Covid 19

It seems every time, it's either too new and hasn't been vetted, or it's too old and not relevant. Or it's from a doctor or university you don't approve of. So please provide a list of Doctors and Organization you approve of. And a date range that is acceptable for "relevant" data. I will try to accomodate in the future.

 

Again, you are NOT posting all of the information about Sotrovimab. It is currently being used only on very early cases of Covid, in Covid patients that meet certain criteria. Prophylactic qualities of the drug are currently undetermined as studies are still being conducted in rodents. At this point, Sotrovimab appears to be similar to Regeneron and is only useful in Covid infections that are LESS THAN FIVE DAYS OLD.

 

The problem with viewpoints and attitudes like Jesse's is that if you told them to take horse manure I mean de-wormer because the FDA says it's the right thing to do, they would be running to find every obscure data point on why this exact slate of COVID-19 vaccines as they sit today are the REAL way out of this pandemic.

Their types of minds are controlled by a fetish that precludes them from believing anything that most people say is the right thing to do, including scientists - which is all poor Dr Fauci is. Two years ago, you would have had zero issue whatsoever if Fauci had a soundbyte on the national news talking about a new and more effective smallpox vaccine for kids.

I wonder if people with Jesse's psychological makeup actually believe subconsciously in the truth, but cannot consciously admit it to themselves, and just like someone with Turret's syndrome, are physically and mentally precluded from being able to stop themselves from digging up the absolute opposite viewpoint, no matter fact what they are presented with, just because it is a compulsion of contrarianism?

I'm not trying to be funny, or insulting. I am being 100% serious because there's no other rational explanation for willingly digging up fake news and ignoring the flashing red lights of factual data that are right in front of their eyes.

PS: https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/dh...es-more-likely-to-die-from-covid-19/19845633/

People who haven't been vaccinated against coronavirus are 15.4 times more likely to die from COVID-19 as those who have gotten their shots, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

The statistic, which covers the four weeks that ended last Saturday, shows the virulence of the Delta variant of the virus in North Carolina. A week ago, DHHS had reported the relative mortality rate as 4.6 percent for the four-week period that ended Aug. 14.

Since the beginning of the year, 7,259 people have died across the state from COVID-19; only 150 of them were vaccinated, officials said.

Black and white facts! Thread can now be CLOSED. Final answer.

 

Now, you’re just getting defensive and testy. Not all “information” comes from a valid, reliable source, especially in this day and age when information of ANY KIND can easily be manipulated and used for financial gain. Like a lot of Americans, you tend to just read things online, and do not investigate the source of the material. This is a dangerous practice, because if you dig a little deeper, you will find glaring inconsistencies, not only in the material itself, but also with the people who post these things online. This is the same problem NJ2NC has. He posted a medical paper on here that was NOT peer-reviewed or evaluated, which was later co-opted by a third party who changed the information to support his viewpoint. Of course, this online writer, also changed the content on his MONETIZED online site. So free, stolen content and…..Cha-Ching! This happens all over the internet, so as a consumer of information, a reader must now take the extra step of verifying dubious claims and track the original source of the information. That’s what I do every day, whether it’s about Covid, or about anything else.

 

Interesting points. I think that our society has become extremely narcissistic, and so, this leads people to value themselves more than other people. Bring in the various apparatuses for persuasion, like online manipulated information, and crackpot conspiracy theories, then it’s pretty much a recipe for informational disaster. Add politics into the mix, and it becomes even worse to try to focus on general public health. As you may notice, Jesse has brought the issue of politics into this, which is not the issue here at all. The issue is to track and expose disinformation and keep ALL Americans and their families healthy, so that we can FIGHT THIS VIRUS and not each other.

 

Here we go again ,,

 

It's approved by the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization, the same as all Covid vaccines were up until this week. It can be used by patients in the same way.

 

I'm not the one on here pushing Ivermectin, and never would. That is 100% by Wayne talking about that drug. Don't rope me into that discussion.

I would never do something just because some TV personality, I mean FDA "spokesperson". says so. I do my own research and make my own decisions on what is best for myself based on evidence and risk.

 

Simple, you use published, not pre-publication, peer reviewed data relevant to the current situation from reputable experts, not veterinarians or psychiatrists, in a related field such as virology or immunology. That means you will have a hard time finding anything to support your assertions that masks and vaccines are not effective or needed.

 

No, you really do need to get someone to assist you in understanding what is being said. The EUA is ONLY for the treatment of Covid 19 NOT as a vaccine, that was research done with hamsters and far from the requirement for FDA approval for anything.

 

You epitomize the old saying about a lawyer who represents having a fool for a client, but even worse. Someone lacking in the skills to understand statistics, research, and science in general attempting to do their own research because you do not believe the experts in the fields not only has a fool for a client, but they are risking that fool's life.

 

Okay, so here’s a tip in how to find accurate information. I went straight to the SOURCE itself, the pharmaceutical company Glaxo Smith Kline, which produces Sotrovimab to get their current published information, rather than relying on a “secondhand report”, or a “story” online that may not include complete information, and could also be used to manipulate the information, to achieve a certain effect. Finding source content is a good way to verify any information, that you may find online, whatever the topic, and a reader should take the extra time to do that. Here is the source information from Glaxo Smith Kline regarding Sotrovimab:

 

ACW ,,

 

The complete information from Glaxo Smith Kline is important because as the story in your post shows, which does not include all of this source information, readers may view Sotrovimab as some kind of “miracle cure” when it is not. The treatment is somewhat comparable to Regeneron, and can only be used on infected patients with infections less than 5 days old. There are also criteria which restricts its use in certain patients, and data is still being collected, especially in regards to adverse effects. This is why you need to post original source content, so that you don’t have the problem that Florida Regeneron clinics had when infected patients were seeking treatment, believing that Regeneron was a “miracle cure”, but were too far gone for Regeneron to have any positive benefits. These secondhand stories that you are posting, omit these important facts, and can be viewed as a form of disinformation, when readers do not investigate the drug in its entirety.

 

Wrong. It cannot be used by patients in the same way as a vaccine. It is not a cure, or even a prophylactic against Covid. It is merely an early treatment, (Glaxo Smith Kline describes it as a “treatment) and only used in certain patients that have been infected for less than 5 days. They will not use it in patients who have been infected for over 5 days. It is not a substitute for the vaccine, but simply a treatment for VERY EARLY infections.

 

You’re not finding source content, so how can anyone make an accurate decision without that important information? And you’re making decisions about your HEALTH with this flawed method?

 

He has leaped to a conclusion and has been trying to find something that may justify that conclusion rather than taking the factual data and drawing a conclusion from that data.

 

Excerpt from a CBS report: