Except when those being silenced are not scientists... Joe Rogan is not a doctor, and if you choose to follow his advice, that's on you.

 

So, the doctor is admitting that they clear these teen athlete's without performing any tests, but only the unvaccinated won't be getting any tests.

Take this doctor to court for malpractice!

 

Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study
Priyamadhaba Behera 1 , Binod Kumar Patro 1 , Arvind Kumar Singh 1 , Pradnya Dilip Chandanshive 1 , Ravikumar S R 1 , Somen Kumar Pradhan 1 , Siva Santosh Kumar Pentapati 1 , Gitanjali Batmanabane 2 , Prasanta Raghab Mohapatra 3 , Biswa Mohan Padhy 4 , Shakti Kumar Bal 3 , Sudipta Ranjan Singh 5 , Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty 6

Abstract
Background: Ivermectin is one among several potential drugs explored for its therapeutic and preventive role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study was aimed to explore the association between ivermectin prophylaxis and the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers.

Methods: A hospital-based matched case-control study was conducted among healthcare workers of AIIMS Bhubaneswar, India, from September to October 2020. Profession, gender, age and date of diagnosis were matched for 186 case-control pairs. Cases and controls were healthcare workers who tested positive and negative, respectively, for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. Exposure was defined as the intake of ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine and/or vitamin-C and/or other prophylaxis for COVID-19. Data collection and entry was done in Epicollect5, and analysis was performed using STATA version 13. Conditional logistic regression models were used to describe the associated factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results: Ivermectin prophylaxis was taken by 76 controls and 41 cases. Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis (AOR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.15-0.51) was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. Those involved in physical activity (AOR 3.06 95% CI, 1.18-7.93) for more than an hour/day were more likely to contract SARS-CoV-2 infection. Type of household, COVID duty, single-dose ivermectin prophylaxis, vitamin-C prophylaxis and hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/

 

Well, but you guys need to cut anon some slack.
He's a despicable.
Which means he firmly believes that covid is the perfect opportunity (never waste a crisis) for government to start dictating to everyone decisions that used to be a decision made in consultation with their doctor.
Next up in government circles; deciding who lives and who dies.

 

Fuck him right in the goat ass...I stand against over reaching government...proudly and enthusiastically....get the fuck used to it...I'm here bitches...and it's a good day...and now, back into the garage for a few...I go.

 

Except from fanatical pro-vaxxers, you don't really see much anymore from supporters of mass vaccination defending their position that everyone must be jabbed, regardless of whether or not they want it. Otherwise, they told us, the unvaxxed should be isolated from the rest of the unthinking sheep. The government spent a pot load of money using propaganda to convince us, while at the same time the CDC hid from us data and information regarding how potentially dangerous were these gene therapy "vaccines." More and more data are coming out however, pried free by FOIA requests, from those who would hide it, accompanied by more and more anecdotal stories about the harm of these vaccines. The last part of the article below (not shown) is a series of heart-breaking responses from people who have suffered because of what has been forced down our throats.

From sore arms to sudden death
Reader reports on adverse vaccine reactions.

eugyppius
21 hr ago

226
It is undeniable: The Corona vaccines cause a wide array of adverse events, not all of them understood. Right now it’s hard to assess their population-wide impact, beyond saying that they’re substantially more dangerous than ordinary vaccines. Rough calculations from VAERS data suggest that they’re at least several hundred times more likely to hurt you than flu shots.

In addition to acute vaccine reactions – fever, myalgia, swollen lymph nodes and injection site soreness in the days following vaccination – many of you also discussed an array of more disturbing symptoms, including serious tinnitus, heightened blood pressure, chest pains, irregular menstrual bleeding and shortness of breath. I also had many letters describing shingles and Bell’s Palsy following vaccination; and of more puzzling and potentially more serious neurological problems, from vertigo to muscular tremors to seizures. For the most part, milder acute symptoms disappeared in days, but some of you report sore arms and tinnitus lasting many months.

Among the severe reactions, myocarditis and stroke have a prominent place in your reports; I had fewer reports of miscarriages, but they were also present. Consistent with internet discussion elsewhere, some of you also report the sudden development or resurgence of cancer following Corona vaccination.

Broadly speaking, dose 3 seems to have been worse than dose 2, and dose 2 worse than dose 1. Many, many of the vaccinated among you caught Corona following vaccination. There are the preponderance of infections in the week following the first and third doses, which we already knew about, but these are but a fraction of post-vaccine infections overall. Probably a big thing that has stalled the political momentum driving mass vaccination, is the prevalence of bad booster reactions followed by breakthrough infection.

Another point that emerged from your letters, is the generally high threshold for obtaining an exemption from further vaccination following an adverse reaction. It was disturbing to read several stories of people who were essentially vaccinated to death – dying after dose 3, following a rough reaction to dose 1 and a near-miss with dose 2.

Finally, almost all of you were vaccinated under duress. Some of you accepted vaccination simply to end the medical surveillance or to win back some freedom of movement. That was surprisingly uncommon, though; those who gave in to the petty harassments of the vaccinators generally said they didn’t appreciate the risk of the vaccines, or the outrageousness of the legal regime surrounding them, until later. Most often, people gave in to keep their jobs or to appease insistent family members. Some parents accepted vaccination so that they could attend school events involving their children; other people wanted to see elderly relatives in hospital or care homes.

As always, I’m very, very grateful for all the time you took to send detailed and textured reports of your experiences with this unprecedented, coercive experiment. I’ve read every email you sent; this time, in fact, I’ve studied them even more closely than usual, which is why this post has taken a while. I regret as always that I can’t publish everything. What follows is my best attempt to be representative, and to highlight a few unique perspectives.

I’ve kept all reports anonymous, and clipped some of them for length or to remove potentially identifying details.
_______

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/from-sore-arms-to-sudden-death?s=r

 

So, the New York Times did a survey, and Shooter finds the results interesting. What sticks out to Shooter is that the very liberal and conservative seem to hold similar views about covid in terms of threat. The other question dealt with whether we should continue wearing masks, and predictably, the more liberal one considers themselves, the more likely they are to still need that mask. So it is no longer valid to claim that the conservative types are ignoring covid, endangering the rest of us, and generally being poopy heads. This is kind of long but even the least educated among forum members should be able to get through the entire article in one cup of coffee.​

Very liberal vs. liberal
The left-right divide over Covid-19 — with blue America taking the virus more seriously than red America — has never been the pandemic’s only political divide. Each partisan tribe has also had its internal disagreements.

Republicans have long been split over vaccination, with many eagerly getting shots while many others refuse. Democrats have their own growing schism, those who believe Covid precautions should continue to be paramount and those who favor moves toward normalcy.

The key dividing line appears to be ideology. Americans who identify as “very liberal” are much more worried about Covid than Americans who identify as “somewhat liberal” or “liberal.” Increasingly, the very liberal look like outliers on Covid: The merely liberal are sometimes closer to moderates than to the very liberal.

That is a central finding of a poll conducted last week by Morning Consult for this newsletter. The poll is a follow-up to one from January. This time, to go deeper than partisan identification, we asked respondents to choose one of seven labels: very liberal, liberal, slightly liberal, moderate, slightly conservative, conservative or very conservative.
Among the results:

• Nearly 50 percent of very liberal Americans say that they believe Covid presents a “great risk” to their personal health. Other liberals, moderates and conservatives tend to be less worried.

From a survey of 2,210 adults in March 2022. | Source: Morning Consult

• When parents were asked about the threat to their children, the pattern was similar.

From a subset of 571 parents. | Source: Morning Consult

• More than 60 percent of very liberal Americans believe that mask mandates should continue for the foreseeable future. Most moderates and conservatives see mandates as a temporary strategy that should end this year.

From a survey of 2,210 adults in March 2022. | Source: Morning Consult
Personal safety
Why does political ideology so strongly shape Covid beliefs?

Donald Trump certainly plays a role. As president, he repeatedly made false statements downplaying Covid. Many Republican voters adopted his view, while many liberal Democrats went in the other direction. They came to equate any loosening of Covid restrictions with Trumpism, even after vaccines tamed the virus’s worst effects.

But I don’t think Trump is the only explanation. Every group of Democrats disdains him, yet Democrats disagree about Covid. Apart from Trump, the pandemic seems to be tapping into different views of risk perception.

Very liberal Americans make up almost 10 percent of adults, according to our poll and others. Many are younger than 50 and have a four-year college degree. They span all races but are disproportionately white, the Pew Research Center has found.

In recent years, these progressive professionals have tended to adopt a cautious approach to personal safety. You might even call it conservative.

It is especially notable in child rearing. Parents seek out the healthiest food, sturdiest car seats and safest playgrounds. They do not let their children play tackle football, and they worry about soccer concussions. The sociologist Annette Lareau has described the upper-middle-class parenting style as “concerted cultivation” and contrasted it with a working-class style of “natural growth.”

A cautious approach to personal safety has big benefits. It has helped popularize bicycle helmets, for example. In the case of Covid, very liberal Americans have been eloquent advocates for protecting the elderly and immunocompromised and for showing empathy toward the unvaccinated.

Yet the approach also has downsides. It can lead people to obsess over small, salient risks while ignoring bigger ones. A regimented childhood, with scheduled lessons replacing unstructured neighborhood play time, may lead to fewer broken bones, but it does not necessarily maximize creativity, independence or happiness.

When it comes to Covid, there is abundant evidence that the most liberal Americans are exaggerating the risks to the vaccinated and to children.

Consider that Democrats younger than 45 are more likely to say the virus poses a great risk to them than those older than 65 are — which is inconsistent with scientific reality but consistent with younger Democrats’ more intense liberalism. Or consider that many liberals (including Sonia Sotomayor) feel deep anxiety about Covid’s effects on children — even though the flu kills more children in a typical year and car crashes kill about five times as many. Long Covid, similarly, appears to be rare in both children and vaccinated people.
The truth is that the vast majority of severe Covid illness is occurring among those Americans who have chosen not to be vaccinated and boosted.

‘Public Health 101’
I know that this newsletter’s emphasis on liberals’ Covid fears has angered some people. And I understand why many Americans — including some moderates and conservatives, as our poll shows — remain so focused on the virus. It has dominated daily life for more than two years, and some risk remains. Shifting gears is hard.

But trying to eliminate Covid risk, and allowing the virus to distort daily life, has costs, too. That’s why much of Europe, which is hardly a bastion of Trumpism, has stopped trying to minimize caseloads.

The American focus on Covid’s dangers, by contrast, has caused disruption and isolation that feed educational losses, mental health troubles, drug overdoses, violent crime and vehicle crashes. These damages have fallen disproportionately on low-income, Black and Latino Americans, exacerbating inequality in ways that would seem to violate liberal values.

“Rather than eliminating the risk of Covid, you’ve got to manage the risk,” Elizabeth Howe Bradley, a public health expert and the president of Vassar College, told me recently. “If you really go for minimizing the risk, you’re going to have unintended consequences to people’s physical health, their mental health, their social health.”

She added: “It’s Public Health 101.”
Many Americans seem to have adopted this view. But there are still holdouts.
More on the virus:

• Moderna asked the F.D.A. to authorize a second booster dose for all adults.
• Thirty-five manufacturers will produce inexpensive versions of Pfizer’s pills to sell in poorer countries.
• President Biden named Dr. Ashish Jha, a dean at Brown University, as his new Covid policy coordinator.