[News] Upd: Canadian NHL Teams to require proof of vaccination to attend any arena events

[Monahammer]

I maintain my original sentiment that this thread was always going to be like one of those nasty wasp traps that lets the wasps fly in to feed and then gets them all sticky until they die.

Except instead of wasps it was idiots outing themselves as anti science nut jobs.



Banning isn't necessary, but if enough people just add the looneys to their ignore lists it will be like they were banned.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Which 3? Pfizer Moderna aaand...?

I was incorrect, just those two. I thought one of the others not in use in Canada or the US was as well, but it's not.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Although it sounds dumb when you put it that way, there is actually very promising work going on with Ivermectin as it pertains to Covid - https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

There have been some conflicting studies, but the research is ongoing and actually looks fairly positive.

"Promising work". People are taking it now because of crackpot pseudo scientists and pundits (the same people who say Pfizer is experimental).

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

"Promising work". People are taking it now because of crackpot pseudo scientists and pundits (the same people who say Pfizer is experimental).

Did you even read the link I provided?

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Housley4Prez is the type of person who Theo Fleury seeks to influence with his fearmongering Twitter bull####. This is why misinformation is so dangerous.

I found their point about "achieving scientific consensus" to be particularly suspect because it implies that actual research can be equated with and pitted against baseless conjecture. You're not a scientist, Housley4Prez. You don't have any basis to invalidate the existing consensus.

As a scientist, I dislike the term "consensus" within the framework of scientific research. Something that is not scientific law it is just theory and therefore subject to testing different hypotheses. That is the great thing about scientific method. Scientific consensus still needs to be tested and by all accounts improved...or changed entirely base on observations/outcomes deduced by hypothesis, testing and analysis.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Did you even read the link I provided?

Yes. So what? Do you deny that people are taking it now on the advice of crackpots?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/20...r-sotu-vpx.cnn

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...id-coronavirus


Oh, BTW, not so promising after all:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Although it sounds dumb when you put it that way, there is actually very promising work going on with Ivermectin as it pertains to Covid - https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

There have been some conflicting studies, but the research is ongoing and actually looks fairly positive.

Actually? This is a very interesting study. Thanks.

I'm surprised at the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a prophylactic, but clearly there's a bit more that needs to be done there.

Either way, people need to stop taking any formulations meant for horses, regardless of any possible benefits.

Ah, GioforPM caught the problem for me.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes. So what? Do you deny that people are taking it now on the advice of crackpots?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/20...r-sotu-vpx.cnn

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...id-coronavirus


Oh, BTW, not so promising after all:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

I read that nature article too - the metanalysis I posted from the American Journal of Therapeutics is from this month. The nature article references one study removed from preprint - does not invalidate all the other studies that this meta-analysis references. I didn't say the science is settled, but I don't think you can call it pseudo science when it is backed by , you know, published scientific data... it's just data I am presenting... should we not be happy that a cheap treatment may be an option?

Edit: re-read the nature article - didn't realize it mentions the meta analysis, however the author doesn't believe removing that one study from the analysis should discredit the findings... I just don't understand the strong push back against scientific studies. The data are the data and right now there is evidence that shows Ivermectin might work. I don't get the hostility.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I read that nature article too - the metanalysis I posted from the American Journal of Therapeutics is from this month. The nature article references one study removed from preprint - does not invalidate all the other studies that this meta-analysis references. I didn't say the science is settled, but I don't think you can call it pseudo science when it is backed by , you know, published scientific data... it's just data I am presenting... should we not be happy that a cheap treatment may be an option?

I didn't call the study pseudo science. I called the people pushing it hard right now pseudo scientists.

and the "one study" is the main basis for the promotion of Ivermectin:

https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2021...vid-study.html

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I didn't call the study pseudo science. I called the people pushing it hard right now pseudo scientists.

and the "one study" is the main basis for the promotion of Ivermectin:

https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2021...vid-study.html

The study I referenced is a meta analysis of several studies. I don't really care why some people are pushing it as treatment - the data says what the data says.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Actually? This is a very interesting study. Thanks.

I'm surprised at the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a prophylactic, but clearly there's a bit more that needs to be done there.

Either way, people need to stop taking any formulations meant for horses, regardless of any possible benefits.

Ah, GioforPM caught the problem for me.

The thing is that one of the stumbling blocks with Ivermectin has been that nobody will fund further large scale research on a drug that is well out of it's patent phase, and this seems to be the reason why smaller trials have been ignored by the WHO to date.

This could potentially be used to treat severe breakthrough infections and should be fully explored as we adjust to likely living with Covid. I don't think anything with promising results like this should be disqualified if it can possibly lower death rates, especially with so many people who selfishly won't get the vaccine.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Actually? This is a very interesting study. Thanks.

I'm surprised at the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a prophylactic, but clearly there's a bit more that needs to be done there.

Either way, people need to stop taking any formulations meant for horses, regardless of any possible benefits.

Ah, GioforPM caught the problem for me.

What problem? One study of several involved in a metanalysis? It seems as a case is building for Ivermectin, not the other way around. We'll see though, hopefully it is as it would be great to have a cheap and widely available treatment/prevention - especially for the 3rd world. I agree though, more work needs to be done before i'd recommend ppl take it.

[timbit]

“If the people who call everyone else sheep could stop taking livestock medication ....that would be great!”

[Dentoman]

This recent study shows ivermectin has and hydroxychloroquine as having no effect. However, fluvoxamine had a surprising effect. The hypothesis is because of its anti-inflammatory effects.

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...voxamine-covid

Just get the vaccine and you don't have to worry about the use of off label drugs.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by timbit

“If the people who call everyone else sheep could stop taking livestock medication ....that would be great!”

Except for the fact that there is a lot of science backing it's effectiveness. Also, it's not about sheep vs. non sheep on this issue. It is those who care to take the time to do proper research and those who do not.

[Weitz]

This is a hell of a thread.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Weitz

This is a hell of a thread.

Should start a climate change thread. Or weave it into this one.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by VilleN

First of all, the fact that the technology has been in development for many years is irrelevant.

No it isn’t. It is 1000% completely relevant. Do more and better critical thinking.

Secondly, the behaviour of these nanolipids as vectors for the mRNA are not fully known either, there is evidence to suggest that they carry the mRNA into more tissues than a traditional vaccine would.

Any evidence of your statement that mRNA carrying into more tissue than a traditional vaccine? Your statement seems vague and reckless. What tissue? What consequences? What pathways?

The list of things in medical science that isn’t “fully” understood long and deep. Actually it’s kind of the point.

The review of Nanolipids has been exhaustive and thorough with scientific rigor in every country that has approved them. It’s incredibly condescending to think you know more than the 10,000 hours people have spent evaluating them.

Great. You have a science degree…. What year?

10 years after someone graduates from Med school 1/2 of what they’re learned is either irrelevant or completely wrong but they don’t know which 1/2.

This is why it’s incredibly essentially to NOT extend intellectual license outside one’s narrow focus of medical training, expertise, and experience while delegating to specialists who are actively keeping up with the field.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Except for the fact that there is a lot of science backing it's effectiveness. Also, it's not about sheep vs. non sheep on this issue. It is those who care to take the time to do proper research and those who do not.

People should not be taking an animal drug on their own, without any direction or approval from doctors or health regulators, regardless of it’s potential effectiveness in sparse clinical trials.

What are you talking about?

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Except for the fact that there is a lot of science backing it's effectiveness. Also, it's not about sheep vs. non sheep on this issue. It is those who care to take the time to do proper research and those who do not.

And there is also science backing its lack of effectiveness.
Why don't we just use the therapies that are scientifically proven instead of chasing our tails with ivermectin?
I haven't seen any studies that doubt the effectiveness of the present Covid vaccines used in Canada.