Following NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD Now Has "COVID"

[pal666]

Didn't even say anything wrong in it, just recommended people at least stop and think about it before taking a vaccine that can have fatal side effects.

spreading bullshit over internet definitely has fatal side effects, what are your recommendations in such case?

[microcode]

I can't speak for the snowflakes, but I think it's not good when harmful misinformation and disinformation is being spread. If you don't believe in science, then maybe reject all of it, not just the parts that interfere with your politics.

Okay, what's the harmful misinformation here?

[microcode]

Then you pick ivermectin that was only tested as scientific paper by some people from Melbourne that only tested effectiveness of medicine under microscope to say medicine works. Those tests are done under huge doses of medicine. And only such tests say definitively that it works. Those tests do not meet guidelines and requirements to say medicine works. Often it is opposite because circumstances inside body are radically different and required dose cannot be achieved.

Now that is some medical misinformation. If you haven't even read the abstract of any of the more than two dozen randomized controlled trials, many of which were placebo controlled, nor any of the meta-analyses, nor the other three dozen observational controlled trials, cohort studies, etc. then you should not be commenting on this. Furthermore, the way you talk about research is unsophisticated, you clearly have never used research for any practical purpose, and apparently don't know how to look for it.

You should be ashamed of yourself, speaking with such certainty on something you are so ignorant of; you literally could've Googled it.

[microcode]

if vaccine will kill you, real virus will kill you even more

There are demographics where this is not accurate.

who told you this bullshit?

The public health data.

ivermectin kills people

Which people? Ivermectin is administered to entire countries on a regular basis, about four billion doses have been administered over roughly 40 years, and only 16 deaths have been associated with it; compare that to paracetamol or aspirin, two exceedingly safe drugs that are over-the-counter almost everywhere, which have a higher rate of associated fatality. Then of course, compare Ivermectin to any of the vaccines under EUA for COVID right now, all of them have killed more people in a matter of months than Ivermectin has in four decades.

You are an ignoramus, and you are proud every time you say something ignorant.

[rabcor]

spreading bullshit over internet definitely has fatal side effects, what are your recommendations in such case?

There was no bullshit, I only spoke in facts, facts like all the vaccines have blood clots as a potential side effect, and that some of them can cause myocarditis, these are facts, not bullshit.

Telling people to use their heads and actually think before they get shit like that injected into them (not telling them not to do it! just telling them to seriously consider what could go wrong and whether it's really less bad than just getting covid in the first place)

The only reason you're calling it bullshit is because it's easier to believe that everything is above board with these vaccines (when attempts are clearly being made to conceal these things as most major news outlets seem conspicuously reluctant to report on any vaccine related deaths; of which there have been at least hundreds, possibly a lot more, we can't know because information about that is being actively censored and covered up right now, but some of it has managed to slip through the cracks, enough to know about hundreds.)

You want to believe, that everyone getting injected with those vaccines will make the world right again, Covid is a problem, these poorly tested vaccines are the only presented solution, it's natural to want to latch onto that, even knowing the risks I am tempted to take that vaccine just because I want all the ridiculous bullshit surrounding covid to be over...

But these vaccines are clearly not a perfect solution, since they can kill you just as surely as covid itself can kill you. Sure, a blood clot to the brain (which seems to be the likeliest way for the vaccines to kill you) is probably a much better way to go than oxygen deprivation and organ failure... But it's still death, the outcome we ultimately should be trying to avoid, and for certain groups the vaccine is for a fact more likely to kill them than covid is in the first place, even if 'more likely' means a difference as small as 0.02% to 0.01% (bogus numbers btw we don't have enough data on mortality rate from the vaccines to get real numbers).

This should not be ignored!

[GDJacobs]

neither ivermectin nor snake oil are effective against covid. and btw, ivermectin kills people. surely people who are as clueless as you shouldn't be allowed to do decision making in any serious circumstances(including current one)

Huge numbers of existing drugs have been tested in cell cultures for potential to inhibit or destroy viruses in the SARS family (a practice called "repositioning"). Some have exhibited results, usually in intracellular concentrations far in excess of tested maximum therapeutic dosages. Other drugs have been examined for potential in treating symptomatic patients and thereby improving patient outcomes. Because of the scale of COVID worldwide, there has been huge effort poured into these avenues just as there have been unprecedented efforts to develop safe and effective vaccines.

Unfortunately, very few of the repositioned drugs have fulfilled any of the original promise. Dexamethasone is one drug which has shown some efficacy in treating ARDS patients. The list of failed treatments includes chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin in various combinations. More exotic antivirals and antibody cocktails have also shown little to no effectiveness. Drug repositioning isn't the only field which has had pitfalls, of course. Several of the big names in vaccine development including GSK, Sanofi Pasteur, and Merck reset or completely abandoned their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development programs when they demonstrated very limited effectiveness or in GSK's case found they had made a critical mistake in an earlier stage of formulation. Pharmaceutical development is actually really, really hard.

Hopefully further testing will develop additional tools for treating the disease. Unfortunately, while ivermectin has shown some promise in small, localized studies, ivermectin has yet to show effectiveness in high powered, double blind randomized control trials. Ivermectin may yet pan out (although unlikely to the extent those on the hype train are claiming), but based on the nature and track record of this type of research I would certainly not bet the farm on it.

I'll be going with a preventative treatment that exhibits high efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease, some efficacy in preventing transmission (based on more limited data), and vanishingly rare risk of short and long term complications. My second mRNA shot is in 10 days.

But these vaccines are clearly not a perfect solution, since they can kill you just as surely as covid itself can kill you.

This is completely wrong. Your risk of long term complication or death due to COVID-19 infection is demonstrably higher if you're part of a population of largely unvaccinated people through which the virus can spread. Letting the disease spread and burn itself out has been a disastrous strategy as stress on the health care system has vastly inflated the death count, mass viral replication has allowed dangerous variants to develop, and recovered patients demonstrate only limited immunity. Preventing spread through social measures has it's own cost, although that cost is much less than COVID run amuck. Furthermore, thrombosis and myocarditis/pericarditis, while serious, are highly treatable complications with good outcomes in the rare cases that occur. They also have the advantage of not being communicable.

[curfew]

Ah, my comment was censored, in this very thread.

Didn't even say anything wrong in it, just recommended people at least stop and think about it before taking a vaccine that can have fatal side effects.

What study suggests that there could even hypothetically be such fatal side effects? You are talking out of your ass.

[curfew]

I just want to make it perfectly clear for everyone: mRNA vaccines do not modify DNA. mRNA vaccines CANNOT modify DNA. DNA is in a cell's nucleus and the mRNA does not enter the nucleus. Even if the mRNA was put into the nucleus it isn't capable of doing anything there.

What needs to be made perfectly clear is your credentials for stating your opinions in this kind of absolute manner. Are you just an internet white knight doing the "good deed"? Then GTFO.

[coder]

And this is why humanity doesn't seem to be able to collectively solve problems at this present time in history.

I agree with that sentiment, but not for the same reasons.

The credentials of the quacks...

That's the point. You have to rely on "credentials" of supposed individuals. If you just think about this from a cybersecurity or engineering perspective, this is bad design because:

• These people might not be who they claim to be -- we cannot verify.
• Their credentials might be lies or exaggerations -- we cannot verify.
• Their contributions might be far less substantial than they claim -- we cannot verify.
• They might have ulterior motives or gone a bit nuts -- we cannot verify.
• Their claims might seem to make sense to a non-expert, but have obvious flaws or errors that an expert could easily identify.
• Their claims might even makes sense to fellow experts, but don't pan out when put to the test -- that's why science runs experiments!

You are operating entirely by trusting what some internet stranger is saying. Science doesn't rely on somebody's reputation, because it's fundamentally unreliable. Even if their identities and credentials are exactly as they say, any large population of practitioners is going to have a few nutters. That's why it's so important to have good data to back up a sound theory, and then try to convince other experts.

Linux doesn't randomly accept untested patches from an unknown PhD with a nice CV that have only been reviewed by Python programmers who know nothing about OS kernels. No, Linux requires that you test your changes and then they're reviewed by experts in that area. And then, if they are found to break something, they get reverted.

And don't pretend you just stumbled upon these folks while doing a broad survey of all the latest research. We all know that they get exposure through fringe groups and media outlets with blatant bias. That makes them immediately more suspect than someone with comparable credentials chosen at random.

I'm not even saying everything they're saying is wrong. I'm just saying that it's a really bad idea for people to try to judge for themselves. For an "educated" person, it's like a Javascript programmer, who knows nothing about kernel development, being asked to review an untested kernel patch. For someone who lacks a college-level science foundation, it's like having a 6-year-old child review that same patch. What these "experts" need to do is convince the majority of other experts.

To everyone saying "do your own research", I wish I could plop them in the middle of a field with a shed of farm tools and say: "grow your own food". Or, maybe sit them down at a disconnected PC with a stack of software development books and say: "write your own kernel". Expertise matters and institutions matter. To deny that is to deny the very things that enabled humanity to advance to this point.

[CochainComplex]

This exactly happened during test trial of Pfizer vaccine. 6 people die. After deeper investigation it turned out 4 people out of 6 who died were having placebo.

That is the reason why you need to have large groups. People are never really isolated and 100% comparable. Just the individual genetics or other circumstances might cause some development of an illness during the study which might have developed the same way without participating in the study. That is why large scale studies are needed.