covid Why Did It Take So Long to Accept the Facts About Covid?

[Rowan Amore]

Because...

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Everything in your post has been thoroughly debunked over and over and over.

That part of the discussion is long dead, bringing it up again doesn't change anything.

Disagreeing is not debunking. The evidence keeps rolling in that there are off patent treatments that will help Covid sufferers from getting worse if treatment is started early enough. I really do not get why you have such a problem with a treatment for Covid especially as some recent studies are showing it may help with long covid even which your vaccines won't.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Disagreeing is not debunking. The evidence keeps rolling in that there are off patent treatments that will help Covid sufferers from getting worse if treatment is started early enough. I really do not get why you have such a problem with a treatment for Covid especially as some recent studies are showing it may help with long covid even which your vaccines won't.

Vaccines stop a person from developing a systemic covid infection, this prevents long covid.

A vaccine is not a treatment for someone who has covid, although it can help prevent reinfection and extend immunity.

There have been 178 million cases and 3.8 million deaths, the bulk of which occurred prior to vaccinations when doctors were throwing every off patient treatment they could dream up at the problem in a futile attempt to save lives. It all failed. Vaccinations are the only viable solution.

This is beyond all doubt.

[Innula Zenovka]

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The evidence keeps rolling in that there are off patent treatments that will help Covid sufferers

Here's a survey, in the British Medical Journal of 7 May 2021 listing the research so far, along with what works in which specific circumstances:  Where are we with drug treatments for covid-19?

That's where we are at the moment, at least in the UK, with treatments that British doctors are comfortable with/don't think works.

 

 

[Rowan Amore]

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-drugs/faq-20485627

Antiviral drugs. In addition to remdesivir, other antiviral drugs being tested include favipiravir and merimepodib. Studies have found that the combination of lopinavir and ritonavir isn't effective.

Drugs being studied that have uncertain effectiveness. Researchers study amlodipine and losartan. But it's not yet known how effective these drugs may be in treating or preventing COVID-19. Ivermectin and famotidine aren't likely to be beneficial in treating COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. These malaria drugs were authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the FDA withdrew that authorization when data analysis showed that the drugs are not effective for treating COVID-19. They can also cause serious heart problems.

 

Are these the treatments you mean?

[Finite]

Personally, I like ginger tea as a cure  of the everything. Just chop some ginger root nice and thin. Heat up some water and keep tossing in the ginger 'til you get the taste you like. Pour in a cup and mix in some honey. This will cure everything. 

I also heard about this pillow that will cure everything if consumed. But haven't tried it yet.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Finite

[Coffee Pancake]

Do I rub myself down with Zinc before or after drinking it ?

[Finite]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Do I rub myself down with Zinc before or after drinking it ?

You should watch a docu-movie about the first emperor of China and liquid mercury. He thought death was an illness and mercury was the cure.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Finite

[Chris Corvinus]

7 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

I had chickenpox as a child before vaccinations were available, thanks to a well meaning parent who decided it was best to just get it out of the way over a summer holiday (oblivious to the fact it can kick off bacterial infections, pneumonia, sepsis and actual death). That virus lives in me now for the rest of my life.

I got the chickenpox TWICE as a kid....before vaccines....I've been perfectly healthy and rarely get sick. Don't think i've ever gotten the vaccine for that

It really depends on the person. 

[Qie Niangao]

55 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The only long term effect of asymptomatic Covid-19 seems to be the long Covid which is treatable from what I have been reading whereas the myocarditis that some are prone to after receiving the vaccine, can permanently damage the heart and make one prone to heart failure, heart attacks, strokes or arrhythmias. Already there have been 300 reported events of that and it is commonly accepted that the reporting system only sees a 1% representation of the actual. Considering that males are the most susceptible and also the most likely to not report it, that is probably conservative so we are looking at at least 3000 cases of varying degrees of myocarditis alone.

75% is a reasonable figure for an emergency use vaccine that has had no long term testing.

 

incidence of long COVID is still orders of magnitude greater than possible linkage to myocarditis.

Also GFY:

 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Qie Niangao

[Arielle Popstar]

12 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Vaccinations are the only viable solution.

This is beyond all doubt.

Quite a few studies point out that it is not beyond all doubt. But you knew that.

12 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-drugs/faq-20485627

 Ivermectin and famotidine aren't likely to be beneficial in treating COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. These malaria drugs were authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the FDA withdrew that authorization when data analysis showed that the drugs are not effective for treating COVID-19. They can also cause serious heart problems.

 

Are these the treatments you mean?

I love when they use weasel words so they don't paint themselves into a corner though in this case a little stronger then most when they say: "aren't likely to be beneficial".

I do reference Mayo Clinic for most other things but in this case with Ivermectin they are sticking to be politically correct with the FDA even though the NIH not recommending for or against and has a better explanation for their stance though by now in light of new studies, it needs updating again.:

"Recommendation

There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."

12 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Here's a survey, in the British Medical Journal of 7 May 2021 listing the research so far, along with what works in which specific circumstances:  Where are we with drug treatments for covid-19?

That's where we are at the moment, at least in the UK, with treatments that British doctors are comfortable with/don't think works.

Interesting that there is no mention of Ivermectin in that paper. The omission is conspicuous.

Several sources who have had dealings with the different vaccine manufacturers and Bill Gates, have mentioned that they were required to not recommend any treatment options in their guidelines with India being the latest. It is not surprising really from Big Pharma's past history as people would likely pass on the vaccine if there is a known treatment option instead.

 

[Coffee Pancake]

There has been no mention of jagermeister either but no one is convinced it's all a plot by big vodka.

[Finite]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

Short: No you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent covid.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

Short: Yes invermectin can treat covid but only at doses 100 times that of what is recommended for human intake.

 

Comparison: Oxygen is good for humies. But it is poisonous at high levels. (And also flammable). Oxygen is also part of the reason we age as it harms fats, protein and DNA.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Finite

[Innula Zenovka]

55 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Interesting that there is no mention of Ivermectin in that paper. The omission is conspicuous.

Oh, but there is most certainly a mention of Ivermectin there, in a footnote  to this paragraph:

Quote

Physicians and patients around the world are currently discussing the potential value of many other drug and treatment options, but the evidence for most remains thin and often anecdotal, so many have not progressed to major national or international treatment trials.

and the footnote:

Quote

1. Wadvalla BA

. Covid-19: Ivermectin’s politicisation is a warning sign for doctors turning to orphan treatments. BMJ2021;373:n747. doi:10.1136/bmj.n747 pmid:33795225

FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Innula Zenovka

[Flook Somerset]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I love when they use weasel words so they don't paint themselves into a corner though in this case a little stronger then most when they say: "aren't likely to be beneficial".

It means there is inadequate evidence to support it as a treatment but it can't be categorically ruled out as ineffective. There's nothing weasel-worded about it; small clinical trials are not going to give you yes/no answers. You were asking for long-term studies on the vaccines; that is what would be required to be determined if ivermectin could adequately treat Covid-19. That it is cleared for use as anti-parasitic drug is not going to make it effective against a virus or mean that it is safe when taken at substantially larger doses. It comes with its own adverse reactions; people are harmed or even die when it is routinely used. 

When something is touted as a cheap and near miraculous cure it's wise to determine the motives of those originally touting it. Like a number of other existing drugs, ivermectin was being tried out of desperation in treating Covid=19, not because it was known to be effective. The evidence that initially supported its use was retracted; the company was more intent on selling access to its database & algorithms than accurate results, i.e., making money. You provided a link to a list of dubious medicines; some were genuinely believed useful at the time based on limited information and understanding of how they worked and there is a fair chance of ivermectin for Covid-19 joining a future list. 

[Flook Somerset]

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Interesting that there is no mention of Ivermectin in that paper. The omission is conspicuous.

"Physicians and patients around the world are currently discussing the potential value of many other drug and treatment options, but the evidence for most remains thin and often anecdotal, so many have not progressed to major national or international treatment trials."

References an article on Ivermectin. 

[Silent Mistwalker]

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

"Recommendation

There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."

 

Somewhere buried in this thread a few pages back, I posted the exact same quote from the original source and linked the original source. People might want to take a look at that link.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Oh, but there is most certainly a mention of Ivermectin there, in a footnote  to this paragraph:

and the footnote:

Here is the full quote from that link posing a question that has occurred to me also in considering the differences of opinions between front line doctors and the scientists doing the studies:

Covid-19: Ivermectin's politicisation is a warning sign for doctors turning to orphan treatments

BA Wadvalla - bmj, 2021 - bmj.com

The drug ivermectin has divided the medical community in South Africa and elsewhere, with
some arguing it can both prevent and treat covid-19. Bibi-Aisha Wadvalla explains how the
case encapsulates the central argument when it comes to orphan treatments: do doctors or
scientists know best?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Here is the full quote from that link posing a question that has occurred to me also in considering the differences of opinions between front line doctors and the scientists doing the studies:

Covid-19: Ivermectin's politicisation is a warning sign for doctors turning to orphan treatments

BA Wadvalla - bmj, 2021 - bmj.com

The drug ivermectin has divided the medical community in South Africa and elsewhere, with
some arguing it can both prevent and treat covid-19. Bibi-Aisha Wadvalla explains how the
case encapsulates the central argument when it comes to orphan treatments: do doctors or
scientists know best?

 

I really don't see what your point is here.   In the UK the NHS does evidence-based medicine.    This means, among other things, that doctors working in the NHS prescribe medicines and follow particular procedures that have been authorised by the appropriate medical authorities.   

The fact that Ivermectin is not approved for Covid means that there is insufficient evidence, in the form of large-scale double-blind  clinical studies to suggest it has any particular beneficial effect (or that any benefits are outweighed by some greater disadvantages).

 If the evidence changes, then doubtless the guidance will, too.

[Rowan Amore]

40 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Here is the full quote from that link posing a question that has occurred to me also in considering the differences of opinions between front line doctors and the scientists doing the studies:

Covid-19: Ivermectin's politicisation is a warning sign for doctors turning to orphan treatments

BA Wadvalla - bmj, 2021 - bmj.com

The drug ivermectin has divided the medical community in South Africa and elsewhere, with
some arguing it can both prevent and treat covid-19. Bibi-Aisha Wadvalla explains how the
case encapsulates the central argument when it comes to orphan treatments: do doctors or
scientists know best?

 

And from that same article at bmj.com

Smaller randomised control trials are under way or being registered in several countries. A preprint published on 23 February by researchers in Mexico stated: “In non-critical hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine decreases the number of in-hospital days, respiratory deterioration, or deaths.”11 And a small double blind, randomised control trial in Colombia done between July and November 2020 and published in March found that the duration of symptoms was not significantly different compared with the placebo for patients with mild covid-19 symptoms given a five day course of ivermectin at 10 times the recommended dose.12

Salim Rezaie, an emergency medicine physician at Greater San Antonio Emergency Physicians, has analysed several ivermectin studies on his blog Rebel EM.13 His verdict is that the data are still inconclusive.

“We’ve seen lots of poorly done studies initially with other drugs, only to show no mortality benefit when done in better done randomized clinical trials,” he says. “I don’t think physicians have a misunderstanding of the science, but they so badly want a treatment option for a terrible disease it seems we [doctors] continue to do the same thing over and over again.”

[Finite]

I don't see how this article supports invertmectin. It's more about the desperation of the situation in South Africa. It even closes with this. 

On 5 March, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning on the use of veterinary ivermectin. “The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses,” it said in a statement.14

Philipp Rosoff, professor emeritus of paediatrics and medicine at Duke University Medical Centre and School of Medicine in the US, says doctors “are just as susceptible to the availability heuristic as anyone else and use the experience of their ‘n of 1’ one-off ‘experiments’ on a single patient to signify more importance than what their observations might warrant.”

For him, advocating for “the supposed benefits of an unproven therapeutic when the sole justification is the desperation of the situation and the relative “safety” of the drug is inherently dishonest and hence ethically problematic.”

 

It's good practice to read what people link for support. It often times doesn't support their argument and they usually zero or home in on a single sentence or statement which is generally taken out of context.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Finite

[Coffee Pancake]

It's painfully easy to find proactive double blind studies that makes it abundantly clear sheep dip doesn't help with covid. At all. If it did, the results wouldn't be "nothing to report, maybe a bigger study will find something".

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/ivermectin-doesnt-speed-recovery-mild-covid-19-study-shows

 

Vaccines passed their double blind trials with flying colors and are crushing it. There is no doubt here at all. We're not looking at a chart trying to pick out minimal statistical variations that might indicate a positive outcome, covid ran into a wall. A science wall. Made by scientists.

 

Good luck with this stuff .. sheeple (the irony .. it burns)

[Lyssa Greymoon]

17 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's painfully easy to find proactive double blind studies that makes it abundantly clear sheep dip doesn't help with covid.

This is a research study I can get into.

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

BA Wadvalla - bmj, 2021 - bmj.com

The drug ivermectin has divided the medical community in South Africa and elsewhere, with
some arguing it can both prevent and treat covid-19. Bibi-Aisha Wadvalla explains how the
case encapsulates the central argument when it comes to orphan treatments: do doctors or
scientists know best?

In the US, Institutional Review Boards must contain at least five members. At least one must be a scientist. At least one must be a non-scientist. During my time working on clinical studies subject to Hospital IRB approval, there was usually a medical statistician and possibly a statistical programmer, an ethicist (the non-scientist), two or more clinical researchers (scientists),  one or more physicians specializing in the field of interest (doctors) and sometimes a nurse.

My personal experience has been that straight physicians are not good clinical researchers. They're absolutely the people you want executing the patient interface portion of a clinical trial, but you want to put study design and analysis in the hands of scientists with clinical study experience.

From what I've seen of the ivermectin trial results coming in at clinicaltrials.gov, there probably hasn't been much IRB involvement. This is likely why ivermectin isn't gaining traction with the medical community. Doctors are not scientists. Assessing ivermectin efficacy and safety is a scientific endeavor.

[Chroma Starlight]

Quote

“We’re heading into, God willing, the summer of joy, the summer of freedom,” Biden said. “On July 4, we are going to celebrate our independence from the virus as we celebrate our independence of our nation.” 
(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/20/us-covid-delta-variant-spreads-vaccination-rates-drop)

🐍😹🐍