View Full Version : Ivermectin obliterates 97% of Delhi cases
It is pure evil that so many organizations and individuals have lied so blatantly about how to treat Covid-19. Thousands of lives could have been saved.
This graph shows that Ivermectin, used in Delhi beginning April 20, obliterated their COVID crisis. No one should be able to talk you out of this - not a salesman, a drug company, a television celebrity doc, and certainly not the top doctor for the WHO or the NIH who is paid to do that.
Will you believe this 97% eradication graph, or will you believe the propaganda pitched by the Big Media, Big Pharma, the WHO, and the FDA, who share massive financial conflicts of interest – those who say there is insufficient evidence?
What evidence could be any clearer than a 97% reduction in five weeks? That number is better than the current vaccines and beyond the reach of most medicines.
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html
Inkslinger
06-11-21, 13:58
Great episodes of the Darkhorse Podcast about it.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bret-weinstein-darkhorse-podcast/id1471581521?i=1000523859023
Other studies say HCQ / zinc / Z-pac taken early knock it out as well...a neighbor picked up some ivermectin & HCQ from mex to keep on hand.
It's pretty obvious the use of these affective therapeutics were / are being suppressed...follow the $$$$.
A peer reviewed article.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/LocalState/Files/S0/23/Attachments/IvermectinforpreventingandtreatingCOVID-19-arapidreviewtovalidateFLCCCconclusions-v1.2_06-01-2021[106].pdf
This info is being suppressed big time.
Here are 2 great podcast with more info:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-charlie-kirk-show/id1460600818?i=1000524942929
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bannons-war-room/id1485351658?i=1000524826328
titsonritz
06-11-21, 18:00
Shut up and put your mask on.
Why are they stomping on any treatments? Simple, law/regulation specifically prohibits the use of emergency certification of a vaccine if there are safe and effective treatments. If they acknowledge ivermectin or anything else as a treatment then the vaccines must go through the full FDA approval process.
If I was a little more tinfoily I might suggest that there was a political calculation regarding higher body counts making for a more effective political tool. But you know... that would just be cynical. I'm sure that no politico would really take advantage of people dying or anything. ;)
If you don't know who Dr Yeadon is you're not informed.
Why are they stomping on any treatments? Simple, law/regulation specifically prohibits the use of emergency certification of a vaccine if there are safe and effective treatments. If they acknowledge ivermectin or anything else as a treatment then the vaccines must go through the full FDA approval process.
If I was a little more tinfoily I might suggest that there was a political calculation regarding higher body counts making for a more effective political tool. But you know... that would just be cynical. I'm sure that no politico would really take advantage of people dying or anything. ;)
No. Never. Now go punish yourself for even thinking that way. They have our best interests and well-being foremost in their thoughts.
:rolleyes:
Yup...gotta save the gravy train of $$$$ coming in from the jab. What therapeutics that could save lives are up against.
"It always baffled me that there was such a concerted effort to deny the American public the type of robust exploration research into early treatment early in this pandemic," Johnson said, adding that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin -- two drugs used in early treatments for COVID-19 -- are "incredibly safe."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-johnson-censored-by-youtube
Meanwhile the fda orders 60 million doses of the jj jab to the dumpsters...crazy times. I still think there is a systematic attack on jj to favor the push of the 2 mrna versions. There was absolutely no reason for the bad press of a 1/2 dozen blood clots early on when the mrna had their own issues by A LOT more cases. Something smells & I think it's fauci.
Why are they stomping on any treatments? Simple, law/regulation specifically prohibits the use of emergency certification of a vaccine if there are safe and effective treatments. If they acknowledge ivermectin or anything else as a treatment then the vaccines must go through the full FDA approval process.
If I was a little more tinfoily I might suggest that there was a political calculation regarding higher body counts making for a more effective political tool. But you know... that would just be cynical. I'm sure that no politico would really take advantage of people dying or anything. ;)
The following was the bottom line of the study I posted in my second post.
This review and meta-analysis confirms that ivermectin substantially reduces the risk of a person dying from COVID-19 by probably somewhere in the region of 65% to 92% according to RCT data. The uncertainty in the evidence relates to the precise extent of the reduction, not in the effectiveness of ivermectin itself. Similarly, when ivermectin is used as prophylaxis among health care workers and contacts, it is clear that ivermectin substantially reduces COVID-19 infections, probably somewhere in the region of 88% (82% to 92%). Data from numerous currently active RCTs will help to determine the precise extent of its protective effect in these at risk groups. Despite the FLCCC’s strong recommendation that ivermectin should be implemented globally to save lives from COVID-19, most governments and health professionals still appear to be unaware of this profoundly effective COVID-19 treatment. Not only is ivermectin a safe, effective and well-known medicine, at an estimated cost of less than 10 pence per person treated with a 12 mg tablet, it does indeed seem like a miracle drug in the context of the current global COVID-19 situation. 26 Guidance and protocols on using ivermectin for COVID-19 can be found on the FLCCC website https://covid19criticalcare.com.
So how do you get USP grade Ivermectin?
SomeOtherGuy
06-11-21, 21:33
So how do you get USP grade Ivermectin?
By prescription, via a friendly doctor. Look up what its APPROVED uses are, so the doctor can CYA. Some state medical regulators have been attacking doctors who prescribe these safe, proven, FDA-approved and CHEAP medications for Covid-19 use. Almost as if those regulators want people to die, and/or want to ensure profits for big pharma.
I can think of plausible FDA-accepted reasons for Ivermectin for both ordinary country folks and for post-modern city people, but will spare you the gory details for the latter.
Ivermectin is also widely used for deworming horses and farm animals, but do NOT know if those formulations are safe for people - seriously, not a wink-wink/nudge-nudge. Better to get human-rated stuff by rx.
SomeOtherGuy
06-11-21, 21:41
Meanwhile the fda orders 60 million doses of the jj jab to the dumpsters...crazy times. I still think there is a systematic attack on jj to favor the push of the 2 mrna versions. There was absolutely no reason for the bad press of a 1/2 dozen blood clots early on when the mrna had their own issues by A LOT more cases. Something smells & I think it's fauci.
The discarded J&J vaccines were made in a factory with awful quality control and they literally don't know if the right ingredients were in them. Disposal is the right choice.
My understanding is that Moderna has some patent that's in use by all three US vaccines and has some undisclosed material. And that Fauci has an investment in Moderna.
J&J was originally described in the press as being a "conventional" vaccine, but that's false in two ways. First, it's a viral-vector vaccine, a relatively new tech that's been used in some other things but is totally different from the truly conventional vaccines in existence before the 1990's. However, viral vector may be OK.
The big issue with the J&J vaccine is that it, like the mRNA vaccines, causes your body to make the spike protein. Only it actually uses DNA, not RNA, to make your cells do so. If you are OK with this, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are no more scary, and if you question whether it's good for any cell of your body to make the spike protein, then the J&J vaccine isn't any safer or better.
FYI on the spike protein:
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
This article describes how the spike protein from the virus is actually a major source of harm from it, but then asserts that the spike protein created by the vaccines is somehow radically different and safe, without providing any basis for that assertion. I saw the article the day it was published and it did NOT originally include that assertion. The now-accepted issue of heart inflammation post-vaccine, primarily in younger men, seems to confirm the issue of harm from the spike protein itself.
I wasn't defending the jj for someone picking it over the other two...I don't like any of them & chose very early on not to get jabbed, but I don't get the flu shot either. My entire family outside my home has had one of the various 3 jabs & do hope long term they don't have issues for obvious reasons. I know fauci is connected to moderna & I understand his wife is somehow tied to pfizer along with other suspicious family shenanigans. Again, it just seems the negative jj noise is suspect imo & feel it's tied to the $$$$ / disty of preference for choosing mrna on nefarious reasons.
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/urgent-british-report-calls-for-complete-cessation-of-covid-vaccines-in-humans/
British report calls for complete cessation of COVID vaccines in humans
Ivermectin results come as no surprise. Didn't Portugal have good results using Ivermectin last year?
No. Never. Now go punish yourself for even thinking that way. They have our best interests and well-being foremost in their thoughts.
:rolleyes:
Yes, yes. Our government is benevolent and really just wants what's best for all its serfs, er... I mean citizens.
This article describes how the spike protein from the virus is actually a major source of harm from it, but then asserts that the spike protein created by the vaccines is somehow radically different and safe, without providing any basis for that assertion.
The entire spike protein may not be needed for the immune response, so just a portion may be made by the vaccine. That doesn’t make it unquestionably harmless either, just look up how mad cow disease works if you want to see an extreme example of how proteins alone can do damage.
It is pure evil that so many organizations and individuals have lied so blatantly about how to treat Covid-19. Thousands of lives could have been saved.
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html
Call it what it is...........State Sponsored Genocide. Compounded with the pushing of an unsafe vaccine that is taking even more lives, ignoring the much safer and tested alternatives.
I have a supply of Ivermectin in my home just in case.
Below is an episode of DarkHorse that deals with the lies being fed you on the "safe" vaccine. Don't inject your kids with this unproven garbage. They don't need it and it isn't worth the risks. If you've been vaccinated, you should be concerned about what the future may hold.
https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY
Here is a video that was censored from YouTube on the benefits of Ivermectin as well as the absolute failure of State Sponsored Medicine.
https://vimeo.com/553518199
The entire spike protein may not be needed for the immune response, so just a portion may be made by the vaccine. That doesn’t make it unquestionably harmless either, just look up how mad cow disease works if you want to see an extreme example of how proteins alone can do damage.Respectfully, it's very clear you guys have no idea how vaccines operate.
The vaccine does not create a spike protein.
Instead, it looks enough like the real covid 19 virus such that your body produces the correct antibodies (white blood cells, tea killer cells, etc) to attack that virus. It mimics enough of the RNA to trigger the immune response.
The same immune response that would have been triggered if you got covid and recovered from it.
Those antibodies may also have spike proteins to bond with the virus, but the vaccine did not create it, it just tricked your body into creating the correct antibody. Which for that virus needed a spike protein.
Beyond that I don't know the details, perhaps the RNA to mimic a virus has to have spikes and such. It does have to look enough like a virus fragment that your natural antibodies detect it and trigger the response.
But it doesn't take a complete virus cell to trigger the response, it can be just a fragment of the RNA as long as it's the right fragment that your body can recognize.
I have fragments of shingles virus RNA in my cornea which my body thinks is a live virus and continues to attack it even though the shingles virus is long dead. My body is sending white blood cells and such, which creates an issue with my vision.
This from a serious shingles attack 18 months ago. To which my ophthalmologist pointed out the people that are speculating on how long immune response will last should pay attention to this type of thing.
When you have to get a new vaccine It's normally not because your body lost its immune response, instead it's because the virus mutated over the year enough that the old immune response does not work anymore. Viruses that don't mutate much or at all can be lifetime, those that mutate a lot like flu virus, can drift over a year.
SomeOtherGuy
06-12-21, 11:37
Todd K - you may be right about the fragment/portion of the spike protein, I don't know. I have seen references indicating that the current vaccines cause your cells to make the whole spike protein, as it was apparently thought early on to be a relatively harmless part of the virus and easy to make your immune cells recognize and attack. Other references, like the CDC site below, indicate it's a "harmless" fragment of it. The Salk Institute article indicates that the whole spike protein is a major source of medical harm, and with the assumption that the vaccines result in your cells making only part of that protein, it's still unclear if that part is safe.
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
Respectfully, it's very clear you guys have no idea how vaccines operate.
The vaccine does not create a spike protein.
The CDC says it does:
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines give instructions for our cells to make a harmless piece of what is called the “spike protein.” The spike protein is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19.
Main source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html
Instead, it looks enough like the real covid 19 virus such that your body produces the correct antibodies (white blood cells, tea killer cells, etc) to attack that virus. It mimics enough of the RNA to trigger the immune response.
The same immune response that would have been triggered if you got covid and recovered from it.
You are describing the mechanism for conventional vaccines, which are used for most previously serious illnesses and childhood killers; polio, MMR, DTAP type vaccines.
mRNA vaccines use RNA to directly make some of your cells do something. Viral vector vaccines use DNA encased in a harmless virus to do the same thing. They are programming your cells directly as the first step, and any immune response is a later step. Conventional vaccines have immune response as the first step.
Those antibodies may also have spike proteins to bond with the virus, but the vaccine did not create it, it just tricked your body into creating the correct antibody. Which for that virus needed a spike protein.
Beyond that I don't know the details, perhaps the RNA to mimic a virus has to have spikes and such. It does have to look enough like a virus fragment that your natural antibodies detect it and trigger the response.
But it doesn't take a complete virus cell to trigger the response, it can be just a fragment of the RNA as long as it's the right fragment that your body can recognize.
Again, all the Covid-19 vaccines currently offered in the US cause your cells to make the spike protein or some portion of it using either messenger RNA (Pfizer, Moderna), or DNA (J&J). So for these three vaccines, the vaccine did in fact directly cause the spike protein (or fragment) to be made.
FYI viruses are not considered cells.
I'm not a biologist/virologist so most of this is beyond me. My understanding is that our body does not use RNA, That's a virus thing. We have DNA.
I'll have to take a read of the CDC stuff, It sounds interesting.
But my understanding is that even with the messenger RNA all it's doing is tricking your body into thinking there's an invader, and thus triggering / training the white blood cells and tea killer cells.
And specifically it has not introduced DNA that is causing your body to reproduce those rna fragments.
Which is what triggered all the speculation on nasal effectiveness. (And thus would it kill a virus you were carrying from breathing in even if it had not gotten to your lungs) The conjecture was that a vaccine given in the arm would not trigger a significant immune response in the nasal cavities.
This was found to be absolutely not the case, which they should have known because when your body is attacked the white blood cells and tea killer cells circulate through your circulatory system and thus cover your entire body.
What makes them cluster is when they bond / latch on to the target bacteria or virus. My understanding is that's when the spikes and the hooks come into play. The way I've read it described is as like a velcro, not literally but the cellular/biological equivalent. The spikes / hooks bond with the target cell, etc
Back on topic, it's kind of bizarre how an anti-parasite drug like ivermectin which is normally used to kill parasitic worms, mites, etcetera has impact on covet. Sometimes all it takes is a slight change in the body's chemistry and things can't reproduce, so it'll be interesting to see what they find about ivermectin.
Very clearly they've done double-blind medical studies that show that it does inhibit reproduction of covid.
I don't think it's a magic bullet, and Ivermectin has its own side effects. It is not something I would want to take unless I absolutely had to. Though we give it to puppies and kittens all the time.
I now have an extended family member (brother's sister-in-law), felt she was at low risk and that it was just another case of the flu who now got covid along with her parents. She has been to the emergency room twice with extremely low oxygen levels, and her dad is in ICU flipped over on his belly trying to get fluids out. He likely will not make it.
Early 40s, runner / hiker with no comorbidities. Thought it was all a scam and just another flavor of the flu, her kids had it, no big deal. So she didn't get vaccinated.
Husband had to fly to Montana to drive her home when she got well enough to travel.
So if ivermectin helps, maybe that will help with the people who choose not to get vaccinated. Covid is not going away
I now have an extended family member (brother's sister-in-law), felt she was at low risk and that it was just another case of the flu who now got covid along with her parents. She has been to the emergency room twice with extremely low oxygen levels, and her dad is in ICU flipped over on his belly trying to get fluids out. He likely will not make it.
Early 40s, runner / hiker with no comorbidities. Thought it was all a scam and just another flavor of the flu, her kids had it, no big deal. So she didn't get vaccinated.
Husband had to fly to Montana to drive her home when she got well enough to travel.
So if ivermectin helps, maybe that will help with the people who choose not to get vaccinated. Covid is not going away
No offense, but your extended family member's experience is far outside the pale. She is at extremely low risk of severe Covid complications if she was in her 40s and reasonably healthy.
Its nearly an urban legend - I cannot count on the fingers of one hand how many times I heard/seen someone relate how a Covid doubter (always under 60) caught Covid and either died or narrowly escaped death due to herculean effort by hospital staff. Perhaps your distant relative tempted fate by saying "Fauchi" three times in front of a mirror.
I (50s) am vaccinated because I don't want to deal with getting particularly sick, not because wicked Covid is hiding around the corner waiting to strike me dead.
It is not a secret that mortality for people under 65 who test positive for Covid is incredibly low and pushing the vaccine based on 24 deaths out of 100,000 people is not going to be effective. Pushing the vaccine because you will be sick as a dog is more effective. Ask anyone who had Covid - it sucks.
Covid death rates by age in the UK (because I question the CDC's data to be honest): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report
Andy
This is probably not the thread for it, but mortality rates versus getting very sick are two different things. And she is very sick.
It's pretty clear that there's people who are complete deniers.
Then there's a group that thinks it's real but only hits old people or those who should die anyway because they're overweight or diabetic or have ingrown toenails.
And then there's the people that think it's like ebola.
I'm kind of in the middle. Late 50s early 60s like many of us, I got vaccinated as soon as I could. College age, most of them already had it, and I don't know if it made sense to vaccinate them or younger.
One thing is very clear to me and many others: It's not just the flu and people die from it who did not have anything near fatal that would have killed them other than the normal statistical stuff that comes with age. (Cancer, Etc)
We don't know the long-term effects even on young people. There is some evidence of decreased lung capacity that they are starting to find. And I have a nephew who almost a year later is just now getting a sense of taste back. And went through a very bad period where the tastes were scrambled and all food tasted spoiled.
Now we can get back to discussing taking puppy anti-parasitics as a covid treatment
Now we can get back to discussing taking puppy anti-parasitics as a covid treatment
That one sentence speaks volumes.
Why are they stomping on any treatments? Simple, law/regulation specifically prohibits the use of emergency certification of a vaccine if there are safe and effective treatments. If they acknowledge ivermectin or anything else as a treatment then the vaccines must go through the full FDA approval process.
If I was a little more tinfoily I might suggest that there was a political calculation regarding higher body counts making for a more effective political tool. But you know... that would just be cynical. I'm sure that no politico would really take advantage of people dying or anything. ;)
Medical Industrial Complex, anyone?
That one sentence speaks volumes.
Big time.
It's like none of us have seen official statements from Brady: politicians of all varieties/ media/docs/scientists/pharma execs.
That one sentence speaks volumes.Apparently people are taking ivermectin for horses and having to be hospitalized.
Dosage is way off. If someone is going to try Ivermectin at least get the formulation and dosage for humans, it's also used as a wormer in humans.
Should be cheap enough, I've given it to horses, cattle, and dogs and cats has a wormer.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out, lots of folks claiming censorship and foot dragging
Apparently people are taking ivermectin for horses and having to be hospitalized.
People are wearing masks, gloves, and face shields driving by themselves in cars with cabin air filters.
People are stupid. That has nothing to do with politics interfering in medical care, or big tech censoring of medical professionals who don't toe the party line.
Andy
Links / Proof of all these ivermectin OD's?? I know plenty of folks taking the paste as a preventative including myself in low doses with zero effects & the doses are indeed known if you have any grey matter between the ears...I also have HCQ & Ivermectin from the HUMAN pharmacy in case anyone I know gets sick. There is absolute proof both these meds have been prescribed successfully to treat / cure sick covid patients & you choose to ignore the science & effectiveness because you think it's original use (not) was for fido?? What about Quinine & HCQ that is for malaria & their known assistance for curing / preventive?? Ivermectin has also been shown to help those with lyme disease & all sorts of other cooties.
The ONLY reason the jabs got 'emergency use only' approval is because they suppressed the use of Ivermectin / HCQ / zinc / budesonide / quinine & other therapeutics as an effective way to treat / preventative covid which has caused thousands / millions of deaths. It's senseless & you are being close minded. The OP had a link that said the drug wiped covid clean & you jest / belittle cuz it's also used for non human use?? Pathetic reasoning to dismiss what is now proven to actually help sick covid patients.
VAERS deaths from the the covid jab is approaching 6000 & have caused more deaths than all the other VAERS reported deaths from ALL vaccines combined in the past 15 years...and they say only single digits are being reported. Covid is not the scary chapter in this story when you have known therapeutics that work.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/shocking-jump-vaccine-deaths-reported-week-cdc-linked-vaers-tracking-website/
Apparently people are taking ivermectin for horses and having to be hospitalized.
Dosage is way off. If someone is going to try Ivermectin at least get the formulation and dosage for humans, it's also used as a wormer in humans.
Should be cheap enough, I've given it to horses, cattle, and dogs and cats has a wormer.
Will be interesting to see how it pans out, lots of folks claiming censorship and foot dragging
People are wearing masks, gloves, and face shields driving by themselves in cars with cabin air filters.
People are stupid. That has nothing to do with politics interfering in medical care, or big tech sensoring of medical professionals who don't toe the party line.
Andy
My personal favorite is the idiots with the chin masks.
SomeOtherGuy
06-12-21, 21:47
The ONLY reason the jabs got 'emergency use only' approval is because they suppressed the use of Ivermectin / HCQ / zinc / budesonide / quinine & other therapeutics as an effective way to treat / preventative covid which has caused thousands / millions of deaths. It's senseless & you are being close minded. The OP had a link that said the drug wiped covid clean & you jest / belittle cuz it's also used for non human use?? Pathetic reasoning to dismiss what is now proven to actually help sick covid patients.
VAERS deaths from the the covid jab is approaching 6000 & have caused more deaths than all the other VAERS reported deaths from ALL vaccines combined in the past 15 years...and they say only single digits are being reported.
Correct, based on my own reading, and very important.
The vaccines were approved on EUA ONLY because they suppressed dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing major benefits from various existing, FDA-approved drugs. The most likely reasons for this are:
1) PROFIT!
2) ORANGE MAN BAD! (and remember that the EUA approval of the first vaccine was announced a day after the election)
I'm not a biologist/virologist so most of this is beyond me. My understanding is that our body does not use RNA, That's a virus thing. We have DNA.
I'll have to take a read of the CDC stuff, It sounds interesting.
But my understanding is that even with the messenger RNA all it's doing is tricking your body into thinking there's an invader, and thus triggering / training the white blood cells and tea killer cells.
And specifically it has not introduced DNA that is causing your body to reproduce those rna fragments.
***
So if ivermectin helps, maybe that will help with the people who choose not to get vaccinated. Covid is not going away
There's a lot of jumbled and not-quite-accurate stuff in your comments. All life above the virus level has both DNA and RNA, each of which does specific things.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Cell_(biology)
Most viruses are DNA viruses, although some RNA viruses exist.
As noted above, all three vaccines in use in the USA cause some of your body's cells to manufacture a portion of (or all?) of the covid-19 spike protein. The vaccines do seem to be effective in giving immunity, but there are major unknowns in terms of their safety.
I suggest reading up at sites you consider reputable, such as the CDC, or maybe the Mayo Clinic, etc., to get more information about the overall picture. I'm not going to steer you to fringe blogs, but will caution that any "mainstream" news media get facts wrong constantly.
Covid could totally just go away in 1-3 years, as a lot of viruses do. Viruses that mutate quickly often mutate into less harmful forms.
eightmillimeter
06-13-21, 00:06
It may be time to step back and take a breather. These debates are getting sickening in themselves. Disinformation is rampant on BOTH sides. On top op that, both sides are also mis-interpreting information that is likely correct. It’s very clear everyone has made their minds, no need to convince anyone of anything at this point.
At this point all I want are the following things:
1. Something to prevent
2. Something to treat
3. Punishment for the people responsible for this friggin mess.
titsonritz
06-13-21, 02:12
My personal favorite is the idiots with the chin masks.
Chin diaper.
There's a lot of jumbled and not-quite-accurate stuff in your comments. All life above the virus level has both DNA and RNA, each of which does specific things.
Snip
Most viruses are DNA viruses, although some RNA viruses exist.
Well you were right on one point: I had forgotten that we also have RNA.
But the fact remains: SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) is an RNA virus. As are most of the viruses that give us issues (hiv, ebola, other coronaviruses, etc.).
And viruses which attack via RNA can be very adept at bypassing normal defense mechanisms our cell have. If interested, read about nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) which is a key protection mechanism, and how many of the "bad" viruses evade/deceive it.
The good news is that unlike HIV, covid does not have the mechanism to encode into our DNA.
As noted above, all three vaccines in use in the USA cause some of your body's cells to manufacture a portion of (or all?) of the covid-19 spike protein. The vaccines do seem to be effective in giving immunity, but there are major unknowns in terms of their safety.
They use bits of rna as a messenger which triggers our cells to create a *fragment* of the "spike" protein, which then triggers immune response by our body. Our body's defense mechanisms detect it as "not me", and triggers production of appropriate (targeted) T-killer cells.
Sounds like the concern is over potential future risks those spoof proteins could cause. Fair enough, though there are thousands of similar proteins we get through other mechanisms. (Many of which are other coronaviruses)
I suggest reading up at sites you consider reputable, such as the CDC, or maybe the Mayo Clinic, etc., to get more information about the overall picture. I'm not going to steer you to fringe blogs, but will caution that any "mainstream" news media get facts wrong constantly.
It would be easy for me to say the same to you, but I won't. I do not trust/read any "media" info, at best the just (mis)quote.
I do read research articles, cdc, nih, fda, mayo, etc. But some here and elsewhere believe they are in on the "fix". Maybe they are on this topic (ivermectin), but that remains to be proven. CDC has proven it is willing to act politically and also flip flop. FDA never met a new treatment it liked and is inherently conservative.
My read: under the Trump admin they clearly were exploring non traditional solutions to covid (anti- malarials, etc). If anti-parasitics like ivermectin looked promising they would have had a receptive audience. (But natural resistance from fda and cdc would have still occured most likely)
Under the current regime, who knows. Sounds like the premise in this thread is that both big pharma & tech is suppressing an effective and cheap fix. And presumable the gov is on the big pharma payroll?
Covid could totally just go away in 1-3 years, as a lot of viruses do. Viruses that mutate quickly often mutate into less harmful forms.
Research is indicating covid is a low mutation rate virus, unlike some other corona virus. So my understanding is it will likely not "go away", but will reach a point that enough have had it, or been vaccinated, such that spread will drop to minimal levels. This gets into "reservoir species", etc.
I'm going to leave you guys to discuss the anti-parasitics. And yes, it is a widely used puppy , Cattle & horse dewormer. But also has human formulations.
I wont be ingesting horse paste like some as I'm already vaccinated. And guess I'll have to deal with long term impact (if any) as it comes. New form of cancer? Mutations? Heart issues?
If a vaccine was not available I'd be more interested, but would get my doc to prescribe the human variant.
Links / Proof of all these ivermectin OD's??
Notorious fake news site fda.gov, for one:
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
I know plenty of folks taking the paste as a preventative including myself in low doses with zero effects & the doses are indeed known if you have any grey matter between the ears.
Go for it big Hoss, I recommend the apple flavored variant.
Fact remains: it is very rarely used for humans yet is used daily for pretty much all pet, equine, and cattle which get appropriate veterinary care. Tens of thousands to one more non-human usage.
There is absolute proof both these meds have been prescribed successfully to treat / cure sick covid patients & you choose to ignore the science & effectiveness because you think it's original use (not) was for fido??
Ahh, absolute proof. Good to hear its not one doc who testified to congress about one study (and some anecdotal)
Here's the thing: you are assuming I am anti, completely incorrect. And this is why you guys sound like Art Bell conspiracy theorists.
In this thread I've effectively been told I'm a liar or shill as I mentioned an extended family member who dismissed covid, in her 40s, no comorbidities, yet it kicked her butt with two ER trips. O2 level of 80.
Here's my reality: I know people in their 50's who got it and did not even know it. Thought it was a cold. Yet had big comorbidities.
And then others 40-55 who it kicked their butt and had to be hospitalized. Took months to get back to normal. Yet had no comorbidities.
And one in his 50s who died, no apparent comorbidities.
Plus many old folks who died, yes, those did have comorbidities. I have employees in other countries who lost family members from it. And an indian coworker who died from it.
So I don't have to read sites (real or fake news) to form an opinion. It's very clearly has widely varying effects. Just about everyone has a different story.
Likewise, is entirely possible ivermectin could be effective. It would be surprising, but it has shown benefit in other unusual areas.
It should be explored. But if it was a confirmed silver bullet, India and similar would be using it widely as they can't get vaccine in volume.
What you guys are fantasizing as a perfect world wide conspiracy between pharma and big tech is far more likely innate conservatism, bureaucracy, and "not invented here" behavior.
If it was proven to work, competitors to pfizer, moderna, and J&J would be pushing it as their solution just for competitive purposes.
Biden would push it as his fix, and the bad orange man's vaccine as evil.
I do believe big pharma has too much political influence. And some probably paid off politicians (likely) and maybe even medical officials.
But what you guys are proposing as conspiracy is a very big stretch. So if I tongue in cheek describe ivermectin as puppy wormer it's: a) because it is & b) because of the general tin foil tone of this thread
But then again, apparently I'm a vaccine shill, so of course I'd say that!
Fact remains: it is very rarely used for humans yet is used daily for pretty much all pet, equine, and cattle which get appropriate veterinary care. Tens of thousands to one more non-human usage.
Guys. C’mon. Slow your roll and don’t do anything crazy.
India is bound to provide new data on treatment methods and vaccine effectivness both. What we do with that data will be interesting.
Andy
Stop spreading mis-information pinzgauer.
There are two varieties, one for humans and one for animals. It shouldn't be too surprising to anyone animals get parasites more often than humans.
I swear, it's as if some folks don't want to hear good news or to see an easy inexpensive readily available fix for covid for whatever morbid reasons...time is going to show that two common drugs originally used for parasitic & malaria could have saved tons of lives, but was systematically held from the public for deviant reasons / monetary gain on a cootie 99% plus survivable. The tide is slowly changing with vaccine hindsight & now seeing complications in young men with myocarditis post jab.
Andy, your pre-edit comment on the condescending tone was accurate.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-13-21, 08:11
VAERS:
“The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on unverified reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines. Reports are accepted from anyone and can be submitted electronically at www.vaers.hhs.gov.”
VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how data can be used scientifically. VAERS reports should alway be interpreted with these limitations in mind.
Submitting a report to VAERS does not mean that healthcare personnel or the vaccine caused or contributed to the adverse event.
------------
Where are all the Covid skeptics who kept asking: Are reported deaths from Covid or with Covid"? Same question should even be louder pursuant to misleading, unsubstantiated and meme-like blog claims of deaths due to and caused by vaccines, especially since VAERS reports are submitted by anyone and unverified, including all the caveats listed above.
With all the bs about Covid vaccines, and considering about half the US population is vaccinated (80% for those 75 and older) I'm surprised there aren't far more deaths reported on VAERS.
Most folks don't know about VAERS...the consensus is less than 10% of those who had adverse reactions are aware the CDC has a place to post / monitor.
You are correct about that, but VAERS doesn't matter, any other vaccine would have been halted by now with the data already in the system. Yet, they continue to push it further and to people who absolutely don't need it. I wonder why? Advertisements for pregnant women as well as children. If you step back and look at how this has all played out from 1000 feet you get the picture there is something very nefarious going on here.
All of this is with the active suppression of vaccine negative data.
Nevermind. Free advice is the path to poverty.
It may be time to step back and take a breather. These debates are getting sickening in themselves. Disinformation is rampant on BOTH sides. On top op that, both sides are also mis-interpreting information that is likely correct. It’s very clear everyone has made their minds, no need to convince anyone of anything at this point.
At this point all I want are the following things:
1. Something to prevent
2. Something to treat
3. Punishment for the people responsible for this friggin mess.
Well there's about 1.5 billion of them and they eat rice. [yes, I include every one of those bastards]
Research is indicating covid is a low mutation rate virus, unlike some other corona virus. So my understanding is it will likely not "go away", but will reach a point that enough have had it, or been vaccinated, such that spread will drop to minimal levels. This gets into "reservoir species", etc.
Well when you genetically engineer it in a lab you can make it do/not do many different things.
Stop spreading mis-information pinzgauer.
There are two varieties, one for humans and one for animals. It shouldn't be too surprising to anyone animals get parasites more often than humans.Clearly you did not read my post. I stated there were human formulations in addition to vetinary.
Yet in adjacent posts members stated they were taking equine formulations, as are many others. It's a big seller on Amazon.
That's not something I made up, it's happening.
To be explicitly clear, even though the clear majority of Ivermectin produced is for animals, if I had parasites I would take ivermectin (human formulation).
And still jokingly refer to it as puppy wormer. As others refer to warfarin as rat poison.
If it is found to be anti viral, that would be a wonderful thing. And if I needed that I would take it.
But right now that is primarily anecdotal and very small sample groups.
So I personally wouldn't be advising people to take it in animal or human form until more testing has been done.
But that's just me... If you want to gamble go for it.
India is bound to provide new data on treatment methods and vaccine effectivness both. What we do with that data will be interesting.
AndyAgreed.
In regarding your pre-edit comment about condescending tone, that was not intentional on my part. But now I do feel kind of snarky :-) (not at you)
I'll try to be very clear:
- I'm interested in news and development on this topic. If it's confirmed to work that would be a wondrous thing.
- I'm skeptical about a perfect global conspiracy suppressing testing of Ivermectin
- I acknowledge that certain groups can have vested interest in their solutions rather than this cheaper solution
- I probably shouldn't have mentioned my extended relatives and the multiple people I know who have had or died from covid. Both because it was not relevant, and because it immediately triggers some of the denier tone about impact to folks without comorbidities.
- there were statements made about the vaccines creating covid spike proteins which is not entirely accurate. They do not duplicate the covid spike protein, they mimic a very small portion of it which triggers immune response.
That may still be cause for concern, time will tell. But a lot of the antivaxer misinformation implies danger and cloning of the virus.
- Even if Ivermectin was proven to grow hair and muscle, increase your life 2x, and solve all the problems of the world, I would still jokingly refer to it as puppy wormer as that's it's dominant usage. Just like people refer to warfarin as rat poison.
It's an interesting social dynamic as on this forum there are anti-vaxxer threads, sort of pro vaccination threads, covid denier threads (most of which have been shut down due to infighting), and now this one. People attacking each other when some are genuinely interested in the topic.
I'm going to leave you guys to it. Feel free to discuss my fallacies.
Most folks don't know about VAERS...the consensus is less than 10% of those who had adverse reactions are aware the CDC has a place to post / monitor.
Hard to report anything when you are pushing up daisies...
ChattanoogaPhil
06-13-21, 11:23
Govt drops Ivermectin, HCQ and favipiravir from Covid-19 treatment list
Hindu Times
New Delhi
June 7, 2021 13:54 IST
The Union health and family welfare ministry on Monday revised the Covid-19 treatment guidelines and removed the use of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and the antiviral drug favipiravir from its list of advised treatment.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-drops-ivermectin-hcq-and-favipiravir-from-covid-19-treatment-list-101623058343019.html
Govt drops Ivermectin, HCQ and favipiravir from Covid-19 treatment list
Hindu Times
New Delhi
June 7, 2021 13:54 IST
The Union health and family welfare ministry on Monday revised the Covid-19 treatment guidelines and removed the use of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and the antiviral drug favipiravir from its list of advised treatment.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-drops-ivermectin-hcq-and-favipiravir-from-covid-19-treatment-list-101623058343019.html
Yes, not because it doesn't work, because the WHO doesn't approve of saving peoples lives. More of the same, listening to the global bureaucrats instead of the doctors on the front lines.
Adrenaline_6
06-13-21, 11:55
Ivermectin is also a heartworm preventative in animals. This is why Ivermectin is made for animals primarily. Humans don't get heartworm. I give my dogs the 1% injectable for cattle and swine solution orally at 1cc per 100 lbs using a 1cc syringe without needle monthly. This dosage is way higher than the expensive heartworm pills you buy from the vet.This higher dosage also prevents worms. The doseage goes even higher when treating mange. This speaks volumes of how safe and how hard this medication is to overdose.
Understand the economics...$35 50ml bottle will treat 5000 lbs of dog. Human doses in other medications common with dogs take far less. In other words, there is zero money in it for big pharma. Zero. In turn, no money to be made by politicians either. Get it now?
I now have an extended family member (brother's sister-in-law), felt she was at low risk and that it was just another case of the flu who now got covid along with her parents. She has been to the emergency room twice with extremely low oxygen levels, and her dad is in ICU flipped over on his belly trying to get fluids out. He likely will not make it.
Early 40s, runner / hiker with no comorbidities. Thought it was all a scam and just another flavor of the flu, her kids had it, no big deal. So she didn't get vaccinated.
Husband had to fly to Montana to drive her home when she got well enough to travel.
So if ivermectin helps, maybe that will help with the people who choose not to get vaccinated. Covid is not going away
That's a rare case. I now know directly or indirectly about 100 people who were sick ranging from about 5 years old to early 80s. 3 of the were hospitalized, two for close to three weeks. All 3 were in their mid 70s. Another 2 were recently on chemo for cancer treatment. One was late 60s the other late 70s. Both had minor symptoms for 2-3 days. The two in their 80s locked themselves in their house until they got better. Didn't tell anyone. When relatives would call to check up they acted like nothing was wrong.
Almost all the people in their 60s were life long smokers, some very heavy, and diet high in animal fat and sodium. Less on carbs and low on sugar.
Several friends got sick. One (24 years old) stated home for a week with flu symptoms last July. Another, who is a 38 year old runner and gym rat, felt run down for several days and went to get tested. Positive for covid-19 and double pneumonia. He went home slept for a day then got up and did 5k run. His view on it was I can sit home and dwell on it or I can just continue to live my life. His wife and kid didn't get it. Another friend, 41 years old, smoker had it last April. He was on the road and had extreme sweats, blinding headache and light sensitivity. Took flu meds and kept on working. Was fine in a few days.
No offense, but your extended family member's experience is far outside the pale. She is at extremely low risk of severe Covid complications if she was in her 40s and reasonably healthy.
Its nearly an urban legend - I cannot count on the fingers of one hand how many times I heard/seen someone relate how a Covid doubter (always under 60) caught Covid and either died or narrowly escaped death due to herculean effort by hospital staff. Perhaps your distant relative tempted fate by saying "Fauchi" three times in front of a mirror.
I (50s) am vaccinated because I don't want to deal with getting particularly sick, not because wicked Covid is hiding around the corner waiting to strike me dead.
It is not a secret that mortality for people under 65 who test positive for Covid is incredibly low and pushing the vaccine based on 24 deaths out of 100,000 people is not going to be effective. Pushing the vaccine because you will be sick as a dog is more effective. Ask anyone who had Covid - it sucks.
Covid death rates by age in the UK (because I question the CDC's data to be honest): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report
Andy
I wouldn't necessarily use UK data. It may not directly translate to US. Different counties seem to have different reactions. My friend in Serbia says no mask mandates, no lockdowns, no social distancing. You can if you want to but it's not forced on people. They have about 7k deaths. That whole region (former Yugoslavia) is like that. No mandates, normal life and few deaths.
This is probably not the thread for it, but mortality rates versus getting very sick are two different things. And she is very sick.
It's pretty clear that there's people who are complete deniers.
Then there's a group that thinks it's real but only hits old people or those who should die anyway because they're overweight or diabetic or have ingrown toenails.
And then there's the people that think it's like ebola.
I'm kind of in the middle. Late 50s early 60s like many of us, I got vaccinated as soon as I could. College age, most of them already had it, and I don't know if it made sense to vaccinate them or younger.
One thing is very clear to me and many others: It's not just the flu and people die from it who did not have anything near fatal that would have killed them other than the normal statistical stuff that comes with age. (Cancer, Etc)
We don't know the long-term effects even on young people. There is some evidence of decreased lung capacity that they are starting to find. And I have a nephew who almost a year later is just now getting a sense of taste back. And went through a very bad period where the tastes were scrambled and all food tasted spoiled.
Now we can get back to discussing taking puppy anti-parasitics as a covid treatment
Ivermectin isn't just for puppies. It's practically a food in Africa.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Notorious fake news site fda.gov, for one:
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
Go for it big Hoss, I recommend the apple flavored variant.
Fact remains: it is very rarely used for humans yet is used daily for pretty much all pet, equine, and cattle which get appropriate veterinary care. Tens of thousands to one more non-human usage.
Ahh, absolute proof. Good to hear its not one doc who testified to congress about one study (and some anecdotal)
Here's the thing: you are assuming I am anti, completely incorrect. And this is why you guys sound like Art Bell conspiracy theorists.
In this thread I've effectively been told I'm a liar or shill as I mentioned an extended family member who dismissed covid, in her 40s, no comorbidities, yet it kicked her butt with two ER trips. O2 level of 80.
Here's my reality: I know people in their 50's who got it and did not even know it. Thought it was a cold. Yet had big comorbidities.
And then others 40-55 who it kicked their butt and had to be hospitalized. Took months to get back to normal. Yet had no comorbidities.
And one in his 50s who died, no apparent comorbidities.
Plus many old folks who died, yes, those did have comorbidities. I have employees in other countries who lost family members from it. And an indian coworker who died from it.
So I don't have to read sites (real or fake news) to form an opinion. It's very clearly has widely varying effects. Just about everyone has a different story.
Likewise, is entirely possible ivermectin could be effective. It would be surprising, but it has shown benefit in other unusual areas.
It should be explored. But if it was a confirmed silver bullet, India and similar would be using it widely as they can't get vaccine in volume.
What you guys are fantasizing as a perfect world wide conspiracy between pharma and big tech is far more likely innate conservatism, bureaucracy, and "not invented here" behavior.
If it was proven to work, competitors to pfizer, moderna, and J&J would be pushing it as their solution just for competitive purposes.
Biden would push it as his fix, and the bad orange man's vaccine as evil.
I do believe big pharma has too much political influence. And some probably paid off politicians (likely) and maybe even medical officials.
But what you guys are proposing as conspiracy is a very big stretch. So if I tongue in cheek describe ivermectin as puppy wormer it's: a) because it is & b) because of the general tin foil tone of this thread
But then again, apparently I'm a vaccine shill, so of course I'd say that!
Look it up. Ivermectin is used by people almost weekly in parts of Africa. Have been for decades. One of the worms it kills is Loiasis. An eye worm that leads to blindness. There's been something like 50 million pills given to humans since it's discovery. It's one of the most known and tested meds.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Many countries pulled HCQ from the shelves after trump touted it & knowing it was a viable therapeutic...Mexico never did. Mind blowing the amount of suppression on therapeutics in general & glad all this 411 is coming out as it may help folks.
A couple ranchers / farmers on a hunting forum I frequent stated they have been taking their pet's ivermectin at any hint of coming down w/ cold or flu & says it stops it in their tracks & pretty common within their ranks which was new to me. Several Dr's are touting it as the best attack & like it better than HCQ. The 1cc / 100lb (as stated by A6) & the paste is right around 1/4 inch of paste per 100lbs. One tube is good for a 1000lb horse & a 3 pack is $40. I tossed the receipt, but 16 pills of ivermectin & 20 of HCQ was around $45 from mex with HCQ being about 70% of the cost if I recall.
Another member started a thread where his son was getting really sick & couldn't get any local Dr. to write a script for therapeutics & just wanted him in the hospital. He finally called one of those online / toll free Dr's & they prescribed, ivermectin, a budesonide / nebulizer & a z-pack. Said he was feeling better within hours and close to 100% in 24-48 hours.
Govt drops Ivermectin, HCQ and favipiravir from Covid-19 treatment list
Hindu Times
New Delhi
June 7, 2021 13:54 IST
The Union health and family welfare ministry on Monday revised the Covid-19 treatment guidelines and removed the use of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and the antiviral drug favipiravir from its list of advised treatment.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-drops-ivermectin-hcq-and-favipiravir-from-covid-19-treatment-list-101623058343019.htmlI don't buy that. It was working, the gov was suing the WHO and suddenly they drop it? There's more going on behind the scenes.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Many countries pulled HCQ from the shelves after trump touted it & knowing it was a viable therapeutic...Mexico never did. Mind blowing the amount of suppression on therapeutics in general & glad all this 411 is coming out as it may help folks.
A couple ranchers / farmers on a hunting forum I frequent stated they have been taking their pet's ivermectin at any hint of coming down w/ cold or flu & says it stops it in their tracks & pretty common within their ranks which was new to me. Several Dr's are touting it as the best attack & like it better than HCQ. The 1cc / 100lb (as stated by A6) & the paste is right around 1/4 inch of paste per 100lbs. One tube is good for a 1000lb horse & a 3 pack is $40. I tossed the receipt, but 16 pills of ivermectin & 20 of HCQ was around $45 from mex with HCQ being about 70% of the cost if I recall.
Another member started a thread where his son was getting really sick & couldn't get any local Dr. to write a script for therapeutics & just wanted him in the hospital. He finally called one of those online / toll free Dr's & they prescribed, ivermectin, a budesonide / nebulizer & a z-pack. Said he was feeling better within hours and close to 100% in 24-48 hours.
Those hunters don't count.
First, they don't know if they got sick in order to claim it worked. Could have been anything. A cold, a flu, or nothing at all.
Second, just because they have no symptoms of anything from taking animal meds doesn't mean there aren't any. Some things accumulate over time. You may feel nothing now but in 3 years may need a kidney transplant
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
I don't buy that. It was working, the gov was suing the WHO and suddenly they drop it? There's more going on behind the scenes.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
So the OP's article is Jun 1st & ivermectin is kicking ass...so the govt drops it. Here's an article in may saying it was approved with other stats showing ivermectin success.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/india-just-became-latest-country-to-approve-use-of-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19.html
You can literally search & find what you want to hear on the subject...I've seen enough interviews with legit Dr's who say they are saving folks with therapeutics on SM / non-msm news orgs to know the suppression & bogus fact check is real. Follow the $$$.
Ivermectin isn't just for puppies. It's practically a food in Africa.
Look it up. Ivermectin is used by people almost weekly in parts of Africa. Have been for decades. One of the worms it kills is Loiasis. An eye worm that leads to blindness. There's been something like 50 million pills given to humans since it's discovery. It's one of the most known and tested meds.
Guys, no one is disputing it's valuable usage as an anti parasitical in Humans.
Yet the facts remain:
- Developed in 1978 in Japan by isolating a microorganism found in soil
- Developed and approved in 1981 for animal parasite infections
- First human usage was in 1988
- Most of the production is used for animals (Over $1B sales for animal usage annually, far larger than human usage)
One handy Source: Noted fake news site nih.gov
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
Note they are not negative, they mention potential anti-viral uses in a positive fashion
In terms of unit volume:
* Europe is projected to dominate the global ivermectin drugs market, followed by Asia Pacific, owing to the presence of key veterinary as well as human anthelmintic drug manufacturers, large veterinary market in EU5 countries, and high awareness about veterinary animal health. Moreover, increase in incidence of roundworm infections among children and poultry is anticipated to augment the ivermectin drugs market in Europe.
* The market in North America is expected to grow at a moderate pace during the forecast period. This is attributed to rise in prevalence of parasitic infections in both animals and humans across the region. Moreover, strong antiviral effect of ivermectin against a number of parasitic diseases in pets and increase in pet ownership is expected to propel the market in the region. According to the American Heartworm Society’s (AHS) incidence survey, in 2016, the average number of dogs suffering from heartworm infection stood at around 21.7% in the U.S. Moreover, ongoing research & development related to usage of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 and availability of ivermectin drugs for various parasitic infections are the other factors driving the ivermectin drugs market in the region.
Note that Africa and S America are way down on the list, despite the push for free distribution.
Source: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/ivermectin-drugs-market.html
I'm very aware of the nasty parasites in Africa Ivermectin is used for. A longtime customer a couple of decades ago was the CDC Epidemiology dept, they used our computers/graphics gear to produce the "Morbidity and Mortality" reports. I talked and worked with Dr's doing research in the parasites and public health aspects. We used to get copies of the reports and joke inappropriately about all the nasty critters and ways to die.
Likewise, I know folks (friend's daughter) doing the nurse thing in Africa. They see the parasites daily. No one has mentioned the one which swims up your willie and sets up shop. River blindness, hookworm, roundworm, tapeworm, liver fluke, ticks, all nasty and was the original Ivermectin target market in first animals, then humans.
Bottom line:
Unless you are in Africa or the Amazon basin, Ivermectin usage in humans is very small. (But apparently growing).
You guys can deflect all you want, but it was developed for and remains primarily an animal product
Here's a little test: Name a human in the US you know who had to take it prior to COVID speculation?
Is it safe? By all accounts it is, as long as you are not on meds which interact (one of mine does). My son in college accidently shot himself with a dose of it while injecting sheep. He was kidded baaaaaaaaaaaaaaadly, but otherwise had no ill effects.
I hope it's a miracle drug. I have employees in India and Eastern Europe dealing with COVID, directly or in their families. A coworker in India died from it. They need a silver bullet badly.
If I needed it, I'd take the human form. A bit moot for me, I had the pfizer shot so will have to wait for my 3rd eye, superpower, or (more likely) early cancer from the dreaded partial spike protiens.
Maybe Ivermectin is getting suppressed. If so, I'm curious as to why... as the producers (see above report) are not the vaccine mfgs. (Pfizer, Moderna, nor J&J are listed as mfgs)
Riddle me this:
- What would Biden's motive be to suppress it's usage? What does he want more than pharma payoffs? To be re-elected. If he fast-tracked it's approval he'd be a hero, and could slam the door on Trump.
- Rest of the world, India especially is in very bad shape. To the point that politicians may fall. Why would the gov suppress it?
- If a company which made Ivermectin (Merck, etc) could prove it worked, they could submarine their competitors and radically increase market share. So what is their motive?
Riddle me this:
- What would Biden's motive be to suppress it's usage? What does he want more than pharma payoffs? To be re-elected. If he fast-tracked it's approval he'd be a hero, and could slam the door on Trump.
- Rest of the world, India especially is in very bad shape. To the point that politicians may fall. Why would the gov suppress it?
- If a company which made Ivermectin (Merck, etc) could prove it worked, they could submarine their competitors and radically increase market share. So what is their motive?
Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug. It doesn't make money. It's patents are long expired.
Suppress it because the need for vaccines to have emergency powers. Theyre experimental. There has been limited use in cancer treatment but that's it. Now the manufacturers get to bill the gov. They're guaranteed to be paid for every person on the planet! Talk about making money. Oh and of course you'll need weekly/monthly/yearly booster shots and they're not free either probably forever....or until the patents run out, at which point it will become generic and coincidentally will no longer be required.
How did we ever survive the Spanish flu?
Personally I don't think there's anything sinister about the vaccines. But I do believe the people running these pharmaceutical companies saw a great opportunity to make profit (not necessarily money) hand over fist.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Agreed.
In regarding your pre-edit comment about condescending tone, that was not intentional on my part. But now I do feel kind of snarky :-) (not at you)
Understand that I edited my post because I have come to respect you in the years I have followed the site. It is easy for me to read a message into a post that the writer perhaps did not intend.
It would have been better if I did not write the post, but I attempted a bit of damage control.
Understand that I edited my post because I have come to respect you in the years I have followed the site. It is easy for me to read a message into a post that the writer perhaps did not intend.
It would have been better if I did not write the post, but I attempted a bit of damage control.Roger on all, and same here.
How did we ever survive the Spanish flu?
In 09 we basically had the same covid like situation during the swine flu here in the rgv, but this area really has one of the most unhealthy populations around...hospitals were over 100%, most elective procedures were delayed & the local news was reporting on a bunch of deaths. We also had a bunch of folks SOTB coming over for better care which made it worse. I really don't remember anything about what was happening elsewhere & the only national news I recall was a rushed vaccine not getting authorized for use due to dangers but it's all so vague. Nobody got wrapped up even though we knew it was spooky.
Ivermectin is a cheap generic drug. It doesn't make money. It's patents are long expired.
Suppress it because the need for vaccines to have emergency powers. Theyre experimental. There has been limited use in cancer treatment but that's it. Now the manufacturers get to bill the gov. They're guaranteed to be paid for every person on the planet! Talk about making money. Oh and of course you'll need weekly/monthly/yearly booster shots and they're not free either probably forever....or until the patents run out, at which point it will become generic and coincidentally will no longer be required.
So that's the part I don't get, you would think the companies who make Ivermectin (and specifically do not make vaccines, they don't overlap) would be totally behind the research and pushing "new Ivermectin for covid" variants.
If it's the Illuminati running the Democrats who are suppressing easy fixes so they can keep the country (world?) in lock down...then managed the proles via access to vaccine...
If that's the scenario, we are truly far down the rabbit hole and in some deep yogurt.
As to pharma wanted to make money from vaccines, that's the only reason they spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to develop them.
There is a big concern and some evidence that without financial incentive pharma will not invest and achieve the breakthroughs.
Antibiotics are one area where new development has slowed down. They are a one shot (or course) drug, and you don't get the payback like you do with a lifetime diabetes treatment or chemotherapy type treatment.
The only recent antibiotic development was done via machine learning out of concern for antibiotic resistant bugs outrunning new development. And was not by big pharma.
Averageman
06-13-21, 20:54
I know a guy that lives in the Philippines, about twice a year he takes medicine for worms.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-14-21, 07:40
For those interested in the efficacy of Ivermectin beyond Net bloggers and Podcasts, American Journal of Therapeutics might be a good place to start. The below article outlines history, studies and encouraging findings.
------------
American Journal of Therapeutics: May/June 2021 - Volume 28
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx
Adrenaline_6
06-14-21, 07:51
So that's the part I don't get, you would think the companies who make Ivermectin (and specifically do not make vaccines, they don't overlap) would be totally behind the research and pushing "new Ivermectin for covid" variants.
If it's the Illuminati running the Democrats who are suppressing easy fixes so they can keep the country (world?) in lock down...then managed the proles via access to vaccine...
If that's the scenario, we are truly far down the rabbit hole and in some deep yogurt.
As to pharma wanted to make money from vaccines, that's the only reason they spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to develop them.
There is a big concern and some evidence that without financial incentive pharma will not invest and achieve the breakthroughs.
Antibiotics are one area where new development has slowed down. They are a one shot (or course) drug, and you don't get the payback like you do with a lifetime diabetes treatment or chemotherapy type treatment.
The only recent antibiotic development was done via machine learning out of concern for antibiotic resistant bugs outrunning new development. And was not by big pharma.
Companies that make Ivermectin for animals wouldn't be getting any of the profits if it was approved for humans because they don't make it for them. Merck makes Ivermectin (Stromectol). The generic is made by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals, LLC.
Here's the thing. If the government is pushing this (obviously) agenda, would you as a pharmaceutical company buck the system when the FDA (another government entity) controls your operability in the US? That's a simple "No."
Averageman
06-14-21, 07:58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q01LUg97eto
A bit more on this here.
When this all started, Africa was a huge concern for various reasons. Lots of "experts" said it was going to be very bad for Africa.
Yet Africa has been the lightest hit of any continent. Is it a coincidence Ivermectin is widely prescribed to control parasitic infections in Africa?
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/animated-world-map
So that's the part I don't get, you would think the companies who make Ivermectin (and specifically do not make vaccines, they don't overlap) would be totally behind the research and pushing "new Ivermectin for covid" variants.
If it's the Illuminati running the Democrats who are suppressing easy fixes so they can keep the country (world?) in lock down...then managed the proles via access to vaccine...
If that's the scenario, we are truly far down the rabbit hole and in some deep yogurt.
As to pharma wanted to make money from vaccines, that's the only reason they spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to develop them.
There is a big concern and some evidence that without financial incentive pharma will not invest and achieve the breakthroughs.
Antibiotics are one area where new development has slowed down. They are a one shot (or course) drug, and you don't get the payback like you do with a lifetime diabetes treatment or chemotherapy type treatment.
The only recent antibiotic development was done via machine learning out of concern for antibiotic resistant bugs outrunning new development. And was not by big pharma.
So that's the part I don't get, you would think the companies who make Ivermectin (and specifically do not make vaccines, they don't overlap) would be totally behind the research and pushing "new Ivermectin for covid" variants.
If it's the Illuminati running the Democrats who are suppressing easy fixes so they can keep the country (world?) in lock down...then managed the proles via access to vaccine...
If that's the scenario, we are truly far down the rabbit hole and in some deep yogurt.
As to pharma wanted to make money from vaccines, that's the only reason they spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to develop them.
There is a big concern and some evidence that without financial incentive pharma will not invest and achieve the breakthroughs.
Antibiotics are one area where new development has slowed down. They are a one shot (or course) drug, and you don't get the payback like you do with a lifetime diabetes treatment or chemotherapy type treatment.
The only recent antibiotic development was done via machine learning out of concern for antibiotic resistant bugs outrunning new development. And was not by big pharma.
The money they spent was yours not theirs. Taxpayer funded!
Other drugs worked too but the info you got was selective. HQC works but the study most news organizations cite show it doesn't work. They conveniently left out the part that the study focused on people who were on their death beds already. Hey...it didn't work as a Hail Mary last resort! But that's not how it was presented. However now studies are coming out that it seems to work quite well.
https://www.operanewsapp.com/us/en/share/detail?news_id=addf2adb1ea6a60df6ec6bba67d39fac&news_entry_id=6be6ad3210610en_us&open_type=transcoded&from=opera&request_id=share_request
I don't know if it's the illuminati, Ouija board or stupidity that's running the Dems. The beginning of the pandemic was a cluster Fk. All the Dems wanted to do was the opposite of what Trump said. How many people died because the Dems screamed racism when Trump locked the Chinese border? How many people died because Pelosi and Deblasio told people to go out and celebrate to show Trump that were not anti Chinese?!? Cuomo/Whitmer/Wolf/Murphy and their nursing home debacle!
Trump mentioned HQC they immediately show it doesn't work by lying through omission. Trump said operation warp speed will make vaccines in record time. They come back with....we can't trust those vaccines. Same vaccines you're getting today! Let's not forget lying by omission about deaths. And they're still doing it.
These things should have consequences. Had it been DeSantis they'd be calling for his head!
If this is such a serious and deadly virus why are daily riots ok but drive through church where you sit in your own car isn't? Why is it ok for me to be crammed into a Walmart or Costco with 10k other people but can't play basketball or tennis outside in the park?
It's either very serious or it's not.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
ChattanoogaPhil
06-14-21, 09:42
So that's the part I don't get, you would think the companies who make Ivermectin (and specifically do not make vaccines, they don't overlap) would be totally behind the research and pushing "new Ivermectin for covid" variants.
There's several listed here: https://www.pharmacompass.com/manufacturers-suppliers-exporters/ivermectin.
Most are in China, a couple in India and the US, and a handful of others. The most notable US company is Merck. A researcher for Merck and one from a company in Tokyo are credited for discovery. In the 80s, Merck reportedly pledged to give away Ivermectin for free because those who needed it most were least able to pay.
Merck's statement on the efficacy of Ivermectin related to Covid as of four months ago.
ENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
* No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
* No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
* A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
You're real good at parroting the lies.........Not much else. Have you even looked at the evidence to the contrary? Of course not, or you wouldn't continue to parrot the bad information.
https://defyccc.com/another-junk-anti-hydroxychloroquine-study-2/#more-
https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/
Some folks just need to try & defend / promote their precious jab as the only covid savior available...they simply don't want any therapeutic to work even though it is quite obvious they are helping millions.
Some folks just need to try & defend / promote their precious jab as the only covid savior available...they simply don't want any therapeutic to work even though it is quite obvious they are helping millions.
Probably works for one of the vaccine producers. That is one of the few explanations for blatant ignorance and defense of the indefensible.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-14-21, 10:37
You're real good at parroting the lies.........Not much else. Have you even looked at the evidence to the contrary? Of course not, or you wouldn't continue to parrot the bad information.
Since you didn't address anyone but your post is under mine, I'll assume you were speaking to me. If you read post #68 and the link, you should find it to be one of the most informed, well sourced, as well as positive readings about the efficacy of Ivermectin in this thread.
In all fairness, I did preface #68 by saying: For those interested in the efficacy of Ivermectin beyond Net bloggers and Podcasts, American Journal of Therapeutics might be a good place to start. The below article outlines history, studies and encouraging findings. So... perhaps you felt excluded.
In any event, recommend reading more and tantrum less. Good luck. 'click'
.
Probably works for one of the vaccine producers. That is one of the few explanations for blatant ignorance and defense of the indefensible.
The narrative says HCQ doesn't work either & yet it's saving lives / probably would have stopped emergency use status if any other potus other than orange man had promoted it...the suppression on therapeutics from the msm is criminal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychloroquine-zinc-increase-COVID-19-survival-rates-nearly-200.html
The narrative says HCQ doesn't work either & yet it's saving lives / probably would have stopped emergency use status if any other potus other than orange man had promoted it...the suppression on therapeutics from the msm is criminal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychloroquine-zinc-increase-COVID-19-survival-rates-nearly-200.html
Yep, I edited my post above to include two links showing the falsified reports of HCQ being ineffective and unsafe. TDS or something even more nefarious at work here.......Yet, there is no-one who will investigate any of this, as if that would help anyway.
All of this only further supports my opinion that "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is total bullshit as well.
Todd K - you may be right about the fragment/portion of the spike protein, I don't know. I have seen references indicating that the current vaccines cause your cells to make the whole spike protein, as it was apparently thought early on to be a relatively harmless part of the virus and easy to make your immune cells recognize and attack. Other references, like the CDC site below, indicate it's a "harmless" fragment of it. The Salk Institute article indicates that the whole spike protein is a major source of medical harm, and with the assumption that the vaccines result in your cells making only part of that protein, it's still unclear if that part is safe.
You're getting closer. Your body does use mRNA. Look up protein synthesis if you want to learn more.
When your cells make a protein they use mRNA to take an imprint of the protein recipe from the cell's DNA and then that mRNA is used as the "mold" if you will for the protein assembly.
The mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/Moderna) work by delivering mRNA directly into your cells. The mRNA is encapsulated in a nano-lipid particle. The nano-lipid has an affinity for your lipid based cell walls.
Once the mRNA is in your cells the internal cell processes will manufacture the protein associated with the mRNA (the spike protein), which your immune system recognizes as foreign and creates an immune response.
The J&J vaccine works a bit differently. They took a (hopefully harmless) adenovirus and put the mRNA into it and use the loaded virus as a vector to deliver the mRNA to your cells.
In both cases they have created a synthetic virus which delivers mRNA and works pretty much exactly like a virus works to replicate itself. Super cool technology that has never ever been rolled out en mass on the general public.
There is no doubt it confers an immune response. There is also no knowledge of long term effects of such a therapy. These sorts of "delivery systems" require a bunch of chemical preservatives and Lord knows what else in the mix to keep them stable and make them work. The nano-lipids have an affinity for your lipid based cell walls. No one knows the long term effects of that either. Only time will ltell.
Traditional vaccines just inject a dead or weakened or fragment of the actual pathogen (the virus) into your system, and your immune system takes it on and builds immunity. No highjacking of your protein synthesis processes.
Again, this is all new tech. Yes the mRNA patents have been around a long time but never been fully commercialized and rolled out on the general public.
A couple things:
1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.
2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?
3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-association-serves-legal-notice-to-who-chief-scientist-over-ivermectin-guidelines/676672/
I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.
A couple things:
1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.
2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?
3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-association-serves-legal-notice-to-who-chief-scientist-over-ivermectin-guidelines/676672/
I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.
Excellent points!
ChattanoogaPhil
06-14-21, 12:51
A couple things:
1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.
2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?
3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-association-serves-legal-notice-to-who-chief-scientist-over-ivermectin-guidelines/676672/
I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.
In the link...
The IBA’s notice is, however, based on contested scientific research.
The IBA uses the research findings of two organisations — the US-based ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ as well as the ‘British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel’ — to back up its claims on the benefits of Ivermectin.
Both organisations claim Ivermectin is effective in fighting Covid-19 both as prophylactic and treatment. However, a peer-reviewed journal, Frontiers in Pharmacology, has rejected research by the U.S. based Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for it’s “unsubstantiated claims”. The American Journal of Therapeutics later published the same research.
The use of Ivermectin has always been deeply contested, but even makers of the drug have admitted that it has no potential therapeutic effects on Covid-19, saying it has “no meaningful evidence for a clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease”.
A couple things:
1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.
2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?
3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-association-serves-legal-notice-to-who-chief-scientist-over-ivermectin-guidelines/676672/
I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.
1. It is and it isn't.......As we are learning, it is very treatable. However, if you end up in a hospital, they basically make you comfortable and maintain you until you die.
2. Because they (Multiple establishment entities and their collaborators in crime) had a vested interest in this being as bad a possible to damage Trump and the economy.
If you think they're morally above such actions I will simply point to the burning cities all last summer. They are power hungry scum.
In the link...
The IBA’s notice is, however, based on contested scientific research.
The IBA uses the research findings of two organisations — the US-based ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ as well as the ‘British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel’ — to back up its claims on the benefits of Ivermectin.
Both organisations claim Ivermectin is effective in fighting Covid-19 both as prophylactic and treatment. However, a peer-reviewed journal, Frontiers in Pharmacology, has rejected research by the U.S. based Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for it’s “unsubstantiated claims”. The American Journal of Therapeutics later published the same research.
The use of Ivermectin has always been deeply contested, but even makers of the drug have admitted that it has no potential therapeutic effects on Covid-19, saying it has “no meaningful evidence for a clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease”.
If there are no potential therapeutic effects, then why is it deeply contested? And if it is fine to rush a vaccine to market, why haven't they allowed for rapid clinical trials (for this, or any other)?
I have no horse in this race. Well, I do: I want to see providers--not politicians, not pencil-pushers--make the best decisions between them and their patients. They have been hamstrung from the beginning.
1. It is and it isn't.......As we are learning, it is very treatable. However, if you end up in a hospital, they basically make you comfortable and maintain you until you die.
2. Because they (Multiple establishment entities and their collaborators in crime) had a vested interest in this being as bad a possible to damage Trump and the economy.
If you think they're morally above such actions I will simply point to the burning cities all last summer. They are power hungry scum.
Being in the medical field and in this particular 'trench' from the beginning, I was talking aloud. To the bolded/italicized, the vast majority of hospitalized patients are discharged. Once you buy a vent, that's a 'nother matter. It is indeed a very, very serious disease...for a small percentage of the population.
Being in the medical field and in this particular 'trench' from the beginning, I was talking aloud. To the bolded/italicized, the vast majority of hospitalized patients are discharged. Once you buy a vent, that's a 'nother matter. It is indeed a very, very serious disease...for a small percentage of the population.
Indeed. I think early on some providers were a little quick to call for the roc. I think right now, some people are a little quick to jump on another false hope, potentially.
Life’s easier if you accept that you will die one day, and there’s no amount of scabies treatment that will save you. I guess thats easy for me to say, since I already know that COVID can’t kill me, at least not yet.
Some of you sound like you’ve been a little socially isolated. Maybe you’d like for someone to just listen to you. Hit me up if you want to talk.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-14-21, 14:02
I don't buy that. It was working, the gov was suing the WHO and suddenly they drop it? There's more going on behind the scenes.
Who knows... but I think it's fair to suggest that government heath officials might be reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something with an efficacy that is so hotly contested within the pharmaceutical and medical community.
Some among the public seem a bit more fickle. Pfizer alone conducted trials with over 40,000 adults. Yet, some are still screaming that the vaccines aren't sufficiently tested, biased reporting results, conspiracy... on and on. However, with limited and far smaller studies of Ivermectin (some appear promising) often not controlled and taken with other drugs, and highly contested efficacy for even from manufactures, many are screaming Ivermectin is a wonder drug for curing Covid infection and halting the spread.
If I was an anti-vaxxer and was convinced Ivermectin was the Covid cure-all and preventative, I'd call my local primary care guy today. He'd write me a prescription. By the way, how often and for how long does a person need to take Ivermectin tabs to keep all Covid variants away for a year?
Who knows... but I think it's fair to suggest that government heath officials might be reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something with an efficacy that is so hotly contested within the pharmaceutical and medical community.
Some among the public seem a bit more fickle. Pfizer alone conducted trials with over 40,000 adults. Yet, some are still screaming that the vaccines aren't sufficiently tested, biased reporting results, conspiracy... on and on. However, with limited and far smaller studies of Ivermectin (some appear promising) often not controlled and taken with other drugs, and highly contested efficacy for Covid even from manufactures, many are screaming Ivermectin is a wonder drug for curing Covid infection and halting the spread.
If I was an anti-vaxxer and was convinced Ivermectin was the Covid cure-all and preventative, I'd call my local primary care guy today. He'd write me a prescription. By the way, how often and for how long do ya need to take Ivermectin tabs to keep all Covid variants away for a year?
It's hard to tell what they are reluctant to do/not do these days. But we do know they do not have a crystal ball and change their tunes after time. I am good with this; you should be able to change your mind and change direction with new evidence. What I struggle with is their inability to change their tunes in spite of new data, seemingly digging in their heels.
I think they should do aggressive trials with ivermectin, vit d, all of it. Give it the same voracity that they are willing to give vaccines.
Vaccines...oy, where to begin. I am not anti, but I do look at them with a long eye. I have not gotten one, and I likely won't until my institution makes it mandatory (people can or cannot get it based on their reasons, and none of those reasons are my business; I don't judge, either way). There are some issues that need to be sorted out as time goes on, a need for cleaner data (i.e., clotting, issues in kids, etc.).
I have a client who is a pulmonologist, and who describes himself as being "on the front lines" of treating the most severe Covid patients. He, like almost all physicians in the US, marched in lockstep with the WHO, NIH, CDC recommendations and treatment protocols. I recently sent him a link to the I-MASK protocol, and his reply was that they "have been using Ivermectin for the last several months now in severe cases." He works at a major metropolitan hospital in SC.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised at his response given his previous intractability to deviate from official protocols. But there you have it.
Averageman
06-14-21, 15:32
1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.
That's just the thing, it never was that bad.
Follow the money and power games here.
I have a client who is a pulmonologist, and who describes himself as being "on the front lines" of treating the most severe Covid patients. He, like almost all physicians in the US, marched in lockstep with the WHO, NIH, CDC recommendations and treatment protocols. I recently sent him a link to the I-MASK protocol, and his reply was that they "have been using Ivermectin for the last several months now in severe cases." He works at a major metropolitan hospital in SC.
This gets to the larger issue. Why would anyone want more Government involvement in our healthcare system after this total debacle? It is senseless. We don't make doctors go to school for so long only to have them turn their brains off in favor of some un-elected bureaucratic mandate.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-15-21, 10:56
I have no horse in this race. Well, I do: I want to see providers--not politicians, not pencil-pushers--make the best decisions between them and their patients. They have been hamstrung from the beginning.
It's hard to tell what they are reluctant to do/not do these days. But we do know they do not have a crystal ball and change their tunes after time. I am good with this; you should be able to change your mind and change direction with new evidence. What I struggle with is their inability to change their tunes in spite of new data, seemingly digging in their heels.
NIH does change their tune, and have done so with Ivermectin. Earlier this year, NIH changed its recommendation against Ivermectin for treatment of Covid. The current recommendation is neither for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients.
This is current NIH recommendation on Ivermectin:
Recommendation
There are insufficient data 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. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Sources:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
You earlier asked why the controversy. Here's as good of an illustration as any. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/944440
The medscape article asks me to subscribe.
I find the idea disturbing that there was a known and widely used medicine that has shown potential to fight COVID-19 viruses since 2012 was not seriously and thoroughly tested for use against COVID-19 from the very beginning https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/#__ffn_sectitle
Andy
ChattanoogaPhil
06-15-21, 11:33
The medscape article asks me to subscribe.
January 20, 2021
Controversy Flares Over Ivermectin for COVID-19
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has dropped its recommendation against the inexpensive antiparasitic drug ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, and the agency now advises it can't recommend for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients.
"Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19," according to new NIH guidance released last week.
Passionate arguments have been waged for and against the drug's use.
The NIH update disappointed members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which outlined its case for endorsing ivermectin in a public statement on Monday. Point-by-point, the group of 10 physicians argued against each limitation that drove the NIH's ruling.
The group's members said that although grateful the recommendation against the drug was dropped, a neutral approach is not acceptable as total US deaths surpassed 400,000 since last spring — and currently approach 4000 a day. Results from research are enough to support its use, and the drug will immediately save lives, they say.
"Patients do not have time to wait," they write, "and we as healthcare providers in society do not have that time either."
NIH, which in August had recommended against ivermectin's use, invited the group to present evidence to its treatment guidance panel on January 6 to detail the emerging science surrounding ivermectin. The group cited rapidly growing evidence of the drug's effectiveness.
Pierre Kory, MD, president/cofounder of FLCCC and a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center in Milwaukee, also spoke before a Senate panel on December 8 in a widely shared impassioned video, touting ivermectin as a COVID-19 "miracle" drug, a term he said he doesn't use lightly.
Kory pleaded with the NIH to consider the emerging data. "Please, I'm just asking that they review our manuscript," he told the senators.
"We have immense amounts of data to show that ivermectin must be implemented and implemented now," he said.
Some Draw Parallels to Hydroxychloroquine
Critics have said there's not enough data to institute a protocol, and some draw parallels to another repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — which was once considered a promising treatment for COVID-19, based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and now is not recommended.
Paul Sax, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard and clinical director of the HIV Program and Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, wrote in a blog post earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch that ivermectin has more robust evidence for it than HCQ ever did.
"ut we're not quite yet at the 'practice changing' level," he writes. "Results from at least 5 randomized clinical trials are expected soon that might further inform the decision."
He said the best argument for the drug is seen in this explanation of a meta-analysis of studies of between 100 and 500 patients by Andrew Hill, MD, with the Department of Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Sax advises against two biases in considering ivermectin. One is assuming that because HCQ failed, other antiparasitic drugs will too.
The second bias to avoid, he says, is discounting studies done in low- and middle-income countries because "they weren't done in the right places."
"That's not just bias," he says. "It's also snobbery."
Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness) and strongyloidiasis, but is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection. It also is sometimes used to treat animals.
In dropping the recommendation against ivermectin, the NIH gave it the same neutral declaration as monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma.
[B]Some Physicians Say They Won't Prescribe It
Some physicians say they won't be recommending it to their COVID-19 patients.
Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, told Medscape Medical News that the NIH update hasn't changed his mind and he isn't prescribing it for his patients.
He said although "there's enough of a signal" that he would like to see more data, "we haven't seen anything in terms of a really robust study."
He noted that the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has 15 recommendations for COVID-19 treatment "and not one of them has to do with ivermectin."
He added, "It's not enough to see if it works, but we need to see who it works in and when it works in them."
He also acknowledged that "some prominent physicians" are recommending it.
Among them is Paul Marik, MD, endowed professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. A cofounder of FLCCC, Marik has championed ivermectin and developed a protocol for its use to prevent and treat COVID-19.
The data surrounding ivermectin have met with hope, criticism, and warnings.
Australian researchers published a study ahead of print in Antiviral Research that found ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting.
The study concluded that the drug resulted post-infection in a 5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 hours. After that study, however, the FDA in April warned consumers not to self-medicate with ivermectin products intended for animals.
The NIH acknowledged that several randomized trials and retrospective studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have now been published in peer-reviewed journals or on preprint servers.
"Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory markers, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo," the NIH guidance reads.
The NIH acknowledges limitations: the studies have been small; doses of ivermectin have varied; some patients were taking other medications at the same time (including doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, and corticosteroids, which may be potential confounders); and patients' severity of COVID was not always clearly described in the studies.
Nasia Safdar, MD, medical director of infection prevention at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison, told Medscape Medical News she agrees more research is needed before ivermectin is recommended by regulatory bodies for COVID-19.
That said, Safdar added, "in individual circumstances if a physician is confronted with a patient in dire straits and you're not sure what to do, might you consider it? I think after a discussion with the patient, perhaps, but the level of evidence certainly doesn't rise to the level of a policy."
A downside of recommending a treatment without conclusive data, even if harm isn't the primary concern, she said, is that supplies could dwindle for its intended use in other diseases. Also, premature approval can limit the robust research needed to see not only whether it works better for prevention or treatment, but also if it's effective depending on patient populations and the severity of COVID-19.
If you do not have a medscape subscription, you’re not prepared for this discussion.
The medscape article asks me to subscribe.
I find the idea disturbing that there was a known and widely used medicine that has shown potential to fight COVID-19 viruses since 2012 was not seriously and thoroughly tested for use against COVID-19 from the very beginning https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/#__ffn_sectitle
Andy
Some Draw Parallels to Hydroxychloroquine
Critics have said there's not enough data to institute a protocol, and some draw parallels to another repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — which was once considered a promising treatment for COVID-19, based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and now is not recommended.
Wow, more misinformation. HCQ was the target of a "peer reviewed" intentional disinformation campaign and there were fraudulent papers and reports written to malign it. This is all part of the plan. Peer review is pretty much meaningless and only used as an excuse to suppress real information.
The Universities and their taxpayer funded projects are just as corrupt as the politicians writing the checks for them. Again, this is exactly what big government gets you and there is no way to turn it around.
https://defyccc.com/another-junk-anti-hydroxychloroquine-study-2/
More HCQ 411...the fact some can't figure out the narrative is mind boggling. They have been burying the effectiveness of therapeutics since day one for politics (removing trump) & to make billions on the flu. So many people died needlessly by suppression of effective available cheap drugs.
We will eventually realize that Covid actually arrived for the jab.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BlaiseP59407586/status/1404768938639101955
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/breaking-fox-26-reporter-releases-tape-of-corruption-censorship-fox-corp/
interview...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/breaking-fox-26-reporter-releases-tape-corruption-censorship-fox-corp-boss-told-cease-desist-posting-hydroxychloroquine-video/
Who knows... but I think it's fair to suggest that government heath officials might be reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something with an efficacy that is so hotly contested within the pharmaceutical and medical community.
Some among the public seem a bit more fickle. Pfizer alone conducted trials with over 40,000 adults. Yet, some are still screaming that the vaccines aren't sufficiently tested, biased reporting results, conspiracy... on and on. However, with limited and far smaller studies of Ivermectin (some appear promising) often not controlled and taken with other drugs, and highly contested efficacy for even from manufactures, many are screaming Ivermectin is a wonder drug for curing Covid infection and halting the spread.
If I was an anti-vaxxer and was convinced Ivermectin was the Covid cure-all and preventative, I'd call my local primary care guy today. He'd write me a prescription. By the way, how often and for how long does a person need to take Ivermectin tabs to keep all Covid variants away for a year?
Maybe they're reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something like Ivermectin but on the other hand a different Indian state banned ivermectin and it turned out because that governor signed a contract with the makers of Ravidasvir.
Pfizer may have tested 40k people but it's been less than a year. How often do you hear about lawsuits for a drug that was new only a few years ago? I don't think there's anything malicious going on. No magnetic chips or sterilization program or alien DNA....etc .. But I do think they're is an attempt to shut everyone up and push through only a select few.
Was that a peer reviewed article that showed the HQC to not be effective but failed to mention the test was done one patients who were already on their death beds?
I'm waiting for a peer reviewed article on why it's safe to go out in mass for a certain voting demographic.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
SomeOtherGuy
06-16-21, 08:55
All of sudden it looks like RNA and DNA aren't as separate as previously thought:
https://scitechdaily.com/new-discovery-shows-human-cells-can-write-rna-sequences-into-dna-challenges-central-principle-in-biology/
That isn't focused on Covid-19 or the mRNA vaccines, but might (?) have implications for them.
Maybe they're reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something like Ivermectin but on the other hand a different Indian state banned ivermectin and it turned out because that governor signed a contract with the makers of Ravidasvir.
Wait, you're claiming that there could be corruption - in India??? - involving a politician and a wealthy drugmaker that sees profit??? Say it ain't so, bro.
Pfizer may have tested 40k people but it's been less than a year. How often do you hear about lawsuits for a drug that was new only a few years ago? I don't think there's anything malicious going on. No magnetic chips or sterilization program or alien DNA....etc .. But I do think they're is an attempt to shut everyone up and push through only a select few.
Malicious covers a range. Putting profits above lives is malicious, and doesn't require any tinfoil hat - major corporations around the world do that regularly. Remember Vioxx? Big tobacco denying the lung cancer connection?
Even non-malicious actions can be disastrous. Look up Thalidomide.
Was that a peer reviewed article that showed the HQC to not be effective but failed to mention the test was done one patients who were already on their death beds?
As I recall, they waited for patients to be on ventilators and getting worse, then gave them HCQ doses exceeding established safe doses for any other use. HCQ overdose contributed to the patient deaths, then they blamed HCQ. You could get the same result with almost anything using a massive overdose - aspirin, vitamin C, mRNA vaccines, etc.
I'm waiting for a peer reviewed article on why it's safe to go out in mass for a certain voting demographic.
The priesthood of "science" is so corrupted at this point that such a claim will no doubt be forthcoming.
I have a Bachelor's of Science and I am 100% a fan of real science. But there's a widening gap between real science and the institutions and figurehead celebrities that claim to be "science." Vox Day has been writing about this for years, and while his comments are thick in jargon and opinions, I think he has a valuable point:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/04/scientistry-and-sciensophy.html
To simply call everything "science" is to be misleading, often, but not always, in innocence. Science has no authority, and increasingly, it is an intentional and deceitful bait-and-switch, in which the overly credulous are led to believe that because an individual with certain credentials is asserting something, that statement is supported by documentary evidence gathered through the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and successful replication.
In most - not many, but most - cases, that is simply not the case. Even if you don't use these neologisms to describe the three aspects of science, you must learn to distinguish between them or you will repeatedly fall for this intentional bait-and-switch. In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:
Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession
We might also coin a new term, sciensophy, as practiced by sciensophists, which is most definitely not an aspect of science, to describe the pseudoscience of "the social sciences", as they do not involve any scientody and their additions to scientage have proven to be generally unreliable. Economics, nutrition, and medicine all tend to fall into this category.
If something is truly backed by science, its truth can be shown by a description of the facts, other observations, and theorized mechanism. This can then be read by anyone else versed in the field, and its validity debated intelligently. If some assertion relies on one or several "scientists" giving their personal support to it, it's "science" and should be viewed very skeptically.
Here's a 2015 post of his discussing clinical trials and dubious results:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/08/scientistry-is-not-scientody.html
Other reading that might of interest:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-randomness-of-scientistry.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/03/of-blogs-and-science.html
More HCQ 411...the fact some can't figure out the narrative is mind boggling. They have been burying the effectiveness of therapeutics since day one for politics (removing trump) & to make billions on the flu. So many people died needlessly by suppression of effective available cheap drugs.
We will eventually realize that Covid actually arrived for the jab.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BlaiseP59407586/status/1404768938639101955
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/breaking-fox-26-reporter-releases-tape-of-corruption-censorship-fox-corp/
interview...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/breaking-fox-26-reporter-releases-tape-corruption-censorship-fox-corp-boss-told-cease-desist-posting-hydroxychloroquine-video/
I'll add that they needed the lock-downs and fear so they could successfully pull off their vote by mail fraud and steal the election.
I was on the fence about Ivermectin, but it's obviously, yet again, turned into a political football, any discussion of benefits being suppressed, and while more data clearly needed, it's safety track record strongly favors its use risk/benefit wise in my view. I have had a supply of Ivermectin for some time now and see it as just one of various "worth a try" meds due to extremely good clinical responses, suggestive data that could be stronger, and very low risk profile. I don't see it as a replacement for vaccine nor a stand alone treatment, but in the real world, on the ground, you have to work with what you have, and that may not be ideal and allow full spectrum of possible options for treatment and or prevention.
Just like what has happened with other cheap, easy to find, extremely safe options (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?221763-Covid-19-adjuvant-approaches-etc) that should be part of the overall approach to treatment options for med pros, based on aforementioned reasoning above, Ivermectin is being pushed aside, or actively suppressed in favor of extremely costly treatments (e.g., Remdesivir etc) and vaccines.
What a cluster Fu&$...
What would happen to the military industrial complex if there were no more wars? What would happen to the medical industrial complex if there were no more diseases? Neither wants to solve problems. At the very least, they create new ones to benefit them.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-16-21, 10:26
Will makes a good point, and as I mentioned earlier I would get Ivermectin if I wanted it. If/when NIH recommends Ivermectin as a therapeutic or prophylactic for Covid, availability will likely be on par with N95 masks and hand sanitizer during the begining months of the pandemic.
SomeOtherGuy
06-16-21, 11:00
Somewhat related - Fox-affiliate reporter in Houston is making a splash regarding news bias and prohibited stories, and her claims include this one:
She told O’Keefe that she was sent to a hospital to report on COVID-19 treatment, and ended up interviewing Dr. Joseph Varon, chief of critical care at United Memorial Medical Center on his use of hydroxychloroquine.
“We have used it. I mean, we know it’s a drug that has been politicized up to the wazoo. We’ve used it. We use it with good success,” Varon told Hecker.
I underlined the interviewee's title so people don't think he is just some random blogger.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fox-affiliate-fires-reporter-after-release-censorship-clips-project-veritas
Will makes a good point, and as I mentioned earlier I would get Ivermectin if I wanted it. If/when NIH recommends Ivermectin as a therapeutic or prophylactic for Covid, availability will likely be on par with N95 masks and hand sanitizer during the begining months of the pandemic.
Best intel on this topic I have seen where SME discuss that and other topics, is the DarkHorse Podcast Clips. What's happening with this drug in this country now at the level of criminal/medical negligence costing lives in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2plygJcRUs
It's just so infuriating & depressing how many might have benefited / could benefit if the msm wasn't in lock step with the suppression...Trump did try to promote HCQ early on, but the media shut it down & made it appear more of a poison since it came from him.
crazy times.
It's just so infuriating & depressing how many might have benefited / could benefit if the msm wasn't in lock step with the suppression...Trump did try to promote HCQ early on, but the media shut it down & made it appear more of a poison since it came from him.
crazy times.
Worst thing that could have happened to HCQ, and perhaps even Ivermectin, was Trump promoting it. That's how total was/is the Trump derangement syndrome.
morbidbattlecry
06-16-21, 18:50
So it's this anti parasite medication or a vaccine that has virtually no side effect? Ivermectin and the other medication is no joke. It will kill you if you don't have the dosage correct.
SomeOtherGuy
06-16-21, 19:02
So it's this anti parasite medication or a vaccine that has virtually no side effect? Ivermectin and the other medication is no joke. It will kill you if you don't have the dosage correct.
Is this trolling?
Any medicine will kill you if the dose is high enough. Ivermectin is used around the world to treat parasites and certain other conditions in humans, as well as in various farm animals. It's one of the safest commonly used drugs, when the dosage is appropriate.
So it's this anti parasite medication or a vaccine that has virtually no side effect? Ivermectin and the other medication is no joke. It will kill you if you don't have the dosage correct.
Source? I'm vaccinated and there's an ongoing thread on that one. Ivermectin has demonstrated an excellent safety record after billions of doses over a decade + and doses used for covid are low, so the the risk/benefit strongly favors its use. According to a recent meta-analysis of 18 RCTs on ivermectin by Andrew Hill et al:
“At standard doses, of 0.2-0.4mg/kg for 1-2 days, ivermectin has a good safety profile and has been distributed to billions of patients worldwide in mass drug administration programs. A recent meta-analysis found no significant difference in adverse events in those given higher doses of ivermectin, of up to 2mg/kg, and those receiving longer courses, of up to 4 days, compared to those receiving standard doses. Ivermectin is not licensed for pregnant or breast-feeding women, or children <15kg.”
Andrew Hill and the International Ivermectin Project Team, “Preliminary meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Will, the fact YT nuked your vid speaks volumes...big tech is burying everything therapeutics & I'm now seeing a new scare narrative angle on the variants. Watch for delta as the new 'covid on steroids' to be the next go round.
titsonritz
06-16-21, 20:36
Best intel on this topic I have seen where SME discuss that and other topics, is the DarkHorse Podcast Clips. What's happening with this drug in this country now at the level of criminal/medical negligence costing lives in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2plygJcRUs
That didn't last long.
That didn't last long.The podcast is available on their website, and using a podcast app.
That didn't last long.That really is F-ing incredible. True suppression of valid science based discussion with SME on the topic.
Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
Averageman
06-17-21, 02:03
So how will this look in ten years?
Will we look back and find this was one grand mistake, lining everyone up to be vaccinated or will those who were vaccinated regret it?
So how will this look in ten years?
Will we look back and find this was one grand mistake, lining everyone up to be vaccinated or will those who were vaccinated regret it?
It may take longer than that......Much discussion of what impact this vaccination "may" have on future generations. Given the corruption and suppression, on so many levels, nothing surprises me any more.
SomeOtherGuy
06-17-21, 08:29
So how will this look in ten years?
Will we look back and find this was one grand mistake, lining everyone up to be vaccinated or will those who were vaccinated regret it?
Whether the vaccines are/were harmful or not - too early to say. To me it looks like all four western vaccines are seriously harmful to some people (maybe a very small %), but I can't say it's absolutely proven beyond all doubt. Some heart issues in younger people does seem to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But with all the evidence that things like HCQ and Ivermectin are and were viable treatments to keep people from dying or getting seriously sick - I think rushing the vaccines into wide use, often coercive, before long-term testing was a horrible mistake, and in my view it's not too early to make that judgment. Offer them as an option, give honest facts including the appropriate "we don't know" answers on a lot of issues, and let people decide without coercion. For people 70+ or with other major risk factors they may be a good option under risk/benefit analysis. But for healthy teens? Absolutely not.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-17-21, 08:59
Best intel on this topic I have seen where SME discuss that and other topics, is the DarkHorse Podcast Clips. What's happening with this drug in this country now at the level of criminal/medical negligence costing lives in the US:
Dr Pierre Kory (president FLCCC) has been about everywhere, including testifying to the US Senate. I didn't find much new in the YT vid that he hasn't been saying and repeating ad nauseam.
For those suggesting there should be additional or larger Ivermectin trials, Dr Kory testified last year that he would consider, based on the Ivermectin data he already had, giving anyone a placebo would be malpractice. He's long been convinced that Ivermectin is a 'miracle drug' against Covid.
For those who believe what Dr Kory is saying about Ivermectin is correct, and contrary or questioning views are lies an disinformation, I'm curious how many here, or anyone you know, over 65 or otherwise high-risk are taking the Covid ivermectin cocktail prophylaxis protocol that Dr Kory provided with his Senate testimony?
https://i.imgur.com/78fjmJp.png
Whether the vaccines are/were harmful or not - too early to say. To me it looks like all four western vaccines are seriously harmful to some people (maybe a very small %), but I can't say it's absolutely proven beyond all doubt. Some heart issues in younger people does seem to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
As always, risk/benefit is the key. Dr Z always has balanced intel and great guests a recommended resource:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQz1Co5bARg
Dr Pierre Kory (president FLCCC) has been about everywhere, including testifying to the US Senate. I didn't find much new in the YT vid that he hasn't been saying and repeating ad nauseam.
For those suggesting there should be additional or larger Ivermectin trials, Dr Kory testified last year that he would consider, based on the Ivermectin data he already had, giving anyone a placebo would be malpractice. He's long been convinced that Ivermectin is a 'miracle drug' against Covid.
For those who believe what Dr Kory is saying about Ivermectin is correct, and contrary or questioning views are lies an disinformation, I'm curious how many here, or anyone you know, over 65 or otherwise high-risk are taking the Covid ivermectin cocktail prophylaxis protocol that Dr Kory provided with his Senate testimony?
The issue for me is, censorship of medical information supplied by people with the sci/med background to discuss it in an objective manner, and should be challenged openly, not suppressed. I don't see Ivermectin, HQC, etc as mirical therapies for covid, but removing vids etc only gives litteral proof that open exploration and discussion is actively being suppressed and that's now how science works. It gives all the conspiracy types need as proof the vaccines and such are a plot to get mind controlling nano bots to control our thoughts, yada yada.
Even the loons deserve a voice, as much as I want to choke them, but suppression of info never works to give credibility to the preferred treatments.
This is making the rounds & said to be another one of the damning fauci email leaks...it's starting to look pretty clear they suppressed therapeutics to get emergency use.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BlaiseP59407586/status/1405519506198433793
For those suggesting there should be additional or larger Ivermectin trials, Dr Kory testified last year that he would consider, based on the Ivermectin data he already had, giving anyone a placebo would be malpractice. He's long been convinced that Ivermectin is a 'miracle drug' against Covid.
I’d consider the above to be suspect. Conducting a controlled trial to see if this is safe and effective is “malpractice”? Sounds like a quack with an undeclared investment. And, yes, that does happen, and yes, it reads exactly like this when it does.
You guys that are talking about being coerced into getting the shot.... is that a school thing? Could someone elaborate on that?
I’m having a lot of trouble following the logic in here. Y’all seem rather inconsistent. Shot=untested big pharma poison conspiracy
Scabies treatment= miracle cure
ChattanoogaPhil
06-17-21, 11:10
I’d consider the above to be suspect. Conducting a controlled trial to see if this is safe and effective is “malpractice”? Sounds like a quack with an undeclared investment. And, yes, that does happen, and yes, it reads exactly like this when it does.
You guys that are talking about being coerced into getting the shot.... is that a school thing? Could someone elaborate on that?
I’m having a lot of trouble following the logic in here. Y’all seem rather inconsistent. Shot=untested big pharma poison conspiracy
Scabies treatment= miracle cure
Yup. And is wasn't just an off the cuff comment in a YouTube interview, it was his Dec 2020 Senate testimony answering Rand Paul about Ivermectin trials. No need for any further testing... open wide and swallow the miracle.
For those who rather not watch the entire vid skip to 12:30.
https://vimeo.com/490351508
SomeOtherGuy
06-17-21, 11:30
You guys that are talking about being coerced into getting the shot.... is that a school thing? Could someone elaborate on that?
I’m having a lot of trouble following the logic in here. Y’all seem rather inconsistent. Shot=untested big pharma poison conspiracy
Scabies treatment= miracle cure
Holy strawman fallacy batman. Can you point to a poster here who claims that anything is a "miracle cure"? I see it only used to disparage one doctor being quoted here. (Who I don't endorse.) And show me all the people saying "poison conspiracy."
I've mentioned Thalidomide and Vioxx a few times, and I'll add DES. None of these were poison conspiracies, yet all of them hurt thousands and thousands of people. Vioxx was very recent too, and had full FDA approval and for a couple years was considered a "miracle drug."
FYI:
Thalidomide - introduced in West Germany, somewhat tested, was widely used for pregnant women until it was discovered it caused extreme birth defects.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Thalidomide
DES - widely prescribed for pregnant women in the false belief it would reduce pregnancy complications. It actually damages the fetus and commonly results in infertility of the child as an adult.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Diethylstilbestrol
Vioxx - was thought to be a safe and effective pain reliever with less incidence of stomach ulcers. Too bad it destroyed heart valves and killed tens of thousands of people. Full FDA approval in the late 1990's.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Rofecoxib
The first two had ZERO bad intent, but had horrible results not known to the makers or prescribing physicians. Vioxx wasn't made with evil intent either, though it's unclear if trials were rigged to get it approved without being rigorous about real effectiveness and safety.
You don't need a tinfoil hat to question the safety of a new class of drugs that was rushed to market, has as of today maybe 12 months total experimental use and 6 months widespread use, and has tens of thousands of adverse incidents reported to VAERS, including several thousand temporally related deaths. (Yes, we all know that correlation doesn't equal causation - but it does give a clue of a relationship to examine.)
As for Ivermectin - I'm making no personal claims about its benefits, only that various studies seem to support it. It's been widely used globally for decades and the side effects are very well known and generally mild. I don't believe anything is a "miracle cure." Many pharmaceuticals are useful when used appropriately for specific issues.
There is a conventional vaccine for Covid-19 from Novavax that has done great in trials and will hopefully have approval (either EUA or full) in the next few months. I'm watching that closely. It could also have issues, but it doesn't break much new ground technologically, the concept is very well proven, and the manufacturer is reputable. I don't own their stock and I'm not pushing them, just saying that people who want or will even tolerate a vaccine, but are skeptical of the three current options, should have another option very soon.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-17-21, 12:45
Is it now 'disparaging' to quote SMEs? Geeeeze... can't censor em... can't quote em.
This thread was launched by quoting Dr Pierre Kory's Dec 2020 Senate testimony describing Ivermectin as "miraculous" in its effect at "obliterating" Covid.
Dr Kory was quite clear that he does not use the term miracle lightly.
And when I say miracle I do not use the term lightly, and I do not wish to be sensationalized when I say that. That is a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months.
Dr Kory's remarks weren't while BSing over a beer in a bar. He uses miracle multiple times during his Senate testimony.
This thread was launched by quoting Dr Pierre Kory's Senate testimony describing Ivermectin as "miraculous" in its effect at "obliterating" Covid.
Dr Kory was quite clear that he does not use the term miracle lightly.
And when I say miracle I do not use the term lightly, and I do not wish to be sensationalized when I say that. That is a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months.
Dr Kory's remarks wasn't while BSing over a beer in a bar. Dr Kory was giving Senate testimony, Dec 2020. He uses miracle multiple times during his testimony.
Is it now 'disparaging' to quote SMEs? Geeeeze... can't censor em... can't quote em.
I have not seen mountains of data, but I have seen more than enough to convince me it should be easy access for docs who wish to employ it now (also based on the other variables such as length of time used clinically, LD50, etc) and large scale studies being funded like yesterday and active suppression of even discussing it on various platforms, and dismissal by some in the sci/med community, utter and complete failure of what constitutes objectivity and good science. What was the amount and quality of data that existed for say Remdesivir before it was SOC for covid?
Surprisingly little, but, understandable why it was used considering the situation.
It's the double standards and obvious bias and $ aspects of it that really bother me in this.
SomeOtherGuy
06-17-21, 14:48
Post #1:
It is pure evil that so many organizations and individuals have lied so blatantly about how to treat Covid-19. Thousands of lives could have been saved.
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html
I'm replying to:
Is it now 'disparaging' to quote SMEs? Geeeeze... can't censor em... can't quote em.
This thread was launched by quoting Dr Pierre Kory's Dec 2020 Senate testimony describing Ivermectin as "miraculous" in its effect at "obliterating" Covid.
Dr Kory was quite clear that he does not use the term miracle lightly.
Soooo.... to the extent of the subject from post #1, I apologize. But neither that post nor the linked article uses the term "miraculous" or "miracle." I didn't watch this doctor's testimony directly, and didn't know that anyone was claiming this drug was "miraculous."
ChattanoogaPhil
06-17-21, 15:30
Soooo.... to the extent of the subject from post #1, I apologize. But neither that post nor the linked article uses the term "miraculous" or "miracle." I didn't watch this doctor's testimony directly, and didn't know that anyone was claiming this drug was "miraculous."
I understand. No problem sir. Don't have to go too far in the Senate testimony video... within three or four minutes IIRC.
There is so much information available from those like Dr Kory, yet few actually read it. Then complain about them being censored. Funny... WillBrink recently had an exchange with a guy here who actually admitted he doesn't read beyond the headline because he doesn't care about the details. Classic.
WillBrink recently had an exchange with a guy here who actually admitted he doesn't read beyond the headline because he doesn't care about the details. Classic.
Oh give me a break...he wanted me to give him details on the 10k the cdc stated of fully vaccinated folks who had caught covid & it was headlines all over. There have been millions of doses given out & it is no surprise at all to me that happened when it's already known your jab is not 100% effective in stopping transmission so what's 10k?? What details does he need for such a small percentage that he can't find with a quick search if he's curious. I didn't pull the number out my ass & I didn't give a crap about the headline, so why would I look into the details of something that was expected??
Try not to hurt your arm patting yourself on the back...it was obvious I stated as much in the original post. He just didn't like / catch it & that was an easy 'jab' back.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-17-21, 16:03
I have not seen mountains of data, but I have seen more than enough to convince me it should be easy access for docs who wish to employ it now (also based on the other variables such as length of time used clinically, LD50, etc) and large scale studies being funded like yesterday and active suppression of even discussing it on various platforms, and dismissal by some in the sci/med community, utter and complete failure of what constitutes objectivity and good science. What was the amount and quality of data that existed for say Remdesivir before it was SOC for covid?
Surprisingly little, but, understandable why it was used considering the situation.
It's the double standards and obvious bias and $ aspects of it that really bother me in this.
Remdesivir is an antiviral that Gilead had been in the development and testing with coronaviruses many years prior to Covid. Read both links and it's understandable why Remdesivir was in the pipeline for Covid testing so quickly and what other hopeful therapeutics were swirling around at the time. Remdesivir isn't a miracle drug but quickly proved beneficial at a time when there wen't a lot of alternatives early in the pandemic. It wasn't until the end of Oct and countless uses that it was granted full use authority.
https://www.gilead.com/-/media/gilead-corporate/files/pdfs/covid-19/gilead_rdv-development-fact-sheet-2020.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202249/
ChattanoogaPhil
06-17-21, 16:18
Oh give me a break...he wanted me to give him details on the 10k the cdc stated of fully vaccinated folks who had caught covid & it was headlines all over. There have been millions of doses given out & it is no surprise at all to me that happened when it's already known your jab is not 100% effective in stopping transmission so what's 10k?? What details does he need for such a small percentage that he can't find with a quick search if he's curious. I didn't pull the number out my ass & I didn't give a crap about the headline, so why would I look into the details of something that was expected??
Try not to hurt your arm patting yourself on the back...it was obvious I stated as much in the original post. He just didn't like / catch it & that was an easy 'jab' back.
Honestly, I didn't remember it was you. I just remember laughing. It was funny because it's so true of these type discussions.
No worries...one of the biggest problems when researching is you can almost all the time find both sides of the coin, so what ever side you tend to lean can be shared. The most convincing parts of this to me are non-msn / alternative media links / vids I see on SM where the dr's are jumping up & down in front of the camera screaming how they are saving patients with therapeutics. Big tech censors like we see in this thread, msm censors / ignores & the masses don't realize what's out there for consideration for their health.
Remdesivir is an antiviral that Gilead had been in the development and testing with coronaviruses many years prior to Covid. Read both links and it's understandable why Remdesivir was in the pipeline for Covid testing so quickly and what other hopeful therapeutics were swirling around at the time. Remdesivir isn't a miracle drug but quickly proved beneficial at a time when there wen't a lot of alternatives early in the pandemic. It wasn't until the end of Oct and countless uses that it was granted full use authority.
https://www.gilead.com/-/media/gilead-corporate/files/pdfs/covid-19/gilead_rdv-development-fact-sheet-2020.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202249/
Good papers, thanx. As alluded to, it's perfectly understandable why that drug was quick to be utilized, but the amount of data, especially large in-vivo clinical specific to Covid-19 at the time, very limited. From the second paper:
"It was recently authorized for compassionate use and has now entered controlled clinical trials. Like all other therapeutic approaches for patients with COVID-19, remdesivir was not developed specifically to treat COVID-19..."
Data to date I have read, while better than nothing, maybe worth using as part of an overall treatment approach, not very impressive.
While the plausibility of that drug for benefit with covid is obvious, it's side effect profile is also more concerning, and I can see no valid reason Ivermectin not viewed and treated at least on par with remdesivir and various others.
The reality is, cheap, old, off patent drugs - and various nutritional supplements and other modalities - simply don't have the cheering section with the big $ that remdesivir do. Covid has exposed many things, and that's yet another one that is costing lives.
It's not about conspiracy nonsense with Gates in a meeting room deciding what gets used and what does not to control our minds, yada yada, simply how the system is set up, and I feel like there's no better example than what's happening with Ivermectin, and I also feel that everyone who comes into a hospital who they even suspect has covid, not plugged into an IV bag containing NAC, zinc, D3, C etc, is medical negligence, but that's another discussion for another time.
As you know, I, you, and a few others, have been the only voices defending vaccines, so I'm clearly a long off from anti vax and the like, but I can't deny what I am seeing here. It's complicated, not black and white, not just bad guys plotting to keep the (potentially) effective treatments from being used, but simply how the system exists, and it's fu$#ed.
My discussions with some docs in the trenches and such, again, confirm their hands often tied, the info they receive filtered, and profit/losses part of the decisions they are forced to make.
If there was ever an event that demonstrates that reality, it's been this one.
The blame does not fall on the med pros doing their best to save lives per se, it falls mostly on politicians, pharma, insurance companies, and hospitals, in that order.
While censorship is an important topic, it has been going on in increasing amounts since Trump was elected. I consider it old news.
The real issue for me is people are dead, millions of them, a lot could probably have been saved except for the establishment, Fake News and censoring communists running social media.
People got wigged out over 911. This garbage makes 911 look like a splash in the pool and this isn’t a bunch of Islamist extremists doing it to us.
Remdesivir "ain't all that". They give it to just about everyone hospitalized with COVID where I work, IV over 5 days. As Will said, it's better than nothing, and if I was in the hospital for COVID I'd probably take it. That said, it has also been given to all the people who died of COVID where I work, so it isn't a miracle drug by any stretch. Hell, convalescent plasma was given to most of them too. It seems that if COVID has your number you're screwed no matter what they do.
What does a round of remdesivir cost vs hcq or ivermectin??
Miracles are in the eye of the beholder...ask the thousands who have suffered & then gotten over covid quickly with these cheap therapeutics what is deemed actually miraculous. Like the tootsie pop licks, the world will never know.
ChattanoogaPhil
06-18-21, 07:52
The issue for me is, censorship of medical information supplied by people with the sci/med background to discuss it in an objective manner, and should be challenged openly, not suppressed. I don't see Ivermectin, HQC, etc as mirical therapies for covid, but removing vids etc only gives litteral proof that open exploration and discussion is actively being suppressed and that's now how science works. It gives all the conspiracy types need as proof the vaccines and such are a plot to get mind controlling nano bots to control our thoughts, yada yada.
Even the loons deserve a voice, as much as I want to choke them, but suppression of info never works to give credibility to the preferred treatments.
I think so, particularly among the conspiracy class.
Google search 'Ivermectin YouTube' and click on the 'video' tab. You'll find more vids than can be watched in a lifetime. Heck, there's lots of Dr Kory's vids on YouTube, so many that one might get the idea Dr Kory is more interested in being a YouTube star than practicing medicine. Yet, you'll hear people convinced that so-called big tech is censoring everything.
As far as politics, I believe social media's biggest contribution to science and medicine is to politicize it. 20th century was a time when science and medicine took unimaginable leaps.... all without a single YouTube vid, FB post or tweet.
How many loons ranting on social media about vaccines have planted doubt resulting in some folks being hesitant to get vaccinated, then become hospitalized? Most all Covid-related hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated... a 'side effect' from not being vaccinated.
Remdesivir "ain't all that". They give it to just about everyone hospitalized with COVID where I work, IV over 5 days. As Will said, it's better than nothing, and if I was in the hospital for COVID I'd probably take it. That said, it has also been given to all the people who died of COVID where I work, so it isn't a miracle drug by any stretch. Hell, convalescent plasma was given to most of them too. It seems that if COVID has your number you're screwed no matter what they do.
hopefully this one does not get taken down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs
Dr Campbell's channel supplies excellent balanced science based info on all things covid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJSUKDng_Ww
https://www.breitbart.com/science/2021/06/18/nolte-scientists-admit-covering-up-lab-leak-theory-avoid-being-associated-trump/
Nolte: Scientists Admit Covering Up Lab Leak Theory to Avoid Being ‘Associated’ with Trump
Far-left NBC News reports:
[Alina] Chan was one of 18 scientists who published a letter in the journal Science last month calling for a more in-depth investigation into the virus’s origin that takes into account theories about both natural occurrence and laboratory spillovers. The letter helped kick-start a new round of calls to investigate the “lab leak hypothesis,” including demands from President Joe Biden and several leading scientists.
…
Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support racist rhetoric about how the coronavirus emerged. Trump fueled accusations that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in the city where the first Covid-19 [Chinese coronavirus] cases were reported, was connected to the outbreak, and on numerous occasions he called the pathogen the “Wuhan virus” or “kung flu.”
“At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn’t want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins,” she said.
Averageman
06-18-21, 17:46
https://www.breitbart.com/science/2021/06/18/nolte-scientists-admit-covering-up-lab-leak-theory-avoid-being-associated-trump/
Nolte: Scientists Admit Covering Up Lab Leak Theory to Avoid Being ‘Associated’ with Trump
Far-left NBC News reports:
[Alina] Chan was one of 18 scientists who published a letter in the journal Science last month calling for a more in-depth investigation into the virus’s origin that takes into account theories about both natural occurrence and laboratory spillovers. The letter helped kick-start a new round of calls to investigate the “lab leak hypothesis,” including demands from President Joe Biden and several leading scientists.
…
Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support racist rhetoric about how the coronavirus emerged. Trump fueled accusations that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in the city where the first Covid-19 [Chinese coronavirus] cases were reported, was connected to the outbreak, and on numerous occasions he called the pathogen the “Wuhan virus” or “kung flu.”
“At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn’t want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins,” she said.
I don't get the racist connection here, more likely they hide behind that curtain because they know they are guilty.
In the grand scheme on things this was a man made mess, how we move forward is what is important.
I don't see a need for this type of experimentation.
Inkslinger
06-18-21, 17:59
I don't get the racist connection here, more likely they hide behind that curtain because they know they are guilty.
In the grand scheme on things this was a man made mess, how we move forward is what is important.
I don't see a need for this type of experimentation.
Sadly we live in a world where scientists fear being deemed “racist” for doing actual science.
SomeOtherGuy
06-18-21, 18:11
I don't get the racist connection here, more likely they hide behind that curtain because they know they are guilty.
In the deranged world of "orange man bad," the worst possible motive was assumed as self-evidently true for anything Trump did.
If you point to the seemingly obvious fact that the virus came from Wuhan, China, that was deemed racist. Claim that the Wuhan Virus Lab was involved, and it's 10x more racist. These are people so biased that any concept of logical thought is beyond them.
The same kind of bias sometimes keeps witnesses from volunteering the skin color, hair color or eye color of a criminal.
Crying racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and who knows how many other -isms is often nothing more than a tired tactic to deflect legitimate criticism. We all understand that these things really exist, but to many they are nothing more than a tool to stifle any dissenters.
More covid / jab censorship from big tech...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/amazon-deletes-americas-frontline-doctors-website-internet-doctors-scramble-salvage-site/
I think so, particularly among the conspiracy class.
Google search 'Ivermectin YouTube' and click on the 'video' tab. You'll find more vids than can be watched in a lifetime. Heck, there's lots of Dr Kory's vids on YouTube, so many that one might get the idea Dr Kory is more interested in being a YouTube star than practicing medicine. Yet, you'll hear people convinced that so-called big tech is censoring everything.
As far as politics, I believe social media's biggest contribution to science and medicine is to politicize it. 20th century was a time when science and medicine took unimaginable leaps.... all without a single YouTube vid, FB post or tweet.
How many loons ranting on social media about vaccines have planted doubt resulting in some folks being hesitant to get vaccinated, then become hospitalized? Most all Covid-related hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated... a 'side effect' from not being vaccinated.
Far too many, but it just gives the Alex Jones types "proof" they need when it gets censored. Free speech has it's pros and cons to be sure, but I see vids removed from sites that are with credible people all the time too. I may not agree with them too, but I am interested to hear them out and make up my mind after doing some additional research.
I posted the article below on FB when all this got started, and FB removed it as it didn't fit the narrative.
Covid-19: Who Is Fact Checking The Fact Checkers?
(https://willbrink.medium.com/covid-19-who-is-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-c1fb4ef96773)
Crying racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and who knows how many other -isms is often nothing more than a tired tactic to deflect legitimate criticism. We all understand that these things really exist, but to many they are nothing more than a tool to stifle any dissenters.
Yeah and I'm sick and tired of it. Call me a racist and what I intentionally say next will leave you with no doubt. :mad: Yank my chain and I'll yank yours even harder.
And yes, these "ism's" do exist but let's emphasize they cut BOTH ways. I'll wager a larger percentage of blacks hate white people because of the color of their skin than the reverse. After all the "....will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” saying is sooooo 1960's-ish. :rolleyes: I will also add that a recent thread on here (I think Will posted it) about a guy who lived in China and interacted with the people was eye-opening about how they viewed us. Yeah fvck China and I mean every-damn-one of them.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.