Basically, it’s not proven treatment. So.., it’s a desperation medication that has no side effects
ANOTHER BREAKTHROUGH CASE!!!!!!!
- Thread starter KnighttimeJoe
- Start date
Most likely. Kind of like HCQ, except there were probably some real benefits to that one which were poo-poo'd by people that wanted to sell high dollar drugs like remdesivir.
There isn’t one perfect drug. Doctors that have had success with early intervention treatments have used a cocktail of items. Drugs like ivermectin, HCQ, steroids and antibiotics have all shown some efficacy. It’s also important to have appropriate levels of vitamins D,C, E. Taking zinc, quercetin, selenium can be useful. Even aspirin has shown to lower mortality rates (it’s a blood thinner so it fights off clotting). Believe it or not, there is an ingredient in certain mouthwashes that neutralizes the virus.
These aren’t 100 percent, but they aid in fighting the virus at an early stage. Yet the advice from the government has been to monitor you symptoms and if they get too bad, then go to the hospital. This is the advice from our leaders. Even if all the above had a 20 percent chance of keeping a person ln out of the hospital (it is probably much higher), why wouldn’t the CDC recommend it? Or anything, for that matter? Maybe they have those recommendations are sitting next to the vaccine safety data that they never share (right under the massive pile of vaccine patents that they own).
There has been an effective propaganda campaign against almost all early intervention drugs that are cheap. Hell, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine both published a fake study that purported to show that HCQ was deadly. They retracted it quietly. Now the media is trying to equate all forms of ivermectin to horse dewormer.
Making sense of what is happening in the world right now is near impossible. Stop being glad someone died. It is gross.
These aren’t 100 percent, but they aid in fighting the virus at an early stage. Yet the advice from the government has been to monitor you symptoms and if they get too bad, then go to the hospital. This is the advice from our leaders. Even if all the above had a 20 percent chance of keeping a person ln out of the hospital (it is probably much higher), why wouldn’t the CDC recommend it? Or anything, for that matter? Maybe they have those recommendations are sitting next to the vaccine safety data that they never share (right under the massive pile of vaccine patents that they own).
There has been an effective propaganda campaign against almost all early intervention drugs that are cheap. Hell, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine both published a fake study that purported to show that HCQ was deadly. They retracted it quietly. Now the media is trying to equate all forms of ivermectin to horse dewormer.
Making sense of what is happening in the world right now is near impossible. Stop being glad someone died. It is gross.
It really does defy logic with how unique this virus has been presented as being. No therapeutic of any kind works on it, and all that are tried are met with vicious attacks. It's also the first virus that there was a patent out for a vaccine within a week of the pandemic being declared and the fastest one approved in history. Everything about it defies all known history of virology and immunology.
Doctors have been giving out these medicines as therapeutics because they have limited options to keep people from getting sicker and dying. That doesn’t mean they are proven effective. Early on lots gave HCQ. It turns out in randomized controlled experiments it was not beneficial. Same with horse paste. A deworming medicine isn’t the answer to Covid. People ran with Ivermectin based on a fraudulent study and the meta analysis which included it. That has since been retracted. Meanwhile people are pushing back against things that have been proven effective in randomized controlled clinical trials. Boggles the mind.
What standard are you setting for "effective"? If you looking for "totally kills the virus and everyone that takes it gets all better" then nothing has been effective, not even the vaccinated. If you're looking for "has some effect beyond placebo and we're studying where to best employ the use" then I'd say some of the treatments fit the bill. Except with the public and anti-Trump outrage against them, there are very few studies going on to find out where to best employ them (i.e. for what group with what comorbidities, at what stage, etc.) The politicization of all of this has had an extremely negative effect upon prospective treatments.
For the most part, people study what the government (NIH) gives them money to study. If no government agency is funding studies into something, the phrase "there is no data to suggest" will always be true.
You just proved my point. You mock Ivermectin by calling it horse paste, when in reality it is one of the safest drugs in history just because you desperately don't want it to be effective.
Tess Lawrie has said they removed the study that seemed fraudulent and the meta analysis still showed Ivermectin to be useful. Maybe you don’t realize how coordinate and well funded the attacks are on the handful of people that are risking everything to try and get certain drugs approved. These are cheap drugs that no one makes money on. Fauci has said that they are working on a therapeutic anti-viral medication. I can almost guarantee you that will get EUA well before HCQ or ivermectin is allowed.
HCQ actually had emergency authorization until randomized controlled trials determined it was of no benefit. Ivermectin is currently being prescribed as a catch all plan to combat something that is making people very sick. It could prove effective. But it could be like HCQ and proven to be no benefit. In the interim as part of this spaghetti at wall approach, doctors will prescribe it. No problem with that. Just don’t plan a trip to the feed store if you start to run a fever.
The randomized control study that they used to discredit HCQ was in late stage disease among people that are over 80.
The HCQ removal was a hair-trigger reaction to political pressure when they found one study that they could use to pull it. Since then, there has been more research that has found HCQ to be effective if used a certain way.
“HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.
Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review - PMC
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No. It was because controlled randomized trials showed it ineffective. Your paper from more than a year ago is a macro analysis of clinical reports. It’s a decent resource in the absence of controlled randomized trials. But it doesn’t replace them.The HCQ removal was a hair-trigger reaction to political pressure when they found one study that they could use to pull it. Since then, there has been more research that has found HCQ to be effective if used a certain way.
“HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.
Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review - PMC
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not ...
Are you retards still having a circle jerk over mediocre, experimental medications with side effects vs an FDA approved vaccine?
😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂
Last edited:
You still think you can use facts and reality to change the mind of a traitorous cult member lmao.
The truly bizarre thing about these anti-vaxxers is that they attempt to discredit the science when it comes to the COVID vaccines. Yeah, grocery store clerks, substitute teachers, and truck drivers KNOW SO MUCH MORE about viral diseases than CDC scientists.*
But on the other hand, these same yahoos enthusiastically embrace HCQ and all the other crackpot 'cures' for COVID to be found on the internet.
You'd think by this point, they'd have grown tired of being constantly laughed at for their nonsense.
But on the other hand, these same yahoos enthusiastically embrace HCQ and all the other crackpot 'cures' for COVID to be found on the internet.
You'd think by this point, they'd have grown tired of being constantly laughed at for their nonsense.
What about unemployed morons and guys who took calculus and have technical degrees? Do they count?
Maybe we should try to grab a couple million doses of Pfizer's vaccine, slap an animal on the label and call it CHQ Mectinvercide or something and advertise on fox news that big government doesn't want you to try this to beat covid.
Another thing that blows me away is that I know some anti-vaxxers who ended up coming down with COVID and then reached out to their friends for a little sympathy and to let them know that (drumroll...) "this bug is nothing to mess with!"
They acted like their personal take was some earth-shattering revelation to everyone they knew who had been vaccinated long ago.
"Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe."The HCQ removal was a hair-trigger reaction to political pressure when they found one study that they could use to pull it. Since then, there has been more research that has found HCQ to be effective if used a certain way.
“HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.
Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review - PMC
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not ...
.gov
And that's the ones who have survived.
We literally had an antivax board member in his 30's die from this and people are still scoffing.
The ironic part of your post is that a plunger isn’t always an effective method for clearing a “clogged toilet.” But you act like it is the answer and anyone who would think it isn’t the only answer is an idiot. Inadvertently, you’ve provided a perfect analogy for your overbearing and naive behavior.
Fukcing try the plunger first. It’s right next to the damn toilet. I figured some imbecile wouldn’t get it. How dumb can you be?
You’re clearly a smart guy. It must burn you on the inside that you’re in the party of horse paste eaters.
No shit Captain Obvious. But you didn’t present it as a cascade of options. You presented it as if the plunger was the sole perfect answer and any person who didn’t acknowledge it was an idiot. Just like you present your vaccine argument. Surely you must understand how you undermine your purpose with your tactics.
True, a plunger only works 95% of the time.
It's amazing how well sk8's plunger argument fits with the anti-vaxxers' nonsense.
Who’s scoffing? There’s a difference between scoffing at the virus and vehemently disagreeing with government mandated medical procedures.
And before you respond, save the chud comments. I got my moderna vax months ago. But my vax status doesn’t mean anyone else should be forced to get it if they don’t want to.
We've 'forced' children to get an assortment of vaccines before allowing them to go to school as well as students starting college at a University. This has been going on for well over sixty years.
But NOW it's okay to risk new disease outbreaks to 'protect' the reckless decisions of morons? What part of a highly communicable disease do you not understand?
The more people vaccinated the less it spreads. It's still going to spread but the viral load is much lower in vaccinated people.
The less it spreads the more likely we can stop talking about this. The fewer people in ICU beds means the medical system is less strained for those sick with other illnesses.
There are countless community benefits worth mandating.
This is a no-brainer. Fact is, there are countless examples of so-called "government mandates." All of the 'freedom' arguments are as stupid as the people spewing them.
Which means it doesn't work at all, correct (NOT!)? Weren't you pushing that with others in March-April, even after the US NIH came out and said it does?
This is why you're a such a 3rd grader ...
3rd grader (anti-vax): Ivermectin is freely available in horse paste and works. I'm not going to get a vaccine.
3rd grader (pro-vax = you): Ivermectin does NOT work! We need a reputable study! We need to stop the anti-vaxxers!
Adult (logical): Ivermectin was proven to be quite effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 symptoms, even disease, in clinical trials and studies, as completed in early 2021, and concluded by the US NIH in 2021 April ... old news. This is still separate from vaccinations, not in place of/same approach.
Yes, and just as bad as you 3rd grader pro-vaxxers.
Ivermectin works!
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) works!
Just because anti-vaxxers want to use it in place of mRNA vaccines does NOT mean they don't work as designed -- to fight infection and as an immunosuppressive, respectively. They are both used against SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease, as needed, by doctors. Turn off the TV and stop listening to politicians!
This is why TDS was a problem . Because even when Trump got something right, you were against it ... no matter how wrong it made you look.
Last edited:
Take your damn horse paste next time your toilet is full of shit. 😂. Then flush and see what happens
This retard cuts and pastes in the Dungeon the same argument out of context and people are like WTF? 😂
Last edited:
Alright then. Where would you draw the line on giving up your personal liberty “for the greater good?”
Bud, Republicans didn't want gay people to get married like 10 years ago. They currently want to force a woman to develop a baby. I'd scrap the personal liberty takes.
Latest posts
-
From the Desk of Terry Mohajir: NIL/Revenue Sharing Update- Latest: Chrisiskingx
-
-
-
-
***Gus Malzahn Press Conference - West Virginia Week ⚔️🏈- Latest: Swurlington