Jump to content


Redux

Donor
  • Posts

    21,449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Everything posted by Redux

  1. Lol no, Ivermectin as a treatment killed nobody. What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Incredible I guess this is the point where Disinformation takes back over the Disinformation thread? Lolz, have at it gents.
  2. There's actually been valid discussions, though some are so terrified of it that they resort to smear campaign style posts. Nothing new though. I'll just say this and we can all move along There shouldn't be such pushback or unwillingness to incorporate a safe medicine into the fight against covid if we can study it and deem it even slightly effective. And mislabeling it as animal medecine was beyond counterproductive. Potatoe potato
  3. This is bold faced nonsense, Ivermectin killed nobody. Saying such is obviously more nefarious than me hoping for a treatment to coincide with vaccines. Actually this makes you sound really kind ot awful, I'll give you a chance to try this post again. Ivermectin is essentially harmless and if people died after having taken it, I'm guessing their Covid was a hospitalization scenario and they either refused it or weren't afforded that luxury. Please show me the numbers though, how many people died after taking Ivermectin, lol. You're painting with such a broad brush here I don't know that anything you say at this point will matter I'm afraid. Ivermectin doesn't kill you.
  4. That would insinuate that the only other choice is stupidity
  5. There's a pretty distinct difference between speculation on the sex or a former first lady and having concerns over the stigmatisms thrown at a medecine. You're trying to paint me as a right wing nut, I casually am brushing that notion off. No harm no foul.
  6. I find it really depressing that freedom and stupidly have become something people correlate
  7. You equated Ivermectin to Michelle Obama having a wang. So your post should be taken as satirical at best.
  8. I reference it solely as a reason that they are putting efforts into other medicines over Ivermectin given the direct viral effects. Ivermectin takes a vastly different route (theoretically speaking) to deal with the symptoms of Covid.
  9. No I typically don't seek out an edit from pages prior. Putting the talons away, I honestly don't know. I literally just found this and haven't read through it all the way yet. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-ridgebacks-investigational-oral-antiviral-molnupiravir-reduced-the-risk-of-hospitalization-or-death-by-approximately-50-percent-compared-to-placebo-for-patients-with-mild-or-moderat/ And this from over a year ago https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ So as far as I can find no they haven't, and I can only assume why that might be. Yet other countries continue to research it so take that for what it's worth.
  10. I think the correlation is largely speculative. Again the media coverage painted a pretty piss poor light of people's hesitancy towards masks and vaccines as a whole in favor of "horse dewormer" style journalism. Worldwide the usage of Ivermectin and trial results have been very inconsistent from what I gather, some very positive and others ineffective. You know what you're doing, I'll leave you to it.
  11. I could speculate, but that wouldn't be a genuine answer. I hope they end up doing so if they aren't already.
  12. I'm disheartened an concerned harmless medicines were stigmatized by the media and in turn large portions of the public which eventually hurt trials and eventually led to it being deemed ineffective. Take the politics out of medecine completely, if we did that the hesitancy to at least discuss Ivermectin as a treatment would be far less tumultuous.
  13. The trial of Ivermectin has been largely inconsistent across the board. I'm not so conceited that I wouldn't want an honest trial and honest results.
  14. Actually it speaks volumes I had to continuously explain a blatant instance of Left Wing Disinformation on the Right Wing Disinformation Machine thread. Had CNN not openly lied about Ivermectin, much of this pushback wouldn't exist and let us be frank, less people would have been stupid enough to take the animal version.
  15. I'm hopeful the intentionally misleading stigmatisms thrown at a nobel winning harmless people medecine can be lifted. I'm hopeful Ivermectin, because it was specifically targeted, can be given a fair trial. I explained very clearly I'm hopeful for it to be a treatment, has nothing to do with the politicization of medecines and vaccines amidst a pandemic, which is what I'm assuming you're alluding to here? I can agree that the promoted data available to the public considers Ivermectin ineffective (though harmless otherwise). I agree that Ivermectin is CONSIDERED ineffective by many. I don't find it weird at all. I actually find it weird that people have such pushback towards a harmless treatment that, despite what some thing, does have potential to help treat covid. Again, I'm hopeful this will be calculated and proven. We all should be hopeful for that, instead of continuing to disregard it and mislabel it. Nor should you, or anyone really for that matter. It's getting focus because the media flat out lied about it, effectiveness not withstanding. Doctors now deemed quacks for thinking it still could be effective are another reason it gets focus. And it should, why not explore it since it's harmless? And yes, maybe the media could focus on promoting healthy living. But instead they focus solely on vaccines and mudslinging anything to the contrary and ignore healthy living completely. Well, unless it can be used as propaganda: https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/the-surprising-link-between-fitness-and-racism-866039cec2ae https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.self.com/story/anti-fatness-fitness/amp
  16. Because the conversation isn't about horse medicine, it's about people medicine and the potential benefits of it. But you're taking the CNN route and pretending you don't know how you're insinuating it. If you want to be seen as disingenuous that's your choice and it's noted.
  17. And thoe trials were inconsistent/inconclusive. They need to be given a fair run. See these are posts that get laugh emojis, they can't be taken seriously
  18. You were calling it horse medecine like a day ago. I could literally take it in front of you and have it visibly treat covid and you would find a way to deny it. I linked plenty of things that support its use, go read them or don't, not going to beg you.
  19. Ineffective for now (hopefully just for now) but not harmful. It depends on parasitic activity during a bout of Covid is my understanding and how the medecine treats parasites which correlates to lung function etc. I'm no scientist. And living a healthy lifestyle is the best way to battle not just Covid but literally everything. Which, ironically, was another BIG talking point of that "right wing nutjob" Joe Rogan (lol) and undoubtedly the focal reason he bounced back from Covid so quickly and smoothly. By the same token, we can attribute the US mortality rate from Covid to our unfortunate obesity rates and poor Healthcare system. So again, that's why I'm eager for actual treatments (even off label) to be incorporated while vaccines become safer and more effective.
  20. Because they can't promote off label use It's a big reason why it's so stigmatized today. Which is so detrimental to a safe award winning medecine.
  21. Actually yes, CNN specifically spread misinformation that Ivermectin wasn't for human consumption. They did that, why would you pretend that didn't happen? So yes CNN and the like stigmatized it. The manufacturer isn't promoting it as a treatment because any usage of Ivermectin as a treatment would be off label. But you know this. I want this particular medecine to have its name cleared so that people who can actually benefit from using it if they get Covid can obtain it instead of having their doctors deny them medecine. Sounds insane doesn't it, to have a doctor deny a safe medicine. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy. But luckily some states are fighting past the stigma. I want it to be available if it works in some instances. Not all, of course not all. It's not going to work in a lot of instances. The same can be said about the vaccine. It would be nice if we could fill the tool box up when fighting covid, why wouldn't we want to have extra tools?
  22. Why do you need Ivermectin to not work? As a safe medicine, should we not give it fair trials and actually get the data without compromised results? Meanwhile in NH https://yournews.com/2022/03/16/2315005/new-hampshire-house-approves-over-the-counter-ivermectin/ In Ohio https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-doctors-could-soon-be-required-to-promote-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19?_amp=true In Tennessee https://www.wsmv.com/2022/04/09/ivermectin-its-way-becoming-available-without-prescription-tennessee/ I guess for me, it's the fact we're talking about a safe and world renowned medicine being wrongfully stigmatized by CNN and the like. And even if it's only effective when Covid19 is combined with parasitic infections and you only know that after the fact, why wouldn't we want to have another tool in the tool box? We want the same thing after all.
  23. Why don't you want a safe treatment option?
  24. Why would they unless there is enough collective data to back up a claim? And there won't be enough data, not any time soon.
×
×
  • Create New...