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.
A lot of studies have already been done showing the effectiveness of ivermectin. You haven't heard about them because... they're being suppressed. They don't get peer review because those studies are paid for by pharmaceutical companies... do the math.
Do you honestly believe that the pharma companies are purely altruistic? That profits don't factor into how they operate and what they say? It's a position you MUST hold to maintain the "myth" narrative at this point. And if you DO believe that, you're just dumb. Note that I don't think that's the case, and I'm not calling you dumb, but if you TRULY believe that, in your heart of hearts, then yeah, you are.
Yes, we've seen those studies and the reason we've ignored them is because they have all been found to be fraudulent, have flaws in the data or just be a plain low quality study. Let's see some high quality well designed RCT's. Oh wait, we already have those
And the vaccine might work. Then again, it might not.
The evidence strongly suggests several of them work-to reduce infection rate, to reduce time sick, to reduce severity. That would be why several EUAs have been issued and full approval for Pfizer's for some age groups.
The problem is too many people think of vaccines as *eliminating* the chances of getting sick. They cannot conceptualize the difference between sterilizing immunity and protective immunity. Very few vaccines provide sterilizing immunity, and certainly none of the vaccines we have for COVID.
The evidence strongly suggests several of them work-to reduce infection rate, to reduce time sick, to reduce severity. That would be why several EUAs have been issued and full approval for Pfizer's for some age groups.
The problem is too many people think of vaccines as *eliminating* the chances of getting sick. They cannot conceptualize the difference between sterilizing immunity and protective immunity. Very few vaccines provide sterilizing immunity, and certainly none of the vaccines we have for COVID.
Yes, I'm aware. And I'm vaccinated. I'm also worried about long-term effects of this vaccine which did not withstand the typical rigorous testing vaccines usually undergo.
Ivermectin has a history of being safe. If you go to be PubMed, you'll see peer-reviewed abstracts going back years proving it's been successful in treating different viruses.
Sometimes it's good to listen to doctors who are actually treating patients and have positive outcomes instead of waiting for researchers to catch up and claim there's a treatment. Virologists, immunologists, cardiologists have all been part of treatment plans and they've successfully used Ivermectin.
Why they're being ignored really isn't a mystery.
This is a fallacious argument. Taking Claritin has a history of being safe. Doesn't mean I should be taking it for treating another ailment because of what a bunch of quacks have stated.
I wonder about them, too. Did they use the 'cocktail' of drugs others are using or just Ivermectin? Do you know? I'm asking because they never seem to get into the details, so if you've read anything on it I'd be interested in a link if you have one.
Exactly, we don't know which is why more rigorous trials are necessary. To make a fact based claim that Ivermectin works based on anecdotes is nothing more than making a false statement.
This is a fallacious argument. Taking Claritin has a history of being safe. Doesn't mean I should be taking it for treating another ailment because of what a bunch of quacks have stated.
You're missing the point. If it's deemed safe to take (to take....get it?), and thousands of doctors around the world have signed a document saying they're successfully treating Covid patients with Ivermectin, then it is worth considering it as an option.
This is a fallacious argument. Taking Claritin has a history of being safe. Doesn't mean I should be taking it for treating another ailment because of what a bunch of quacks have stated.
Precisely. And if the "off label" reason you're taking it is potentially fatal, or with long-term health consequences, calling it "unsafe" in that specific scenario is not inaccurate.
Haruo Ozaki, the head of the Tokyo Medical Association recommends the use of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid patients.
Correct. The Tokyo Medical Association is not a government body.
The Japanese government has not authorized Ivermectin for COVID. Just as I said.
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.
