Ivermectin Musings....

[AJMD429]

.

Interesting how these doctors, WHO FOLLOWED THE SCIENCE, pretty much predicted what we are now seeing with the vaccines...

https://stateofthenation.co/?p=55803

[Tycer]

Reason for IVM attack?

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfiz ... ivermectin

[Grizz]

i will NEVER use anything scabbed together and sold by ANY of the murder-drug peddlers.

their credibility is LESS THAN ZERO

[AJMD429]

.

This is an interesting presentation on the physiology of the CoVid virus and how ivermectin works to stifle it.

https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19Cri ... n-Update:5

[KWK]

This is an interesting presentation on the physiology of the CoVid virus and how ivermectin works to stifle it.

Indeed. I see he's a proponent of masking. Several of the trials studies he cites indicate treatment with ivermectin can lower the death rate to about 1/8. The vaccines in general are 1/10 to 1/20, but that's not an apples to apples comparison.

I'll have to go looking again for Peru data. Months ago, I'd read about wide spread use there, but I came across data showing that some counties that didn't have ivermectin showed as big a drop in deaths as those with it.

[Grizz]

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/mas ... ial-policy

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/the- ... -of-masks/

One of those, I think, has a list of all the damages caused by wearing masks.

I was looking for the official medical version of social distancing. It is a LOT MORE THAT THREE FEET. At 3 feet, everybody is breathing everyone else's exhaust, mask or not.

[KWK]

I'll have to go looking again for Peru data.

I didn't find much. There's so much chaff about Peru shows ivermectin helps versus Peru shows nothing of that sort that it will take a lot of reading to find the data.

I did stumble across this and this, both fairly recent papers to show up on the supposedly censored NIH site, and both strongly in favor of ivermectin, based on analysis of overseas data (not Peru).

On the other hand, this Irish article wasn't so rosy, noting another study of studies found the evidence inconclusive. Oh well.

[AJMD429]

.

I have to laugh though when I hear a study criticized because it also included an aspirin and a Tylenol, neither of which has any known antiviral activity. They certainly don't criticize studies of drugs that are on their 'nice list' with such fervor.

On the other hand, when a study uses a woefully low dose or doesn't use it during appropriate time to get success, that study will be touted as a prime example of why ivermectin doesn't work.

If you follow the money trail, sometimes it's obvious why a particular group will dislike or even sabotage a drug that competes with one they plan to make money off of. Other times I think some of the 'journalists' simply take the side of the 'left' because that is their gut instinct. And the left is pretty much in the pocket of big businesses these days, despite their protests to the contrary. Cochrane is notorious for the latter, and for cherry-picking studies to fit predetermined conclusions.

Many patients and physicians would agree with this:

https://c19legacy.com/

.... and now for some humor....

https://drsyedhaider.com/covid-19/irony-ivermectin

[KWK]

I have to laugh though when I hear a study criticized because it also included an aspirin and a Tylenol, neither of which has any known antiviral activity.

I, too, noticed that, although I rolled my eyes instead of laughed. Thanks for the note on the Cochrane. I've only come across them one time before, so hadn't made an opinion on them.

[Grizz]

RIGHT IN LINE WITH THAT, IS THIS:
.

Screenshot (7688).png

.
AND CLOSELY RELATED, IRONY-WISE IS THIS:
.

Screenshot (7687).png

.
LANCET SOILING ITSELF WITH IT'S OWN PUS

[AJMD429]

I have to laugh though when I hear a study criticized because it also included an aspirin and a Tylenol, neither of which has any known antiviral activity.

I, too, noticed that, although I rolled my eyes instead of laughed. Thanks for the note on the Cochrane. I've only come across them one time before, so hadn't made an opinion on them.

Yeah, in pharmacy school we did a lot of reviews of the pharmacologic literature and always had to go to the primary source. Not as much in medical school, but when we did, we'd better do it right. By the time I was in residency, we were generally so busy that we started relying on other ways to get information, and it was easier to rely on a review journal or review organization to do the work for us. Since I was involved in teaching as well, I warned the other residents that this was not going to be a good habit to develop. Sure enough, during the first decade of my practice while I was teaching, use of reviews like Cochrane I've become the norm. for some topics, it seemed to be quite adequate, but if there was any controversy and the political sense, or any big Pharma money involved, things got quite distorted and it was disgusting how Cochrane appeared to be so biased in many cases.
I would point this out to the residents, but they generally were fairly apathetic and just wanted to get something they could insert into a report to make someone else happy. Of course nowadays pretty much any medical topic has become political or involved big Pharma, so there is less and less you can trust from them, or even the medical literature in general, unless you go to the original sources and analyze them yourself. Usually the really significant flaws are methodological flaws rather than 'lack of statistical power' or the other things that are so often cited.

[Grizz]

DON'T MISS THIS

https://tv.gab.com/channel/realalexjone ... 6ab9e5ef93

[AJMD429]

...but the vaccines are still the best protection, right....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/1 ... ted-video/

[Grizz]

When are 63% of Americans going to "just say no" to tyranny?

[AJMD429]

When are 63% of Americans going to "just say no" to tyranny?

Only when they realize that historically government has always been FAR more dangerous than any virus.

[Grizz]

here's the "fruit" of the crime:

https://openvaers.com/

[KWK]

...but the vaccines are still the best protection, right....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/1 ... ted-video/

So, the video claims "63% of UK Delta Deaths in Last 7.5 Months Were Fully Vaccinated." Why does that surprise you? Using the relative mortality data by age and noting the vaccines are "only" 90% effective, one would expect most of the people dying to be those who are most likely to already be vaccinated, namely the elderly and those with various "comorbidities." This won't change until a magic bullet (is it ivermectin?) for covid is found.

[AJMD429]

.
Agreed. I'm not surprised, just wish Fauci would quit telling us that the vaccines are safe and effective and everyone must have one.

They are CLEARLY not as 'safe' as ivermectin.
They have yet to be shown more effective than ivermectin.
And if unvaccinated young people are not getting as much death as vaccinated old people, why do the young people need the vaccines?

Fauci answers none of those things, and has a HUGE double standard when it comes to what 'evidence' is acceptable when it comes to vaccines or remdesivir or Merck's new baby, versus zinc or ivermectin or cyproheptadine.

As to these employers 'mandating' covid vaccines, if ANY employee has a side effect the employer should be liable, and if a vaccine recipient dies, the employer should be charged with homicide. You can bet if you as an employer forced your employees to go skydiving against their will and one died, you'd get charged with homicide.

[earlmck]

As to these employers 'mandating' covid vaccines, if ANY employee has a side effect the employer should be liable, and if a vaccine recipient dies, the employer should be charged with homicide. You can bet if you as an employer forced your employees to go skydiving against their will and one died, you'd get charged with homicide.

The lawyers are going to do very well in the coming months as the folks forced to take the "vaccine" have bad reactions and die. Couple of days ago I saw a story of a Denver policeman, early 30's and healthy crippled by a vaccine he knew he didn't need (Covid-recovered). He's ticked off: he'll cost Denver a few mil. Then today I read an obit of a Seattle woman (young, healthy) who died when forced to vaccinate so she could continue being a teacher's aide in a daughter's classroom. Family's ticked off: she'll cost Seattle a few mil.

And I was looking at the Nuremberg Code today, where #1 is "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential....able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching,..." For participation in any medical experiment. Now that Pfizer "Comirnaty" is FDA approved the Code probably doesn't cover you for it, but I'd think it surely would for Moderna's or J&J and also for the Pfizer-BioNtech that is the only stuff available in the USA.

But I must be mistaken or the FBI would be arresting a whole lotta' people for "War Crimes", wouldn't they?

And I also see where India is now saying they must quit including Ivermectin in their recommended treatments for Covid because they have some studies showing it isn't very helpful. This after using it to just flatly kick Covid outa' the country over the past few months. The power of Big Pharma must be plumb geeenormous.

[KWK]

You can bet if you as an employer forced your employees to go skydiving against their will and one died, you'd get charged with homicide.

Apples and oranges. No one forces you to be vaccinated. You have the option of working from home or quitting. Some employers are also offering repeated testing instead.

The whole vaccine mandate comes down to relative and acceptable risks. Were this virus as lethal as ebola, no one would be complaining about the vaccine. Were this virus as lethal as the common cold, no one would be pushing for a vaccine. Where in between do you define the transition for acceptable risk?

While I've taken the vaccine, I will admit I'm uneasy about forcing it upon young people.

[Grizz]

The whole vaccine mandate comes down to relative and acceptable risks. Were this virus as lethal as ebola, no one would be complaining about the vaccine. Were this virus as lethal as the common cold, no one would be pushing for a vaccine. Where in between do you define the transition for acceptable risk?

the whole vaccine mandate comes down to simple tyranny. the straw-man ebola argument could have been used by Mengele for the necessity of eliminating Jewish people.

this virus is OVER 99% survivable, given proper treatment BEFORE hospitalization becomes necessary.

AND the so-called vaccine does NOT prevent covid. it DOES NOT prevent deaths. AND it notoriously CAUSES death.

a couple of examples:
.
.

Screenshot (7735).png

.
to be FOR mandates makes one FOR all of the unnecessary deaths
.
.

Screenshot (7632).png

.
.

Screenshot (7635).png

.

†

[KWK]

This after using it to just flatly kick Covid outa' the country over the past few months.

India has a reasonably free press. Can you cite a major publication in that country confirming your claim? Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but a quick search a few weeks ago found nothing over there to verify it. I did find that the supposed days of the ivermectin miracle just happened to coincide with a major lockdown.

[KWK]

AND it notoriously CAUSES death.

So, your image claims at least 12,000 dead in the USA due to the vaccine, just from VAERS data. Did you establish the CDC has gone through the 2021 data to find which claims of harm are legitimate? The database "relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences," and with all the rabidly anti-vaccine out there, I bet that database is a wee bit distorted.

[KWK]

I thought you'd guys would enjoy this headline from the (very left wing) local newspaper:

Illinois deer were exposed to COVID virus. Here's how to protect yourself.

[Grizz]

AND it notoriously CAUSES death.

So, your image claims at least 12,000 dead in the USA due to the vaccine, just from VAERS data. Did you establish the CDC has gone through the 2021 data to find which claims of harm are legitimate? The database "relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences," and with all the rabidly anti-vaccine out there, I bet that database is a wee bit distorted.

Hey! Thanks for playing. You seem to be the betting kind. Do you know about the tests that were not done for the experimental biologicals you took? One standard one is the ferret test I don't know why ferrets exactly, but it's is a safety check on vaccines. In a previous covid vaccine based on a prior covid every loving ferret died. There are thousands of scientists that are hoping this doesn't happen to you, but you are the substitute ferret. Prayers UP for your health.
.
https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/downlo ... report.pdf
.


†

[AJMD429]

Not apples and oranges; saying you can quit your job instead of getting the shot you could also say you could quit instead of going skydiving - so apples and apples.

Relative risk sounds good, but who is the Anointed One who gets to decide the threshold, and which 'experts' do they consult...?

If an employer is so confident they have the right to threaten someone to get a potentially dangerous treatment to prevent some third party from harm, where does that end...?

In India, the bar association is suing one of the health regulating bureaucrats for excess deaths due to prohibiting ivermectin.

One can argue 'data' all day, and skepticism can go from facilitating healthy debate and learning, to paralysis and circular beating of a dead horse, but in the end which 'side' one is on mostly boils down to:

a) whether one trusts big corporations and big government and big news media to be honest when in bed together.

b) whether one feels it is ok to initiate force against other human beings to facilitate political ends, or for financial gain.

c) whether one person has the right to assert superior intellect, moral virtue, or claiming to embody the Greater Good, as a valid reason to assault, imprison, restrain, or destroy the livelihood of another person.

Currently most Democrats believe these things, and most Republicans don't, which is why it has become such a fundamentally political issue.

It makes sense...a 'democracy' is one black guy and two klan members voting on what to do with a piece of rope. Democrats just LOVE democracy. The U.S. is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. BIG difference.

[KWK]

If an employer is so confident they have the right to threaten someone to get a potentially dangerous treatment to prevent some third party from harm, where does that end...?

In a free society, it ends with the employee quitting or striking, of course. Enough do that, the employer starts to hurt and backs off. Also, as I understand it, most of the employers pushing for the vaccine are under federal orders to do so. The business press has mentioned companies really don't want to be in the middle here. As for government pushing it, it is a democracy, and just like conscripts in a war, you may end up feeling your "rights" have been violated. (Biden has overplayed his hand, and I think his "mandate" will be struck down.)

In India, the bar association is suing one of the health regulating bureaucrats for excess deaths due to prohibiting ivermectin.

That should be interesting and may reveal much. However, since ivermectin was supposedly distributed by local governments to "flatly kick Covid outa' the country over the past few months" (according to claims here), it might be difficult to prove harm. Here is a little more to the story, from an Indian site. Oddly, the bar association cites FLCCC as evidence, who in turn cites studies in India?

[KWK]

In a previous covid vaccine based on a prior covid every loving ferret died.

I know that happened in the development of mRNA vaccines as a class. It was a few years ago they figured out why and how to avoid it. I'm still walking and just fine nearly a half year after my double dose. Your ferrets died within days.

[Grizz]

In a previous covid vaccine based on a prior covid every loving ferret died.

I know that happened in the development of mRNA vaccines as a class. It was a few years ago they figured out why and how to avoid it. I'm still walking and just fine nearly a half year after my double dose. Your ferrets died within days.

SRI, you missed the point. the ferrets were challenged with a different version of the virus, which caused their immune system to kill them. so, the issue, if it happens, will be in a year or two when you inhale another covid , and your natural but modified immune system kills you. This is a known reaction.

I am not saying this to scare you. I am saying this because there are already scientists trying to discover if they can stop the immune system over-reaction. But they need to know the batch number of the biologicals you received, and the exact content of the experimental substance. information you might want to preserve. one Dr. studying the problem of saving lives in that future scenario mentioned that the contents change from batch to batch, so our actual risk level is unknown. it is part of the experiment people were panting for.
.
†

[KWK]

Alright Grizz, I went to your link this time, where I quickly encountered "Besides the astronomical number of severe side effects,
the CDC reports that approx. 16,000 people died as a result of receiving the experimental injections." I'll read further after you point me to the CDC report saying this.

Also, doesn't a web site with a name like stopworldcontrol.com sound like the work of a Russian troll farm?

[Tycer]

https://rivercitymalone.com/health/path ... ccination/

What is that?

[KWK]

What is that?

What is that indeed:

Using the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database and independent rates of anaphylaxis events from a Mass. General [Hospital] study, we computed a 41x under-reporting factor for serious adverse events in VAERS, leading to an estimate of over 150,000 excess deaths caused by the vaccine. The estimates were validated multiple independent ways.

Anyone can enter a claim in VAERS, from an anguished parent to a Russian troll. Claims are investigated by the CDC in a statistical sampling in the months afterwards, using autopsy reports, etc. We'll see.

Anyway, I'm vaccinated and thus doomed, so what do I care?

[earlmck]

https://rivercitymalone.com/health/path ... ccination/

What is that?

EEEEYikes! The stuff you and Grizz and DocAJ come up with... highly educational but freekin' frightening. I'd never heard of graphene until a few weeks ago I saw blurb about somebody finding it in the vaccines. Your link here included a good article on how it can be used: I had no idea we were that far along microbiologically.

Gonna' go load some more shells.

[AJMD429]

What is that?

What is that indeed:

Using the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database and independent rates of anaphylaxis events from a Mass. General [Hospital] study, we computed a 41x under-reporting factor for serious adverse events in VAERS, leading to an estimate of over 150,000 excess deaths caused by the vaccine. The estimates were validated multiple independent ways.

Anyone can enter a claim in VAERS, from an anguished parent to a Russian troll. Claims are investigated by the CDC in a statistical sampling in the months afterwards, using autopsy reports, etc. We'll see.

Anyway, I'm vaccinated and thus doomed, so what do I care?

I've talked to many patients who TRIED to submit reports through the facility administering the vaccine only to be told that their reaction "probably wasn't due to the vaccine, so shouldn't be reported" or "that isn't a side effect the vaccine causes". I've talked to physicians who have tried to help in the process who say it is a typical bureaucratic wading-through-mud process and takes so much time they really don't want to ever go through it again. I've not interacted with the VAERS system, but I think there is truly a likelihood that there is under-reporting in the long run, although of course there is going to be stuff potentially unrelated that gets reported.

I'm not sure why all of a sudden the standards change with THIS vaccine though, and why we are expected to judge its pros and cons with entirely different thresholds and standards than previous ones.

Again, one can debate pros and cons of this vaccine or any other medical treatment, FOREVER, because there are 'experts' with varying opinions, even when they review the same 'data'. The POINT is not whether this vaccine is good or bad - the point is when there is corruption and deception involved. Just like the tobacco industry - everyone knew tobacco was dangerous to smoke, but the thing that got the industry in trouble was when it was found out they concealed and altered data, and bribed regulators. THAT is the kind of behavior that makes people skeptical of the vaccines, more than just the individual risk of side effects they may face if they get vaccinated - many already-vaccinated people are STILL upset with this situation, just like many smokers were still angry when they found out the corruption in the tobacco industry.

And - we are NOT a 'democracy' in the U.S. - we make many decisions using a democratic process, but we are governed by a Constitution, including a Bill of Rights, that is administered via a Republic style government, with severe limitations on what that government is allowed to do. There is NO way a government like that of the U.S. can legitimately claim it has the right to force citizens to receive a vaccine, whether 'gently' via travel restrictions or large-employer regulations, or not.

If they have the right to force you to get a CoVid vaccine, then they have the right to force you to take a statin for your lipids, or force you to be sterilized, or any other thing they choose.

Governments that are allowed to make 'exceptions' to basic civil rights in times of 'emergencies' will quickly learn that all they have to do is allow or create 'emergencies' whenever they want to expand their powers to include more illegitimate things. That behavior is probably the most consistent human behavior in the world of political science.

[KWK]

I've not interacted with the VAERS system, but I think there is truly a likelihood that there is under-reporting in the long run...

I agree, but this time seems different. It's all very politicized. By the way, the VAERS entry form is just a web page. A 'bot could be programmed to fill in the fields.

I'll drop this for a while and wait to see what shakes out with ivermectin over the coming months.

[Grizz]

I agree, but this time seems different. It's all very politicized. By the way, the VAERS entry form is just a web page. A 'bot could be programmed to fill in the fields.

Interesting observation. Do you think there is likewise any chance that there has been the same degree of data subversion you presume in the reported "covid" death certificates? You know, for the tens of thousands of dollars that a "covid death" certificate brings in to a hospital? Is there anything politicized about that? Or are you only skeptical about one particular subset of government data?

this link takes you to an analysis of the trustworthiness of the VAERS CDC data. if you search the page for Dr. Jessica Rose you will come to her in-depth study of exactly this question. Perhaps you could take up your question about the data with her.

https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/study-go ... nes/print/

and then there is this:

https://c19legacy.com/

there are live links on this page and the underlying data that is portrayed by the counter is available for examination.

the VAERS system exists precisely as a trigger so that we don't die like ferrets. counting ourselves, as in "I had two shots and i feel fine" or "I had covid already and therefore have immunity" makes a data point of 1 and is statistically meaningless. How we feel about it now in no way predicts how we will feel about it 12 months out, or 18 months out. "past performance is no guaranty of future results" applies here as well as it applies in the financial markets.

to state that a bot could fill in data in one case, and ignore the possibility in another sector, and to ignore the substantial evidence of the damage the experiment is causing is a little bit of whistling past the marble orchard, isn't it?

Best Regards
†

[AJMD429]

Interesting read....!

https://www.thedesertreview.com/the-ive ... 98d65.html

And then the devious behavior of Merck is just like we expect from Big Pharma - https://odysee.com/@FrontlineCovid19Cri ... t-1-2021:c

[KWK]

this link takes you to an analysis of the trustworthiness of the VAERS CDC data...

https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/study-go ... nes/print/

What Dr. Rose did was take an independent analysis of a single VAERS event...

That's certainly a statistically large sample set.

[Grizz]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ases-daily
.
.

Screenshot (7833).png

.
.
is this one large enough for you?

this is all of India's data to date.

so, what is the kill rate?

and what is the recovery rate?

Hmmmmm? †

[Grizz]

need a hint?

[KWK]

The last article I read on India (Wall St Jnl, 7/21, "India’s Covid-19 Death Toll Is Likely in the Millions, Study Finds") quoted Indian researchers as saying the death toll there is about 10 times the official numbers. Much of the rural country has poor medical data gathering. The researchers looked at burials instead to come up with their estimates. Blood tests backed up the true extent of infections.

Within the last week, the Economist had this to say:

In India, for example, our estimates suggest that perhaps 2.3m people had died from covid-19 by the start of May 2021, compared with about 200,000 official deaths.

[AJMD429]

That is why many are looking at trends and comparing regions versus just death data. And when two areas do have parallel rates but then one of them does something different and the trends diverge, you know there is some effect likely.

Too many places have seen differences relating to starting or stopping ivermectin for it all to be coincidence.

[Grizz]

That is why many are looking at trends and comparing regions versus just death data. And when two areas do have parallel rates but then one of them does something different and the trends diverge, you know there is some effect likely.

Too many places have seen differences relating to starting or stopping ivermectin for it all to be coincidence.

Here Ya go Doc, this answers a LOT of questions.
.
.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/fed ... overnment/

[AJMD429]

.

The parallels with 'gun control' and 'CoVid vaccines' are many. Often the bottom line is that some fundamentally trust in the concept (of 'gun control' or 'background checks'), and you can't really convince them no matter what that the real-world data don't support either. Both also involve deception by government and various special-interests and industry groups.

[AJMD429]

.

For those relying on vaccines....

https://www.ntdvn.com/the-gioi/bac-si-i ... 9345.html/

Plus it is always interesting when Project Veritas gets people inside an industry to say what they aren't allowed to say.

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/fed ... overnment/

[Grizz]

how to deal with the pharmacy barricade
.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... rriers.pdf
.
this is powerful stuff for front stuffing the stuff shirts . . . worth passing along I reckon
.
.
.
†

[AJMD429]

uk-vaxxed-disease-.jpg

[KWK]

On the other hand, I read the other day Portugal is 88% fully vaccinated over its entire population, vs about 58% for the US. I also see that infection rates there are one half of the US.

From where is that data table? I see that among those one would expect to have been vaccinated the longest, the effect on infection is waning, but that is old news. Was there another table for hospitalizations? I've read that protection against hospitalization was holding up better.

Your chart also suggests that in those with the most recent vaccinations, teenagers, the vaccine appears to have knocked infection rates to a fraction, which would be impressive, given the vaccines were developed for a different strain of the virus.

Friday, a friend told me (but I haven't looked it up), that naturally acquired immunity (from infection) appears to be waning even faster than with the vaccines. I had assumed it would be the other way around.

[AJMD429]

The chart was from an article from an Israeli medical journal. The article explained that the teenage testing rate is aberrant because it’s required so many places versus the adults who are basically only getting tested if symptoms are suspected.

The people who are claiming that natural immunity wears off faster than vaccine-based immunity are usually measuring “immunity” by looking for only the specific antibody that the vaccine would create. Surviving the infection in no way requires that that particular antibody (or ANY antibody for that matter) would be produced, although sometimes it may be. Further, there’s never been any correlation shown between the level of antibody in a given individual and that individuals ability to defend against the infection. The immune system is designed so that the antibody level decreases fairly rapidly to near zero in most cases. The cells capable of producing the antibody go dormant, to be reactivated if and only if needed at a later date.

So much of this is basic science and logic that is stuff the general public would be capable of understanding if they weren’t told such twisted stories by the people with an agenda.

Of course those of us who are advocating medication we don’t make any money off of, and putting our licenses at risk, are the ones who are accused of having an agenda, whereas the physicians who are employed by institutions and bureaucracies getting huge rebates and contracts with big pharmaceutical companies are assumed to be perfectly innocent without a hint of dishonesty.

That narrative is getting kind of old....

[KWK]

The article explained that the teenage testing rate is aberrant because it’s required so many places versus the adults who are basically only getting tested if symptoms are suspected.

It seems the more frequent the testing, the more accurate would be the results. Regardless, the table may explain why Israel is eager to do boosters.

I looked only briefly at my friend's claim and couldn't find any evidence to support it. As you pointed out, it's not comparing actual infections or hospitalizations, only with blood tests. One article indicated there is some evidence the longer term immunity cells are better trained in an actual infection (which wouldn't surprise me). I didn't find a report on new infections in the vaccinated as compared to those previously infected, but I want to look further. On another issue, several pages say people first infected and then given the vaccine have better protection than those who didn't take the vaccine after their infection (not too surprising), but it wasn't a night and day difference.

edit: I found what appears to be a paper from Israel (judging by the names of the researchers) which indicates previous infection offers much better protection than vaccination. This probably explains the data in your table.