U.S. to close..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by UFO

Yep its not even worth bothering with them - I'll give up replying to their closed minded posts, they totally are unable to conceive the slightest possibility that the world is not what they have been told it is.

I only ask for some decent backup for ideas that are on their face, far-fetched. In the absence of that... you get what you get - derision.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Singularity

You don't per se need to understand the mechanisms, but if you're going to post studies on ivermectin from rural India were the supermajority of the "Covid" patients had neither blood testing or chest imaging done as a "pre-print Lancet article" you're sort of wasting some peoples' time.

Ivermectin has indeed proved its worth as “a wonder drug” from a peer-reviewed study: https://www.ejmed.org/index.php/ejme...YYVMOnlyAxRW-M
An Australian article: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bre...7575eb64da174d
Dominican Republic: https://trialsitenews.com/president-...tage-covid-19/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....29.20222505v1
"Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug " IVM selectively inhibits the proliferation of tumors at a dose that is not toxic to normal cells and can reverse the MDR of tumors.":https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...%20resistance.
Sorry for wasting some peoples' time. If you have extra time though look up areas being treated for river blindness (They are all on Ivermectin) and compare their COVID death rates.
Why should this even be controversial other than the fact that there is no money to be made off of it? If it works, and is safe, and available then why isn't it being given more emergency authorizations?
What is the holdup? (rhetorical question, the answer is pretty obvious)
There are dozens more studies in the pipeline. Even though countless lives could be saved now I doubt they will officially authorize it for the treatment and prevention of COVID until the so called vaccines are administered so that they don't undermine the public's faith.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

...If it works, and is safe, and available then why isn't it being given more emergency authorizations?
What is the holdup? (rhetorical question, the answer is pretty obvious)

Yes, it is obvious. From the first link:

Conclusion: Ivermectin, an FDA-approved, safe, cheap, and widely
available drug, should be subjected to large-scale trials all over the world to ascertain its effectiveness as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19.

... and the field report from the Dominican Republic is very encouraging.

There are 13 completed studies on Ivermectin & COVID-19. None are in the US, but there are 3 US studies being set up. And some others elswhere, including Europe. You know as well as I that a US study is required for a drug to get the green light in the US. No conspiracy necessary.

This is all good news. Let the people continue to do their work.

[AA3JY]

..and the lock downs begin..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...155900318.html

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by AA3JY

..and the lock downs begin..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...155900318.html

The peasants freedom didn’t please the crown.

Meanwhile in FL our governor worker has made sure no laws can be made to force people to wear fashion masks.

[markpierce]

If I and loved ones become protected by the vaccination, then why should I care if you are not?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Ivermectin has indeed proved its worth as “a wonder drug” from a peer-reviewed study: https://www.ejmed.org/index.php/ejme...YYVMOnlyAxRW-M
An Australian article: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bre...7575eb64da174d
Dominican Republic: https://trialsitenews.com/president-...tage-covid-19/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....29.20222505v1
"Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug " IVM selectively inhibits the proliferation of tumors at a dose that is not toxic to normal cells and can reverse the MDR of tumors.":https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...%20resistance.
Sorry for wasting some peoples' time. If you have extra time though look up areas being treated for river blindness (They are all on Ivermectin) and compare their COVID death rates.
Why should this even be controversial other than the fact that there is no money to be made off of it? If it works, and is safe, and available then why isn't it being given more emergency authorizations?
What is the holdup? (rhetorical question, the answer is pretty obvious)
There are dozens more studies in the pipeline. Even though countless lives could be saved now I doubt they will officially authorize it for the treatment and prevention of COVID until the so called vaccines are administered so that they don't undermine the public's faith.

You don't seem to understand that doctor's don't need permission from the FDA to give whatever treatment they want to give? Insurance might balk, but ivermectin isn't expensive, so it wouldn't prevent someone from getting it if the doctor will prescribe it. I'm not anti-ivermectin. It is perhaps pointless to keep harping on it in the same forum, maybe better suited for outside a hospital or clinic (if they're not using it already).

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I only ask for some decent backup for ideas that are on their face, far-fetched. In the absence of that... you get what you get - derision.

Far Fetched LOL - You truly are in LALA land - I hope its fun in your world



You watched someone pass out quite a few minutes after the jab and another in Alaska that had a very bad reaction, yet you say live TV is not back up and unless it is exactly as you are told by the MSM and Corps/Gov then its not true - Good Boy, Here Boy, Fetch Boy, Sit Boy......


I have thrown plenty of backup to what I have said over the various threads, it's funny how you just go quiet and don't respond when I and others do.



And Damn I broke my rule of not responding to your puerile and inane comments, which from the various threads I've seen I am not the only one who thinks that of your posts by a long way - Gotta Try Harder to not respond

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Singularity

You don't seem to understand that doctor's don't need permission from the FDA to give whatever treatment they want to give? Insurance might balk, but ivermectin isn't expensive, so it wouldn't prevent someone from getting it if the doctor will prescribe it. I'm not anti-ivermectin. It is perhaps pointless to keep harping on it in the same forum, maybe better suited for outside a hospital or clinic (if they're not using it already).

Legally, they do need permission right? They could lose their license (in the us anyway). I had quit this discussion already. Then found out about Ivermectin. So that is my message now. We probably don't need the vaccines. They should do the trials using Ivermectin as the placebo! Did you read the new study that I posted? Cures cancers:https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...%20resistance.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by markpierce

If I and loved ones become protected by the vaccination, then why should I care if you are not?

EXACTLY!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by UFO

I have thrown plenty of backup to what I have said over the various threads, it's funny how you just go quiet and don't respond when I and others do.

Um, because you seldom have much to offer.

And Damn I broke my rule of not responding to your puerile and inane comments, which from the various threads I've seen I am not the only one who thinks that of your posts by a long way - Gotta Try Harder to not respond

Ok, so you don't want me to respond. Soooo confused.

...is this where I go "LOL!"?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Legally, they do need permission right? They could lose their license (in the us anyway). I had quit this discussion already. Then found out about Ivermectin. So that is my message now. We probably don't need the vaccines. They should do the trials using Ivermectin as the placebo! Did you read the new study that I posted? Cures cancers:https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...%20resistance.

No legal requirement that a treatment has to be FDA approved, no state or professional body requirement either. Certain drugs are specifically outlawed (e.g. heroin) and from time to time depending on supply chains (e.g. hydroxycholorquine a few months ago) pharmacies may have some special rules, but this FDA approval for old pills thing doesn't apply. Speaking silly, a doc can tell a person to go to the feed store and use veterinary supplies. Now, if the patient balks, turns the doc in, and/or any bad outcome occurs, then the doc has to explain himself to the state board. But "off-label prescribing" refers to the fact that "on the label" of a medication is all that FDA has approved the drug for. Many, many drugs are used off-label for decades because no one is going to go back and run full-trials on a generic drug when everyone knows it works (based on monkey-see, monkey-do practice) and FDA won't change the label without the studies (generally).

I suggest not getting hung up on ivermectin for curing everything, and cancer therapy is quite complicated. Simplified, new cancer treatments use yesterday's gold standards as placebo...not ivermectin or other substance. IF ivermectin was used, then it's be part of the new regimen trial and/or an adjuvent to the old vs new substances. But there are a ton of drugs that can fit this bill, while cancer treatment is very cookbook based on what provides the best benefit.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by markpierce

If I and loved ones become protected by the vaccination, then why should I care if you are not?

Because your protection odds to avoid the disease with vaccination might be 62% to 95%. Your family still has a risk. After eradication, your odds will be 100%. No risk.
Polio was eradicated in most countries, thanks to a vaccine. We can only hope this one doesn't take as long.

[Thumbs Up]

Polio has also made a comeback, thanks to the vaccine.
Vaccine derived polio because some nitwits decided to bring back the oral polio vaccines.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Polio has also made a comeback, thanks to the vaccine.
Vaccine derived polio because some nitwits decided to bring back the oral polio vaccines.

Shouldn't we then blame the nitwits and not the vaccine? It's always a risk/benefit calculation. You have to consider the risk of not taking the vaccine.