Covid-19 vaccine

[Foxi4]

You are correct. It does reduce sperm count though.

src: https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary...tions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf

From 2011, so not in response to the current uptake of people using it.

No baby for you!

You didn’t even read the post before responding, so I won’t bother saying much. Millions of people are prescribed Ivermectin for treatment of onchocerciasis and other parasitic infections - in fact, it is recommended for that purpose by the CDC, the same CDC that warns about its use against COVID (since COVID is not a parasite and the dosage for animals far exceeds the recommended dosage for humans, making it exceedingly dangerous). You shouldn’t be taking it against COVID, you particularly shouldn’t take doses intended for animals, and you especially shouldn’t try to self-medicate if you’ve tested positive for COVID. Go to a doctor.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/onchocerciasis/treatment.html

You are literally linking to the exact same bunk study from Nigeria I linked to in the very same post you’re quoting. How embarrassing. I assure you, the CDC recommendations have not changed in regards to Ivermectin since this was published in 2011, so either medical professionals all around the world have been intentionally chemically castrating patients for the last decade (and none of them noticed!) or, alternatively, nobody’s managed to replicate these doomsday results on a cohort of any relevant size (the Nigerian study had 37 participants - oh golly) with appropriate dosing.

Do you ever read what you’re responding to, or do you just pontificate? Ivermectin is approved for use, just not for use in treatment of COVID-19. It does reduce sperm count and affect sperm quality, but those effects were found to be both slight and temporary in most studies released since its introduction, particularly ones that were not released by the clown publishing house and peer-reviewed by nobody.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Videos with facts to annoy people Some covid related news relevant to the thread that can easily be accessed any time online yet with so many people on the internet so much they somehow miss it.

 

[Viri]

To be fair and balanced, mercury supposedly has been doing a similar thing to some bird populations, too... via unintentional pollution, like with the frogs. The meme of "turning the freaking frogs gay!" is a jab at Alex Jones, the defeathered king of the wackadoo birds, who believed it to be part of a pro gay agenda conspiracy and/or military testing of a feminizing chemical weapon. I'm almost certain you know this, but ffs, you had to really disassemble the joke so here we are...

Middle east gay bomb made after testing it out on frogs, by King Wackadoo

Atrazine can actually fuck up Frogs, chemically castrates and feminizes male frogs. I wouldn't be too surprised if it "turned them gay" too.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

More exciting Covid info from out glorious leader!

 

[djpannda]

Lol not a well trusted research facility but the headline made me chuckle

Ivermectin causes sterilization in 85 percent of men, study finds

 

[plasturion]

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/

 

[RandomUser]

yes, a little pony

No, you're thinking too big. More like miniature horse or dwarf horse.

 

[djpannda]

No, you're thinking too big. More like miniature horse or dwarf horse.

"White House: 75% of U.S. Adults At Least Partially Vaccinated Against COVID-19"
Part of me thinks the 25% left are

but that might upset my Bronies mates

 

[Foxi4]

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/

Doesn’t take a FOIA request to know that money is fungible, we already knew that research in the lab was funded by the U.S. from Faucci’s leaked e-mails, but I suppose this gives us a much more detailed look. Waiting for Fauccinocio to deny this one too by once again going “no, but actually yes”.

 

[subcon959]

Doesn’t take a FOIA request to know that money is fungible, we already knew that research in the lab was funded by the U.S. from Faucci’s leaked e-mails, but I suppose this gives us a much more detailed look. Waiting for Fauccinocio to deny this one too by once again going “no, but actually yes”.

It was always suspect how little the US seemed to condemn the Chinese government when the rest of the world almost immediately homed in on Wuhan as the origin.

Edit: I know Trump called it the Chinese Virus but he never really went any further than that.

 

[Foxi4]

It was always suspect how little the US seemed to condemn the Chinese government when the rest of the world almost immediately homed in on Wuhan as the origin.

It was even funnier when the Chinese government responded with the age old “no, u”. Nobody wants the credit for this, not that it matters. It *is* valuable research, we know how to combat viruses by studying them, but in the event of poor standards some liability is to be expected. I don’t think we’ll ever know for certain if the lab leak thing has any truth to it, so I’m ambivalent towards the subject.

 

[subcon959]

It was even funnier when the Chinese government responded with the age old “no, u”. Nobody wants the credit for this, not that it matters. It *is* valuable research, we know how to combat viruses by studying them, but in the event of poor standards some liability is to be expected. I don’t think we’ll ever know for certain if the lab leak thing has any truth to it, so I’m ambivalent towards the subject.

It will probably come out at some point when all involved parties are long deceased. I just hope a lesson was learned that if you're going to fund globally dangerous research then maybe think carefully about where you outsource it to.

 

[Foxi4]

It will probably come out at some point when all involved parties are long deceased. I just hope a lesson was learned that if you're going to fund globally dangerous research then maybe think carefully about where you outsource it to.

Are you saying that Chinese health and safety standards are below OSHA requirements?

 

[subcon959]

Are you saying that Chinese health and safety standards are below OSHA requirements?

View attachment 275318

Never. I'm also not saying that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has had any safety violations dating back to 2018.

 

[RandomUser]

"White House: 75% of U.S. Adults At Least Partially Vaccinated Against COVID-19"
Part of me thinks the 25% left are

but that might upset my Bronies mates

For some reason the image did not load. So taking a look at the link provided, it showed "My_Little_Pony_Theme_Song.png" So naturally I googled "My_Little_Pony_Theme_Song" and found out that it is a cartoon. Wow, such show exist. This triggered my memory of seeing toys like these back in the days. In which case I might be beat, either that I just realized that @linuxares comment may have wooshed me. If that the case linuxares, please ignore my previous comment.

 

[linuxares]

For some reason the image did not load. So taking a look at the link provided, it showed "My_Little_Pony_Theme_Song.png" So naturally I googled "My_Little_Pony_Theme_Song" and found out that it is a cartoon. Wow, such show exist. This triggered my memory of seeing toys like these back in the days. In which case I might be beat, either that I just realized that @linuxares comment may have wooshed me. If that the case linuxares, please ignore my previous comment.

I wooshed you hard my dude x3

 

[notimp]

You didn’t even read the post before responding, so I won’t bother saying much. Millions of people are prescribed Ivermectin for treatment of onchocerciasis and other parasitic infections - in fact, it is recommended for that purpose by the CDC, the same CDC that warns about its use against COVID (since COVID is not a parasite and the dosage for animals far exceeds the recommended dosage for humans, making it exceedingly dangerous). You shouldn’t be taking it against COVID, you particularly shouldn’t take doses intended for animals, and you especially shouldn’t try to self-medicate if you’ve tested positive for COVID. Go to a doctor.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/onchocerciasis/treatment.html

You are literally linking to the exact same bunk study from Nigeria I linked to in the very same post you’re quoting. How embarrassing. I assure you, the CDC recommendations have not changed in regards to Ivermectin since this was published in 2011, so either medical professionals all around the world have been intentionally chemically castrating patients for the last decade (and none of them noticed!) or, alternatively, nobody’s managed to replicate these doomsday results on a cohort of any relevant size (the Nigerian study had 37 participants - oh golly) with appropriate dosing.

Do you ever read what you’re responding to, or do you just pontificate? Ivermectin is approved for use, just not for use in treatment of COVID-19. It does reduce sperm count and affect sperm quality, but those effects were found to be both slight and temporary in most studies released since its introduction, particularly ones that were not released by the clown publishing house and peer-reviewed by nobody.

The ideology is strong in you. Yet you are still wrong on all accounts.

You dont even notice, that you agree with the studies results (temporary was never questioned, and for "slight" - you provide no source -), the article was peer reviewed -

Archives of Applied Science Research is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that aims to publish a vast spectrum of research applications from Natural sciences, Social sciences, and Humanities by including research applications of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Sociology, Philosophy, Psychology, and Linguistics that ...

Archives of Applied Science Research (ISSN: 0975-508X)

and you actively denounced it because its coming from Nigeria, yet at the same time acknowledge, that it is cleared as an anti malaria drug.

Also the study screened 384 patients and then selected 37, because the sperm counts in all others was deemed too low to be considered normal to begin with.

The study never claimed to be "the final be all and and all" because thats not how science operates, but it strongly suggested further research and caution when prescribing the drug.

Also - if the drug has been cleared by the CDC says nothing about potential sideeffects of a drug, as with most treatments, first and foremost you prioritize the life of a patient and only then consider potential sideeffects.

So what are you pulling here.

I acknowledge, that you already got down to the source yourself, after criticising the tweet.

And I would like to see studies, that indicate that the problem is "slight" and "reveresable".

edit: Journal is dodgy. Snopes has a writeup (it charged high admission fees), had typos on the website and got its twitter account revoked (presumably for advertising its practices?):
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/

My bad.

 

[Foxi4]

edit: Journal is dodgy. Snopes has a writeup (it charged high admission fees), had typos on the website and got its twitter account revoked (presumably for advertising its practices?):
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivermectin-sterility-in-men/

My bad.

Oh yeah? No kidding. Who would’ve thunk.

 

[notimp]

Oh yeah? No kidding. Who would’ve thunk.

Snopes after trying to contact the journal, getting no response, then looking into its website, and digging up their practice to sell article space for "handling fees", then looking into the article and finding grammatical errors, that a lecturer would have found, and no section in regards to "exclusionary" factors (so did the participends get other medications, ...) which is important for scholars in trying to replicate the study.

But apparently not me.

("Fake" journals with a businessmodel to sell article space, so doctors could brag about their publication history - were quite a thing for a while, and still are to some extent. Although you now got blacklists, for some of them. Issue is, that even a "good study" can end up in one of these, because they are "pushing their services" to people actively, but in this case (with adverse/exclusionary factors missing), and grammatical errors present, it indicates, that in the end it was not peer reviewed (even though the journal said it would be). and therefore > study bad/questionable.))

 

[Foxi4]

Snopes after trying to contact the journal, getting no response, then looking into its website, and digging up their practice to sell article space for "handling fees", then looking into the article and finding grammatical errors, that a lecturer would have found, and no section in regards to "exclusionary" factors (so did the participends get other medications, ...) which is important for scholars in trying to replicate the study.

But apparently not me.

("Fake" journals with a businessmodel to sell article space, so doctors could brag about their publication history - were quite a thing for a while, and still are to some extent. Although you now got blacklists, for some of them. Issue is, that even a "good study" can end up in one of these, because they are "pushing their services" to people actively, but in this case (with adverse/exclusionary factors missing), and grammatical errors present, it indicates, that in the end it was not peer reviewed (even though the journal said it would be). and therefore > study bad/questionable.))

The study reads like it was written by a child, its sample size is not representative (N=37 ain’t shit), the numbers themselves are highly suspect (they’ve invited 350-odd individuals and only *10%* of that group had “optimal sperm parameters” prior to treatment? Okay), it’s published by the finest researchers Cirque du Soleil had to offer, it’s indeed riddled with spelling errors, nobody in the last 10 years even bothered trying to replicate its findings and, as your own link states, infertility is not a known side effect of Ivermectin and as such isn’t listed as one - side effects must be mentioned on labels and patients must be informed about them in order to give informed consent for therapy. I’m pretty sure that “sterility in 85% of cases” would be pretty high on the list in regards to consent, considering alternative therapies exist. I’m not going to give it the benefit of the doubt just because “good studies might show up in bad journals”, this is a bad study even if it showed up in a good journal, and you don’t need Snopes to see it, you can just read the thing. Still, respect for taking it on the chin. If you care to scroll up a little further I linked to a study where it was tested on rats - that one’s on Pubmed and had significantly more realistic findings, although should still be taken with a pinch of salt since they bombarded the damn things with Ivermectin and another “buffer” drug. There’s also a recent study of Ivermectin side effects in humans who suffer from COVID, but those findings are especially suspect because *COVID itself* leads to the deterioration of sperm quality/quantity, so the results mean nothing.