10-05-2021, 04:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2021, 04:45 PM by luka_skywalker_77.)
The problem is you think the vaccine is the best option.
It isn't. Pre treatment is the best option. And thankfully, enough lives have been saved via IVM that there are many doctors out there able to prescribe it.
IVM is the cheapest option. Monoclonals are another option. The vaccine is the most expensive option and the new drug they are coming out with soon as a prophylaxes, will also be expensive. Problem you us is the first level options aren't profitable. This is about money for big pharma. It's about power and control for politicians. And for us in the dark: it's about doing whatever we need to do to get back to playing angry birds.
So far what i see is this: the highest level of stringency is being applied to drugs and medications that have been around for decades and are overwhelmingly safe (and currently used). According to you, these HAVE to be throuhgouly tested, to the point of absurdity, for them to even be considered for off label use--and that sounds normal to you?
What we have injected--by all metrics--is an experimental vaccine (therapy). I say that because it is no longitudinal studies that show efficacy and safety. We just have to trust it, to inject it into kids, pregnant women and anyone else without pause or concern for if that's even necessary. There's no conversation of natural immunity, which brings all of this in question.
So you cant simply say on one hand, we are going to remove any roadblocks for big pharma to create a vaccine out of thin air, using a tech that has never brought product to market, while scrutinizing the hell out of safe drugs that have shown efficacy.
Your concern, is the effect of the pandemic on the hospitals--which is somewhat valid but fairly overblown. It always has been. Let's get to 100% vaccine uptake.
Now where are we?
There will still be cases. There will still be deaths. We will HAVE to be vaccinated 2-3 times a year at an astronomical cost and society will fracture along the lines of vaccinated/unvaccinated.
Then, apartheid will occur.
So what you're asking for isn't an end to the pandemic because your solution doesn't solve that problem. There will always be cases and hospitalizations for covid. And as the efficacy of this vaccine wanes, which will happen each year, escape mutants will create stronger and stronger versions (and this doesn't even take ADE into account).
It's just compliance. Compliance for more test subjects.
But you were right: "Too many examples of big pharma trying to promote their product. Ignoring potential risks or actively hiding them. Both examples lead to numerous law suits."
... because the first thing they did was to remove themselves from liability in regards to the covid vaccines. Snakes don't change: they just shed their skins.
I posted plenty like that. You just didn't care to look through the material I posted. Which is okay, but don't claim that I am posting biased material when yours is exclusively that. I'll post a link to all the studies again: https://c19ivermectin.com/. Many of the studies are found in both places.
My question is why do you care if doctors prescribe a medication to treat their patients the doctor apparently feels (based on his practice of prescribing it), works for them. What kind of power trip is that?
It isn't. Pre treatment is the best option. And thankfully, enough lives have been saved via IVM that there are many doctors out there able to prescribe it.
IVM is the cheapest option. Monoclonals are another option. The vaccine is the most expensive option and the new drug they are coming out with soon as a prophylaxes, will also be expensive. Problem you us is the first level options aren't profitable. This is about money for big pharma. It's about power and control for politicians. And for us in the dark: it's about doing whatever we need to do to get back to playing angry birds.
So far what i see is this: the highest level of stringency is being applied to drugs and medications that have been around for decades and are overwhelmingly safe (and currently used). According to you, these HAVE to be throuhgouly tested, to the point of absurdity, for them to even be considered for off label use--and that sounds normal to you?
What we have injected--by all metrics--is an experimental vaccine (therapy). I say that because it is no longitudinal studies that show efficacy and safety. We just have to trust it, to inject it into kids, pregnant women and anyone else without pause or concern for if that's even necessary. There's no conversation of natural immunity, which brings all of this in question.
So you cant simply say on one hand, we are going to remove any roadblocks for big pharma to create a vaccine out of thin air, using a tech that has never brought product to market, while scrutinizing the hell out of safe drugs that have shown efficacy.
Your concern, is the effect of the pandemic on the hospitals--which is somewhat valid but fairly overblown. It always has been. Let's get to 100% vaccine uptake.
Now where are we?
There will still be cases. There will still be deaths. We will HAVE to be vaccinated 2-3 times a year at an astronomical cost and society will fracture along the lines of vaccinated/unvaccinated.
Then, apartheid will occur.
So what you're asking for isn't an end to the pandemic because your solution doesn't solve that problem. There will always be cases and hospitalizations for covid. And as the efficacy of this vaccine wanes, which will happen each year, escape mutants will create stronger and stronger versions (and this doesn't even take ADE into account).
It's just compliance. Compliance for more test subjects.
But you were right: "Too many examples of big pharma trying to promote their product. Ignoring potential risks or actively hiding them. Both examples lead to numerous law suits."
... because the first thing they did was to remove themselves from liability in regards to the covid vaccines. Snakes don't change: they just shed their skins.
(10-05-2021, 03:03 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Another good database. Make sure to look through all available Ivermectin research. Not just the one that supports your opinion.
I posted plenty like that. You just didn't care to look through the material I posted. Which is okay, but don't claim that I am posting biased material when yours is exclusively that. I'll post a link to all the studies again: https://c19ivermectin.com/. Many of the studies are found in both places.
My question is why do you care if doctors prescribe a medication to treat their patients the doctor apparently feels (based on his practice of prescribing it), works for them. What kind of power trip is that?