The Playground

The notion that it is "fascist" to demand people get vaccinated is outrageous. It is disgusting. You might as well say it is fascistic to demand that people wear clothes in public, or that they refrain from pissing on the vegetables in the grocery store. There have been laws mandating vaccination since the 1850s. They were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1905. There is simply no basis to argue these laws interfere with Constitutional Rights or freedom any more than any public health laws do, such as the law that you are not allowed piss on vegetables, or that you cannot ignore stop signs. It is not your right to do that. It never has been, now, or any time in the past, in any country.

The fact that you run a slight risk when vaccinated is irrelevant. Many laws mandate that you run a slight risk. In any case, the risk of death or serious injury from the COVID vaccine is much lower than many other vaccines that have been mandated since 1850. It is lower than 1 per billion. No one should think twice about it. Claims that thousands of people are being injured are lies.

Quote from JedRothwell

The only fascists in this story are the people who refuse to get vaccinated

There never was any CoV-19 vaccine except from Russia and China. Now we have Novavax.

So your sentence sounds like and old drunkard leaving the NYT pub endlessly repeating FUD.

Quote from JedRothwell

That's common sense. You cannot prove you were infected with COVID. Even an antibody test might not show it. You might well think you were infected, but you actually had influenza or something else. Whereas you can prove you were vaccinated. Furthermore, a vaccine plus acquired immunity are best, so you should get vaccinated even if you were sick.

I sure as heck would not want to be in restaurant with you if I you said have only acquired immunity. I would leave. I wouldn't let you in my house, either. Even an omicron case can be serious. I will not risk getting one. Especially since the omicron pandemic appears to be fading and in a month or two it will be a lot safer. Why risk it now? Why be the last person in your neighborhood to get sick? What possible benefit could there be? It is insane. Getting vaccinated takes 5 minutes and it produced zero side effects in me. This is like debating whether to fasten your seatbelt or not.

Common sense public health! Since 1850, vaccinations have been required for schools and other places. There has never been a time after that when children were allowed into school without vaccinations if their parents said they were infected. The 1905 Supreme Court case for adults getting smallpox vaccinations did not make an exception for adults previously infected. George Washington implemented the first vaccination requirement in 1777. He did not make an exception for people who already had smallpox.

Obviously because we cannot sure these people were actually infected, but we can be sure they were vaccinated.

Yes, it is utter bullshit. It is counter to every common sense health measure since 1777. No sane public health official would leave it up to the patients to decide whether they have been infected or not.

Display More

So by inoculation you mean exposing soldiers to smallpox, it's called variolation. natural immunity. Small pox vax was discovered in 1796.

Something for our vaccine friends: Live vaccines have additional benefits dead components vaccines are silent killers.... Mortality of children after DTP vaccine increases 5 fold!!

How to evaluate potential non-specific effects of vaccines: the quest for randomized trials or time for triangulation?

(2018). How to evaluate potential non-specific effects of vaccines: the quest for randomized trials or time for triangulation? Expert Review of Vaccines: Vol.…

www.tandfonline.com

Pay walled. used sci-hub!

Origin of news: https://www.infosperber.ch/ges…elang-ignoriert-wurden-1/

More general discussion : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0338-x

About higher mortality of DTP vaccines among girls.

Group of Doctors & Health Professionals File Petition with European Parliament to Reconsider COVID-19 Mass Vaccination Program of Children

Group of Doctors & Health Professionals File Petition with European Parliament to Reconsider COVID-19 Mass Vaccination Program of Children

A group of scientists and researchers critical of the current mass COVID-19 vaccine campaign recently submitted an appeal to the European Parliament

trialsitenews.com

A group of scientists and researchers critical of the current mass COVID-19 vaccine campaign recently submitted an appeal to the European Parliament (@Europarl_EN) / Twitter to reconsider their COVID-19 policies regarding children. PANDA About – PANDA (pandata.org) (Pandemics Data & Analytics) positions itself as a group of multi-disciplinary professions organized in response to what they consider overreach by national governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns in particular center on lockdowns, and now, the PANDA group expresses concerns about universal COVID vaccination involving young people.

A public health professional and one of the organization’s leaders, Abir Ballan, recently reported that the group filed the petition with the European Parliament to reconsider COVID-19 policies regarding Children. The petition was filed by Professor Martin Zizi on behalf of approximately 200 physicians and scientists from Europe and other parts of the world.

What’s their argument?

In a nutshell, PANDA positions that an accurate risk-benefit analysis would lead to a very different outcome than the universal vaccination mandate now underway in Europe. In the petition, they raise several legal bases such as Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the protection of children and “in particular the provision whereby in all actions relating to the children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.”

The group references other legal provisions from the World Health Organization (WHO) Constitution, to UNRC, the Lisbon Treaty, and the organization’s own Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People from the Covid-19 Response. Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People from the COVID-19 Response – PANDA (pandata.org)

A group of scientists and researchers critical of the current mass COVID-19 vaccine campaign recently submitted an appeal to the European Parliament (@Europarl_EN) / Twitter to reconsider their COVID-19 policies regarding children. PANDA About – PANDA (pandata.org) (Pandemics Data & Analytics) positions itself as a group of multi-disciplinary professions organized in response to what they consider overreach by national governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns in particular center on lockdowns, and now, the PANDA group expresses concerns about universal COVID vaccination involving young people.

A public health professional and one of the organization’s leaders, Abir Ballan, recently reported that the group filed the petition with the European Parliament to reconsider COVID-19 policies regarding Children. The petition was filed by Professor Martin Zizi on behalf of approximately 200 physicians and scientists from Europe and other parts of the world.

What’s their argument?

In a nutshell, PANDA positions that an accurate risk-benefit analysis would lead to a very different outcome than the universal vaccination mandate now underway in Europe. In the petition, they raise several legal bases such as Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the protection of children and “in particular the provision whereby in all actions relating to the children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.”

The group references other legal provisions from the World Health Organization (WHO) Constitution, to UNRC, the Lisbon Treaty, and the organization’s own Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People from the Covid-19 Response. Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People from the COVID-19 Response – PANDA (pandata.org)

Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People from the COVID-19 Response - PANDA

Children and young people have the right to pursue life, liberty, learning, leisure, love and laughter. This declaration makes recommendations for society to…

www.pandata.org

Quote from JedRothwell

he only fascists in this story

Anschluss with Austria, USAA?

I think that banning people with natural immunity from restaurants is not taking the logical conclusion of it. All elderly people should be banned as well

to restaurants as many of those have a a weak immune system and even if they took the vaccine, they would not be protected from getting covid. So

in order to go to an event you should show a covid pass and a birth certificate. This way we young and healthy would avoid getting covid and then not

pass it on the elderly in secondary infections. If I sat with a elderly person at the restaurant I would leave, that's disgusting and he is clearly a fascists

and should be thrown into a concentration camp.

This is a scam...in my inbox from "[email protected]" (A quick check shows this to be an AirCon repair business is Tx USA.)

Generate your new Green Pass (Booster dose)

Dear Sir/Madam,

New Green Pass can now be used to demonstrate proof of a booster or third dose for outbound international travel'

Starting today people who have had a booster or a third dose will be able to demonstrate their vaccine status through the Green Pass from 05 February 2022.

Old Green Pass will stop working from 15 February 2022 becoming inactive and everyone needs to generate a new Green Pass which will include Booster dose.

In order to get a new Green Pass follow the instructions. Who is eligible? All eligible people aged 18 or over. UK citizens and their families, and legal residents.

How do I generate a new Green Pass? You can generate your new Green Pass via NHS portal by clicking the button below:

Generate new Green Pass

This update to the Green Pass will mean people can have their complete medical picture at their fingertips if they are going on holiday or seeing loved ones overseas.

All eligible people aged 18 or over can get their booster jab at one of thousands of sites across the country.

It has never been easier to get this important extra protection – if you are aged 18 or over, or eligible for other reasons (such as being a frontline health or care worker, or at greater risk from COVID-19), please get your booster vaccination now. This can be three months after your last dose.

Omicron drives breakthrough infections

Triple-vaccinated people who became infected with COVID-19 are three times more likely to have Omicron than Delta. Researchers in the United States collected samples in mid-December 2021, when about half of COVID cases in the area were Delta and half were Omicron. A booster is still much more effective than no booster, cutting the risk of Omicron by 50%.

Nature | 3 min read

I have a deer friend that has just taking one shot of the vaccine and is considered as un-vaccinated. Now she also got covid and

responded really really hard to the vaccine and suffered really bad for 6 months time. Turns out that she has a super strong immune system and the antibody count was one

of the highest they measured at the hospital. She is much much better protected from covid than many of the people who is

considered vaccinated. By good fortune she lives in Sweden and will get a pass. Anyhow interestingly that people would not dine with her.

Quote from Fm1

So by inoculation you mean exposing soldiers to smallpox, it's called variolation. natural immunity.

Whatever it was, Washington ordered it. The soldiers had no choice in the matter. It was a military necessity. They might have lost the war without it.

The smallpox vaccine developed later also gives natural immunity, indistinguishable from the disease.

Starting around 1850, smallpox and other vaccines were mandated. The laws were upheld in 1905. There has never been any constitutional right to not get vaccinated.

Quote from stefan

I think that banning people with natural immunity from restaurants is not taking the logical conclusion of it. All elderly people should be banned as well

That make no sense. A person cannot help being old. It is not a choice. A person can choose to be vaccinated or not. If you choose not to be, you should not be allowed into restaurants. The same as if you choose to go around naked. Or if you insist on eating with your hands instead of a knife and fork. Or if you bring your own food, or a bottle of wine. There are many other laws and rules in restaurants. I do not understand why antivaxxers think they should be allowed to violate this one public health law, yet they have no objection to the others.

A person should also be banned from restaurants if he or she is infected. He should be quarantined. You do not choose to be infected, but it is only a temporary condition, whereas being elderly is permanent, until you die.

Another Vaccine Death as 24 yr. Old Kentucky Young Man Dies, Apparently from Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: College Required Full Vaccination

Another Vaccine Death as 24 yr. Old Kentucky Young Man Dies, Apparently from Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: College Required Full Vaccination

Another young man died from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, this time in Lockwood, New York. TrialSite just days ago reported that a 33-year-old man

trialsitenews.com

Another young man died from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, this time in Lockwood, New York. TrialSite just days ago reported that a 33-year-old man died recently in the New Orleans area. After vaccination with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, Brandon Pollet became severely ill with a high fever, severe headaches, and a high number of blood clots. He died shortly thereafter. Now 24-year old George Watts Jr. died after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. A college student, local news portrayed the young man as a “homebody” who loved video games and spending time with family. Full vaccination was a prerequisite for attending college. He received his first vaccine in August and his second in September. Watts opted for the Pfizer vaccine because it was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Complications started right after the first dose, yet the young man kept this information to himself. But his parents did notice blood in their son’s urine after this dose. After the second dose, he experienced another rash of symptoms—this time flu-like conditions, which are typical for the vaccine. While symptoms persisted until October, George was rushed to the emergency room as symptoms seemed to worsen—yet note where cardiac-related at that point. He didn’t have any trace of COVID-19 infection and was diagnosed with a sinus infection and prescribed antibiotics. The parents were informed he should be better within a couple of weeks. However, the young man continued to feel ill and made another trip to the emergency room only to be told the sinus infection would simply take longer to heal. Come the end of October, the young man’s condition worsened, including pain in his hands, feet, and teeth. He started to cough up blood and became extremely sensitive to sunlight. His parents were planning on taking him to the emergency room yet again, but they never made it—on October 27, he collapsed in his room and was pronounced dead that late morning.

George was a healthy young man with no underlying health conditions according to his father George Watts Sr. The Chief Deputy Coroner for Bradford County, Kentucky Timothy Cahill Jr. reports to Channel 18 News that George Watts Jr. died from “COVID-19 vaccine-related myocarditis.”

A rare side effect of the COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines (both Pfizer and Moderna), local news reports that these side effects usually show up within a few days after the vaccination.

Several studies show that young men are more likely to experience serious side effects from the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, including a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

TrialSite has reported that in much of Northern Europe, several countries have limited the use of the Moderna mRNA-based vaccine called Spikevax, halting the use of all young people under the age of 30. On Channel 18 News, Dr. Liviu Klein went on the record to share more information about myocarditis. Mostly an immune response impacting the heart muscle, it’s quite uncommon but occurs in the U.S. at about a rate of 10-20 per one million adults. The doctor shared that the incidence of cases associated with the COVID-19 vaccine equals about 50 per million doses administered. According to Klein, a COVID-infected person faces a higher probability at 120 per million.

When asked if he knows of other deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, Klein responded that he knows of no such deaths. Yet TrialSite has followed a handful of such deaths again one just the other day—they are very rare, but they do happen. Some critics point out that the rates are far higher but that is based on various formulas assuming deaths reported to CDC VAERS are undercounted. Over 11,000 deaths have been reported to the VAERS database in association with the COVID-19 vaccine, yet this doesn’t mean they are associated. TrialSite also reported four children in Vietnam died due to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Over 182 million doses have been administered and although it is tragic, these events appear to be very rare.

As TrialSite has reported, Pfizer and Moderna are shielded from any liability under the PREP act, even though the Pfizer vaccine is approved

https://www.mytwintiers.com/news-cat/local-news/i-dont-know-what-else-to-do-or-where-to-even-go-from-here-covid-19-vaccine-to-blame-for-southern-tier-mans-death/

Quote from JedRothwell

That make no sense. A person cannot help being old. It is not a choice. A person can choose to be vaccinated or not. If you choose not to be, you should not be allowed into restaurants. The same as if you choose to go around naked. Or if you insist on eating with your hands instead of a knife and fork. Or if you bring your own food, or a bottle of wine. There are many other laws and rules in restaurants. I do not understand why antivaxxers think they should be allowed to violate this one public health law, yet they have no objection to the others.

A person should also be banned from restaurants if he or she is infected. He should be quarantined. You do not choose to be infected, but it is only a temporary condition, whereas being elderly is permanent, until you die.

I have a friend that cannot choose read my post above

Quote from RobertBryant

Anschluss with Austria USAA?

Living in that country, today for many citizens it is a sad day!

We are (at the moment?) the only country in Europe, which has come up with a POLITICAL decision to impose a compulsory vaxx. law.

IMO this decision is not well enough based on facts, since any critical discussion is banned or not possible. i.e. critical doctor's are threatened to loose their license and all media, except of one, are streamlined onto government policy and influence public opinion.

It is hard to believe, but democracy as we knew it, seems to be a history of the past!

I just hope that other countries in Europe are not making the same mistake (countinous segregation of society).

I also hope that we can learn from countries like Sweden or Switzerland, which could hopefully bring such harsh measures to an end!

Quote from stefan

All elderly people should be banned as well to restaurants as many of those have a a weak immune system and even if they took the vaccine, they would not be protected from getting covid. So in order to go to an event you should show a covid pass and a birth certificate. This way we young and healthy would avoid getting covid and then not pass it on the elderly in secondary infections.

Good idea. We can also isolate all the young people with "a body from hell" so they don't pollute the healthy.

Quote from Fm1

Mexican Institute of Social Security Large Observational Study: Home Treatment Kit with Ivermectin Reduces Hospitalizations & Death

https://trialsitenews.com/mexi…s-hospitalizations-death/

This large retrospective observational population study out of Mexico is a testament to the benefits of treating mild outpatient Covid-19 cases with a medical kit at home. They found that the incidence of hospitalization was only 6.14% in patients who received a kit and 11.71% in those who did not. In the multivariate model, receiving a medical kit was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19: adjusted risk ratio 0.35 (95% confidence interval 0.30–0.40).

Background

This retrospective, two-group comparative study was sponsored by the Mexican Institute of Social Security (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, (IMSS), a system providing healthcare to about 68 million people or 54% of the Mexican population. Operating approximately 1,400 primary care medical units, 270 general community hospitals, and 25 tertiary and quaternary care medical centers distributed throughout the 32 Mexican states.

During the pandemic, IMSS implemented respiratory care modules in a bid to classify and care for COVID-19 patients. For the cohort of patients with mild COVID-19 without respiratory symptoms, a large study was set up comparing a group that received the treatment kit with those that did not.

The treatment kits included an information brochure, face masks, a pulse oximeter, a three-day course of azithromycin (500 mg on day 1, 250 mg on days 2 and 3), a two-day course of ivermectin 6 mg daily, and several acetaminophen and aspirin tablets. The ivermectin and aspirin are likely to be what provided the benefits. The ivermectin dosing was much too low, but still probably helped. The aspirin would help prevent the microthrombosis that is so prevalent in Covid-19. Many believe microthrombosis is the main driver of severe disease in Covid-19. There is also evidence that platelet agglutination is the initial stage of the thrombosis in Covid-19.

The study team included a total of 28,048 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients: 7,898 (28.2%) received a medical kit and 20,150 (71.8%) did not. The incidence rates of hospitalization and death combined were calculated.

The Study Methods

This study was designed to investigate the hospitalization and mortality rates of a large sample of adults who received the primary treatment kit in comparison with an equally large cohort of patients who declined the kit yet continued monitoring via telehealth.

A retrospective, two-group comparative study was conducted with secondary data via the National Family Medicine Information System of the IMSS. This database contains the personal and clinical records of every patient, including their diagnosis and prescribed medications. All data is captured in real-time by the family physician while attending to the patient.

A second database was set up by the epidemiological surveillance system at the IMSS covering the period of February 1-May 16, 2021. The data corresponded to ambulatory patients aged 18 years and older and over with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and with information about the treatment kit delivery only. Records from the second epidemic wave from January 1–August 30, 2021, were analyzed. The study team included data regarding sex, age, medical conditions (e.g., obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease), follow-up by telephone, and whether they agreed to use the treatment kit was obtained for each patient, as well emergency room visits and hospitalization. Information regarding death was obtained and verified using the hospital and mortality registries.

Results

The study authors, led by Cesar Raul Gonzalez-Bonilla, Evidence Analysis and Synthesis Research Unit, Health Research Coordination, Education and Research Unit, Medical Benefits Directorate, Mexican Institute of Social Security, report that those mild COVID-19 patients receiving the home treatment kit had a hospitalization rate of 6.14% as compared to the cohort not receiving the home treatment kit at 11.71%.

As is the case in other parts of North America, the authors report that comorbidities (e.g., obesity, diabetes, etc.) are associated with an increased risk of hospitalization or death. But those rates were reduced in the cohort that received early treatment or telephone follow-up.

Multivariate analysis revealed that the home-based mild COVID-19 patients receiving the home treatment kits were associated with a lower risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.35 (95% confidence interval 0.30–0.40).

Summary

The authors conclude that a multimodal strategy of the type employed in Mexico could possibly reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in adult outpatients with mild COVID-19. Based on a review of dozens of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and countless physician interviews, the study results here indicate that even a marginally efficacious inexpensive regimen can save lives, even when administered early. TrialSite goes on record that sending patients home with no treatment and only instructions to go to the emergency department if/when they become hypoxic was cruel and immoral. It also directly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Lead Research/Investigator

Cesar Raul Gonzalez-Bonilla, Ph.D. Evidence Analysis and Synthesis Research Unit, Health Research Coordination, Education and Research Unit, Medical Benefits Directorate, Mexican Institute of Social Security.

Call to Action: Published as preprint/pre-proof the article is available in the journal Archives of Medical Research.

A Multimodal Strategy to Reduce the Risk of Hospitalization/death in Ambulatory Patients with COVID-19

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0188440922000029

Display More

SocArxiv, pressured by the cancel culture mob over this Mexico City Ivermectin paper, caves and withdraws it. "This is the first time we have used our prerogative as service administrators to withdraw a paper from SocArXiv".

ivermectin – SocOpen: Home of SocArXiv

socopen.org

Preamble by Philip N. Cohen, director of SocArXiv

SocArXiv’s steering committee has decided to withdraw the paper, “Ivermectin and the odds of hospitalization due to COVID-19: evidence from a quasi-experimental analysis based on a public intervention in Mexico City,” by Jose Merino, Victor Hugo Borja, Oliva Lopez, José Alfredo Ochoa, Eduardo Clark, Lila Petersen, and Saul Caballero. [10.31235/osf.io/r93g4]

The paper is a report on a program in Mexico City that gave people medical kits when they tested positive for COVID-19, containing, among other things, ivermectin tablets. The conclusion of the paper is, “The study supports ivermectin-based interventions to assuage the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health system.”

The lead author of the paper, José Merino, head of the Digital Agency for Public Innovation (DAPI), a government agency in Mexico City, tweeted about the paper: “Es una GRAN noticia poder validar una política pública que permitió reducir impactos en salud por covid19” (translation: It is GREAT news to be able to validate a public policy that allowed reducing health impacts from covid19). The other authors are officials at the Mexican Social Security Institute and the Mexico City Ministry of Health, and employees at the DAPI.

We have written about this paper previously. We wrote, in part:

“Depending on which critique you prefer, the paper is either very poor quality or else deliberately false and misleading. PolitiFact debunked it here, partly based on this factcheck in Portuguese. We do not believe it provides reliable or useful information, and we are disappointed that it has been very popular (downloaded almost 10,000 times so far). … We do not have a policy to remove papers like this from our service, which meet submission criteria when we post them but turn out to be harmful. However, we could develop one, such as a petition process or some other review trigger. This is an open discussion.”

The paper has now been downloaded more than 11,000 times, among our most-read papers of the past year. Since we posted that statement, the paper has received more attention. In particular, an article in Animal Politico in Mexico reported that the government of Mexico City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ivermectin, which it still distributes (as of January 2022) to people who test positive for COVID-19. In response, University of California-San Diego sociology professor Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra posted an appeal to SocArXiv asking us to remove the “deeply problematic and unethical” paper and ban its authors from our platform. The appeal, in a widely shared Twitter thread, argued that the authors, through their agency dispensing the medication, unethically recruited experimental subjects, apparently without informed consent, and thus the study is an unethical study; they did not declare a conflict of interest, although they are employees of agencies that carried out the policy. The thread was shared or liked by thousands of people. The article and response to the article prompted us to revisit this paper. On February 1, I promised to bring the issue to our Steering Committee for further discussion.

I am not a medical researcher, although I am a social scientist reasonably well-versed in public health research. I won’t provide a scholarly review of research on ivermectin. However, it is clear from the record of authoritative statements by global and national public health agencies that, at present, ivermectin should not be used as a treatment or preventative for COVID-19 outside of carefully controlled clinical studies, which this clearly was not. These are some of those statements, reflecting current guidance as of 3 February 2022.

• World Health Organization: “We recommend not to use ivermectin, except in the context of a clinical trial.”
• US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “ivermectin has not been proven as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19.”
• US National Institutes of Health: “There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”
• European Medicines Agency: “use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials.”
• US Food and Drug Administration: “The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. … Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19.”

For reference, the scientific flaws in the paper are enumerated at the links above from PolitiFact, partly based on this factcheck from Estado in Portuguese, which included expert consultation. I also found this thread from Omar Yaxmehen Bello-Chavolla useful.

In light of this review, a program to publicly distribute ivermectin to people infected with COVID-19, outside of a controlled study, seems unethical. The paper is part of such a program, and currently serves as part of its justification.

To summarize, there remains insufficient evidence that ivermectin is effective in treating COVID-19; the study is of minimal scientific value at best; the paper is part of an unethical program by the government of Mexico City to dispense hundreds of thousands of doses of an inappropriate medication to people who were sick with COVID-19, which possibly continues to the present; the authors of the paper have promoted it as evidence that their medical intervention is effective. This review is intended to help the SocArXiv Steering Committee reach a decision on the request to remove the paper (we set aside the question of banning the authors from future submissions, which is reserved for people who repeatedly violate our rules). The statement below followed from this review.

SocArXiv Steering Committee statement on withdrawing the paper by Merino et al. (10.31235/osf.io/r93g4).

This is the first time we have used our prerogative as service administrators to withdraw a paper from SocArXiv. Although we reject many papers, according to our moderation policy, we don’t have a policy for unilaterally withdrawing papers after they have been posted. We don’t want to make policy around a single case, but we do want to respond to this situation.

We are withdrawing the paper, and replacing it with a “tombstone” that includes the paper’s metadata. We are doing this to prevent the paper from causing additional harm, and taking this incident as an impetus to develop a more comprehensive policy for future situations. The metadata will serve as a reference for people who follow citations to the paper to our site.

Our grounds for this decision are several:

1. The paper is spreading misinformation, promoting an unproved medical treatment in the midst of a global pandemic.
2. The paper is part of, and justification for, a government program that unethically dispenses (or did dispense) unproven medication apparently without proper consent or appropriate ethical protections according to the standards of human subjects research.
3. The paper is medical research – purporting to study the effects of a medication on a disease outcome – and is not properly within the subject scope of SocArXiv.
4. The authors did not properly disclose their conflicts of interest.

We appreciate that of the thousands of papers we have accepted and now host on our platform, there may be others that have serious flaws as well.

We are taking this unprecedented action because this particular bad paper appears to be more important, and therefore potentially more harmful, than other flawed work. In administering SocArXiv, we generally err on the side of inclusivity, and do not provide peer review or substantive vetting of the papers we host. Taking such an approach suits us philosophically, and also practically, since we don’t have staff to review every paper fully. But this approach comes with the responsibility to respond when something truly harmful gets through. In light of demonstrable harms like those associated with this paper, and in response to a community groundswell beseeching us to act, we are withdrawing this paper.

We reiterate that our moderation process does not involve peer review, or substantive evaluation, of the research papers that we host. Our moderation policy confirms only that papers are (1) scholarly, (2) in research areas that we support, (3) are plausibly categorized, (4) are correctly attributed, (5) are in languages that we moderate, and (6) are in text-searchable formats. Posting a paper on SocArXiv is not in itself an indication of good quality – but it is often a sign that researchers are acting in good faith and practicing open scholarship for the public good. We urge readers to consider this incident in the context of the greater good that open science and preprints in general, and our service in particular, do for researchers and the communities they serve.

Quote from Fm1

Another Vaccine Death as 24 yr. Old Kentucky Young Man Dies, Apparently from Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: College Required Full Vaccination

I expect this is a lie, but assuming it is true, it is an unfortunate but necessary death. Any public health measure, or any law mandating any form of behavior will have some risks attached. In most countries, laws mandate that children must be educated in schools. Some number of children will be killed while walking or riding a bus to school. Laws mandate the use of seat belts and air bags. In extremely rare circumstances, air bags have caused harm and even death. They have saved far more lives than they took, but they are not totally risk free. Ordinary, over-the-counter NSAID medicines such as ibuprofen have made life better for millions of people. They reduce pain more safely than addictive opioids. They reduce fever temperatures and many other symptoms. But they also kill ~16,000 people per year. Is it worth the risk? I say yes, of course. If you don't think so, you should refrain from taking NSAID. Also, if you do not think driving above 25 mph is worth the risk, you should try to avoid any automobile travel. (People are seldom killed at speeds below 25 mph.)

https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/pharmacological/opioids/ask-expert-do-nsaids-cause-more-deaths-opioids

(This observation, by the way, can lead to a base rate fallacy. Far more people use NASID than opioids, especially at-risk elderly people.)

Even if we were certain this 24-year-old will killed by the mRNA vaccine, that would be no reason to stop mandating the vaccine, any more than we should close down all schools because one child dies in a school bus accident. Or ban the use of ibuprofen because some number of people die from it. You must apply a risk benefit analysis to all such decisions.

Quote from JedRothwell

Whatever it was, Washington ordered it. The soldiers had no choice in the matter. It was a military necessity. They might have lost the war without it.

The smallpox vaccine developed later also gives natural immunity, indistinguishable from the disease.

Starting around 1850, smallpox and other vaccines were mandated. The laws were upheld in 1905. There has never been any constitutional right to not get vaccinated.

So if Joe Biden mandates you become infected with omicrom, would you?

Quote from gerold.s

Living in that country, today for many citizens it is a sad day!

We are (at the moment?) the only country in Europe, which has come up with a POLITICAL decision to impose a compulsory vaxx. law.

IMO this decision is not well enough based on facts, since any critical discussion is banned or not possible. i.e. critical doctor's are threatened to loose their license and all media, except of one, are streamlined onto government policy and influence public opinion.

It is hard to believe, but democracy as we knew it, seems to be a history of the past!

It's a sad day when the government, unrestrained by spineless opposition parties, mandates an experimental, proven-to-harm injection to its citizens. They chose coercion over freedom, a toxic injectable over edelweiss, a symbol of purity, nobility and courage.

I'm glad that one party (who adopted the Edelweiss as a symbol) is speaking out.