More accurately, it would be:

I GOT VACCINATED BUT IF MY VACCINE FAILS TO WORK ON ME AS THERE'S NEVER A 100% SUCCESS RATE, THEN IF YOU GET VACCINATED TOO, I'M LESS LIKLEY TO FALL ILL FROM CATCHING THE DISEASE FROM YOU.

(I made is BiG writing so you could ReAd iT gooD).

I'm with the Vulcans on this one.

TOM12123, The only problem is that you're repeating the media garbage wrapped in 'science' paper that simply is not true.

Being vaccinated will not protect you from dying if I'm vaccinated as well ! stop with this nonsense for once ... it's embarrasing

A flu virus mutes and you can never ever be safe whether everyone is vaxxed or half or no one.

btw, that deadly virus you're so so so scared of has 99% recoverery rate! better whine and do something about roundup, atrazine,paraquat and so on (!!!)

And about the scary scary virus , I have to post a little pic so we can start this Monday in glory

__________________
“Let's just say I was testing the bounds of reality. I was curious to see what would happen. That's all it was: just curiosity.”jm

But what is the "right dose" for covid? All the studies I have read about ivermectin and covid say the normal human deworming dose is insufficient and use five, or even ten times the normal dose. Where is the research such high doses are safe.

BTW, the Argentinian study that claimed ivermectin was 100% effective against covid has been withdrawn.
The numbers, genders, and ages of the study’s participants were inconsistent. A hospital named in the paper as taking part in the experiments said it has no record of it happening.
Health officials in the province of Buenos Aires have also said that they also have no record of the study receiving local approval.

This follows the withdrawal in July of the major Egyptian study also due to unexplained errors.

Many, if not most, wouldn't because a) it's not approved for that purpose and b) there's little evidence of efficacy and there are better treatments.

I don't know anyone who ever trusted MSM totally. Only idiots would unconditionally assume everything published is true and accurate. In the same way only idiots would reach the conclusion that MSM being unreliable indicates non-MSM sources are trustworthy.

Where did I write that?

One of the loudest voices against using ivermectin as a covid treatment is the manufacturer Merck.

With around 220 million covid cases worldwide then despite the low price (list price for human version ivermectin oral tablet 3 mg is around $79 for a supply of 20 tablets), Merck would have earned billions from ivermectin if it was any use against covid. Additionally, they would have earned many more billions from any prophylactic use.

The whole ivermectin fable makes has no commercial sense.

Same goes for EF, regular's table, neighbours, work-mates, mates, friends, family ....

No no no. That's not the narrative. Merck are shouting against it because it's cheap! They're part of the conspiracy!

Well said.

Nice try, but how many posts are we on now with people calling ivermectin horse dewormer just because they read it on news website?

How should it be described then so we don't upset you?

Scabies remover?
Lice remover?
Parasite remover?

Made a quick check at Amazon. I think the ivermectin used for humans is only sold under other brand names, the marketing drug names that end in -ol, -al and all that stuff. The medicines sold under the ivermectin name are for veterinary use. Also, the amount of active substance in milligrams is much higher for cows and horses.

From a certain perspective is totally OK to call ivermectin horse dewormer because commercially that's how it works. Popular culture is driven by commerce, so commercial truth is popular culture truth.

Of course, we know that whatever the name, ivermectine is also used for humans. But, what fraction of people do you expect to understand there's a brand/commercial name, an active substance and a concentration? There's a thread once a month here on EF about not getting a drug in Switzerland. Helpful EFers point that the drug exists under a different commercial name and they're surprised THESE PEOPLE are the ones that need the message that ivermectine is horse dewormer. If it's not for you, let it pass for the ones that truly need them.

Thanks. I remember one otherwise intelligent guy telling me that he didn't watch the BBC any more because it's unreliable and biased. He preferred RT.

No trace of irony whatsoever.

Whereas the covid thread turned into one about Ivermectin use in Africa

Hahahaa how sweet.

I mean how lame is that to say " trusted MSM totally" and vice versa.

Because yes, even a broken clock is right twice per day and the MSM if they say it rains in Oslo and it really rains why not trust it ?

But, to trust or not to trust and what to trust and to which extent to trust ..is a whole another process.

What komsolmolez and NotallThere think they "got it" but in fact they swallowed the bait is the simple fact of the lack of any criticism, seeing the big picture. How do I know this ? Well, not once you've pointed out or said what/which thing that comes from the MSM you found wrong, insult to your intelligence, lies..

No, even worse,

you keep on repeating those same phrases and flosculus to that extent that it showes how you're being formated. They launch a campaign to "mock ivermectine" "mock HCQ" wow you've jumped into the wagon first.
Why is that? Ask yourselves sometimes, WHY do you think what's been told by them as 'true' do you think is right ?? Ask yourselves also, why do they need to inform you of this ? Why ??
Why they need to put in your heads ivermectin-horses-horses, just like before HCQ - danger , hight deaths... ?

Then ask yourselves, how come in may 2020 in the Lancet there was a paper published (sapan desai and other scientists ) in which they were "proving" how HCQ treatement has a high mortaility all verified in their study and laboratory.

After many interventions from honest sceintists and medical doctors this study was retracted . But if we look at the science well at the time being it was sceintifically proven how HCQ is danger-danger. (?) you see the problem?

Questions to ask yourselves is how come none of your MSM is not talking about this every day ... opening their reportage saying "And now we go back to the Sapan Desai case and the Lancet" "these are the latest news about that scientific lie" .. and so on ???

As a matter of fact, when and how are you going to use your filters and grown up men attitude and start to see every single information with extreme critical approach.
?

__________________
“Let's just say I was testing the bounds of reality. I was curious to see what would happen. That's all it was: just curiosity.”jm

How about posting less but taking more time with each post to make it more coherent?

NotAllThere made a perfectly sensible statement, which basically says do not not believe everything you read wherever you read it. Not sure why you spitting venom again.

Tom, you yourself you dont even want to re-think, understand better and learn better.

Sorry but this is not twitter. You cant say something in just few lines because to think is a process and once you exchange then you can develop then add some elements to make it more fun or even amuse yourself.

These guys here have said how they've got some academic background. They're supposed to read few paragraphs with ease and even pages and pages...

Also if you want to undrestand something then yes.. you need to read more to see other points of view and the steps that have been taken to draw that or this conclusion.

After all why are you here? listen to what you're told, sit down, eat a cookie and you're good.

Talks like this one are needed for passionated people who are here to fight higher causes.

__________________
“Let's just say I was testing the bounds of reality. I was curious to see what would happen. That's all it was: just curiosity.”jm

An opinion poll shows 85% of Republican Americans would rather take the horse worming drug Ivermectin than get vaccinated against covid.

The survey was done by Gallup.