Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[luka_skywalker_77]

So that´s the logic you want to use. Make claims. Don´t provide any evidence for them. Ask others to do the work and expose them. I will go into detail on the one claim that bothers me the most and might be the most dangerous. Most of them aren´t even worth the time and are easy to refute. This one is at least interesting.

Ivermectin works and is proven to work. Limiting Doctors from prescribing it is allowing more people to die when they don't have to. It's their JOB to prescribe the best medication for the task, and that shouldn't be up to the gov't or some pharmacists to determine. If you want to talk about experts, you have no discussion here.

Mindblowing. You are complaining about the lack of research and longterm studies when it comes to vaccines but are supporting the use of Ivermectin. In case of the latter we have less research, studies and data. With no clear results. Looking at the latest studies the trend is not looking good. As of now the evidence does not support the use of Ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID infections. Obviously still need more data. The only thing that was proven in australian and japanese labs is the effect of a toxic dosis of Ivermectin in vitro.
But it gets even better. You complained about the flawed peer review system and scientific process. It seems like it is doing the job just fine in this case. The Lancet had to retract a pre print (not peer reviewed) of a study that suggested a positive impact of Ivermectin. The analysis company (Surgisphere) refused to allow independent researchers to verify the data and violated patient data laws in multiple countries.

Now the worst part. And for that I am going to quote the FDA. "You are not a horse". Poison control centers around the country are reporting a large uptick in calls about Ivermectin poisoning. People are taking livestock dewormers that have a way higher (potential toxic) dosis of Ivermectin. Even if future studies negate the current data and support the use of Ivermectin those products aren´t an option.

I also understand that a lot of people are in a desperate situation. Drug costs in the US are a big problem. Treatments should be available/affordable for all people. But taking unapproved drugs or even worse animal drugs is not the solution.

For people that want to do their own research:

Review of nearly all ongoing studies
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi....pub2/full

Links to individual studies
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resul...rch=Search

1. Sorry, I posted a link to over 100 studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin. https://c19ivermectin.com/. I didn't leave you without breadcrumbs. Each of those describe specific cases of IVM usage and its efficacy from scientists/doctors etc. It's being used throughout the country to treat covid effectively. 

“An antiviral drug would be useful in limiting the severity of disease in people who are not vaccinated or contract a variant not covered by a particular vaccine.” Josh Bloom, Ph.D
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/07/cou...d-19-15646

2. Second, Ivermectin has been used in humans for decades. Guess I was lying there. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/. Want to keep calling it horse de-wormer? Go ahead. it's your credibility you're attacking. Calling it such without realizing the full spectrum of uses for it only shows how limited your knowledge of it is--and I'm not claiming to be a IVM but I'd stop calling it something it isn't. This is where you're wrong. 

More studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

In short, medicines are repurposed/used off label every second of every day. IVM use is no different. Why would you be upset over doctors treating their patients off label with medications that actually work and are cheap? It's none of your business? If people go out and take the wrong medications because they chose to thin the heard personally, not anyone's problem. Kids have been eating tide pods for months before common sense clicked in. In any case, it's an option worth considering seriously and one that should be left to the discretion of the patient and the doctor, EOS. No one is saying it's a silver bullet, but for a demonstrably safe drug that's been used for decades, everyone has the right to pursue options that work. The only issue the FDA has, is that they fear people would avoid the vaccine and self treat--which is also why the gov't limited the use of monoclonal antibodies in red states ...

And by the way: "Although the FDA approves all prescription drugs sold in the United States, the agency can't limit how doctors prescribe drugs after they're on the market. Doctors often direct patients to take medications for conditions that have not been approved by the FDA. This is called off-label drug use."

As shown, there's plenty of reason to believe it's use is effective but the FDA isn’t just not-approving, it’s aggressively disapproving, and its acting head has said there is “no evidence” of ivermectin’s efficacy. This is extremist behavior.  It’s saying that ivermectin should not be prescribed, but only be used in clinical trials (oh and the Cochrane library isn't a source I'd be posting considering how iffy their research is). I find it hilarious that the use of a drug off label requires such high standards, when all standards were inexplicably removed/modified to push through this "vaccine".