Why is the media still lying about Ivermectin?

You are being too harsh.
How many here have first hand access to anything of substance?

 

Why? You already found it.

 

So far, results, seem positive when used early on.

 

Please cite the study that supports your claim.

 

But, the article SAYS that the comment wasn't about that hospital. It was about other rural hospitals.

Yet the argument in this thread was that that specific hospital was not an example!!!

So, what was all that whining in this thread about???

 

These are reports from physicians, not "studies".

 

Would you have gone to get a COVID vaccine if what was known about it was that some physicians thought it helped?

Would you consider that a valid way to establish other prescription medications?

Should the CDC or FDA have ANY roll in determining efficacy and safety?

I ask this in part because there IS a school of thought that there should be no FDA or CDC at all.

The Libertarian candidate for president in the 2000 race had as his very first plank that pharmaceutical companis should be allowed to seel whatever they want to sell with NO verification.

And, today we have a contingent of congressmen who believe that medicine should be run as homeopathy is run today - that issues of efficacy and safety are not something that government should have an opinion on.

So, I'm not being facetious.

Should we have an FDA? Should we eliminate the CDC? Does government have ANY roll in drug safety or efficacy?

 

just get the vaccine

"Donald Trump recommends people to 'take the vaccine'"

Trump : "I recommend take the vaccines. I did it. It’s good. Take the vaccines"

 

The people who refuse to be vaccinated are aware that there have been a lot of vaccine-related injuries and deaths.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ure-such-events.569790/page-8#post-1072913550
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ure-such-events.569790/page-8#post-1072915239

The pro-vaxxers don't seem to be aware of this. This is the main difference between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers.

 

It's been created but it's falling apart. People are getting informed. The disagreement is between the informed and the uninformed.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...st-to-die-of-covid-19.591620/#post-1072915645

 

The formulations are EXACTLY the same. All that differs is the approved uses as described on the label.

 

The VAERS database and analysis of it demonstrates that it is FAR safer to be vaccinated.

 

Are THEY stupid?

Let’s see.....

1. In reference to Covid19 INFECTION

Response from anti-Vaxers; “Stop the fearmongering. Your chances of surviving a Covid infection; 99.9%

2. In reference to Covid19 Vaccine INJECTION

Chances of surviving two injections; 99.9999%

Response from anti-Vaxers; I’M SCARED!

 

No, there are differences in formulations for ivermectin for humans and ivermectin for animals.

YOU are risking people's health by pumping homeopathic remedies that are resulting in people being hospitalized.

That is on YOU.

 

So many cases of vaccine-injury and deaths aren't getting reported to VAERS that we can only speculate on the numbers.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...st-to-die-of-covid-19.591620/#post-1072916132

There's a theory that a lot of people are getting placebos which would lower the official death and injury rate.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...e-get-placebos-instead-of-the-vaccine.591094/

We can't conclude anything until we know we have the real figures.

 

That "theory" is total conspiracy theory. It ASSUMES the CDC, FDA, WHO, and the rest from every country around the world are flat out lying. It assumes others are lying, too, because a placebo controlled test regime can not be operated without there being organizations in the stream from drug companies through manufacturing to application who know that.

It would be a crime for medications to be administered as a placebo controlled test regime without the patient being informed of that.

The VAERS database is available, and anyone with the capability of investigating medical cases can do so.

In other words, your claim that we don't have the "real figures" is preposterous.

 

That doesn't account for how many Americans have died of COVID.

Beyond that, it doesn't say anything at all about the lasting medical problems that are now part of the lives of survivors.

Plus, we treat diseases that are not actually fatal. Try thinking of all the nonfatal diseases we treat. Then, tell me which ones we should stop treating.

Yes, there are anti-Vaxers who just don't understand math.

 

Quoted by Scott; “we don’t have the “real figures”

Question; How come anti-vaxers have been promoting a 99% infection survival rate, and we don’t have the real figures?

Note: State’s Health 2020 mortality/excess deaths reports haven’t been published.

 

You're not using the scientific method* to come to your conclusion. If you don't use the scientific method, you can come to an erroneous conclusion.

Come over to this section where this discussion is permitted and we can talk about it.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?forums/viral-biological.119/



*
https://www.google.com/search?q=sci...57j0i512l9.6393j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

I was referring to the real figures of vaccine deaths. The ninety nine plus percent figure was arrived at before the vaccine roll-out.

Now it's hard to tell how many people are actually dying of covid. It's been alleged that a lot of people in hospital for covid are really there for vaccine injury. Most of the unvaxxed who have covid could be saved with ivermectin.

According to some doctors this whole crisis could be solved right now by discontinuing the vaccinations and giving all the vulnerable and infected people ivermectin.

Doctors who don't go along with the official narrative are risking their careers and retirement pensions.

 

I'm not really sure what you are asking here.

I'd point out that one limitation is that we don't know how many people have been infected. There are a lot of people who have mild symptoms and there are others who have infections so severe that they die at home. These people don't get counted. So, even though there is a good understanding of death rates, etc., there is always room to claim that some individuals were missed.

The rest of the problem is that a lot of people just don't understand statistics.

I'd also point out that, anti-Vaxers actually WORK to cause reporting to be irregular. So, we get crap data out of NY or worse data out of FL or no data at all out of other states. Trump started that when he didn't like the stats, so he ordered that data should NOT go directly to the CDC, making their job harder and with longer wait times and more dependencies. Also, there has been resistance to having national reporting standards.

Yes, the excess death investigations have been illuminating.

 

In what way do you think I should be using "scientific method", but I'm not doing so?

 

Doctors are REQUIRED to enter all cases in VAERS if there is any chance that it is vaccine related - even if the doctor is sure that it is not.

From there, the CDC studies all those cases to verify. The result has been that the CDC has found that there are certain problems that can indeed be traced to the vaccine.

You can read their reports on this. They are very specific and complete about the issues they have found.

Your comment on ivermectin isn't supportable. Having some tiny number of doctors trying ivermectin is not how medications are determined to be effective.

Doctors rarely have the budget, the numbers of patients, the required processes for running tests that would give trustable results. Those who treat COVID patients are rarely those whose expertise is in designing and operating tests of the kind required.

Doctors have considerable leeway in what they prescribe. They can go off label without risking their careers.

They do sometimes give good information for CDC and others to investigate seriously, and not just on COVID, obviously.

So, CDC has been running testing ivermectin using full medical testing procedures. But, there aren't results showing likelihood of ivermectin being both safe and effective either as a preventative or as a treatment.

You can read the CDC site as well as I can. So, you should know what they're doing.

 

You're coming to conclusions based on intuition. Intuition is fallible. You're concluding what you want to be true.

The theory is that the CDC lies. You're position simply assumes that they're telling the truth.

Watch the video in this post.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...st-to-die-of-covid-19.591620/#post-1072916132

At least watch the part I pointed out.

 

Homeopathic or any other medications or remedies should be taken in safe dosages whether it be for human or animal use. For example giving a 50 lb dog the dosage recommended for a 2500 lb horse would be dangerous and possibly fatal. However taking an anti parasitic compound such as ivermectin in recommended safe dosages could be effective in ridding the body of parasitic entities in humans as well as animals. Whether or not these compounds are effective in killing certain viruses remains to be seen at this point. Clinical tests should be conducted to ascertain whether safe levels of ivermectin are effective against Covid or other ailments. Making up stories about these compounds simply to discredit alternative medicine in general is counterproductive. Both the cancer industry and the vaccine industries are trillion dollar industries. Discovery and usage of cheaper readily available medicines are a huge threat to these industries.