Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mikel2 said:

Louisiana has also restricted Ivermectin.

I've found this, with date of September 14th: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_92dad212-157d-11ec-b09e-43174cb31478.html

I could not find anything beyond recommendations to not use Ivermectin by the Louisiana Department of Health. I mean I would not surprise me that they banned Ivermectin in LA, only that I could not find that.

Edited to add:

A comparison between the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh and the whole of the USA
 

Quote

Let us look at the burgundy-colored graph of Uttar Pradesh. First, allow me to thank Juan Chamie, a highly-respected Cambridge-based data analyst, who created this graph from the JHU CSSE data. Uttar Pradesh is a state in India that contains 241 million people. The United States’ population is 331 million people. Therefore, Uttar Pradesh can be compared to the United States, with 2/3 of our population size.

This data shows how Ivermectin knocked their COVID-19 cases and deaths - which we know were Delta Variant - down to almost zero within weeks. A population comparable to the US went from about 35,000 cases and 350 deaths per day to nearly ZERO within weeks of adding Ivermectin to their protocol.

By comparison, the United States is the lower graph. On August 5, here in the good ol’ USA, blessed with the glorious vaccines, we have 127,108 new cases per day and 574 new deaths. 

Let us look at the August 5 numbers from Uttar Pradesh with 2/3 of our population. Uttar Pradesh, using Ivermectin, had a total of 26 new cases and exactly THREE deaths. The US without Ivermectin has precisely 4889 times as many daily cases and 191 times as many deaths as Uttar Pradesh with Ivermectin.

It is not even close. Countries do orders of magnitude better WITH Ivermectin. It might be comparable to the difference in travel between using an automobile versus a horse and buggy.

 

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

38 minutes ago, Mikel2 said:

Yes, I was reading about that just now.  

If effective therapeutics have been purposely kept from being used, I hope there are consequences for those people, in this world and the next.

Never happen because the foundational practice theory of medicine has changed over the last 30 years or so.  Today everything must be validated by some over-group (FDA, AMA, NIH, etc) to be brought into the patient.  Otherwise the liability risks are enormous but also physicians trained during that period have no been trained in the observe/treat/gauge/reassess model.  In a situation like this there is simply no adequate time to get appropriate data to reach a firm conclusion and, as long as the jury is still metaphorically out, there is no over-arching approval to provide guidance to the physician.  You can brute force it like the vaccines but nobody was going to spend vaccine development money without profit guarantees; you don't go from a 1.5 billion dollar investment spread over 7-10 years to a 3.7-5.5 (speed costs) billion investment concentrated in one year unless you are guaranteed to recoup the cost which isn't happening.  The monoclonal antibody treatments squeaked through because they were already running large clinical trials and it was fairly easy to simply expand the sample analysis to cover Covid as well.  Minimal additional funds for the possibility of significant profits.  

Because of the profit motive (and be fair, a company can't risk it's entire future and workforce on a whim and a prayer) cheap and simple drugs are simply a no-go.  Physicians could use them for off label but they are no longer trained to approach medicine from an experimental perspective and their liability risk is huge if they do.   Which is sad, because we won't know for 2-3 more years definitively if Ivermectin or whatever actually worked and we have reframed the medical community to not risk using anything until those assurances are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, nitflegal said:

(...)

Because of the profit motive (and be fair, a company can't risk it's entire future and workforce on a whim and a prayer) cheap and simple drugs are simply a no-go.  Physicians could use them for off label but they are no longer trained to approach medicine from an experimental perspective and their liability risk is huge if they do.   Which is sad, because we won't know for 2-3 more years definitively if Ivermectin or whatever actually worked and we have reframed the medical community to not risk using anything until those assurances are there.

Agree on the need of a guaranteed profit in order to do a Hail Mary of quick, and expensive, vaccine -or the like- research. The exemption of liability also looks necessary, all in absence of other available, proved treatments.

Still, as a private citizen, it does not look very unreasonable to start taking Ivermectin as a prophylactic according to the Indian procedure, as it is a quite safe drug, and there are studies that show it helps with kung-flu. It is very, very unfortunate that doctors are not allowed to write prescriptions for it in a number of countries.

My country Spain is among those countries, and all the political parties share the same vision about the only solution being a vaccine.

41 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Do you think Big Pharma designed the virus to have a cure that costs practically nothing and is available word wide?

I find difficult to believe any corporation would wage a biological war against the entire world. We are not dealing with fiction supervillains here, or at least I hope so.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

 

Agree on the need of a guaranteed profit in order to do a Hail Mary of quick, and expensive, vaccine -or the like- research. The exemption of liability also looks necessary, all in absence of other available, proved treatments.

Still, as a private citizen, it does not look very unreasonable to start taking Ivermectin as a prophylactic according to the Indian procedure, as it is a quite safe drug, and there are studies that show it helps with kung-flu. It is very, very unfortunate that doctors are not allowed to write prescriptions for it in a number of countries.

I find difficult to believe any corporation would wage a biological war against the entire world. We are not dealing with fiction supervillains here, or at least I hope so.

It is totally reasonable from a patient perspective.  It is fraught with risk as the prescriber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nitflegal said:

It is totally reasonable from a patient perspective.  It is fraught with risk as the prescriber.

Will we arrive to a situation in which we would be able to buy "therapeutic marihuana", but not Ivermectin?

That would be very ironic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nitflegal said:

It is totally reasonable from a patient perspective.  It is fraught with risk as the prescriber.

Only in the US, In the Socialist Union of Europe, other rules apply. Sunday will understand this, others may googletranslate if they want

https://www.aemps.gob.es/la-aemps/ultima-informacion-de-la-aemps-acerca-del-covid‑19/tratamientos-disponibles-para-el-manejo-de-la-infeccion-respiratoria-por-sars-cov-2/

Re Ivermectin, sometimes there's no conspiracy, just that no one bothers: 

"Ivermectin medicines are not authorised for use in COVID-19 in the EU, and EMA has not received any application for such use.1

...

1 Czechia and Slovakia, have allowed the temporary use of the medicine for COVID-19 within the remit of their national legislation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sunday said:

 

I find difficult to believe any corporation would wage a biological war against the entire world. We are not dealing with fiction supervillains here, or at least I hope so.

Not any but all. The virus is the perfect tool to make more money and make people (or better sheeple) give up their freedom and subject themselves to government control. China would like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

Not any but all. The virus is the perfect tool to make more money and make people (or better sheeple) give up their freedom and subject themselves to government control. China would like this. 

After the global warming swindle, I could understand how you could arrive to that hypothesis, but still, I absolutely disagree - I will need way more proof, of the very in-your-face kind, to accept that.

Currently, most of what is happening could be explained by the usual corporate will to survive, turned into desperation in the case of the big pharma that have spent a lot researching covid vaccines, and the usual incompetence of politicos worldwide. Corruption in organizations like WHO, and FDA, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, sunday said:

I find difficult to believe any corporation would wage a biological war against the entire world. We are not dealing with fiction supervillains here, or at least I hope so.

Considering Johnson and Johnson knew that their talcum powder had asbestos contamination as early as 1971 and failed to increase quality control.....

When this lawsuit came out I was very skeptical. There was the assertion that the Talc was causing cancer. Well, it wasn't the Talc, it was asbestos in the talc. Knowing that minerals can have mixes of other materials in them when mined is a key thing. There's gypsum that has too much uranium in it that can't be used for anything normally. That's why Central Florida's bone valley has gypsum stacks sitting around in the phosphate mining areas. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, sunday said:

After the global warming swindle, I could understand how you could arrive to that hypothesis, but still, I absolutely disagree - I will need way more proof, of the very in-your-face kind, to accept that.

Currently, most of what is happening could be explained by the usual corporate will to survive, turned into desperation in the case of the big pharma that have spent a lot researching covid vaccines, and the usual incompetence of politicos worldwide. Corruption in organizations like WHO, and FDA, also.

Global warming, a stolen election, social media companies trying to control the freedom of speech, the big media distributing fake news and openly lying - if you look at this does a a designed virus still look so impossible? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nitflegal said:

It is totally reasonable from a patient perspective.  It is fraught with risk as the prescriber.

Not necessarily for COVID, but in general one might wonder if medical tourism is going to expand to include infectious disease treatment.

One might also wonder if we are headed to a situation harking back to the 1970s where people break into pharmacies. This time for off-label anvirals rather than recreationals.

Heck, I was looking into driving down to Mexico to pick up some IVM at a pharmacy just in case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sunday said:

Will we arrive to a situation in which we would be able to buy "therapeutic marihuana", but not Ivermectin?

That would be very ironic.

I expect the states where MJ has been legalized at the state level will eventually outlaw HCQ, Ivermectin etc for humans AND animals.

Control people's health care and you control the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2021 at 4:22 PM, rmgill said:

Well, it's about one having one's own decision making. Do you sit around waiting for other people to tell you what to do? It's storming outside, who do you call to ask permission to leave the house? 

You prefer a system where a scientist class makes decisions for you?

Personally, having grown up in an aviation family, I have some idea of what to look for. I've preflighted an airplane, a Mooney in fact and I know the gross things to look for. Water in the fuel for example. I can read paperwork and look for basic engine issues and structure and mechanical. So, I'd probably be pretty good to preflight anything around a Cessna and below. Piston engines are piston engines, radios are radios, linkages are linkages, etc. 

A lot of people figure things won't happen to them. But then a lot of people get cancer for reasons that are inexplicable. Part of that is the various environmental things that we don't really have awareness of. 

Yes I can make my own decisions and I also think that you should, what I'm saying is that I'd be darned if I can make a reasonable risk assessment of how bad a covid infection would hit me.

Example, I took a road trip to meet up with a couple of people to the south of Sweden this summer, hoping that people would be smart enough to stay at home if they were ill, which we didn't have to worry about since no one was ill. The other day I took the commuter train from the office and two idiots were coughing their lungs out a bit away on the train.
Then and there I was wondering what they had and if I would get it and if I did how bad would it be. No idea and I sort of thought that taking the train wouldn't be THAT much of an issue rather than being in a crowded pub.

Do I prefer scientists making my decisions, well holding a master I sort of fit into that box I suppose and to some extent I prefer to listening to doctors (MD type) for health related issues, yes. Making the decision, perhaps not so much but the advice is taken.

Example is that I had a bit of pulmonary embolism the other year and I got a clean bill of health afterwards, no restrictions. After talking to a friend who is an MD, he told me that I should REALLY consider quit diving which hadn't even crossed my mind but after some thought I started investigating how I should get a checkup, which wasn't obvious mind you... After a lung CT the aerospace/diving doctor told me that he didn't have the authority to rip my license since I didn't have a professional license but since I had scar tissue in my lungs the risk of getting air trapped at depth which would expand on ascent I could get serious injury.

So, I got a motorcycle license instead :)

/R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

Not necessarily for COVID, but in general one might wonder if medical tourism is going to expand to include infectious disease treatment.

One might also wonder if we are headed to a situation harking back to the 1970s where people break into pharmacies. This time for off-label anvirals rather than recreationals.

Heck, I was looking into driving down to Mexico to pick up some IVM at a pharmacy just in case.

 

Well, this is in part why folks are snagging equine treatment products instead of human rated stuff. It requires a bit of math to figure out dosage but that's not hard. Medicine used to need that as a matter of routine when all pharmacies were compounding. 

I guess it's just the sort of thing to throw the microwave dinner, amazon order easy crowd that can't do anything but click on buttons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

Not necessarily for COVID, but in general one might wonder if medical tourism is going to expand to include infectious disease treatment.

One might also wonder if we are headed to a situation harking back to the 1970s where people break into pharmacies. This time for off-label anvirals rather than recreationals.

Heck, I was looking into driving down to Mexico to pick up some IVM at a pharmacy just in case.

 

It's already happened.  There are numerous reports of people going to central and south America for treatment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rickard N said:

Yes I can make my own decisions and I also think that you should, what I'm saying is that I'd be darned if I can make a reasonable risk assessment of how bad a covid infection would hit me.

That is itself part of your own risk assessment. Just as you can decide which experts you're going to follow by your own nose as told, others can make their own evaluations of various factors and judge for themselves. 

I went back to work last April after performing my own risk assessment. I had something like light COVID in June or so and no problems since. As things were firming up, I actually had decided that I wanted to get a light exposure to get my illness out of the way when I was in better shape physically and nutritionally rather than on top of something else that might arise later. 

Freedom is great. You can hide in your house under your bed, I can choose to go out of doors, go back to work and live my life. I'm not stopping you, you don't get to stop me. 
 

10 minutes ago, Rickard N said:

Example, I took a road trip to meet up with a couple of people to the south of Sweden this summer, hoping that people would be smart enough to stay at home if they were ill, which we didn't have to worry about since no one was ill. The other day I took the commuter train from the office and two idiots were coughing their lungs out a bit away on the train.

Sorry, you're making your own risk assessment? 
 

10 minutes ago, Rickard N said:

 

Example is that I had a bit of pulmonary embolism the other year and I got a clean bill of health afterwards, no restrictions. After talking to a friend who is an MD, he told me that I should REALLY consider quit diving which hadn't even crossed my mind but after some thought I started investigating how I should get a checkup, which wasn't obvious mind you...

You had one MD give you a clean bill of health. You had another MD giver you a different response. What do you do? You go for more information and make your own decision. See, that's not so hard. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, seahawk said:

Global warming, a stolen election, social media companies trying to control the freedom of speech, the big media distributing fake news and openly lying - if you look at this does a a designed virus still look so impossible? 

A designed virus weaponized by a pharma company and set free in the open, yes, quite impossible.

A designed virus weaponized by a state actor, and accidentally released or not, does not look so impossible.

The global warming swindle has a long story, and the other aspects could be conflated together because the relationships with the stealing of the election. The virus was not needed to stole the election, as most of the mechanisms were already in place in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about the accidental release by incompetent buffoons in China precludes the left and large organizations in the west using the disaster as an opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

I expect the states where MJ has been legalized at the state level will eventually outlaw HCQ, Ivermectin etc for humans AND animals.

Control people's health care and you control the people.

Of course Australia had to restrict the use of Ivermectin.

Dr. Campbell does not look amused.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...