Possible drug treatment for Covid 19 rather than vaccine

[4channel]

This could be good news for those who don't like needles

---

STAT

In a major setback, Merck to stop developing its two Covid-19 vaccines and focus on therapies

By Matthew Herper @matthewherper and Helen Branswell @HelenBranswell

January 25, 2021

https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/25/in-a-major-setback-merck-to-stop-developing-its-two-covid-19-vac...

--------------------------------------------------------------

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Merck Scraps Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates The two shots generated comparatively weak immune responses in early-stage studies

By Jared S. Hopkins

Merck said it would now focus on advancing two experimental Covid-19 drugs.

Merck & Co. said Monday that it is halting development of its two experimental Covid-19 vaccines, after early clinical-trial data showed the shots generated disappointing immune responses against the virus.

Early-stage studies of the vaccines indicated they produced inferior immune responses in subjects given the shots compared with people who survived Covid-19 or took authorized Covid-19 vaccines, the company said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/merck-scraps-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-11611575103

---

This could be good news for those who don't like needles

---

Daily Mail

Top doctor urges Australians to be 'realistic' about overseas vaccine deaths because they were 'elderly people who were likely to die anyway'

• A public health expert has called on Australians to be 'realistic' about vaccines
• Epidemiologist Professor Tony Blakely, said there may be some side effects 
• But he is urging Australians to get the jab as a national ad campaign is launched 
• In Norway 33 elderly patients died after receiving a coronavirus vaccination 

By Levi Parsons For Daily Mail Australia

Published: 15:20 AEDT, 27 January 2021 | Updated: 15:20 AEDT, 27 January 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9191189/Top-doctor-urges-Australians-realistic-overseas-vac...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC NEWS

Is the Pfizer vaccine the culprit in the elderly deaths in Norway? It's too soon to say

ABC Health & Wellbeing

By Norman Swan and Olivia Willis

Posted MonMonday 18 JanJanuary 2021 at 5:30pm

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-01-18/cause-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine-norway-deaths-not-clear/...

---

I'd be very interested to see how the drug trials go.

[4channel]

---

@not_for_sale2025 wrote:

People with self-inflicted injury, smokers with breathing problems and drunks who have been hurt are treated differently by many hospitals and hospital staff. They can be allocated a lower priority and do have to wait longer. I am not judging these attitudes and practices. But if our hospitals do start to crash under the pressure of unvaccinated people with Covid-19, then similar attitudes may start to develop. Rightly or wrongly, this will lead to debate which will be more divisive. But what is the alternative solution?

---

                                                         -------------------------------------------------------

Because vaccination cannot and must not ever be mandatory for a whole plethora of reasons, the "vaccinated" status of an individual should never be a gauge of worthiness when it comes to treatment. It should also never be an excuse to lump them in the same bag with substance abusers. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that this is what you are doing.

The thing is that "vaccinated" people are still having to be treated for the symptoms of the virus. Some get sick and do end up in hospital. They are being treated with either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. These are the very drugs that have been made unavailable to the "unvaccinated".  So is it a case that efficacy only can be achived using these drugs if there is partial protection from "vaination"?

Below is evidence from doctors that oral drugs work. I saw a "Covid Summit" meeting some time back where doctors were giving testimonies. Dr. McCullough may have attended, Dr. Khory and the fellow who pioneered the mRNA vaccine (his name eludes me at the moment) weren't there. Attendees included -

Brian M. Tyson, MD;  George Fareed, MD;  Mathew Crawford, MD;  David Wiseman, PHD;  Emmanuel Beltran Guiterrez, MD;  Robert Vilegas, NP;  Edgar Josue Anaya Gomez, MD;   Paloma Serrana Lopez, MD;   Ernesto Breton Herrera, MD;  Jesus Palomera III, MD;  Christiany Alexander Morales;  Ana Mariella Escutia Gonzalez;   Fabiola Tyson, NP, MD;  Peter Mcullough, MD, MPH.

Spoiler

       The problem is that with Merck's mark up on their molnupiravir, the traditionally used drugs will need confederation. Proven effiicacy and  safety in the best possible way has been achieved.  Just whatever it is is blocking things.      

Sad but true

[countessalmirena]

---

@4channel wrote:

---

The thing is that "vaccinated" people are still having to be treated for the symptoms of the virus. Some get sick and do end up in hospital. They are being treated with either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. These are the very drugs that have been made unavailable to the "unvaccinated". 

---

That is not correct.

I post this with respect for your passion and because I think that you believe what you have posted. Sincerity is not something I have any wish to mock... but I must call it out as untrue.

Vaccinated people are NOT being treated with either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. First of all, let me state once again (as I have already pointed out elsewhere on this board) that "[t]he risk of dying if VACCINATED is drastically lower: 95% to 98% decreased risk". Professor Peter Collignon also states that  vaccinated people who do become infected have a 90% reduction in their risk of being hospitalised (that is, they'll be either asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms). This holds true even when the patient was vaccinated 6 months ago. There's at least a 70% decrease in the risk of becoming infected. There's also - very importantly - a significant decrease in the risk of transmitting the disease to others; Professor Peter Collignon puts it at between at least 70% up to 90% decrease in transmissibility.

I'll put it in point form, so that you can read it easily.

What protections do vaccinations actually offer?

A vaccinated person has:

• roughly a 70% decrease in the risk of becoming infected by COVID-19 - a substantial reduction in risk;
• a 90% decrease in the risk of developing symptoms requiring hospitalisation, probably experiencing only mild or zero symptoms, and recovering much more quickly from the disease;
• an even better protection against dying of the disease - about 95-98% decrease in the risk of dying of COVID-19;
• at least between 70%-90% decrease in the risk of transmitting the disease to others.

When an unvaccinated person is being denied ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, it's no different to how a vaccinated person is treated in respect of those drugs. They are not approved for treatment because the data shows insufficient efficacy.* As we increasingly have effective and proven medications for COVID-19 patients, including one that is specifically designed for people who are unvaccinated (in order to provide them with antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus), I hope that more people with this ivermectin fixation will become aware of what actually works when you're sick and afraid of dying, and what doesn't.

* Some studies were favourable towards the use of such drugs, but they were not good quality studies. They certainly weren't double-blind randomised placebo controlled clinical trials. Any papers relying on such low quality studies/trials fail to offer the required level of evidence for giving provisional or emergency use approval. The current position - that these drugs can be used against COVID-19 only in clinical conditions under medical supervision, as part of clinical trials - is the correct position.

[4channel]

I have recently read some article as well as listen to clips by medical professionals who have said that some "vaccinated" have had to be treated with these oral drugs.

We've been over this before. You take the stance you do because of various reasons. I take my stance on what I hear and read from medical professionals who give true accounts of efficacy in action. Red tape exists for various reasons. One undisclosed reason is because it protects the profit of huge pharma.  I have an example a while back of where a test was done with hydrox or ivermectin and how it was sabotaged. Dr. McCullough explained in one of his interviews how tests for hydrox were deliberately done in the late stages of illness where it is not so effective when they should have been done in the early where it is effective.

Today's bold  but ridiculed doctor challenging huge pharma is the equivalent of the 20 year ago "labelled traitor" politician, expert, inspector who dared speak out about the lack of real evidence given to invade Iraq!

[janeababe]

Talk about flogging a dead horse! 😐

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

@4channel

where did you see the medical professionals claiming vaccinated people who caught COVID were being treated with Ivermectin?  Was it YouTube videos of nurses (medical professionals) addressing anti-lockdown/vaccination rallies?

https://mobile-reuters-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2QO0P1?amp_j...

https://www.aap.com.au/ivermectin-is-not-being-given-to-covid-19-patients-in-australia/

AND PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP mentioning the Iraq war.  As soon as you do that you lose any credibility you may have left.

[domino-710]

LOL - and all or most of those - ' well respected ' Doctors are into fund gathering.

Take a look at the founders of  - BIRD - FLCCC - American Frontline Doctors - good grief - Dr Tess Lawrie - Dr Simone Gold ( who by the way is up on charges for the January 6th insurrection ) - hello - $90 per online consult + buy your Ivermectin here. 

What a joke.