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.
For example; Even the “The National Institute of Health” on their own website states a 5-day course of Ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with COVID-19. There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study.
So why is it that you libs are so Adamant that everyone needs to get the jab....I don’t get it?
For example; Even the “The National Institute of Health” on their own website states a 5-day course of Ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with COVID-19. There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study.
So why is it that you libs are so Adamant that everyone needs to get the jab....I don’t get it?
They didn't say that at all. They said
"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."
I don't think you really understand the scientific method, research, or statistics.
A single paper with a small trial is not proof. It is evidence. Multiple trials and adequately designed experiments, where the preponderance of the results confirm the same thing, are needed to confirm that evidence. It doesn't have to be all the results, but enough for the overall finding to confirm it.
In the paper itself, it said:
"Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings"
What the NIH actually said is:
"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."
That's an agreement with the paper-not enough to confirm or deny.
It still may end up being proven. But one paper != that proof.
For example; Even the “The National Institute of Health” on their own website states a 5-day course of Ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with COVID-19. There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study.
So why is it that you libs are so Adamant that everyone needs to get the jab....I don’t get it?
LOL, we know the answer for that one.
There's no way to keep using covid 19 to control everyone and push their agenda, if there's a quick and easy cure. And there's no big money in it for big pharma.
Japanese medical chairman doubles down on ivermectin support after early calls went ignored
“I am aware that there are many papers that ivermectin is effective in the prevention and treatment of [coronavirus], mainly in Central and South America and Asia.”
He also cited a paper examining the preventative effects of ivermectin regarding coronavirus infections in India. According to a study by a group of researchers at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, “Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
"He stated that there is evidence from multiple countries that ivermectin has proven effective for patients diagnosed with COVID: “I am aware that there are many papers that ivermectin is effective in the prevention and treatment of [coronavirus], mainly in Central and South America and Asia.” "
What are those papers? He specifically mentioned one. That's the functional equivalent of a former politician's go-to "many people are saying." Many people weren't saying, and there aren't "many" credible papers.
He stated that there is evidence from multiple countries that ivermectin has proven effective for patients diagnosed with COVID: “I am aware that there are many papers that ivermectin is effective in the prevention and treatment of [coronavirus], mainly in Central and South America and Asia.” "
What are those papers? He specifically mentioned one. That's the functional equivalent of a former politician's go-to "many people are saying." Many people weren't saying, and there aren't "many" credible papers.
Just curious what credible papers are out there stating that the current vaccines are safe and no worries of long term side effects.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t a Vaccine development a long, complex process, often lasting approximately 10-15 years!
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.
