AK Rifles banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
  • Like
Reactions: themousethatroared

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
You’re telling me if I take medication for parasites, I’m able to fight off major viral infections created by covid?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
You’re telling me if I take medication for parasites, I’m able to fight off major viral infections created by covid?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Possibly. Randomized controlled trials have not been done on IVM despite RCTs being done for other promising antivirals that are new, patentable and thus more profitable.

Lab data on IVM is very promising as are many of the clinical studies done around the world but we need RCTs at some point though I doubt we will get them because there is no money in it and the NIAID is a political machine.

It is not at all unusual for medications, especially parasitic drugs, to have antivirals properties and to be prescribed for antiviral use. It is called off-label prescription and it is extremely common for doctors to do this. IVM is already known to be effective against Zika and some other viruses too btw.

Critical thinking vs listening to what a bunch of media and political hacks with conflicting agendas tell us is becoming evermore important. The media campaign against IVM is absolutely insane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
Kind of two aspects here.

First,

"Healthcare" system, lying governments, and controlled media: "Randomized controlled trials of remdesivir show it doesn't work and is harmful? No problem, we will use it!"

"Healthcare" system, lying governments, and controlled media: "Randomized controlled trials of our "vaccine," which btw we redefined the word to be able to call it that, show it doesn't prevent or greatly reduce infection, doesn't prevent or greatly reduce spread and may increase it, and can be harmful or deadly? In fact, has absolutely terrible safety outcomes already? No problem, we will MANDATE its use!"

"Healthcare" system, lying governments, and controlled media: "Overwhelming in-use proof of effectiveness of a readily available drug that if used would wipe out Covid and end the fear porn? Naw, there's no randomized controlled trial! We will prevent you from practicing medicine if you prescribe it -- no matter that it has decades of use proving safety far above and beyond most pharmaceuticals!"

Second,

I think you have been misled by the controlled media. It's absolutely false that ivermectin lacks RCT. At the very least, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals , and matched case control here, Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study . There is also the matter of fetish for RCT vs for example overwhelming practical findings, e.g. Sharp Reductions in COVID-19 Case Fatalities and Excess Deaths in Peru in Close Time Conjunction, State-By-State, with Ivermectin Treatments let alone Covid recently having been almost wiped out in a mere 8 weeks in an area of India having a population 2/3 that of the United States with systematic use of ivermectin, together with items which we know themselves are not individually responsible such as Vitamin D, but which help.

"Naw. but there's no RCT!!! So that's just not medically responsible. Unproven. But Pfizermectin? We're all for that!!! So excited! Let's emergency-use authorize that and start slamming it down people's throats! Billions of dollars, billions of dollars! And the deaths will roll on, just as we and the political agenda need."

Notice the different standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prototype Services

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Possibly. Randomized controlled trials have not been done on IVM despite RCTs being done for other promising antivirals that are new, patentable and thus more profitable.

Lab data on IVM is very promising as are many of the clinical studies done around the world but we need RCTs at some point though I doubt we will get them because there is no money in it and the NIAID is a political machine.

It is not at all unusual for medications, especially parasitic drugs, to have antivirals properties and to be prescribed for antiviral use. It is called off-label prescription and it is extremely common for doctors to do this. IVM is already known to be effective against Zika and some other viruses too btw.

Critical thinking vs listening to what a bunch of media and political hacks with conflicting agendas tell us is becoming evermore important. The media campaign against IVM is absolutely insane.
Im just gonna burst this echo chamber apart but, The fact that ivermectin hasn’t been used to treat people with covid, isn’t because the “media” has a “satanic pedo” agenda to stop people from taking it, but because doctors know full well that it will not work on a viral infection that belongs to the sars family of viruses. Zika is not covid or SARS. Zika is whole different strain with different “symptom”, and use the word symptom loosely because there isn’t any besides a regular fever. Zika doesn’t cause your lungs fill up with fluids, ultimately drown internally. Also the nature of both virus are way different in contrast the specific outcome of getting infected. You can only get Zika from an infected mosquito, while covid is airborne.

I agree that ivermectin works, but there is no actual data to support that is a promising drug to combat viral infections which it was not design for, but to combat illness from parasites; I know there are articles you and many others have read to make this argument but it falls really flat, because most articles that people are sharing with me, are still being peer reviewed, and others are getting rejected, because more research and data needs to done, also most articles are outdated and haven’t em reviewed to even work or research this claim.

I’m not fan of media but taking a class on journalism does wonders, and understanding what media is doing, is just to piss you off or stroke your ego. This where actual critical thinking comes into play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
Im just gonna burst this echo chamber apart but, The fact that ivermectin hasn’t been used to treat people with covid, isn’t because the “media” has a “satanic pedo” agenda to stop people from taking it, but because doctors know full well that it will not work on a viral infection that belongs to the sars family of viruses. Zika is not covid or SARS. Zika is whole different strain with different “symptom”, and use the word symptom loosely because there isn’t any besides a regular fever. Zika doesn’t cause your lungs fill up with fluids, ultimately drown internally. Also the nature of both virus are way different in contrast the specific outcome of getting infected. You can only get Zika from an infected mosquito, while covid is airborne.

I agree that ivermectin works, but there is no actual data to support that is a promising drug to combat viral infections which it was not design for, but to combat illness from parasites; I know there are articles you and many others have read to make this argument but it falls really flat, because most articles that people are sharing with me, are still being peer reviewed, and others are getting rejected, because more research and data needs to done, also most articles are outdated and haven’t em reviewed to even work or research this claim.

I’m not fan of media but taking a class on journalism does wonders, and understanding what media is doing, is just to piss you off or stroke your ego. This where actual critical thinking comes into play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My wife is a nurse practitioner, and she has been working with covid patients since it all started. They did try ivermectin for a while, in part because patients and families insisted on it. They didn't see any effect at all, so they quit doing it. They will probably administer it if somebody's really adamant about it (it's pretty harmless in itself), but they don't see it as a useful drug in this context. The vaccine (just like any other vaccine) is not 100% reliable, and (just like any other drug) it can have unwanted side effects. Still, vaccine and precautionary measures is your best bet, and the latter is probably most important. I agree that people should have a choice, and some people obviously think that hog wormer from Tractor Supply is the safest option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
I'm really wondering how you can look at actual results over very large populations of the vaccine clearly failing, not to mention killing and seriously injuring people en masse, and ivermectin succeeding and come to that conclusion.

Hint it wasn't vaccine that wiped out Covid in Uttar Pradesh, and vaccine has not reduced Covid at all compared to same time last year without vaccine, despite a pretty high rate of vaccination.

Btw, as for your wife's observations --which would be dismissed as anecdotal and meaningless were they in favor of ivermectin -- the effective uses are prophylactic and treatment within the first few days, not after people already have cytokine storm or otherwise need hospitalization.

It's a good thing Uttar Pradesh, which has 2/3 the population of the US and promptly took quite bad Covid infection and death rate down to essentially zero which as you notice the "healthcare system" methods don't do, didn't go by anecdotal observations such as the above.

Don't you find, for example, the spread of Covid in Israel with all their vaccination, or the more vaccinated US states, or Gibraltar, or wherever you like to speak against your confidence in the vaccine? Covid was quite low there till they decided to do the clot shots, then it explodes. What sort of effective vaccine is that? And what about the case above? Have you ever heard of any other vaccine failing so spectacularly, a vaccinated person spreading the disease to so many other vaccinated persons and at such a high rate? Did polio cases explode when polio shots were rolled out? Of course not, if that had happened they would have stopped it. But not this.

Objectively it works poorly, very poorly -- the least effective "vaccine" in history and in fact they literally had to change the definition of "vaccine" to be able to call it one, as preventing infection and spread had always been the standard -- and the only reason a person could think it works well is because the controlled media told them so, not because facts show it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
I'm really wondering how you can look at actual results over very large populations of the vaccine clearly failing, not to mention killing people, and ivermectin succeeding and come to that conclusion.
There is no evidence to support this claim. anecdotal evidence is not based on science but on faith and word of mouth. You have no actual truth to back that up; further more The vaccine has been touted only by conservatives as some “cure” when reality it was meant to avoid a virus in its worst symptoms, this is why liberal media failed to mention on the scientific terminology and definition of the word vaccine. Just because you read an article on the internet, doesn’t mean it’s true. India, Russia and our country are prime examples of misinformation killing more people then the vaccine ever can. The actual numbers are not being counted correctly by simpletons who only education is a basic 5th grade level of understanding. You have to take in the account of many vaccinated people who actually lived compared to those who are not vaccinated that as well lived but by some scientific procedure, wether it be lung transplant or stem cell therapy. I’ve yet to “suffer” from the vaccine side effects”. If they were, I would not be able to type this to you, If you actually look into the vaccine, you would know you and many others have been wrong all along and have been piggy back riding on politics, and not science at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
I'm really wondering how you can look at actual results over very large populations of the vaccine clearly failing, not to mention killing people, and ivermectin succeeding and come to that conclusion.
If that was directed at me, I'm going by first hand information from a person I trust and who has been treating covid patients from day one. As a matter of fact, she was treating them even before they knew what covid was. For every internet report about ivermectin being a success you will find another one saying that it's a failure, so I don't even bother to read them anymore. I chose to believe in real life reports from our hospital, and that's what I prefer to call "actual results".

The "failure" of the vaccine appears to be largely due to the new strand, and if you compare it with the annual flu shots: Last year's vaccine rarely protects you from this year's flu. There's nothing odd about that, but I also know that about 90% of the covid patients at our hospital are not vaccinated. And yes, I'm sure the vaccine can kill people, but so can many other drugs you wouldn't hesitate to take. Pay attention next time they list the possible side effects in a commercial for a medication, and you'll be surprised to hear how many times death is one of them. It's a chance you take with just about any medication, and considering the huge amounts of vaccine that has been administered now I'm not surprised to see scattered reports of adverse reactions. Administer the same amounts of, let's say penicillin or Viagra, and you'll probably see many more deaths than from the vaccine.

And again, they have not had any success with ivermectin at our hospital, whatever some report may say. I guess the reality here is different than on the internet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
If that was directed at me, I'm going by first hand information from a person I trust and who has been treating covid patients from day one. As a matter of fact, she was treating them even before they knew what covid was. For every internet report about ivermectin being a success you will find another one saying that it's a failure, so I don't even bother to read them anymore. I chose to believe in real life reports from our hospital, and that's what I prefer to call "actual results".

The "failure" of the vaccine appears to be largely due to the new strand, and if you compare it with the annual flu shots: Last year's vaccine rarely protects you from this year's flu. There's nothing odd about that, but I also know that about 90% of the covid patients at our hospital are not vaccinated. And yes, I'm sure the vaccine can kill people, but so can many other drugs you wouldn't hesitate to take. Pay attention next time they list the possible side effects in a commercial for a medication, and you'll be surprised to hear how many times death is one of them. It's a chance you take with just about any medication, and considering the huge amounts of vaccine that has been administered now I'm not surprised to see scattered reports of adverse reactions. Administer the same amounts of, let's say penicillin or Viagra, and you'll probably see many more deaths than from the vaccine.

And again, they have not had any success with ivermectin at our hospital, whatever some report may say. I guess the reality here is different than on the internet.
It wasn’t directed at you. But I do agree that the new strain and it’s mixed results


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
It's everyone's choice how to evaluate facts. I find it pretty astonishing that one could do as you are with the facts at hand (if you have actually checked them vs glossed over them or just chosen to reject), but for sure it is your prerogative.

An area with 240 million plus people introduces comprehensive ivermectin (plus Vitamin D, etc) use and within 8 weeks drops from over 300,000 cases to only 22 cases, and now zero cases; vs, where your wife works, they didn't think it worked. You figure that's the better evidence. Perhaps some others will too.

As to your idea that other parts of the world are "the Internet" as opposed to also being reality, I have no idea, but it's obviously you're right as well to dismiss actual outcomes all around the world in favor of whatever you prefer.

Any who like may decide for themselves which of the two of us is bringing more, and more supported, facts to the table.

Administer the same amounts of, let's say penicillin or Viagra, and you'll probably see many more deaths than from the vaccine.
"Probably"?

You know, a thing about facts is that they are provable or disprovable, and it's a good thing before making an argument to see if they are true or not.

Would you care to bet on your fact-free theories that fewer doses have been given of those drugs than the clot shot and that they have caused as many deaths, let alone many more deaths?

I see you think that vaccine deaths are "scattered" but that's a rather broad use of the word. Very dismissive of a lot of dead people, including a lot of dead young people who were at essentially zero risk of Covid in the first place. How many do you consider to be merely "scattered" deaths? Is it scattered at say 40,000 US plus EU? What if it gets to or is 100,000? It's kind of an imprecise word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prototype Services

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
It's everyone's choice how to evaluate facts. I find it pretty astonishing that one could do as you are with the facts at hand (if you have actually checked them vs glossed over them or just chosen to reject), but for sure it is your prerogative.
You can find reports that will prove or disprove anything that has been said about covid, and for every report you'll find one that contradicts it. So like I said: I don't even bother to read any of it anymore. We can sit here and throw internet info at each other all day long without getting anywhere, my choice will still be to believe in what's actually happening right here and now. You can disregard it if you want to, but first hand reports from our hospital are definitely not anecdotal to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
If you did not and do not wish to read any evidence posted, yet for some reason read the thread and wanted to respond, and simply have your mind made up already based on quite extremely limited info, then I was unrealistic assuming you might have been engaged in open minded discussion. Since you have that much disinterest in anything but the very limited info you already have, there's no real point then to my responding to any further of your replies on this particular topic. I do appreciate your making it clear that actually you're not interested in anything that has been or can be presented as I hadn't understood that, I would have responded differently earlier (probably, just no response) had I known.

That said, myself I find it astounding that the controlled media can succeed in being so silent on a population 2/3 the size of the US having Covid essentially wiped out in 8 weeks with simple, cheap treatment. I understand why they are silent on it, I'm just astounded that their control is so great that they succeed in it and succeed in programming people to accept nothing but their dictat.

Or, back to the original topic, that they have managed to be so silent on all the many countries that are doing quite well on Covid while doing the exact opposite of what the "healthcare" industry and the Western governments say they should, and of course not having to spend any money to mention on it. One would think something as huge as that would break through, but it doesn't. They really have quite the grip.

Then again, "The President's head moved violently forward."

Nothing new. The media sells it, and you live the role (Not directed at any particular person.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prototype Services

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,673 Posts
There is no evidence to support this claim. anecdotal evidence is not based on science but on faith and word of mouth. You have no actual truth to back that up; further more The vaccine has been touted only by conservatives as some “cure” when reality it was meant to avoid a virus in its worst symptoms, this is why liberal media failed to mention on the scientific terminology and definition of the word vaccine. Just because you read an article on the internet, doesn’t mean it’s true. India, Russia and our country are prime examples of misinformation killing more people then the vaccine ever can. The actual numbers are not being counted correctly by simpletons who only education is a basic 5th grade level of understanding. You have to take in the account of many vaccinated people who actually lived compared to those who are not vaccinated that as well lived but by some scientific procedure, wether it be lung transplant or stem cell therapy. I’ve yet to “suffer” from the vaccine side effects”. If they were, I would not be able to type this to you, If you actually look into the vaccine, you would know you and many others have been wrong all along and have been piggy back riding on politics, and not science at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't suffer fools, and fortunately for me there is a solution to idiots. Anyone want to guess how many IP addresses he was using? Also, lets see how fast a "new" member, or member who has been around for months/years with a low post count jumps into this thread.
Shills gonna shill I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
If you did not bother to read any evidence posted and have no interest in doing so, yet for some reason read the thread and wanted to respond, but simply have your mind made up already based on quite extremely limited info, then I was unrealistic assuming you might have been engaged in open minded actual discussion. Little point then to my responding to any further of your replies on this particular topic.
If you think of yourself as open minded, there's no need to belittle me because I don't agree with you. I have been involved in many scientific studies (mostly in engineering), and source criticisms is one of the most important steps. As a matter of fact, a scientific report will never pass peer review without source criticism. If you think Lew Rockwell speaketh the absolute truth, you're free to think so. However, the web site seems to specialize in "uncovering" one conspiracy after another so I have a hard time seeing it as an authority in the medical field. I'm sorry if you don't see criticism of your particular source as part of a fruitful discussion, but I firmly believe that any source should be criticized (myself included).

So once again: I can hit Google and find "evidence" that disprove the "evidence" on Lew Rockwell's web site, but it's a rabbit hole that's not worth going into. What I'm trying to convey is that there is too much contradicting information on the internet, and the closer you are to the source, the better information you will have. I know that my information is limited, but I also know that it's true. You may want to speak to a few doctors and nurses that actually work with covid patients and see what they have to say about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
By the way, how many times are you going to edit your previous posts? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
Now you have another complaint? I see typos or poor wording and I fix them.

For a guy who's made clear he isn't interested in anything on this topic besides what he already has and is satisfied with, you sure keep coming back to a thread about results in different countres using ivermectin and having low vaccine use vs higher vaccine use but not ivermectin, and what happens in countries or areas with very high or approaching 100% vaccination rate. While having nothing substantive to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your just naming it "Internet" is substantive. That's a puzzler as to why you're drawn while having the view "I don't even bother to read any of it anymore" regarding Covid information from around the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
Now you have another complaint? I see typos or poor wording and I fix them.

For a guy who isn't interested in anything on this topic besides what he already "knows and is satisfied with, you sure keep coming back to a thread about results in different countres using ivermectin but low vaccine vs higher vaccine but not ivermectin. That's a puzzler, but, whatever.
Jeez man... Quoting a post saves it for posterity, so it's very obvious to everybody that you're not just "fixing typos and poor wording".

If you think people who don't wholeheartedly agree with you are "complaining" you need to grow a thicker skin, and you should certainly not start threads about controversial topics and expect to see people nodding and patting your back. And yes, I'm very interested in this topic since my family has to live with it every day. Just trying to encourage you to not cling on to every conspiracy theory you read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Yes, you were complaining re edits, you're still complaining on nothing. And yes, 90 percent probably of my edits are typos or poor wording. If one counts failure to include some of what I wanted to say, not getting the meaning I intended across, or see it can be read as different tone or implication than I intended as poor wording then it pushes near 100 percent. But that's irrelevant and it's absurd I'm being expected to respond to such a point. "Waaah, I'm losing bad on facts so now I'll just start complaining on whatever." Pathetic.

Dude. I don't know you. I had assumed before it was only this topic that you were a waste of time on and so didn't want to deal with you further. But given your absurd further complaining, and still absolutely zero substantive contribution to this thread except for admitting you don't even read information, I have to put you on Ignore. Don't know what your problem is, but there's obviously one.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top