Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you OP for repeated what the government, media and Hollywood has been telling us. You are so smart and strong. I bet the testosterone is strong with him/her/zer/it. Your husband must be proud of you.
I understand the frustration, but the real question is how many people of the 77,000 dead in Dec. could have been saved with Ivermectin(85% improvement -46 studies , 18 peer reviewed).
As Dr.Kory said in the Senate hearing, how long can we keep doing this? NIH is being extremely reckless here.
It's already been established that the studies used fake data and that the dosage is 100-fold too small to kill the virus. The cells they used in the lab that showed success also weren't human cells. The thing that's most suspicious with these kinds of groups making claims is that they keep saying that the drug used to be used earlier and earlier. Moving the goalposts shows a lack of confidence in its ability.
It's already been established that the studies used fake data and that the dosage is 100-fold too small to kill the virus. The cells they used in the lab that showed success also weren't human cells. The thing that's most suspicious with these kinds of groups making claims is that they keep saying that the drug used to be used earlier and earlier. Moving the goalposts shows a lack of confidence in its ability.
Not just them, but they are the ones closest to it since they are actually treating it.
If people werent dying and it wasnt approved over 20 years ago, I would agree with you. 46 trials, 17 peer reviewed now, all of them with positive results.
What should the epitaph of these 77,000 be, we werent 100% sure?
I understand the frustration, but the real question is how many people of the 77,000 dead in Dec. could have been saved with Ivermectin(85% improvement -46 studies , 18 peer reviewed).
As Dr.Kory said in the Senate hearing, how long can we keep doing this? NIH is being extremely reckless here.
Yep! There is ample evidence and a long safety record.
It's already been established that the studies used fake data and that the dosage is 100-fold too small to kill the virus. The cells they used in the lab that showed success also weren't human cells. The thing that's most suspicious with these kinds of groups making claims is that they keep saying that the drug used to be used earlier and earlier. Moving the goalposts shows a lack of confidence in its ability.
I don't think they are arguing that it SHOULDN'T be tested. I think that the argument is that it has already been proven to be SAFE for nearly everyone over several decades of use for a variety of illnesses and conditions. Further, by observation, it has proven effective to prevent and reduce adverse effects of the Covid-19 in humans in numerous different countries.
Therefore, there is no reason to delay the use of Ivermectin for many months or perhaps years while someone conducts a lengthy study while at the same time in the US, 1,000 or more people are dying every day of Covid-19.
To use an analogy: You don't need to do a year's long scientific study about whether a foam seat cushion will save someone from drowning when your family member or friend has fallen into deep water and doesn't know how to swim. Throw them the darn seat cushion and worry about scientific studies later. Why let people "drown" just because there hasn't been a random controlled study done on the particular seat cushion you have on hand?
I completely agree & I'm sure you also heard that paramedics, ambulances drivers, & other health staff out there in the field are being told that if you can't revive someone in 10 or 20 minutes, to NOT take them to the hospital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
January is going to be even worse. We still haven't seen all the fallout from the Christmas and New Year gatherings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamingo13
As stated in Post #8 - just wait until this month and possibly early Feb.
I agree! Dec was the result of Thanksgiving, but the end of Jan & Feb will be the result of TG still, Christmas, AND New Year's. And now if you see the news right now, everyone's protesting about Trump, so more COVID spikes due to that too!
I don't think they are arguing that it SHOULDN'T be tested. I think that the argument is that it has already been proven to be SAFE for nearly everyone over several decades of use for a variety of illnesses and conditions. Further, by observation, it has proven effective to prevent and reduce adverse effects of the Covid-19 in humans in numerous different countries.
Therefore, there is no reason to delay the use of Ivermectin for many months or perhaps years while someone conducts a lengthy study while at the same time in the US, 1,000 or more people are dying every day of Covid-19.
To use an analogy: You don't need to do a year's long scientific study about whether a foam seat cushion will save someone from drowning when your family member or friend has fallen into deep water and doesn't know how to swim. Throw them the darn seat cushion and worry about scientific studies later. Why let people "drown" just because there hasn't been a random controlled study done on the particular seat cushion you have on hand?
Its even worse than this, I hear people say they dont want another HCQ, really how awful was that? BUT even if you are living in terror of another HCQ, Peru has already done the beta testing, its ok...we might even save some lives.
I just found out my SIL has it and now my brother and his 3 little kids have to get tested tomorrow. He lives in Ohio. I am NY. Glad he did not visit my mom for the holidays. He was going to to but we said no. She's not feeling too great. They were recently on a ski trip so maybe they caught it there. who knows. She has been WFH for 6 months but the kids go to school so she could have gotten it anywhere.
Not just them, but they are the ones closest to it since they are actually treating it.
If people werent dying and it wasnt approved over 20 years ago, I would agree with you. 46 trials, 17 peer reviewed now, all of them with positive results.
What should the epitaph of these 77,000 be, we werent 100% sure?
And making a false claim about saving lives in a post doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work. The fundamental facts are the studies were erroneous, the dosing too small to kill the virus in a human host, a high enough dose is not recommended for humans, and any clinical trials are having to use other antibiotics to make up for this deficiency. These advocates have abandoned the treatment protocol in favor of a prophylactic protocol because it doesn't work in someone who has the disease. It's about making money because of the vast demand to be vaccinated and this drug cannot be a vaccine. It's dangerous to be giving healthy people tetracycline since the strongest bacteria will remain when the course is ended.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
