p.s. despite the public health authorities neglecting it, it's pretty clear that Ivermectin helps if administered early...perhaps much more than remdesivir which has a difficult protocol, is expensive, and might be less effective than even early administered HDQ. Yet somehow it doesn't seem a priority. That's something the public health authorities could do without shifting costs on the rest of us.
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
p.s. despite the public health authorities neglecting it, it's pretty clear that Ivermectin helps if administered early...perhaps much more than remdesivir which has a difficult protocol, is expensive, and might be less effective than even early administered HDQ. Yet somehow it doesn't seem a priority. That's something the public health authorities could do without shifting costs on the rest of us.
That logic falls apart as soon as you figure out what 88% effective means.
No, it doesn't.
1. Depending on the vaccine, they are a few % points short of reducing hospitalizations (98.6% for Pfizer) and death (99.8%) even against the Delta variant.
2. You don't have a right to be COVID free any more than you have a right to be flu free (for which there is also a vaccination). If it doesn't blow itself up and goes endemic, everyone will get it eventually. It will kill off a certain % of people every year, as does the flu, colds, and adenovirus.
3. Vaccines don't mean risk elimination. There is no such thing as risk elimination outside your fantasy world. It means reduction of risk to equivalent background noise as for flu and car accidents.
You never answered my question to you. Where is your acceptable level of risk: a bad flu season, a regular flu season, RSV infection (again kills hundreds of kids, thousands of elderly every year, hospitalizes tens of thousands), adenovirus outbreak, colds, a measles outbreak, polio? Where do you want COVID before you stop worrying and demanding restrictions?
FDA still says no.
Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.
What convinces you otherwise?
FDA still says no.
Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.www.fda.gov
What convinces you otherwise?
The studies and data out there, some of which have been posted on this thread before (yeah...I know....if you are really curious go look back....otherwise this guy (who is more Dr. Doom than even Dad4) does a good job of summarizing it in his recent videos)
Mad Hatter
SILVER
That is an incorrect assumption.
Hüsker Dü
DA
For one, “I like the numbers being where they are. I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn't our fault," Trump said in a Fox News interview.
So it's not a vaccine, and it's not a cure, but it has "favorable results" compared to placebos (which also could be said to have had favorable results, but not as favorable as ivermectin).
If you say it is just going to go away, and it does, then you look like some sort of scientific hero, and if it doesn't go away, you're no worse off than you were in the first place.
The threshold dad4 had set was "do nothing" to help the unvaccinated. This is something. Not arguing it's a vaccine, as effective as a vaccine (otherwise India wouldn't have happened), or that it is even substantially effective (though it could wind up in the end if administered early to be more effective than remdesivir which did get EMU).
So, instead of doing nothing, you advocate giving people a drug which the FDA considers ineffective and possibly lethal?
Can we go back to doing nothing? That plan sounds better by comparison….
Bruddah IZ
DA
It's even harder to find when you're ignoring those estimates. It's harder to find when you ignore the fact that natural immunity is adaptive. You eloquent fools crack me up.
Ignoring the data I see again, because you trust your experts that have failed us so miserably throughout this entire thing.
What data is being ignored?
Round and round we go...see above. As Campbell argues, it's sufficient, at a minimum, if we really wanted to "do something" that it would be investigated in formalized study by the health agencies and remdesivir was approved on flimsier data.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You're alive aren't you? Aren't you??
I don't happen to trust your internet video, if that's what you mean.
There are thousands of people on the internet claiming to have proof of a new miracle drug. You have found one of them. Good for you. That shows impressive research skills.
If you try really hard, maybe you can find a cat video, too.
If you think you have data, run it through the peer review process and let us know how far you get.