The C19 vaccines have have been shown to have implications for HIV and fungal infections by apparently reprogramming the innate immune system in a problematic way. See this pre-print paper for more information: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten...

This one paper is just one of many that indicate immune damage from C19 vaccination.

The fact that this isn't even discussed in the media should be telling for people.

In addition, there have been numerous observations that C19 vaccination causes a precipitous decline in CD8 cells about a month or two after injection. The data is out there, but you will have to dig for it. You won't find it on "Science Friday", NPR or anything attached to the Poynter group. You won't find it on Google or Facebook. You will have to dig through the journals yourself, refer to the brave doctors and researchers that were not afraid to speak, and the alternate media that tends to get modded down here on Slashdot, and Hacker News, hence, I will avoid those links in this post. It is there if you dig for it.

It's more useful to state one truth that was censored, that was true, than a lie that was true. The "horse dewormer" argument was propaganda designed to protect pro-vaccine policy and business. There is a science-based, safe, effective medicine that has won the Noble Prize for human medicine called ivermectin. This is not a horse dewormer product that you buy in an agricultural store. There are dozens of high quality studies that support this, but you wouldn't know anything about that, nor would you be willing to change your mind if such science was right in front of your face, so "the source" is unnecessary in the context of this response because we both know it wouldn't make any difference to your beliefs. The censorship that you defend has had it's way with you and getting back to ground zero seems like a long shot at this point, unless you wake up the hard way, as a victim of vaccine, hospital, or pharma drug injury. If I have you wrong, then please forgive me. Your mind is already made up, but for others that read this comment, I refer you to the short documentary as an introduction: https://thetruthaboutivermecti...

You are attacking the website and ignoring the source material. Insofar as this is meant to refute the validity of material there, it fails for two reasons: 1 - the website you refer to as a "meta-study" is easily verifiable by looking at the source material that is not anonymous, so you don't need to trust, and, 2 - the source material in the listed of studies is not anonymous.

In medicine, as was the case during the early stages of this pandemic, we don't have the luxury of science to answer all our questions. When we do, we don't usually have the luxury of double-blind, inert-placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed, published, pre-registered, statistically significant trials with large trial size, data safety monitoring boards, and human ethics boards. To expect otherwise is unrealistic. In fact, we don't have this for the current C19 vaccines. What we do have for these vaccines is the largest and most dangerous safety signals of any medicine in recorded history, and a study that does not assuage any of the many serious concerns raised by highly credentialed doctors and researchers, and censored and attacked by people like yourself.

I have given you multiple studies that I and many others consider to be "good studies indicating that HCL and Ivermectin are beneficial against C19". I did this because I resent those that spread misinformation about these medicines. As there are many other treatments that I do not want to detract from, and the best protocols are multi-drug treatments in the early stages of disease, and there are many other more important items of discussion in the context of current events, I think it's best we both move on.

I made my point regarding this narrow, but important topic, and supported it with real data and real sources. I have yet to hear any reasonable argument from you that invalidates any of it. You have yet to divulge any of your "experts" or "multiple sources" to support your arguments. Why keep it to yourself? Why not share your sources so that others can learn from your knowledge and understanding rather than resorting to incomplete arguments and personal attacks? With all the time and thought that you put into responding to my posts, it shouldn't be much of an extra burden to divulge sources, in a manner that you would expect to see in the science, while strengthening your arguments at the same time.

To answer your questions:

The publishers are all discoverable. Your question indicates that you didn't follow the links.

You said there was "no real meat". What "meat" are you referring to? Can you be a little more scientific with your language? What does "meat" mean? Enlighten me.

The authors are not anonymous, as you will discover if you read the page.

They are not all meta-analysis, as is clearly noted. Have you noticed?

You are asking me which ones are reliable? Well, you can choose based on RR, P, N, etc. according to your own preference. If you don't know what those things are I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out. P, fyi, isn't even published in the EUA for the current vaccines that you are so defensive of. It doesn't even make alpha, except for a short period for the Janssen trial.

Quite a few experts who actually put their names on their analysis have criticized the methodology of the individual studies presented there and the meta-analysis involves a lot of apples to oranges comparison.

Tell me which experts you are referring to. Supporting your position with unfounded claims, insults, disparaging language, and logical fallacy doesn't cut it. It's getting a bit tiring.

I didn't initially "trust" Zelenko or Raoult, and neither should you. Their work has been critiqued, verified, and repeated with similar results, and corroborating studies have been published, some of which are above. And there is a lot more "evidence" to support this that is not published science. Science is more about critique, verification, and repeatability than it is about trust. When you have enough of the former to determine the truth with high confidence, the latter is unnecessary.

Yes, these are some of my sources. You don't like my sources? I challenge you to put your undisclosed, secret, "multiple sources" on the table so we can compare them.

Tell me the experts you are referring to and give me a link to what they said.

Below you will find studies that indicate Ivermectin and HCQ are beneficial against c19:

Ivermectin - 113 studies, >60 showing significant positive results, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with control groups: https://c19ivermectin.com/

HCQ - 344 studies, >200 showing significant positive results, 250 peer reviewed, 281 with controls: https://c19hcq.com/

Here are a few of the notable ones:

Dr Vladimir Zelenko
Experience:
6,000 c19 patients risk stratified and 2,000 treated by him and his staff

Zelenko studies:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

https://internetprotocol.co/hy...

https://www.preprints.org/manu...

Didier Raoult
Experience:
Tens of thousands treated. 5k inpatients, >30k outpatients.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

https://www.mediterranee-infec...

https://c19hcq.com/

Audio interviews of Zelenko and Raoult:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/...

This is just a short list regarding HCQ and Ivermectin only intended to refute the idea that there are no good studies indicating these are beneficial against C19.

If there are any problems with these links, let me know.

I'm not here to make you look bad, or to ruin your holiday weekend. It's clear you are stressed out and I don't want to add to it.

You have answered the first part of my first question but have avoided the second part. I was not asking about "proof" - a word and a claim which is rarely used in describing results within published scientific studies. I was asking: "are you implying that there are no good studies indicating that Ivermectin and HCQ are beneficial" [in treatment of Covid 19 disease]. It's a simple yes or no answer, and you are free to add to the yes or no part.

If you answer yes, in other words essentially asserting that you think that "there are no good studies indicating HCQ and Ivermectin is beneficial", what sources are you basing that on? This is my second question. I have an honest curiousity. I'm not asking this to attack you as a person you or ruin your weekend. I don't think that type of response is very productive. Where do you get this kind of info from? NPR? MSNBC? Wired Magazine? PBS? Nature? CDC.gov?

So to reiterate, I am looking for an answer in the form of a post that includes a response to two questions, the second part of the first question, as explained above, and the second question, also explained above, regarding what sources inform the first answer.

I will dig up the studies and respond to a valid response from you. I am looking forward to it. I just want an answer to the above (2 questions as applicable), in return, before I do.

If this is too stressful or you are too busy, that is fine. In that case I hope you have a good holiday weekend.

Well, you answered one question with a yes, so good for you on that one, but I'd say there was room for improvement.

Are you implying that there are no effective C19 treatments that aren't vaccines, and that there are no good studies indicating that Ivermectin and HCQ are beneficial?

If so, I'm curious about where you got that idea from. Fact checkers? Media? NPR? Facebook? Fauci? I'm just curious. If you give me a good answer, perhaps a small paragraph worth, I will dig up a few studies and sources that you are probably not aware of. Who knows, maybe you will learn something. Maybe we can learn from each other. Do we have a deal?

In case you or your audience is interested in the science of Ivermectin and treatment options as alternatives to vaccines that have a severe degree of reported adverse events, here they are: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://covid19criticalcare.co...

In case you or your audience is interested in real science regarding C19 and the C19 vaccinations, I would recommend the Dr. Peter McCullough podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/...

You said I did not ask any questions. I asked two questions. Perhaps you have mistakenly read the wrong post. Since you seemed to have missed them, I'll ask them again:

How many autopsies have they done on the post-C19 vaccination deaths, that, according to VAERS, now exceed 13,000? Where are your long term studies that should be able to compare Janssen with Moderna with Pfizer?

I ask questions and you call it logical fallacy. Which fallacy is it? I'm curious.

We have the most severe drug safety signal in recorded history, while there are no disclosed pathology studies of these events, no EAC, DSMB, HEC (External Advisory Committee, Data Safety Monitoring Board, Human Ethics Committee). All we have are talking points from officials, and echoes in the media and here on Slashdot.

What do you know about the vaccines? Do you know there there is an increased risk of stillbirths according to one study (over 80% risk if vaccinated in first trimester)?

Do you know that the results of the EUA studies of all three c19 vaccines as disclosed are not statistically significant, with the exception of Janssen, during a brief period of the trial?

Do you know that a large percentage of C19 vaccinated have significantly elevated d-dimer, indicating blood clots in micro vascular capilaries?

Do you know that there are reports of significant reduction in killer T cells and that the Red Cross in Japan doesn't want any blood donations from C19-vaccinated due to immune deficiencies? Did you know that as time passes, the antibody ratio approaches that associated with Antibody Dependent Enhancement that has killed animals from similar vaccines in the past? Did you know that they skipped all the animal trials to rush these out to humans?

Did you know that Ivermectin is Nobel Prize winning medicine? That it is advocated in Japan for treatment of C19 while Moderna has been recalled, that there are 113 studies regarding Ivermectin that show benefit to C19 infection, including 73 peer reviewed, and 63 with a control? Has your media informed you?

Did you know that out of 4 billion doses of Ivermectin given to non-horse, non-cow humans, there have been less than five deaths associated with it?

You have managed to avoid my question for two whole paragraphs. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This is the most severe safety signal we have had in recorded history and it is being dismissed and ignored. There are no results of detailed examinations that have been disclosed. I'll leave you with another question: What was the VAERS system intended to do?

Are you aware that there is typically an external advisory committee, data safety monitoring board and human ethics committee with a new unprecedented drug or vaccine? We don't have any of this for the current vaccine. All we have is talking points and propaganda from officials.

Are you aware that the failure rate for unprecedented vaccines is approximately 92%?

Are you aware of the Harvard-Pilgrim study that indicated VAERS was only reporting about 1% of all adverse events?

Are you aware of the recent Brigham's hospital study that corroborated this 1% figure with regards to anaphylaxis reactions?

Are you aware of the two whistleblowers risking their reputations to claim that the vaccine deaths are more like 45,000 and 200,000?

Are you aware that we had early treatment options that were upwards of 80% effective in saving lives and that they were discouraged, refuted, and banned by the government and that this "lack of treatments" allowed for an EUA?

You have us wrong. We are not looking for sources to make vaccines look scary. We are looking for the truth. We search, read, listen, discern, think, and verify. Sometimes we find it.

I would encourage you to re-assess your position.

https://www.openvaers.com/covi...

https://c19ivermectin.com/

You seem to be suggesting that the safety of C19 vaccines is being examined. Where are the examinations you refer to regarding the VAERS signals here? https://www.openvaers.com/covi...

I disagree. Here are some studies that have observable effects, FYI: https://c19ivermectin.com/