Top 11 Reasons for COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy – First: Mistrust of Government

[simplybill]

@Manwon Lender

Thank you, Manwon. Very interesting article. I’m going to look into this some more:

“Such studies should make a special emphasis on the incidence of ocular and neurological adverse reactions, and should also identify the profile of patients where these adverse reactions occur most frequently.”

[toast]

10 hours ago, simplybill said:

Well, there are studies showing the positive results in using Ivermectin to treat Covid, but sometimes the study results (and various health authorities) appear to contradict themselves.

You have misinterpreted the article as there is no contradiction by the NCBI. The article is published on the NCBI via a sublink to PubMed which is an open board for scientific articles. Articles published on PubMed are not peer reviewed by the NCBI, thus articles and article contents do not represent the opinions and/or recommendations of/by the NCBI.

Quote

The first quote is from the introduction on Page 2, the second quote is from the conclusion on Page 27. I collapsed the quotes to make them more readable.

I`ve searched for the background of the article and found this:

Quote

Surfing that tsunami, fraudsters have seized the opportunity to make a name for themselves, particularly when it comes to publications that tout ivermectin – the worming medication – as a miracle cure for COVID. With barriers breached, it has been left to self-appointed data detectives to sniff out fishy science.

Now, in a letter published in Nature Medicine, a group of five are pleading with the academic community to fortify the wall around the pinnacle of evidence-based medicine – the “meta-analysis”. This type of study surveys the field of evidence and has the power to sway medical opinion. One ivermectin meta-analysis, by British statistician Andrew Bryant at Newcastle University and colleagues, has already been weaponised this way. The problem is that this meta-analysis included questionable studies, spotted by the data detectives.

Full article on cosmosmagazine.com

Above all there is the statement by MERCK dated 04FEB2021 related to the C19/ ivermectin issue:

Quote

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; 
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; 
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.

MERCK

By very simple logic, it is impossible that MERCK, as the Ivermectin developer and producer, would prevent an effective drug against C19, losing billions of dollars.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

42 minutes ago, toast said:

The problem is that this meta-analysis included questionable studies, spotted by the data detectives.

Which is not terribly uncommon, unfortunately. I've seen my fair share of meta-analyses being made based on shoddy methodologies/data.

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 hours ago, simplybill said:

The PDF is dated July-August 2021.

There are numerous searchable objections raised as to the conclusions of this study.  One of the leading names on this study is Dr Lawrie, who is part of a group that is pushing ivermectin.

Quote

Dr Tess Lawrie - a medical doctor who specialises in pregnancy and childbirth - founded the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (Bird) Group.

She has called for a pause to the Covid-19 vaccination programme and has made unsubstantiated claims implying the Covid vaccine had led to a large number of deaths based on a common misreading of safety data.

When asked during an online panel what evidence might persuade her ivermectin didn't work she replied: "Ivermectin works. There's nothing that will persuade me." She told the BBC: "The only issues with the evidence base are the relentless efforts to undermine it."

The part above I put in bold hopefully sends a big red flag to you also concerning how 'scientific' Dr Lawrie's approaches and statements are, since that is the opposite position of science.  I bring this up also as you have repeatedly mentioned how politicians are making money from big pharma's vaccines and thus think there's cause for distrust of the vaccines, so I assume that same level of skepticism for the same reasons applies here also?  We aren't so naive to think that Dr Lawrie has no financial interest in pushing ivermectin I hope, and regardless she's certainly gotten attention for it. 

Also, maybe they are, but are ivermectin manufacturers forgoing their profits on sales of it, as I think you suggested earlier that vaccine manufacturers should do?

Edited October 10, 2021 by Liquid Gardens

[Essan]

Ivermectin remains an irrelevant distraction

If you don't get seriously ill with Covid, you don't need Ivermectin (whether it works or not) or, indeed,  anything else.  Except maybe a glass of whisky.   And the best way to avoid getting seriously ill with Covid is a) avoid any contact with any other human being.  Ever.  Or b) get vaccinated.

[simplybill]

5 hours ago, toast said:

You have misinterpreted the article as there is no contradiction by the NCBI. The article is published on the NCBI via a sublink to PubMed which is an open board for scientific articles. Articles published on PubMed are not peer reviewed by the NCBI, thus articles and article contents do not represent the opinions and/or recommendations of/by the NCBI.

Thank you. Good point.

5 hours ago, toast said:

By very simple logic, it is impossible that MERCK, as the Ivermectin developer and producer, would prevent an effective drug against C19, losing billions of dollars.

Merck actually has a long-standing reputation for being generous. They’re not the only generous pharmaceutical company, of course, but they’ve been singled out for special recognition. This was in Forbes.com:

”In 1987, the pharmaceutical company Merck established the Mectizan (ivermectin) donation program. This program is considered an exemplar among drug donation arrangements. Three hundred million people have been treated with ivermectin, donated by Merck in more than 30 countries.”

[simplybill]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Also, maybe they are, but are ivermectin manufacturers forgoing their profits on sales of it, as I think you suggested earlier that vaccine manufacturers should do?

I forgot to tag you in my reply to Toast.

1 minute ago, simplybill said:

Merck actually has a long-standing reputation for being generous. They’re not the only generous pharmaceutical company, of course, but they’ve been singled out for special recognition. This was in Forbes.com:

”In 1987, the pharmaceutical company Merck established the Mectizan (ivermectin) donation program. This program is considered an exemplar among drug donation arrangements. Three hundred million people have been treated with ivermectin, donated by Merck in more than 30 countries.”

 

[simplybill]

@toast @Liquid Gardens

I should probably clarify my reply about Merck’s reputation for generosity.

This:

7 hours ago, toast said:

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; 
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; 
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.

…is the best quote I’ve seen about Ivermectin, both here on UM and in the media. Considering Merck’s long history of generosity, Merck probably would’ve jumped in and offered Ivermectin for free to the entire world if they’d found meaningful evidence that it can reduce Covid mortality. 

I’ll continue reading the research about Ivermectin, but you’ve persuaded me to stop suggesting that ‘Ivermectin is another option’.
 

[acidhead]

It went from two weeks to flatten the curve to take the needle or lose your job.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

It went from two weeks to flatten the curve to take the needle or lose your job.

So?  Who doesn't have to tolerate a prick at work?

Edited October 11, 2021 by Golden Duck

[psyche101]

On 10/9/2021 at 3:40 AM, simplybill said:

LG and psyche101 -

Warning: long post.

I used President Obama’s party as an example because it happened recently and most people will remember it. To be clear, I don’t begrudge him having a birthday party. My first thought was that it’s a shame he had to have his party in a circus tent instead of in his beautiful home. 

But there’s a long list of politicians who’ve flouted the rules from the beginning: Nancy Pelosi going to a salon to have her hair done just two weeks after the salons across the country were shut down because they were ‘non-essential’; the Governor of our most-populated state having dinner with friends at an expensive restaurant when other restaurants were restricted to carry-out only; and the Mayor of San Francisco dancing in a nightclub without a mask while school kids are required to wear masks all day. It’s as though the Ruling Class and the Proletariat are living in two different worlds.

I understand why people mistrust the government. In less than two years, we’ve gone from “Two weeks to flatten the curve” to “Get the shot or get fired”. We willingly accepted the 2-week thing, but now we’re being coerced into getting vaccinated or risk losing our jobs.
 

It’s become obvious that no one has a clue what’s going to happen next. Both the virus and the vaccines are unpredictable. Between that and the nonchalant attitudes about following the rules exhibited by our politicians, and the ominous “We’re losing our patience with you!”  veiled threat from our President, I completely understand why so many people are reluctant to trust the vaccines.
 

However it is in our face. We see people dying. A lot of people know someone who had lost someone to covid. There's no denying that death rates are through the roof. 

As such I don't know what trust has to do with it. A lot of people are quite stupid and play down the virus as if it's nothing. So there are politicians lax in their enforcement and even anti vaxers. We don't listen to anti vax fools in the community, why politics? It's a medical issue.

Why follow the example instead of berating it? Why are people putting even more at risk when they see others taking risks? 

This makes no sense to me at all. It's not thinking, that's just spite. One's health should be the first priority. Not what others are doing with theirs. 

On 10/9/2021 at 3:40 AM, simplybill said:

We’re bordering on totalitarianism. I don’t say that lightly. I’ve been educating myself on totalitarianism for a few decades now. I’ve been to two Communist countries to see it up close and personal. I’ve befriended Vietnamese and Cuban refugees so I can hear their stories in person. I have an autographed book written by a man who escaped the Killing Fields of Cambodia who’s a personal friend of my sister, and I recently befriended a 91-year-old Jewish man who’s writing his memoirs about fleeing Germany with his family to escape the Holocaust. I take this stuff seriously, and so do my friends who escaped from totalitarian governments and can clearly see the first signs of totalitarianism creeping into our country. It’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s happening in real life.

Because of vaccine mandates? Surely you are referring to something else? 

I'm from Australia to be clear. I don't see tolitarian threats here or there. 

[toast]

10 hours ago, simplybill said:

”In 1987, the pharmaceutical company Merck established the Mectizan (ivermectin) donation program. This program is considered an exemplar among drug donation arrangements. Three hundred million people have been treated with ivermectin, donated by Merck in more than 30 countries.”

But Ivermectin would not be for free in wealthy counties like ours.

[simplybill]

11 hours ago, toast said:

But Ivermectin would not be for free in wealthy counties like ours.

If it does someday become accepted as a treatment for Covid, Ivermectin would likely remain a low-cost medication, at least from Merck’s end of the supply chain. 

 Depending on where it’s purchased, the cost is as low as $1.50 per dose. Smith’s Pharmacy is currently selling it for $29.87 for 20 tablets.

[simplybill]

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why follow the example instead of berating it? Why are people putting even more at risk when they see others taking risks? 

 

I don’t want to sound like I’m virtue-signaling, but I do try to set a good example. Where I live, there are fewer and fewer places requiring masks, but I carry a mask with me and I put it on if I see the employees wearing masks (but I do that mostly as a show of support for the employees).

The county where I do most of my shopping has had 65 Covid deaths in a population of roughly 13,000. 
The county I live in has had 14 Covid deaths in a population of roughly 5,700. We’re kind of isolated here, so Covid hasn’t hit us as hard as the more populated areas. That’s why the rules have been relaxed.

 

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Because of vaccine mandates? Surely you are referring to something else? 

 

A rising star in a political party here in the US was quoted in the media:

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

After hearing that, I now use that quote as a filter for viewing government actions. Right now I’m wondering why the government is still giving unemployment checks to the people who lost their jobs due to the lockdown, even while many businesses are declaring bankruptcy for the sole reason that they can’t find enough workers to operate their businesses. What does the government expect will happen when the unemployment checks end and the jobs have disappeared?

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by simplybill

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

I don’t want to sound like I’m virtue-signaling, but I do try to set a good example. Where I live, there are fewer and fewer places requiring masks, but I carry a mask with me and I put it on if I see the employees wearing masks (but I do that mostly as a show of support for the employees).

That's really decent of you Bill. It's refreshing to know that you actually give a damn about the people near you regardless of your personal stance. A show of good faith goes a long way. I have a great deal of respect for your view. 

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

The county where I do most of my shopping has had 65 Covid deaths in a population of roughly 13,000. 
The county I live in has had 14 Covid deaths in a population of roughly 5,700. We’re kind of isolated here, so Covid hasn’t hit us as hard as the more populated areas. That’s why the rules have been relaxed.

That's great, we are slowly getting back to some level of normality down under. 

That's still a significant loss. That's what I don't understand. Why people look at what others are doing rather than what is happening. 

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

A rising star in a political party here in the US was quoted in the media:

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

After hearing that, I now use that quote as a filter for viewing government actions.

When I read it, I got this from it:

When we are at our worst we can rise to be our best.

In the eye of the beholder I suppose. 

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

Right now I’m wondering why the government is still giving unemployment checks to the people who lost their jobs due to the lockdown, even while many businesses are declaring bankruptcy for the sole reason that they can’t find enough workers to operate their businesses. What does the government expect will happen when the unemployment checks end and the jobs have disappeared?

I have no idea why that would be happening. Here we had schemes to help employers keep employees. We have run up some serious debt, but I'm not sure there was a better solution even in hindsight. There's going to be damage from the pandemic, that's a given, but your right. Business have to come first because without it, there are no jobs to be had. Where are you roughly bill? 

[acidhead]

God bless Texas and Governor Abbott! 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

17 hours ago, toast said:

But Ivermectin would not be for free in wealthy counties like ours.

No it may not be free, however, since it is in the pipeline and FDA approved it should be covered by insurance. While this drug does appear to have some Promising effects against Covid 19. It's still going to take some further Scientific Research Studies so that it can be approved for use for Covid. I know recently in some countries around the world the Drug has already been approved, this could generate data to fill in the blanks for dome of these studies. Another promising thing about Ivermectin is to date it has 0 side effects so it is also very well tolerated.

JIMO

17 hours ago, toast said:

But Ivermectin would not be for free in wealthy counties like ours.

 

[simplybill]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Here we had schemes to help employers keep employees.

You just made my day. I was a Union member for 40 years, so I’m very pro-worker, but employees can only thrive when the company they work for is thriving also. I’m happy to hear your government is doing the right thing.

 

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Where are you roughly bill? 

I live in farm country in the state of Iowa. It’s very sparsely populated. Some counties have more deer than people.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by simplybill

[acidhead]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

You just made my day. I was a Union member for 40 years, so I’m very pro-worker, but employees can only thrive when the company they work for is thriving also. I’m happy to hear your government is doing the right thing.

 

I live in farm country in the state of Iowa. It’s very sparsely populated. Some counties have more deer than people.

 

Just curious..... 

What do you do with all the deer? 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, simplybill said:

You just made my day. I was a Union member for 40 years, so I’m very pro-worker, but employees can only thrive when the company they work for is thriving also. I’m happy to hear your government is doing the right thing.

Cheers Bill

This is the scheme they enacted

https://www.ato.gov.au/general/jobkeeper-payment/

2 hours ago, simplybill said:

I live in farm country in the state of Iowa. It’s very sparsely populated. Some counties have more deer than people.

I know new Zealand has a lot. I don't mind a bit of venison. 

Surprising how covid gets everywhere isn't it. Sounds very nice there. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

28 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Just curious..... 

What do you do with all the deer? 

You hog tie them and then tickle their hooves!

[toast]

6 hours ago, acidhead said:

 

Texas current full vaccination rate is at about 52%. Rock´n Roll! Corona olé!

[Arbenol]

10 hours ago, acidhead said:

God bless Texas and Governor Abbott! 

 

Prohibiting vaccine mandates are as bad as forcing the vaccine on people. Since when should it be a government's right to tell a private business who they can employ or serve? If a business only wants to serve or employ vaccinated people only (or even unvaccinated only) that's their concern.

Also, isn't it amazing how self-proclaimed libertarians can do a complete 180 when it suits their agenda?

[+ouija ouija]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Surprising how covid gets everywhere isn't it.

This stopped me in my tracks. I haven't worked out why yet . . . . .

[Myles]

8 hours ago, simplybill said:

You just made my day. I was a Union member for 40 years, so I’m very pro-worker, but employees can only thrive when the company they work for is thriving also. I’m happy to hear your government is doing the right thing.

 

I live in farm country in the state of Iowa. It’s very sparsely populated. Some counties have more deer than people.

 

How's the harvest been?   Around me, in Indiana, about 1/4 of the corn and soybeans have been harvested.  

Lot's of deer around me.   I see them in my yard all the time.   I don't hunt though.  I like the meat, but not enough to eat it 3-4 times a week.   I usually just get some (sausage and jerky) from friends.