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.
This thread is a repeat of the HCQ threads. Everyone insisting HCQ was the magic pill and demanding to know why it wasn’t being used. HCQ got put through the system and look what happened...why isn’t everyone screaming about big pharma and the left and the boogyman and everyone else blocking its use? What aren’t folks screaming fake news about the HCQ results?
This drug needs to be put through the system like other drugs. If it works great we have another tool in the toolbox.
Anyone know if there are clinical trials in progress?
I think they are anti vaxx because they perceive the left to be pro vaxx. Nothing but a knee jerk reaction. They are pro police when then think the left wants to defund them. Then flip and become anti police when the left defends the January 6th officers who were attacked.
There are groups of religious people like 7th day adventists or Jehovah Witnesses as well as some others that follow vitamins and natural foods closely. Years ago I ran a natural foods business whose clientele ranged white Rasta people with dreadlocks who were vegan and marxists to a large group of 7th day adventists who were big on vitamins and the canned meatless meats like Loma Linda because they did not eat meat. But the average person was just a left wing health food person. I was there during Y2K and it was the religious nuts who bought sacks and sacks of 50 pound grains since they were sure this was the end of civilization. The conspiracy people on the right have always been there. But they use to be the minority. Not any more.
Aside from the mentioned farther left, the left are generally pro-vaxx these days for the very simple reason they follow the medical recommendations. You do not have to go any farther or deeper than that. Same with HCQ and ivermectin. Same with masking and distancing. It was of course made political by both sides. But the left tends to follow the conventional medical, the right tends to follow the outlier/alternative opinions.
Now there remains some large parts of the left that are not pro-vaxx, and that goes way back for many reasons. Meaning the Blacks and Latinos. These groups are not on these political forums in any notable numbers, so all I have is my more remote medical experience dating back to the 1970's in Chicago.
"Recommendation:
There is insufficient evidence 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."
Why are you so desperate to push an unproven medication?
How about this? Treatment of covid ( or any other illness) should be between a person and his/her health care provider, period. NOT within the purview of the government or any of its agencies.
This thread is a repeat of the HCQ threads. Everyone insisting HCQ was the magic pill and demanding to know why it wasn’t being used. HCQ got put through the system and look what happened...why isn’t everyone screaming about big pharma and the left and the boogyman and everyone else blocking its use? What aren’t folks screaming fake news about the HCQ results?
This drug needs to be put through the system like other drugs. If it works great we have another tool in the toolbox.
Anyone know if there are clinical trials in progress?
Most of the medical world has given up on HCQ. Maybe still some use in the third world without access to vaccines. Otherwise used alone in typically recommended doses and schedules is at least safe, but most likely not effective.
Most of the medical world has given up on HCQ. Maybe still some use in the third world without access to vaccines. Otherwise used alone in typically recommended doses and schedules is at least safe, but most likely not effective.
Which is why I advocate for vaccination over unproven alternative treatments.
What is the point in taking an ineffective treatment if there is an effective one available? By definition, an "alternative treatment" is one that does not have sufficient study determine whether it is effective. Some portion, probably a large portion, of people who take alternative treatments are taking ineffective treatments.
How about this? Treatment of covid ( or any other illness) should be between a person and his/her health care provider, period. NOT within the purview of the government or any of its agencies.
It's not as simple as that in America: the FDA has an assigned mission to ensure the safety, efficacy, and security of medication. It exists for reasons that Congress found good and sufficient. Take it up with your Congressperson.
Which is why I advocate for vaccination over unproven alternative treatments.
What is the point in taking an ineffective treatment if there is an effective one available? By definition, an "alternative treatment" is one that does not have sufficient study determine whether it is effective. Some portion, probably a large portion, of people who take alternative treatments are taking ineffective treatments.
That is what the bulk of the world's research says.
It's not as simple as that in America: the FDA has an assigned mission to ensure the safety, efficacy, and security of medication. It exists for reasons that Congress found good and sufficient. Take it up with your Congressperson.
And the fact that medical standards of care have to be adhered to. Those standards can change with new information, new medications, new treatments or technologies. Off label use of many meds is very common. But that can easily move into the gray zone of violating medical ethics and medical standards of care. Gov't usually doesn't get involved there if things go awry. But hospital and state medical boards might. And those are more palpable worries for most docs.
It's not as simple as that in America: the FDA has an assigned mission to ensure the safety, efficacy, and security of medication. It exists for reasons that Congress found good and sufficient. Take it up with your Congressperson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
And the fact that medical standards of care have to be adhered to. Those standards can change with new information, new medications, new treatments or technologies. Off label use of many meds is very common. But that can easily move into the gray zone of violating medical ethics and medical standards of care. Gov't usually doesn't get involved there if things go awry. But hospital and state medical boards might. And those are more palpable worries for most docs.
This is the stage where I will throw some red meat to the antigovernmental libertarians.
I like the fact that we have medical standards of care.
I like the fact that to practice medicine, doctors have to go to accredited schools and pass board licensure.
I like the fact that drug therapies have rigid protocols before FDA approval.
Realistically, the vast majority of us do not have the knowledge or expertise to fully understand our medical options. I need a proxy to stand in for me, and that proxy is minimum standards as set by professional boards and overseen by the government. That is a good thing. It saves lives.
Those standards, and similar standards in other countries around the globe, are unanimous in their support of vaccination instead of unproven off label uses of random drugs. The only professionals arguing otherwise are the tiniest percentage of outliers, all of whom are suspect in a number of ways.
Actual morbidity rate has been observed to be closer to 1.8%
Closer to 40 million, because you have an error on your morbidity rate. But that is largely irrelevant to your point, because the fact remains that we have a significant portion of the population that has not been infected and has no immunity. This portion is avoiding vaccination, when the numbers clearly show that they are making a self-destructive decision.
Insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Plus, how are you supposed to know if you are one of the very, very rare people who may have some sort of natural immunity. This is something we do not know the rate of (might very well be zero), we do not know how to test. So you want to gamble your health and life on a maybe? That makes no sense.
No, you do not understand the statistics. We are talking about people with no immunity vs people with immunity. The fact that you are trying to make the groups muddy and indistinct does not mean that the medical profession has done the same silly thing.
People who get vaccinated are less likely to get infected, less likely to suffer severe symptoms, and less likely to die.
Therefore, people who choose to gamble with alternative medications are simply playing a game of biological Russian roulette.
Sorry if you do not understand the math, but the epidemiologists in every country in the world do. You should listen to the experts on this one.
What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not arguing against the vaccines.
I'm arguing FOR honesty and reporting of statistics and information about alternative treatments without bias, hyperbole or fear mongering.
But apparently that's too much to ask for.
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.
