Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#110,701
#110,701
ButchPlz said:
So amidst an absolute crisis of science- where findings that can't be replicated are published, passed off as real, forced into the public eye at the behest of money or buried if the results are not shaped to the right desire of the patron- your point (using anecdotes) is that one treatment is "studied" and another isn't and therefore the one that isn't "studied" is invalid or should be treated with skepticism?
Click to expand...

I got a real life example. Mr. Bostons Rock and Rye is the best winter treatment of all that ails you. But, you won't find "studies" on it. It just works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, AshG and whodeycin85
#110,702
#110,702
AshG said:
I can count the number of people I know personally who participated in early and clinical trials for the vaccines on two hands. I think I still have the email from one of them outlining the methodologies of the study.

Can't say that with ivermectin.
Click to expand...

Yea it's only had years of effective research and real-life application plus an even longer timeframe to study the effects against COVID as it was around when it manifested. Somehow it was decided that research would not go towards it though, we needed a new development, even though some other countries used it almost exclusively to much better success than we've had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and GVF
#110,703
#110,703
Below is an interesting publication from 2011 regarding Ivermectin. Back then, it was described as a "wonder drug". Now the media calls it horse paste or even dangerous. You can't tell me there isn't an agenda behind all of this. The media is in bed with the government and big pharma so connect the dots.

Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, VolinWayne and Rickyvol77
#110,704
#110,704
Ttucke11 said:
Yea it's only had years of effective research and real-life application plus an even longer timeframe to study the effects against COVID as it was around when it manifested. Somehow it was decided that research would not go towards it though, we needed a new development, even though some other countries used it almost exclusively to much better success than we've had.
Click to expand...

Research has and is going on concerning its efficacy. And the efficacy of multiple other treatments. And it's not hard to find if one uses the traditional definition of research instead of the modern DuckDuckGo/YouTube/Telegram version of the process.
 
#110,705
#110,705
#110,707
#110,707
Rickyvol77 said:
The hospital is right and wrong with this one. They have the right to not allow some random dr or RN to administer any meds to their patients directly. However what they should’ve done is say the admitting physician disagrees with the treatment and discharges the patient for not following their recommended patient care plan
Click to expand...
But they want to maintain their power...
 
#110,711
#110,711
SlingBlayde said:
What they are doing with Ivermectin, HCQ, etc. is wrong on so many levels. If the drug is legal and a doctor prescribes it, case closed. Who are they to refuse? It just goes to show that someone else is pulling the medical strings and that there is an agenda to force everyone to get vaccinated.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Biden and the Feds stepping in to get control the distribution of the monoclonal treatments...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlingBlayde and allvol123
#110,712
#110,712
Rickyvol77 said:
The hospital is right and wrong with this one. They have the right to not allow some random dr or RN to administer any meds to their patients directly. However what they should’ve done is say the admitting physician disagrees with the treatment and discharges the patient for not following their recommended patient care plan
Click to expand...

Wouldn't doing that as a patient risk a claim denial from the insurance company?
 
#110,715
#110,715
AshG said:
I'm a walking chemistry set. I have big issues with big pharma. But in this case, the research kept walled away from pharma interference is either in process or shows a low percentage of efficacy when using ivermectin.
Click to expand...
There is not a chance in your mind that the research may be biased or may be corrupted in anyway to get a desired result?

I'm just asking could that be a possibility in your mind.
 
#110,716
#110,716
SlingBlayde said:
Isn't the liability on the prescribing doctor? Not an expert in medical law. I would think they would have a form that the patient or power of attorney could sign that would absolve the hospitals from all liability.

I would disagree that research is inconclusive or anecdotal. Depends on who the researchers are and who funds them. Plenty of statistics out there now that show these drugs help. The difference between truth and most conspiracy theories is about 6 to 12 months;)
Click to expand...
We throw around this word "anecdotal" with regards to Ivermectin when we have more than enough evidence from various sources to no longer call it that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and SlingBlayde
#110,717
#110,717
AshG said:
I don't think you quite understand what you shared.
Click to expand...


The title pretty much sums up the article. How did something that was once widely known as a "wonder drug" with almost no side effects suddenly suddenly become "not safe for humans". It's absolutely insane to deny that something extremely fishy is going on with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlingBlayde
#110,718
#110,718
SlingBlayde said:
Why not? I was simply illustrating that the media attitude towards Ivermectin today is not in line with what's been written in the past.
Click to expand...

If the US were a primarily tropical country with a significant base of population that had been treated for parasitic diseases, then I would be in full support of your stance here. But let's be honest: an overwhelming majority of Americans had never heard of ivermectin before this mess, and those who were familiar with it were primarily veterinarians and farmers.

The cultural bent of the medicine in the US has been significantly animal related for decades. You can't flip a switch and change a mindset to "Oh! It's a people drug now!" when that hasn't been the case here.

And I don't know what's been said about it on TV or the radio.
 
#110,719
#110,719
AshG said:
Ivermectin's efficacy as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 is still in study, with a small amount of formal studies completed and significant conflicting anecdotal information available.
Click to expand...
They've had more than enough time to do the proper studies on Ivermectin. Far more than they have had on these vaccines... heck far more than they would have had on these new miracle drugs that they have been cooking up. It's not that they don't have the research. They are not looking for any.
 
#110,720
#110,720
Rasputin_Vol said:
We throw around this word "anecdotal" with regards to Ivermectin when we have more than enough evidence from various sources to no longer call it that.
Click to expand...

Cool. Give me the journal listings for the conclusive research findings that would transition the data from anecdotal to formal in the eyes of a judge.
 
#110,722
#110,722
AshG said:
I can count the number of people I know personally who participated in early and clinical trials for the vaccines on two hands. I think I still have the email from one of them outlining the methodologies of the study.

Can't say that with ivermectin.
Click to expand...
Because they don't want any genuine studies to be done.
 
#110,723
#110,723
AshG said:
If the US were a primarily tropical country with a significant base of population that had been treated for parasitic diseases, then I would be in full support of your stance here. But let's be honest: an overwhelming majority of Americans had never heard of ivermectin before this mess, and those who were familiar with it were primarily veterinarians and farmers.

The cultural bent of the medicine in the US has been significantly animal related for decades. You can't flip a switch and change a mindset to "Oh! It's a people drug now!" when that hasn't been the case here.

And I don't know what's been said about it on TV or the radio.
Click to expand...
What a bogus argument.

Drug Approval Package: Stromectol (Ivermectin) NDA# 050742s001

Overseas Refugee Health Guidance | Immigrant and Refugee Health | CDC

In the second link above, the CDC required refugees to take Ivermectin before entering the USA.

Point is, if the drug is harmless (which it is in proper doses) why not allow it if a doctor prescribes it for Covid? What's the harm?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#110,725
#110,725
SlingBlayde said:
Below is an interesting publication from 2011 regarding Ivermectin. Back then, it was described as a "wonder drug". Now the media calls it horse paste or even dangerous. You can't tell me there isn't an agenda behind all of this. The media is in bed with the government and big pharma so connect the dots.

Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective
Click to expand...

From the article….
“Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training.”
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top