Horse dewormer! Haha, so many died because big pharma and Brandon didn't want you using ivermectin...92% of deaths could've been prevented.
We havent had a good ivermectin conversation in a while...new study
- Thread starter MonolithicDawgX
- Start date
Impossible... Mr."Science" said to send people home to monitor their body temp and oxygen levels and only return if they were burning up or couldn't breath. No therapeutics needed. Heck, therapeutics may just kill you.
Plus, the Media mostly buried the fact that a province in India with a population of about 231 million people basically eradicated Covid with widespread use of ivermectin.Horse dewormer! Haha, so many died because big pharma and Brandon didn't want you using ivermectin...92% of deaths could've been prevented.
Antivirals, Including Antibody Products | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
These sections summarize the data on antiviral agents, including remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies.
www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov
Someone is going to attack you since Ivermectin is NOT approved in that link.Antivirals, Including Antibody Products | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
These sections summarize the data on antiviral agents, including remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies.www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov
Actually people won't read it because they have all the answers.
The real story is that it's listed as being currently investigated as a possible treatment on the NIH website 3 years after success stories were dismissed, prescribing doctors were shunned, and many pharmacies had the nerve to refuse prescriptions.
Even actual published studies from different countries were dismissed in the USA with the bigoted reasoning that those studies couldn't be trusted by *those* people as if non-Americans aren't capable of scientific research.
So why did the NIH change their mind now that the people have moved on from Covid hysteria?
That is the thing imo. I'm not informed enough about therapeutics to take a concrete position on ivermectin but my doctor is informed. If my choices are my doc sending me home with no treatment or a scrip he says won't hurt, may help I'm taking the second option especially if the cost of the treatment is slightly more expensive than free.
I will stick with the studies conducted by legit scientists.Horse dewormer! Haha, so many died because big pharma and Brandon didn't want you using ivermectin...92% of deaths could've been prevented.
Cureus published a similar “study” in January, only to retract it 2 months later when it was learned that all of the scientists had massive conflicts of interest - direct financial ties to ivermectin manufacturers.
Take (or don’t) whatever remedy you see fit, but it’s hard to consider this study the starting point for a serious “conversation”.
Not being argumentative but most “legit scientists “ would be reluctant to do a legit study at this point. It would certainly impact them or the company they represent from getting future government research $$. Call it the Dershowitz effect, he no longer gets invites to the big liberal parties because he said some of Trumps rights have been violated. Scientists says ivermectin has values fighting Covid - no longer get research grants or recognition from their peers…
Most of these so called scientists are nothing but political hacks for the socialist Dems.
A study that is published in an “open access”, online medical journal, and nowhere else, is not to be taken seriously.
Why not?
I guess we're supposed to trust agents of government who are beholden to Big Pharmacy and who have admitted to being wrong on several unscientific assertions that were called out by common folk worldwide.
I go with the articles that are published in the established, respected medical journals, none of which are “open access”. That’s not an unusual position to take.
I am not gonna argue with paranoid government conspiracy stuff. That is your blanket answer. Facts and information don’t matter in a discussion with you. Pretty easy out if you ask me.
So now you're resorting to lies.
For example, you're denying the legitimacy of the link I shared showing the NIH acknowledging Ivermectin as a possible Covid-19 treatment that is under investigation and that position runs counter to how they and others treated the idea of Ivermectin as treatment. These ideas came from doctors all over the world.
That's fact.
Here is the ultimate conclusion in the NIH position paper you linked. You somehow pretzel this into something that supports your argument:
“The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials (AIIa).”
“The Panel’s recommendation is primarily informed by recently published randomized controlled trials.17-20 The primary outcomes of these trials showed that the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had no clinical benefit.”
“The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials (AIIa).”
“The Panel’s recommendation is primarily informed by recently published randomized controlled trials.17-20 The primary outcomes of these trials showed that the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had no clinical benefit.”
Dude, people employed by government agencies are literally agents of the government.
A panel made a recommendation. Fine. They didn't conduct any studies themselves, rather, selected 20 studies and 17 found no clinical benefit. What about the other 3? Also, no mention of harmful effects so what's wrong with people using it in peace?
FWIW, I've never taken it myself.
Yet there were proper clinical trials for the vaccine?
Yes dude. And the doctors and scientists that are published in the NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, etc are almost never employed by government agencies. Instead, they are most respected, qualified experts in the world.
So now you are criticizing the NHI paper that you were using as a sword earlier in the thread.
