Pfizer recently announced that its new protease inhibitor-based drug was 89% effective in preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19 and it is seeking an emergency use authorization for it from the FDA. Antivaxxers claim that ivermectin targets the same protease and is being "suppressed" to protect Pfizer's profits from the new drug. What's the real story? Hint: Antivaxxers took a grain of truth...
Pediatricians know their job is to present accurate and thorough information so parents can make informed decisions. Contrarian doctors who write about COVID-19 should spend less time lecturing pediatricians and more time learning from them.
That we can identify children who have a higher risk for severe outcomes shouldn't be used to minimize the virus and argue against vaccination in healthy children. Rather, we should recognize there are populations of vulnerable children that need extra protection, and the best way to do this is through vaccinating ourselves and all eligible children.
It's common knowledge that anti-vaxxers are dedicated to filling the coffers of Big Coffin. Simple math leads to another obvious conclusion: they also work extremely hard to enrich hospitals and Big Pharma.
The next time a healthcare worker or educator is attacked by a "freedom-loving" anti-vaxxer, it's reasonable to wonder who convinced the assailant that life-saving public health measures are in fact a ruse to pave the way for the next Hitler. Warning: This article contains offensive images about the Holocaust and sexual assault
The harms we cause often lead to more grief than the harms we fail to prevent. Is this why some doctors are willing to leave young people vulnerable to a deadly virus?
Those who sent unprotected children into classrooms filled with COVID-19 must be remembered for more than their unparalleled capacity for self-pity, inglorious oppression fantasies, and juvenile trolling of public officials.
A recent pre-print inappropriately used VAERS to calculated the rate of myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine. However, even if the rate was correct, the article glosses over the dangers of the virus and the efficacy of the vaccine.