Someone Else

While I don't like the antivax propaganda widely proliferated here, some with a different point of view are starting to resemble fanatical televangelists from the 80's. The poster you are referring to is obviously sequestering himself to a large degree, and while that doesn't jive with his silly "no fear here" proclamation, I see no reason why he's "a threat to others" when keeping distanced and isolated--and that is backed by science. Just because he doesn't subscribe to your religion doesn't make his approach wrong or ineffective.

In terms of central Bangkok I see no evidence of mask wearing enforcement whatsoever, particularly towards foreigners. It's pretty common to see western dopes doing the chin-diaper thing in malls/BTS, cowering behind their face for 2 seconds when encountering scrawny 19 year-old security guards...then boldly declaring "I'm not going to live in fear" in internet forums.

Not seeing any statements about superior efficacy in either link, nor has a comparator study been performed. All I see is two completely separate studies.

Link is paywalled...I'm curious about the details behind why they say it's more efficacious than Merck's?

Availability of PFE vax is why I asked, as it doesn't seem he's living in Thailand. Such a courageous antimasker trolling from afar...

What in the world does this have to do with finding quality masks in Thailand? Also curious what in what parts of Thailand you walk around without a mask?

I don't have that right, the mods do. Of course I rebut the garbage people post here...and sometimes the rebuttal gets deleted because the post I responded to violated rules. The messages I have reported were the endlessly repeated and thoroughly debunked lies which violated forum rules. I did not report because I disagreed with someone--to the contrary I feel disagreements can be fruitful if negotiated in an adult manner. A "man of principal" abides by the clearly delineated rules agreed to when signing up. But the antivax clan doesn't care about rules or community, they are antisocials who engage in violent confrontations with flight attendants and service industry workers. To me that kind of behavior is unacceptable, so suffice to say we have a divergence in principals and values. Happy to have an adult conversation about the "misinformation" you have accused me of disseminating, let's see the specifics.

I've alerted a few messages here that contained verifiably blatant misinformation. It had nothing to do with "fear" or my opinion, it was based on what I know to be true based on decades of professional experience. I don't think that makes me a "monster". While I would agree there is plenty of poor behavior and superficial understanding of complex issues on both sides that hinders meaningful discussion, I'm don't see how spreading obvious misinformation could be characterized as "courageous".

Your assertion of no trials is patently false. Here's the P3 trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04939428 Your assertion that this is a "shiny new drug" is also false. It's been in development since at least 2015 per the OP's linked article which you have evidently not read. The molecules are vastly different, you can compare the structures on wikipedia yourself. You seem to have a problem with how fast you predict the drug will be approved, but haven't articulated what the problem is. You further provided no factual basis that this agent will be approved in "record time".

They are fully approved, not experimental which you and the antivax clan keep lying about. Covid vaccine sponsors did everything they could in tandem, whereas in traditional development one wouldn't take on that degree of financial risk. In general, drugs are getting approved much more quickly as regulators like FDA have expanded various expedited approval programs. Some drugs have been approved in less than three months in the modern era. And you can bet FDA massively prioritized review staff given the urgent public health need. So I fail to see how fast approval of covid vaccines is a bad thing, nor have you articulated why it's a bad thing.

I never said only vaccinated people would be allowed entry to Thailand or anything like that, it may surprise you to know my world view extends well beyond Thailand. Even in a place insanely desperate for tourists like Thailand, the unvaccinated visitors will evidently still be subject to quarantine. Other countries won't let you in at all. Your choice is to subject yourself to confinement and curtail your freedom of movement while fantasizing about fictitious "rights" and non-sequitur what-ifs. My choice is to embrace and enjoy the real-world freedoms that "double vaccination" confers. Just two different decisions with different consequences, I think we can respect each others' choices and call it a day.

I see...generic manufactures contracted to mass produce non-generic small molecule drug product. Reporter somehow extrapolates that to mean "generic molnupiravir". ????

So this travel you've done the past 18 months, whilst referring to EU requirements etc, was all internal in Thailand, and you haven't flown to another country in 16+ years. Glad that's working out for you. I think everyone understands domestic travel is easy without the same Visa/passport/COE/vax/etc requirements...of course that's not what folks are talking about here.

Not sure I'd put too much stock in those Indian results without any technical details about the studies. On the safety side it seems there are some legitimate concerns as most have probably seen by now (eg, https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/early-safety-concerns-accompanied-mercks-molnupiravir-the-first-potential-oral-covid-19-therapy/). It will be interesting to see what happens now that it's in front of regulators...I'm a bit skeptical this will be some sort of covid panacea sitting in everyone's medicine cabinet as some seem to fantasize. I don't understand why they are referring to a "generic version", as it isn't approved anywhere I'm aware of, and obviously not in the US where they are seeking novel marketing approval. Doesn't seem to be generic from the legal perspective. The aspirin protocol is interesting, but that would be for prophylaxis, this is for treatment. Also keep in mind the aspirin studies are encouraging but exploratory, and to my knowledge the P3 molnupiravir data haven't been published (study likely ongoing). So not sure we can really say at this time if one is better than the other, or if either actually "works" for that matter. Totally false, they are completely difference chemical structures, different MoA, etc. Prodrugs like molnupiravir weren't even around at the time of Ivermectin! Just amazing how many blatant lies are posted in this forum.

You will indeed have the right to move freely in your quarantine hotel room. Enjoy!

That's for Europeans traveling WITHIN EUROPE. Entering outside of EU is another case, and your statement pertained to international travel: Apples and oranges. Again, this "fundamental right" you allege does not exist in the real world, which is the world I'm living in (since you weren't sure). Further, many countries (in the real world) already have covid vaccine requirements, and others are in the process of implementation like the US.

And I provided many examples of countries requiring "double vaccination" (assuming by that you mean a full dose) for entry, including European countries, here are more examples similar to the last list you ignored: https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/which-eu-countries-permit-entry-for-fully-vaccinated-travellers-so-far/ This disproves your statement, where you alleged this is not the case. It already is a pre-condition to travel to many countries in the present. Again here is your statement: I further demonstrated that your alleged "fundamental right" to travel unvaccinated is nonexistent in the real world.

You didn't specify covid vaccines, so perhaps you should work on learning how to communicate more clearly before responding so belligerently. Obviously many countries already requiring vaccination for entry: https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffwhitmore/2021/09/02/the-latest-vaccine-requirements-for-travel/?sh=2286a34d4d6e Even the US, global epicenter of antivax Inc., will soon require vaccination for entry: https://bb.usembassy.gov/new-vaccine-requirement-for-international-travelers-to-the-united-states/#:~:text=New Vaccine Requirement for International Travelers to the United States,-Home | News %26 Events&text=As announced by the White,a U.S.-bound international flight. Your statements have been demonstrated to be false.... so who's trolling??

More lies from the anti-vax misinformation peddlers. Even pre-covid there were plenty of vaccine requirements traveling internationally. https://www.who.int/ith/2016-ith-county-list.pdf

OP has no idea what he/she/it is talking about. Such text is standard boilerplate, most vaccines and biologicals are not subjected to such testing because it would be pointless and thus unethical. This is reflected in numerous international and national guidelines, for example: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/S6_R1_Guideline_0.pdf This boilerplate appears on all sorts of non-covid vaccines, eg: https://www.fda.gov/media/119870/download https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%2C blood %26 biologics/published/Package-Insert---HAVRIX.pdf So, who is promoting "fake news here"?

Then show us your methodology for statements such as "anywhere from 5% to 10% of the vaccinated population being affected with long term effect".

How do you suggest health authorities evaluate risk/reward without the use of statistics, what would be the better approach given your expertise? And now that we know you statistician, you should have no problem providing the derivation for your claimed 5-10% LT AE rate of covid vaccines. Awaiting your expert feedback.

There you go with the personal attacks again, you are the one who needs to "cool off". You are indeed afraid to provide any specifics or detail, and instead revert to repeated lies personal insults. You made up BS statistics about long term adverse events, another lie. Yes, productive scientific discussions are very possible and happen every day in the real, adult world.

No one said 100% safe, you keep lying about this over and over again. You're the guy who's afraid to engage in a scientific discussion. I've asked you several questions that you are too afraid to answer. So you were just making up those 5%-10% numbers, I guess?

You said "anywhere from 5% to 10% of the vaccinated population being affected with long term effect". How are you able to quantify the long term adverse effects without knowing what they are? What guides your opinion that there is a "strong chance" of long term effects, despite this being a single use product that is metabolized quickly?