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.
Trying to treat someone after the fact is not safer than vaccinating them. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from Covid in our country. Ivermectin has not been proven to be a cure for the serious cases that lead to people dying.
Saying someone should take Ivermectin instead of a vaccine is like telling someone not to wear a motorcycle helmet because they live near a top-notch hospital for crash victims.
Nice try but you're still incorrect. Both the "vaccines" and Ivermectin improve outcomes for people that have covid but Ivermectin is proven to be far safer than the vaccines.
Because that's just not how things work. Anecdotal evidence is very low quality evidence. There are no deniers here. All we want to see is high quality data showing significant benefits. Ivermectin has failed to show very little if any benefits based on many very low quality studies.
You are very mistaken the vaccine gave my 30 year old son a heart attack and has killed thousands of people....Ivermectin is proven far more safe than the vaccines.
You are very mistaken the vaccine gave my 30 year old son a heart attack and has killed thousands of people....Ivermectin is proven far more safe than the vaccines.
I'm sorry about your son, but the bolded part is false.
As of August 30, 2021, there have been more than 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. During this time, VAERS received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine but a causal link to the vaccine has not been established, according to the CDC. https://www.ideastream.org/news/has-...vid-19-vaccine
So your chance of dying from the vaccine is somewhere between 0 and 0.002%.
Ivermectin, although generally regarded as safe, has been known to be associated with serious neurological effects and even death:
The time to onset of the serious neurological events ranged from hours to 7 days, with 14 cases noting a time to onset of 1 day or less. Examples of serious neurological adverse events reported included such terms as unable to walk, consciousness disturbed or depressed level of consciousness or loss of consciousness, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...tpmd170042.pdf
In clinical trials involving 963 adult patients who received 100 to 200 mcg/kg ivermectin, the following clinical adverse reactions were reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to the drug in ≥1% of the patients: facial edema (1.2%), peripheral edema (3.2%), orthostatic hypotension (1.1%), and tachycardia (3.5%). https://www.drugs.com/pro/ivermectin-tablets.html
I'm sorry about your son, but the bolded part is false.
As of August 30, 2021, there have been more than 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. During this time, VAERS received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine but a causal link to the vaccine has not been established, according to the CDC. https://www.ideastream.org/news/has-...vid-19-vaccine
So your chance of dying from the vaccine is somewhere between 0 and 0.002%.
Ivermectin, although generally regarded as safe, has been known to be associated with serious neurological effects and even death:
The time to onset of the serious neurological events ranged from hours to 7 days, with 14 cases noting a time to onset of 1 day or less. Examples of serious neurological adverse events reported included such terms as unable to walk, consciousness disturbed or depressed level of consciousness or loss of consciousness, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...tpmd170042.pdf
In clinical trials involving 963 adult patients who received 100 to 200 mcg/kg ivermectin, the following clinical adverse reactions were reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to the drug in ≥1% of the patients: facial edema (1.2%), peripheral edema (3.2%), orthostatic hypotension (1.1%), and tachycardia (3.5%). https://www.drugs.com/pro/ivermectin-tablets.html
The same people that are making horse jokes, are the same people jabbed by a substance that has killed everything in the animal trials.
I read it has particular anti viral properties, probably something along the lines of the "2 a day" pills Pfizer has in development, so I really don't know why it's taken on such hate. Unless it's just because Trump said it or that the people on TV tell the NPC's it's bad.
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.
The answer to the question is simple...Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's as real as Covid.
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.
