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.
How do you think medical science works? What are the mechanics of the process, as you understand it, which ends with the scientific studies you require?
This is a serious question, by the way. I'm not being snarky.
Work backwards.
You have a study, with whatever result.
Why did someone want to perform that study? Usually, it's because they have a reason to believe that it could produce a positive result for whatever idea they have.
Why did they have that idea?
Could have been an academic idea, like "this leads to this result, so perhaps that will lead to that result because of similar chemistry" or something.
Could have also been an idea born out of observation. For instance, psychiatrists were noticing that patients taking Wellbutrin were also stopping smoking, so studies were done and we now know that bupropion helps you to stop smoking, and also makes you less depressed.
All scientific advancement works this way. People have ideas because of how things should work, and they also see correlations between things in their physical world.
If a doctor has reason to believe that a decades old drug with a stellar safety record might be helpful to his patient, why should the lack of created-in-the-past "proof" of effectiveness be required before he can prescribe it? How do you expect to get that proof, if it must already exist? Not every doctor with what may be a good idea has the time or resources to commission a study about it, and not every patient has the time left to wait for it.
So how do you see that process as working, start to finish? I ask because it seems like this is another case of people living in a "world on paper" as I describe it, where only the information which has been approved for distribution can be real, and everything else must be a lie. Of course, that's not how the real world works, so I'm trying to understand your visceral hatred of and apparent tribal resistance to this drug.
Doctors do use drugs off label so your whole premise is flawed. For a drug to be approved for a certain purpose there has to be proof it is safe and effective. All drugs have side effects. Using a drug for a condition without support just adds risk and false hope.
Honestly don't care what others are doing or why this is even a thread. If you want to stick an eel up your butt to cure constipation, be my guest. However, for me, I'll stick to science and what doctors suggest. Thanks.
What was your intended meaning of the term 'Ivermectin deniers'?
I presume it target Rolling Stone magazine who did this article bashing ivermectin as well as Pzifer who doesn't want competition from a cheaper alternative and doesn't want to see their mountain of profits melting like snow under the sun?
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug that has been used since the mid 1970s to treat river blindness and intestinal infections. It has been documented by frontline doctors around the world to also be a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Ivermectin has found widespread use in Latin America and India and has just been greenlighted for treatment against COVID in Japan.
In the United States, however, not only is ivermectin not FDA approved, it is demonized with a near-religious fervor.
Why is the U.S. medical establishment so opposed to ivermectin? They say it is because large-scale trials have not been done. But this rings hollow, with evidence from around the world saying just the opposite. More likely the true answers circle back to money and reputations. Let's break this down in some detail. Before doing do, keep two things in mind. First, ivermectin is an oral drug. It is not a vaccine. Second, ivermectin is off-patent, meaning it is cheap.
I swear, people can't read, or they inject INCREDIBLE amounts of bullsnot from their own minds into what they're reading.
Nobody has simply answered the question. NOBODY. Nearly everyone has taken a term from the title, which has nothing to do with the question, and made the thread about that single word from the title, which is only there to target the question. The question itself has nothing to do with that word.
You're all a word that I can't call you on this forum. It has to do with low intelligence. Figure it out, if you're able.
The better question, why would anyone promote a potential cure, instead of a vaccine? That's like telling someone they shouldn't wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle because they trust the hospital crash victims are taken to.
Whether you want to believe it or not, mRNA vaccines are far from guaranteed as safe, and are new technology. If they want people to embrace vaccines they should have developed an inactivated virus vaccine alongside the vaccines they are offering. It will take a good 3-5 years to observe the use of mRNA vaccines before more skeptical people will fully trust them, especially given how untrustworthy the media and experts have shown themselves to be.
On the other hand Ivermectin has been around a long time and is proven to be harmless and generally only have positive effects from it's use.
I presume it target Rolling Stone magazine who did this article bashing ivermectin as well as Pzifer who doesn't want competition from a cheaper alternative and doesn't want to see their mountain of profits melting like snow under the sun?
I swear, people can't read, or they inject INCREDIBLE amounts of bullsnot from their own minds into what they're reading.
Nobody has simply answered the question. NOBODY. Nearly everyone has taken a term from the title, which has nothing to do with the question, and made the thread about that single word from the title, which is only there to target the question. The question itself has nothing to do with that word.
You're all a word that I can't call you on this forum. It has to do with low intelligence. Figure it out, if you're able.
So it's everyone else, not you?
It must be rough to be the only Mensa scholar on here. How do you manage?
Ivermectin was studied for the possible use and found to be ineffective in safe dosages.
In a petri dish in high concentrations it CAN affect the virus, but those concentrations are much too high for human use, and they would have to be retaken constantly. That's the science.
Why would modern people resort to a horse de-wormer when a vaccine is readily available anyway? That's the power of propaganda.
If you feel you absolutely MUST take the horse de-wormer, at least take the vaccine as well.
Be safe.
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.
