Looked at vaccinations and considered myself a bad risk for adverse or allergic reactions based on past history. Also, considered that I had robust immunity from previous infection which could be degraded by vaccine.
Then came highly infections Delta variant - which the vaccines did not give good protection. With Ro of 9+ it was 100% certain I would get it regardless of vaccination status.
Went on Ivermection + Quericine + Zinc+ Vitamin C + Vitamin D + anti inflammatory prevention regime in late July.
We got hit by Delta variant at work. I was the oldest, highest risk and the only unvaxed. I was also one of the several who already had and recovered from covid .
Everyone else, all vaxed, became seriously ill with covid and are just now beginning to recover after 10 days. None went on the ivermectin protocol
I went on ivermectin at 0.4mg/kg split twice a day instead of twice a week for active case therapy while keeping the rest of the prevention regime the same after testing positive and had only very minor symptoms- an initial runny nose and a minor fever, followed by an intermittent bad cough. Checked my 02 Sats on regular basis and they never went below 92% and are holding steady in the 95% range on hourly monitoring . Am pretty much 100% recovered after 10 days and just tested negative for virus via saliva test.
Not downing the vaccines but feel I made the right risk assessment by declining the vax due to being a bad risk for serious bad reaction and concerns that the vax was only partially effective against the Delta variant. I also am happy with effectiveness using the Ivermection cocktail prevention protocol and my outcome was far superior to my vaxxed colleagues, several of whom also have already had and recovered from covid.
Of all the things that make me angry and suspicious about the way this whole thing is being handled, is the absolute unwillingness to discuss or explore treatment options other than expensive and relatively scarce monoclonal antibodies.
NIH: COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
They seem insistent on treating it as a traditional flu with hydration, bed rest and such, and if you get sick enough to go to the hospital, you might get a hospital bed, IV fluids, oxygenation, and antibodies offered, but then what? A ventilator?
Just as irritating, the guidelines say this:
"...The Panel recommends using anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 and for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as outlined in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). While there are currently no shortages of these monoclonal antibodies, logistical constraints (e.g., limited space, not enough staff who can administer therapy) can make it difficult to administer these agents to all eligible patients. In this statement, the Panel offers suggestions for how to prioritize the use of monoclonal antibodies for treatment or PEP when there are logistical constraints for administering therapy..."
So, instead of doing what normal people do in emergencies (and they talk about this as the most exigent public health emergency since The Spanish Flu) in which important resources become scarce or non-existent, they talk about...triage. Determining who might survive if they get the scarce treatment, and "hoping" others don't cross into that threshold of need.
Yes. That makes me both angry and deeply suspicious. Incompetence doesn't explain it.
I understand that hospitals are unlikely to cross instructions from the CDC, NIH and the government by deviating from the "official" guidelines because if they did, they won't get reimbursed, and probably opens them up to lawsuits, so I blame those entities far more than the individual hospitals.
Of all the things that make me angry and suspicious about the way this whole thing is being handled, is the absolute unwillingness to discuss or explore treatment options other than expensive and relatively scarce monoclonal antibodies.
NIH: COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
They seem insistent on treating it as a traditional flu with hydration, bed rest and such, and if you get sick enough to go to the hospital, you might get a hospital bed, IV fluids, oxygenation, and antibodies offered, but then what? A ventilator?
Just as irritating, the guidelines say this:
"...The Panel recommends using anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 and for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as outlined in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). While there are currently no shortages of these monoclonal antibodies, logistical constraints (e.g., limited space, not enough staff who can administer therapy) can make it difficult to administer these agents to all eligible patients. In this statement, the Panel offers suggestions for how to prioritize the use of monoclonal antibodies for treatment or PEP when there are logistical constraints for administering therapy..."
So, instead of doing what rational people do in emergencies (and they talk about this as the most exigent public health emergency since The Spanish Flu) in which important resources become scarce or non-existent, they talk about...triage. Determining who might survive if they get the scarce treatment, and "hoping" others don't cross into that threshold of need.
Yes. That makes me both angry and deeply suspicious. Incompetence doesn't explain it.
I understand that hospitals are unlikely to cross instructions from the CDC, NIH and the government by deviating from the "official" guidelines because if they did, they won't get reimbursed, and probably opens them up to lawsuits, so I blame those entities far more than the individual hospitals.