people here but politics has, as usual, clouded the great medical and scientific minds of our time. I lost faith in these folks when I learned that Fauci's response to proving that the virus was not due to a lab leak was a letter, not a paper resulting from a rigorous investigation, signed by prominent scientists claiming that the virus from was nature and that it jumped from animals to humans. Only for the CIA to put credence to the lab leak theory. This was the beginning of vaccine hesitancy for me.

efficiencie:
Dude I appreciate you sharing this link but as soon as I opened it this is what I saw:

[I] We found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19 infection, but the evidence base is limited . Evaluation of ivermectin is continuing in 31 ongoing studies, and we will update this review with their results when they become available. [/i]

Now this indicates the following:

(1) the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin to treat COVID patients or as a means of prophylaxis could be due to limited evidence base.

(2) the meta analysis did not indicate how they controlled for patients that had underlying conditions and how these confounding factors could have dampened the effect of ivermectin as a means of treatment.

(3) despite having data on hundreds of thousands of deaths (from all over the world) and having the opportunity to test the ivermectin effectiveness from the outset of the outbreak, it is amazingly disappointing that the results of this study, despite being based on evidence current up to May 26, 2021 (over 410 days since the outbreak), we still have a weak evidence base for studying the effectiveness of Ivermectin.

(4) the paper you shared does not actually provide any evidence from the meta analysis that refutes the effectiveness of ivermectin over a placebo/no treatment and they admitted this themselves as shown in the snippet below:

We don't know whether ivermectin leads to more or fewer deaths compared with no drug (1 study, 304 people); no participant died 28 days after the drug.

So dude we are back to square one. The mere fact that we have had hundreds of thousands of deaths and over 690 days so far to test ivermectin's effectiveness in a very robust manner (whilst leveraging international cooperation in COVID research) but all we have are a handful of studies with samples that will most likely not be externally valid, that may not have, thoroughly, dealt with confounding health factors of subjects and that may still be undergoing peer review is an embarrassment to medical science.

We are talking about the lives of people here but politics has, as usual, clouded the great medical and scientific minds of our time. I lost faith in these folks when I learned that Fauci's response to proving that the virus was not due to a lab leak was a letter, not a paper resulting from a rigorous investigation, signed by prominent scientists claiming that the virus from was nature and that it jumped from animals to humans. Only for the CIA to put credence to the lab leak theory. This is was the beginning of.

The evidence base being limited means that the studies they looked at did not yield a result in favour of using ivermectin for treatment of.covid

Of course that could change as more information comes in, but right now, ivermectin does not work.

Meanwhile there are two meds,one from Merck that are doing well in early testing.

In treating new diseases, there are early treatment that usually.dont work very well.

Lassa fever was treated in the begining with plasma from infected people who survived an infection. Did.not work for most. Now we have meds that work much better.

It's a new disease. It's going to take time to develop a new curr

backbencher:
The evidence base being limited means that the studies they looked at did not yield a result in favour of using ivermectin for treatment of.covid

Of course that could change as more information comes in, but right now, ivermectin does not work.

Meanwhile there are two meds,one from Merck that are doing well in early testing.

In treating new diseases, there are early treatment that usually.dont work very well.

Lassa fever was treated in the begining with plasma from infected people who survived an infection. Did.not work for most. Now we have meds that work much better.

It's a new disease. It's going to take time to develop a new curr

Did you read this in the paper:

We don't know whether ivermectin leads to more or fewer deaths compared with no drug (1 study, 304 people); no participant died 28 days after the drug.

What does it mean?

efficiencie:
Did you read this in the paper:

We don't know whether ivermectin leads to more or fewer deaths compared with no drug (1 study, 304 people); no participant died 28 days after the drug.

What does it mean?

It means the meta analysis was unable to show that ivermectin worked based on the available evidence in treating Vs placebo

Plus that's not the only outcome looked at,there were others

Focus on the conclusion. Basically they cannot determine if ivermectin works because most of the evidence is poor quality.

So,until better evidence comes in, ivermectin doesn't work. For now

Good night

backbencher:
It means the meta analysis was unable to show that ivermectin worked based on the available evidence in treating Vs placebo

Plus that's not the only outcome looked at,there were others

Focus on the conclusion. Basically they cannot determine if ivermectin works because most of the evidence is poor quality.

So,until better evidence comes in, ivermectin doesn't work. For now

Good night

Wow. Why wait for more evidence if you have concluded that ivermectin doesn't work. Quite scientific. This is why we have a lot hesitancy.

Well stated.
This drive to enforce the vaccination against common sense is lending credence to the theory that they will make people dependent on several booster doses of the vaccine until they make it some biological chip and then the worse fears are confirmed.

Godszilla:
Well said,most of the so called scientific minds around this covid n "vaccine" are totally off and people still believe them. If you are infected and recover that automatically means you have acquired the immunity unless they have changed that definition too. The tin with the "vaccine" is it doesn't contain the pathogen so the "vaccine" can neva give you immunity to the virus but protection. Matter of fact those that have and recovered av immunity than those with the vaccines alone.
Anyway there are studies saying we may need 2 to 3 shots yearly - they are slowly laying ground work on this.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/30/up-to-three-covid-jabs-a-year-could-be-needed-for-protection-data-suggests
The question I keep asking all those for the "vaccine" is this how humans will now be living our lives?is this perfectly OK now like junkies?for a disease that's on record 99.8% recoverable if you healthy.is this how polio,measles and other vaccine we took how they work and administered.
Something is not right and people still think it's ok

Many illiterate Nigerians still think it's a hoax until e go kpai them.