I had one vaccine dose with severe issues. So maybe I'm skeptical, I won't get a second or third dose. Most people in this camp will just use ivermectin. Including myself, it works and is safe.

There is no evidence ivermectin works against COVID. There is still one large study running, I think, that might show a small effect, but definitely not a big effect.

Sorry you had a severe issue with your vaccine.

That larger study is only doing three days of doses which unfortunately isn't enough in most cases.

I had a hardened blood clot surgically removed off my scalp the other day. Was in a vein right by my temple. When the report comes back confirming I'm hoping it'll get me a proper scan.

> There is no evidence ivermectin works against COVID

Does that mean that there is no evidence that it doesn't work either? :)

The scientific method generally doesn't prove negatives. In this case, a trial is done where one group is given ivermectin and the other is given sugar pills (placebo). Their health outcomes are compared. If you have enough people in the trial and there is enough of a difference between the outcomes of the 2 groups then you say you have evidence that ivermectin is effective.

The well run trials to this point don't show a significant difference between the groups. The ivermectin advocates say that the trials have not been run correctly for various reasons like dosage, timing, etc. More trials can be run to try to address these concerns. This can be repeated any number of times but at some point people will give up trying if no effect is found.

The antiviral mechanism of Ivermectin involves the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1 in the host. It can and has lead to death when improperly dosed.

The size of dose you are talking about would be only possible to take if you were contemplating suicide.

You left a lot out in regards to the mechanisms of action: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

This article has been retracted 5 months ago. So basically right after publication [1] .

[1] https://pubpeer.com/publications/EDF9109EE29DF2340379B562365...

Yeah it does appear to be a crap article.

Anything can lead to death when improperly dosed.

I'm not so certain. People who for whatever irrational reason don't want an mRNA vaccine can take a viral vector vaccine. Yet they don't.

I suppose some people would lump me in with "anti-vaxxer" because I don't want to get the Covid vaccine.

I'm not anti-vax, btw. I have a medical condition that requires me to receive regular vaccination against several diseases, and I'm strict about doing that on time.

I've made a calculated decision in the case of this specific vaccine based on that fact that I've now had Covid twice (first time was a bit nasty, second time was very mild) and have acquired fairly robust natural immunity.

According to almost all of the research I've read, natural immunity is at least as effective as the vaccine, which makes sense to me. Our bodies (if healthy) tend to be pretty good at this stuff.

The vaccine carries risk, all medical treatments do. When I calculate my baseline risk - very healthy, fit, no cormobidities, etc..., couple it with my acquired natural immunity, my chances of a negative outcome from Covid asymptotically approach zero. This appears to me to be less risk than the vaccine introduces.

I say all this to describe my mindset, I think a lot of people share it. Lumping everyone that choses based on a risk calculation to not receive the vaccine as "anti-vaxxer" is a common thing that people do (though I believe it is wrong).

All that being said, my primary point is that if I got Covid again, I'd absolutely be receptive to a therapeutic like this.

My decision against getting the vaccine was entirely risk based. At the point where I've contracted the illness again, however unlikely, the risk has been realized and I would 100% be receptive to taking this therapeutic if my doctor recommended it.

> My decision against getting the vaccine was entirely risk based.

You say that, but you ended up catching COVID twice. Was the second time post the availability of vaccines?

The thing is, you're not representative of unvaccinated folks. You're an extreme outlier. Most of them haven't done this research.

In my opinion, if you're nice and wear a mask in crowded conditions, don't go around hanging especially indoors in big groups, your position is kind of ok.

Though I'd still look at the numbers to check if vaccines reduce infection rates and rate of spread. Because if that's true, it might be worth getting vaccinated to protect others a bit more.

Your priors probably need updating as natural immunity as the OP describes appears to be much more robust, esp compared to the J&J after a year. Also vaccinated people spread delta, so everyone is getting it on some time scale.

> Also vaccinated people spread delta

Vaccinated people? Much less so than the unvaccinated.

Double vaccinated people are 60-75% less likely to catch even asymptomatic COVID. If infected, they are 50% less likely to transmit it onwards to others. These are Delta figures.

“Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59077036

(Article contains link to the Lancet study)

That happens in breakthrough infections, and the goal of the vaccine is to reduce the number of breakthroughs, which it does successfully.

From the Lancet study linked in the article:

> The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals.

That's a misleading line, referring to peak viral load. If you read the rest of the article (or probably the study abstract), you will see vaccinated people are infectious for less time.

It’s less, but you have to factor the ^(n) interactions over years.

Vaccinated people will spread without even knowing, this is already the main way of spread in many areas with very high vaccination rates.

This is exactly right and is maybe the primary factor in why infection rates sky rocketed (year over year) in places that had high vaccination rates.

You > Your priors probably need updating as natural immunity as the OP describes appears to be much more robust, esp compared to the J&J after a year.

Me > Though I'd still look at the numbers to check if vaccines reduce infection rates and rate of spread.

Thankfully I said that already.

> Also vaccinated people spread delta, so everyone is getting it on some time scale.

That's not guaranteed, though. Just like not everyone on the planet will ever get all the strands of flu or cold or whatever. Through natural immunity + vaccinations at some point the disease can just die down and through a simple rotation you could avoid it (i.e. everyone else gets it at a time when you're not around so you're spared).

Plus the time scale is important. In November 2019 we didn't have any vaccines, now we have 4 that are approved on a wide scale (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, AZ) plus a bunch of others with widespread usage but a less stellar reputation (Sputnik, the Chinese ones) plus another bunch coming soon <<and>> this very topic is about a drug for curing it. And another slightly less effective drug has also been approved recently, from Merck. That's... 24 months after the initial outbreak. Who knows what 24 more months will bring?

I hear you and your argument sounds rational. I wonder what do you think about receiving it for the sake of potentially vulnerable people around you. Just to reduce the likelihood of spreading it to someone who, unlike you, might be in real danger.

I personally didn’t mind the side effects, but mainly got it because I thought: What if I get Covid and give it to someone and something happens to them? And then I thought that it still worths the risk.

Of course no one should blame you if you want to care for yourself but I’m interested to know your feelings on this.

I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated to protect themselves against severe symptoms, but that does little to protect vulnerable people. Vaccinated people also transmit the virus. Since the virus is endemic and can't be eradicated, everyone will be exposed multiple times throughout their lives.

But apparently vaccinated people only transmit the virus if it’s a breakthrough case. If that’s the case then the transmission is reduced in more vaccinated populations compared to unvaccinated.

Please stop repeating misinformation. Vaccination has only a temporary and limited effect on reducing transmission.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

It interesting that some people even when faced with such an articulate and easy to read article still resist understanding it so that their beliefs are not challenged.

It’s rational argument especially now that we know vaccinated people spread this endemic virus.

Your mindset should be: everyone is going to get this, probably multiple times in your life, vaccines reduce the symptoms, but not as effectively as having survived covid.

Maybe if they're hesitant for irrational reasons. But if they're hesitant for rational reasons, mRNA vaccines and modified adenovirus vaccines are both new for mass use.

There are some inactivated virus vaccines which would be best for people who want to avoid new vaccine types, but AFAIK they haven't even been tested in the US.

Monoclonal antibodies get less pushback https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/health/covid-antibody-reg...

I think there's also some "it won't happen to me" mentality that quickly disappears once it does (which is far too late for a vaccine)

Or they'll say that the supply chain issues have forced the US to start using larger 5G spyware-mindcontrol whatevers, so they now they need people to take a pill.

Or that big pharma wasn't making enough money off ivermectin, so they invented a new pseudo-drug or something.

When you believe that core institutions are worse than inept and actively work against you, you can justify anything. I'd call it a coin toss whether they're for or against.

Because _absolutely_ _anything_ is less dangerous than mRNA.

I have bad news for you (unless it was irony, which I can't rule out): the SARS-CoV2 virus contains its genome as RNA that is used directly (IIRC) as mRNA. Because it's needed for the protein synthesis to build new virus particles. This is true for every virus, BTW: they either contain RNA that can be used by the cell for protein synthesis (i.e. mRNA) or they do synthesize (or make the cell synthesize) the mRNA based on their genome, one way or another.

So no matter what, you'll get the viral mRNA in your body. Either through infection or through the vaccine. The vaccine just contains a small fragment and it does not proliferate. Unlike the virus.

mRNA has potential to be dangerous. There is nothing inherently dangerous in what our bodies already use as building instructions, nor is there evidence to suggest current mRNA vaccines cause any of these theoretical issues.

Yeah, plus on top of that, anything has the potential to be dangerous. Take, for example, water. Everybody knows about its positive sides, and about most of the negative ones.

But 99% of people don't know that water can kill you. I'm not talking about drowning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

If the most benign substance on the surface on the planet can kill you, anything can.