I took Ivermectin. AMA

gold21

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 10:29 pm

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

Yes, I am currently working in the field of mRNA technology.

OK. What do you say about this?:

In a paper in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, Drew Weissman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and an early pioneer of mRNA technology, and colleagues wrote that early results from the rabies and flu mRNA vaccines "were somewhat modest, leading to more cautious expectations about the translation of preclinical success to the clinic."

The team noted that in both trials, immunogenicity was "more modest in humans than was expected based on animal models, a phenomenon also observed with DNA-based vaccines, and the side effects were not trivial."

Some indication of immunogenicity can also be gleaned from the COVID vaccine trials. Topline final results with the Pfizer/BioNTech showed 95% effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection within 2 months of the second dose. Moderna's vaccine showed an efficacy rate of 94.1% in final phase III results. Both products appeared very effective in preventing severe illness as well as more moderate cases.

Durability of these effects remains an open question. However, follow-up data from a phase I study of Moderna's product, spanning 4 months after the first dose, showed a persistent neutralizing antibody response, though with modest declines over that period, particularly in older participants.

What Do We Know About Safety?

While the flu and rabies vaccines appeared to be "safe and reasonably well tolerated," Weissman and colleagues wrote, trials did show "moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic reactions."

Their chief safety concerns, which they said should be closely watched in future trials, were about local and systemic inflammation, as well as keeping tabs on the "expressed immunogen" and on any auto-reactive antibodies.

A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity," they wrote. "Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken."

The authors also noted that extracellular RNA could contribute to edema, and cited a study that showed it "promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation."

"Safety will therefore need continued evaluation as different mRNA modalities and delivery systems are utilized for the first time in humans and are tested in larger patient populations," they wrote in the paper, which was published in 2018.

Last edited by gold21 on Thu, Jan 13 2022, 10:55 pm; edited 7 times in total

amother

Amaryllis

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 10:33 pm

gold21 wrote:

OK. What do you say about this?

In a paper in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, Drew Weissman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and an early pioneer of mRNA technology, and colleagues wrote that early results from the rabies and flu mRNA vaccines "were somewhat modest, leading to more cautious expectations about the translation of preclinical success to the clinic."

The team noted that in both trials, immunogenicity was "more modest in humans than was expected based on animal models, a phenomenon also observed with DNA-based vaccines, and the side effects were not trivial."

Some indication of immunogenicity can also be gleaned from the COVID vaccine trials. Topline final results with the Pfizer/BioNTech showed 95% effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection within 2 months of the second dose. Moderna's vaccine showed an efficacy rate of 94.1% in final phase III results. Both products appeared very effective in preventing severe illness as well as more moderate cases.

Durability of these effects remains an open question. However, follow-up data from a phase I study of Moderna's product, spanning 4 months after the first dose, showed a persistent neutralizing antibody response, though with modest declines over that period, particularly in older participants.

What Do We Know About Safety?

While the flu and rabies vaccines appeared to be "safe and reasonably well tolerated," Weissman and colleagues wrote, trials did show "moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic

He probably isn't so credible and doesn't know much. Bill Gates who isn't a doctor knows better. As does anyone else that promotes the vaccine.

amother

Azure

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 10:47 pm

amother [ Linen ] wrote:

You literally just projected yourself onto me. You are rude and condescending to anyone who has a different viewpoint than you yet you fail to answer basic questions. You make claims that 9.2 billion people took the mrna vaccine and then wondered why China and Russia werent reporting deaths from the vaccine which I pointed out isnt true and that China and Russia (and other countries) arent even using the mrna vaccine.
You claim that there was some sort of emergency that caused the fda to disregard protocol and approve an experimental drug without the long term studies to prove that its safe but all they had to do was approve it on an emergency basis which they did in the beginning. There was no reason for a full approval without the required long term studies. And no, it hasnt been used for flu or zika so you can stop gaslighting us about it. And it hasnt been used in cancer patients long term either, but there are a few studies conducted but didnt continue to the phase 2 part of the study so clearly something went wrong with the experiment that they stopped it. But somehow, the mrna is being forced on people now even though we do not know yet how it can effect us long term.
And dont put words into my mouth ivermectin, I said it was used off label for covid but otherwise has been used long term in humans so the drug itself is not experimental like the mrna technology is.
You are free to provide sources to your claims about the mrna technology which you somehow havent given us yet so I guess we will all wait for you to back up your claims.

Then other than my last post to you - please post one rude word of mine and one condescending post. If anyone is projecting its you, in trying to take your own rudeness and reflect it onto someone else.

The only thing I can think of is that you call valid arguments as rude on the grounds that they disagree with your opinions. Stating information and refuting points is not rude. It is the language that you resorted to and the attacking of the messenger instead of the message that is rude.

As for your other points - Misinterpreting my information doesn't mean that I'm gaslighting you. It means that you misunderstood my points. You've completely missed my points about Russia and China. Please reread my post. Furthermore, I never said mRNA were USED or IN USE for flu and zika vaccines. They were used for flu and zika STUDIES and they weren't completed yet. When the pandemic came about, they utilized the information from those studies and applied it COVID. There was no rush to complete the flu and zika studies, hence the slow rate of completion. Furthermore, mRNA technology is more than a decade old. That suffices for having some long term information.

I am not putting any words in your mouth. I'm using your own written words that you wrote in your posts. MY points have been repeated multiple times, so just scroll back up and reread.

Just do a quick google search yourself about the mRNA technology. It's right there on the first page of google. I believe the CDC site has a whole page dedicated to the details of this as well. If you want a basic timeline:

1960s - mRNA discovered
1970s - studies began about how mRNA can be delivered into cells
1990s - mRNA flu vaccines studies in mice
2012 or 2013 - mRNA vaccines tested for rabies - human trial
and from here on things moved more quickly.

As for mRNA treatments in cancer - those studies began somewhere between 2005-2010. I forget for which particular cancer it's already in use, and there's a host of studies underway for additional cancers.

amother

Azure

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 10:57 pm

gold21 wrote:

OK. What do you say about this?:

I
What Do We Know About Safety?

While the flu and rabies vaccines appeared to be "safe and reasonably well tolerated," Weissman and colleagues wrote, trials did show "moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic reactions."

Their chief safety concerns, which they said should be closely watched in future trials, were about local and systemic inflammation, as well as keeping tabs on the "expressed immunogen" and on any auto-reactive antibodies.

A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity," they wrote. "Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken."

The authors also noted that extracellular RNA could contribute to edema, and cited a study that showed it "promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation."

"Safety will therefore need continued evaluation as different mRNA modalities and delivery systems are utilized for the first time in humans and are tested in larger patient populations," they wrote in the paper, which was published in 2018.

As to the first point - the expressed immunogen, that is being studied intensely now. This is why there is caution with administering the vaccine to people who are at risk for auto-immune diseases.

The second point is and was taken into consideration as well - and still being studied. J&J did experience this to some degree and Aztrazeneca did too. Overall, the number of reported cases have been very low, but that 'very low' is still a considerable side effect that is a focus of many studies.

As for systemic reactions, those are as the author pointed out, rare.

No vaccine will ever be 100% effective, nor will have a 0% injury rate. But the injury rate must remain very negligible in order for it to retain approval. If its even slightly more than negligible, it will be removed from the market. Case in point - J&J was temporarily pulled when the coagulation issues appeared. Only after further evaluation did they allow it to be put back into the market.

gold21

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 11:00 pm

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

You are incorrect. mRNA technology is not currently in use as cancer treatment. It's still at the trial stage. Feel free to read through this snipped article from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (I can link the whole thing if you'd like):

The COVID-19 vaccines mark the first widespread use of mRNA technology. They work by using synthetic genetic code to instruct the patient’s cells to recognize the coronavirus and activate the immune system against the virus.

But researchers began exploring how to use mRNA vaccines as a new way to treat cancer long before this technology was used against the coronavirus.

“We've known about this technology for a long time, well before COVID-19,” says Van Morris, M.D. Here, he explains how mRNA vaccines work and how a team of MD Anderson colorectal cancer experts led by Scott Kopetz, M.D., Ph.D., are testing the technology in a Phase II clinical trial.

So, no, mRNA has never gone beyond clinical trials before. Sorry, but that's what happens when Dr Fauci is your daddy, as he is mine. You just know things.

amother

Azure

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 11:19 pm

gold21 wrote:

You're referring to mRNA vaccines as the cancer treatment. That is the most advanced application of this technology. There are smaller applications categorized as immunotherapy rather than vaccines that have been in use and are the building blocks for the mRNA vaccines.

Also, on a smaller scale, phase III clinical trials are a form of treatment for cancer patients (more so than other diseases). There are so many ongoing, and patients seek them out. The info gleaned from them is very informative and feeds into further development. Phase III clinical trials have been ongoing for some time now.

Sorry, Dr. Fauci is not my daddy.

gold21

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 11:20 pm

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

And yet, I know people with autoimmune issues who were advised to take the vaccine. (Mandates aside, since mandates obviously don't recognize the unique considerations that should be made by those with autoimmune tendencies.)

In any event, a vaccine technology that's been trialled before and been shown to have significant concerns, should probably not be rushed through and foisted upon the public. It doesn't reassure me to know that a potential side effect is "still being studied", as you mentioned. And if the studies turn up sour? Too late for those who've already taken it? That's not a good approach to healthcare.

gold21

Thu, Jan 13 2022, 11:23 pm

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

No, I'm referring to mRNA technology. Not to vaccines specifically.

Trials are used in cancer treatment all the time. That doesn't change the fact that these treatments are still in the trial phase.

Laiya

Fri, Jan 14 2022, 12:15 am

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

If you take a few overdoses of Tylenol in a row, you'll be hospitalized. It will destroy your liver.

In all countries, the vaccines are being administered by the thousands, not much safety issues in that regard either.

I'm not here to debate with you whether it is safe or not. I'm just pointing out to you that the current application use of ivermectin is just as experimental as the vaccine. By all means, make the choice you're comfortable with. Just don't pretend you're avoiding something because its experimental, then turn around and select another experimental thing.

There is also a different set of cost-benefit analyses to be applied to a medication used to treat an illness, and something taken when healthy that's intended to prevent illness.

Laiya

Fri, Jan 14 2022, 12:20 am

gold21 wrote:

Yes, there is virtually no category of person who is told not to take the covid vaccine. It's exactly the opposite. People are told, Oh, you have an auto-immune disease? You're undergoing chemo for cancer? Then you must take the vaccine!

It's another departure from all standard medical practice until this point.

amother

Azure

Fri, Jan 14 2022, 12:39 am

gold21 wrote:

Yes, I know of that and I personally don't understand it. I wonder though if the doctors disregarded the issue or did a risk versus benefit analysis.

That's where opinions differ - significant concerns or minor concerns. And that's what this whole debate circles around.

amother

Linen

Fri, Jan 14 2022, 12:57 am

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

That article you posted as evidence for that stated specifically that the mRNA VACCINEs for cancer was in trials. My statement was in response to that. That while mRNA cancer vaccines are all still in trials. mRNA has been used in other forms of cancer immunotherapy on a smaller scale as treatment options - not trial options.

Are you stating that no mRNA immunotherapy other than vaccines are being used?

I have done lots of research on this topic and looked into mrna treatment for cancer patients and everything showed up as in trials and/or issues with it. I have not found a single shred of evidence backing up your claim that the mrna is currently or has ever been used on people or cancer patients outside of trials. Please provide the actual sources for your claim that the mrna has been used on cancer patients or any humans outside of trials (other than when it was mass produced for covid-19 without long term research).