FDA says stop taking animal drugs for COVID

[D34DL1N3R]

No what you saw was someone go off on a long rebuttal based on an incorrect assumption. It's almost as if Americans are programmed to respond to certain talking points in an automatic way based on whether they think the person is left or right wing. He even started off by stating my position was implied which was a shitty way to address anyone - especially when it was an incorrect assumption. None of my actual comment was anything to do with vaccines or their effects. I find it ridiculous I'm having to defend myself about this when I've spent the last year advocating vaccines to everyone under the sun.

Actually screw that, quote me where anything I said is incorrect. Not what @Xzi claimed I said, but what I actually said.

Edit: @Xzi this one is specifically for you https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097542

For starters, you're still lumping preventative vaccines and COVID treatments into the same category whether you're intentionally doing it or not.

 

[subcon959]

For starters, you're still lumping preventative vaccines and COVID treatments into the same category whether you're intentionally doing it or not.

I'm not doing anything like that, it's not my fault if people are making the wrong assumption. BTW, the vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment.

People with a compromised immune system (AIDS/HIV, chemotherapy patients, Lupus, various other autoimmune diseases) can't get the vaccine because it either won't give them immunity or might even harm them outright, and thus right now need to rely on preventative measures of themselves and others. We need better protection for those people and having a non-vaccine medication available is the best way to go about it, which is what I assume is subcon's point here, too.

Yeah, it's a pity my point was mistaken for a political position as it's a very important consideration. Hopefully they read my other link about the WHO's Solidarity Trials which show that this sort of research is ongoing and needs to be done to help those that can't take the vaccines - or even if the vaccines become less efficacious due to viral mutations.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I'm not doing anything like that, it's not my fault if people are making the wrong assumption.

It was what you said, therefore not an assumption.

BTW, the vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment

Please link to that information. Edit: Saw this: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid

There are an awful lot of words like "possible" and "seems to" there. It also specifically states "At this point, researchers can only hypothesize."

 

[Lacius]

BTW, the vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment.

The vaccines 100% are not treatments against COVID-19. They are preventatives against catching the disease, and they are preventatives against serious symptoms. The vaccines are only effective if received before future exposures to the disease.

 

[ghjfdtg]

It's better to avoid long-covid in the first place by getting vaccinated. Of course there also needs to be treatment medication for those who can't take it or for the very rare case someone gets severe symptoms from a breakthrough infection. I don't think the vaccines will do anything if you already suffer long term damage or symptoms (besides increasing your protection against another infection even further of course).

 

[The Catboy]

And now I wait for anti-vaxxors to be wrong in this thread as well

 

[subcon959]

The vaccines 100% are not treatments against COVID-19. They are preventatives against catching the disease, and they are preventatives against serious symptoms. The vaccines are only effective if received before future exposures to the disease.

100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid

 

[Dakitten]

100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid

One of the things that tend to be 100% is the intent and definition of a word. A vaccine is a prevention measure. While it certainly has a function even for the infected, it isn't really a treatment of symptoms outright.

 

[SG854]

100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid

I think in his context of the word Treatments he means not a cure. And in this case yes vaccines aren't 100% effective because even vaccinated people can still catch covid and die even if its a very small % of that happening.

In the report you linked it also shows they are not 100% effective as about 15% of long haullers feel worse after vaccination. Of course this is self reporting and more research needs to be done. So it can be a treatment for some people and for others it may not be. It's not 100% of the time which is what I think he means by 100% not treatments.

But according to the Yale report you linked I'd have to disagree with Lacuis when he said that vaccines are only effective if recieved before future exposers to the diesease. Since its shows to improve symptoms for long haulers. So it can be shown to have some effect after exposure to the diesease.

Lacius is pretty smart on this topic so I don't know if thats a mistype by him or what. But i'm sure after reading that article he'll come around to agreeing with you on that point since after all we go to what science says.

 

[SonowRaevius]

.....so when did we mandela our way into The Onion's universe?......

 

[Lacius]

100% is an awfully bold statement for anything outside of religion. Luckily, there are doctors at Yale who are more knowledgeable than you and willing to do the actual work to find out. Maybe it won't lead to anything but making blanket statements before the work is done helps no one.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid

A few things:

1. The vaccine is not being used as a treatment for long haulers. It's something long haulers are getting after contracting the disease (anyone who hasn't been vaccinated should get it if they medically can), and some report their long haul symptoms improving.
2. We don't know for sure that the vaccine does anything to improve long haulers' conditions. The long haul symptoms may just be improving on their own over time, it could be a placebo effect, etc.
3. We won't know if the vaccine could function as a treatment for long haul symptoms until double-blind studies are done on the topic.
4. "Vaccine," by definition, is a very specific thing. If it turns out that the vaccine can work as a treatment for long haul symptoms, it becomes more than just a vaccine by definition.
5. Don't get me wrong. I personally hope the vaccine works as a treatment for long haul symptoms. It would also be all the more reason to get vaccinated.

 

[SG854]

A few things:

1. The vaccine is not being used as a treatment for long haulers. It's something long haulers are getting after contracting the disease (anyone who hasn't been vaccinated should get it if they medically can), and some report their long haul symptoms improving.
2. We don't know for sure that the vaccine does anything to improve long haulers' conditions. The long haul symptoms may just be improving on their own over time, it could be a placebo effect, etc.
3. We won't know if the vaccine could function as a treatment for long haul symptoms until double-blind studies are done on the topic.
4. "Vaccine," by definition, is a very specific thing. If it turns out that the vaccine can work as a treatment for long haul symptoms, it becomes more than just a vaccine by definition.
5. Don't get me wrong. I personally hope the vaccine works as a treatment for long haul symptoms. It would also be all the more reason to get vaccinated.

Yes more research needs to be done and @subcon959 aknowledged that when he said it may lead to nothing.

But it would be nice if it can be used for treatment for long haulers. If not then there's always horse de-wormers as plan B

 

[JoeBloggs777]

Pfizer becomes first Covid vaccine to gain full FDA approval

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58309254

 

[D34DL1N3R]

@subcon959 aknowledged that when he said it may lead to nothing.

Nah. They kinda moved their goal posts after I had already previously posted the link and pointed out that the article itself states it is completely hypothetical. Prior to that there was no link, and there was the implication that "vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment" is factual information. When in actuality it was every bit as much of "making blanket statements before the work is done" as Lacius was accused of doing. Subcon kinda flipped their story after already informed of the articles nature.

 

[subcon959]

Nah. They kinda moved their goal posts after I had already previously posted the link and pointed out that the article itself states it is completely hypothetical. Prior to that there was no link, and there was the implication that "vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment" is factual information. When in actuality it was every bit as much of "making blanket statements before the work is done" as Lacius was accused of doing. Subcon kinda flipped their story after already informed of the articles nature.

You are talking out of your arse here, luckily everyone else seems to have gotten the gist so it doesn't matter.

We won't know if the vaccine could function as a treatment for long haul symptoms until double-blind studies are done on the topic.

Finally, that is the whole reason I even commented in this thread. Nobody should be dismissing anything until the relevant studies have been done, whether it's mRNA vaccines as treatment or any other molecules. The only reason we know that remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine aren't worth pursuing is because the WHO-backed clinical trials were done to rule them out. My initial comment was just to say that I wanted Ivermectin to receive similar trials before ruling it out. I only care about the science not the left/right politics injected into it in America.

Vaccine, by definition, is a very specific thing. If it turns out that the vaccine can work as a treatment for long haul symptoms, it becomes more than just a vaccine by definition.

Don't get me wrong. I personally hope the vaccine works as a treatment for long haul symptoms. It would also be all the more reason to get vaccinated.

Semantics aside I think we can agree that anything that is proven to help ease suffering is a good thing.

 

[SG854]

Nah. They kinda moved their goal posts after I had already previously posted the link and pointed out that the article itself states it is completely hypothetical. Prior to that there was no link, and there was the implication that "vaccine is not only preventative but has been shown to be effective at reducing symptoms for people with long Covid, therefore also a treatment" is factual information. When in actuality it was every bit as much of "making blanket statements before the work is done" as Lacius was accused of doing. Subcon kinda flipped their story after already informed of the articles nature.

Reading back on his comments I do not see anything you are accusing him off.

Originally he stated that the alternatives shouldn't be shut down. It's especially good if people have negative reactions to current vaccines and alternatives may help with this if they dont have negative reations to alternatives.


And if there is any misunderstanding of what he meant then he was able to clarify afterwards what he actually meant. Which he said in a following post afterwards when he aknowledged that it may lead to nothing.

People formulate thoughts as they are trying to think things through and what they say may not come out in a way they intended or precieved in a way they did not intend. They afterwards work their way through refining their points in a much more clear and consise way and clearing up misconceptions as they are talking more about it. You cannot hold someone for what your original impression of their points was especially if after they enunciated what they actually meant to clear up any misunderstandings.

So there is no excuse for you to not know what he meant if after he clarified what he really meant. That's the whole point of conversation and debate is to understand anothers point. Not to make them into a caricature and strawman them. First you represent their points as accurately as you can and if you need to, ask them if your summary of their points is something they agree with so that way you can avoid innacurate caricatures. Then after you characterized their points correctly you then offer your rebuttle.

I see nothing you are accusing him off. I see no goal post moving.

 

[Xzi]

@Xzi I can't have a discussion with you if you don't actually listen to what I'm saying and keep throwing political points at me.

I don't much care for having to repeat myself. I was not the one who decided to politicize science or vaccination in the first place, and I'm not politicizing them now. Studying potential new treatments is one thing, promoting the use of medications for anything other than their intended purpose before they've been thoroughly studied is entirely another.

Promoting good science and promoting vaccination are one and the same. Anybody promoting Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 is doing so solely as a political stunt, and they're causing quantifiable harm/death in the process. By all means, study it further, but I guarantee you that we've already got much more effective treatments available, such as Regeneron. Lack of treatment options hasn't been an issue for a long while now, the issue is a lack of adults willing to act responsibly and in the best interest of their communities.

 

[subcon959]

@Xzi This was your response to me saying that further studies on any potential new candidates is a good thing:

Why is that a good idea? The COVID-19 vaccines are among the highest efficacy vaccines that have ever been created. The only people seeking out "alternatives" are the nutters who believe the government invented the vaccines to track them, or some other equally-crazy conspiracy theory which doesn't hold up against the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Even Trump has finally started publicly advocating for vaccination, but it seems the beast he helped create has now grown out of his control.

You started the derailment when nobody even mentioned vaccines, you politicised it by talking about nutters and Trump. So yeah, either you are not aware of what you have been saying in your own posts or you are being dishonest about how you originally came at this with an incorrect assumption.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

You are talking out of your arse here, luckily everyone else seems to have gotten the gist so it doesn't matter.

I don't care which side of the fence you are on, if any at all, but that sounds like some GoP shit right there. "everyone else seems to have..." Who's this "everyone else"? Like 3-4 people people? Lmfao. It's like the million and one times Trump would say "People are telling me" or People are saying" or "Everyone says". It's a pretty good manipulation tactic, but heads up... it doesn't work on me. You are right about one thing. It doesn't matter. Mostly because you can't keep your own train of thought straight from one post to the next. So yeah. You're right. Doesn't matter.

 

[Lacius]

Finally, that is the whole reason I even commented in this thread. Nobody should be dismissing anything until the relevant studies have been done,

We shouldn't be accepting something until the relevant studies have been done either.

Vaccines are 100% preventative. They only help against future exposures and infections.