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

[Rowan Amore]

41 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

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

But don't you know the NIH, CDC and WHO are all in on the conspiracy?  What conspiracy, I have no idea but...CONSPIRACY!!!

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'm sorry Innula but there has been several threads where Ivermectin has been brought up and I have supplied multiple links showing its efficacy with Covid in various studies. If you had noted the portion of text you quoted originally, you can see i did say "repurposed".

A recent study:

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Here is another link listing multiple studies: https://c19ivermectin.com/

You keep referencing websites/papers by this group named America's Frontline Doctors, started by Simone Gold, a doctor who participated in the attacks on the Capitol Jan 6.  Even the new study you published by Dr. Pierre Kory is part of this group.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/22/coronavirus-misinformation-simone-gold-americas-frontline-doctors

https://covid19criticalcare.com/      FLCCC Alliance or America's Frontline Doctors  

"A key conservative doctors’ group pushing misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines faces growing fire from medical experts about its woeful scientific grounding, while its leader, Dr Simone Gold, was charged early this week for taking part in the 6 January attack on the Capitol.

The development comes as the US faces warnings its pandemic death toll could hit 500,000 next month, in part because conspiracy theories and baseless skepticism – especially from rightwing groups – have hampered efforts to tackle it.

Gold, who founded America’s Frontline Doctors last spring with help from the Tea Party Patriots organization, was arrested on Monday in Beverly Hills, where she lives, and faces charges of entering a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct."

 

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

 

 

 

And of course none of this should be taken as dispensing medical advice but solely as pointing out that there are repurposed treatment drugs showing a lot of promise.

So far I haven't seen anything that would lead me to discredit Dr. Tess Lawrie in the video, but then I haven't researched her much and not sure I want to go down another insane rabbit hole.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

But don't you know the NIH, CDC and WHO are all in on the conspiracy?  What conspiracy, I have no idea but...CONSPIRACY!!!

First rule of conspiracy club is you don't talk about conspiracy... club.

[Rowan Amore]

And about one of the doctors who authored that paper, Dr. Kory.

In December 2020, Chair of the US Senate Homeland Security Committee Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to promote fringe theories about COVID-19.[353] Among the witnesses was Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care doctor, who erroneously described ivermectin as "miraculous" and as a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views as of 11 December.[354] In the United Kingdom Andrew Hill, a senior research fellow at Liverpool University, posted a video of a draft meta-analysis that went viral before it was removed.[355]

[Arielle Popstar]

9 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

But don't you know the NIH, CDC and WHO are all in on the conspiracy?  What conspiracy, I have no idea but...CONSPIRACY!!!

Either that or bureaucratic ineptitude bordering on the criminality seeing how the Wuhan lab leak fiasco is panning out. That is just one aspect of a multitude of falsehoods that have come out of this Covid response by those agencies. 

[Roxy Couturier]

15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

So far I haven't seen anything that would lead me to discredit Dr. Tess Lawrie in the video, but then I haven't researched her much and not sure I want to go down another insane rabbit hole.

Well a quick google shows she got her Doctorate (and worked for 4 years, though no more than a few months at a time) in South Africa long before Apartheid ended. Which, for me, speaks to character. In fact she seems to have left South Africa right about the time it ended. She continued her work history of working at various jobs for about 6 months to almost a year for 10 years until she landed her current job at a gynecological cancer center.

Considering she got the name of a drug wrong and then doubled down on promoting it (and by extension, her 'research consultancy'), I'd say she's risen to her level of incompetence. Just because someone has a degree does not preclude them from being a. Batspit crazy and b. Dumb as a box of rocks.

[Velk Kerang]

On 6/5/2021 at 9:34 AM, FairreLilette said:

You keep writing posts Velk that Trump was to blame.  There is nothing in our U.S. Constitution that allows a president to take control during a pandemic.

I want to address this one point here. I don't know if you've ever worked for the military or a government agency before. I'm assuming you haven't so I'll explain a few things to you. The President is also the Command In Chief. When it comes to national security issues which this clearly is and it completely falls under his purview. The U.S Constitution is not the Bible of the United States of America. That's why we have laws.

There are a lot of things in today's world not covered in the U.S. Constitution and this is where common sense should really come in to play, but 9 out of 10 times it doesn't. Which is why we have a buffet of political groups and organizations out here pissing and moaning about x, y, and z rights and this, that, and the third every single time you turn on the news. In this day and age the world suffers more from ignorance and weakness then it ever has since the beginning of time.

Weakness because people rather cry about every single thing rather then actually doing something to make this world a better place. Ignorance because there is always that groups of asshats who piss poorly justify the BS. With out fail.

Now considering I actually do have a background in National Security it just might behoove you to listen to the guy who just told you the Commander In Chief of the United States of America could have shut it down before it even hit the state level. I don't know everything, but when it comes to security matters that's pretty much my battlefield your stepping on to mate. lol Your welcome to believe what you want from the articles on the internet. I'll believe what I actually do know from professional experience. Stay safe mate.😎

[Sid Nagy]

What prize is here to win?
The whole Internet or only a certain part?

[Rowan Amore]

50 minutes ago, Velk Kerang said:

I want to address this one point here. I don't know if you've ever worked for the military or a government agency before. I'm assuming you haven't so I'll explain a few things to you. The President is also the Command In Chief. When it comes to national security issues which this clearly is and it completely falls under his purview. The U.S Constitution is not the Bible of the United States of America. That's why we have laws.

There are a lot of things in today's world not covered in the U.S. Constitution and this is where common sense should really come in to play, but 9 out of 10 times it doesn't. Which is why we have a buffet of political groups and organizations out here pissing and moaning about x, y, and z rights and this, that, and the third every single time you turn on the news. In this day and age the world suffers more from ignorance and weakness then it ever has since the beginning of time.

Weakness because people rather cry about every single thing rather then actually doing something to make this world a better place. Ignorance because there is always that groups of asshats who piss poorly justify the BS. With out fail.

Now considering I actually do have a background in National Security it just might behoove you to listen to the guy who just told you the Commander In Chief of the United States of America could have shut it down before it even hit the state level. I don't know everything, but when it comes to security matters that's pretty much my battlefield your stepping on to mate. lol Your welcome to believe what you want from the articles on the internet. I'll believe what I actually do know from professional experience. Stay safe mate.😎

.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Rowan Amore
Correction on quote AGAIN

[Rowan Amore]

On 6/5/2021 at 9:34 AM, FairreLilette said:

You keep writing posts Velk that Trump was to blame.  There is nothing in our U.S. Constitution that allows a president to take control during a pandemic.

"Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-01-08/what-is-a-national-emergency-and-when-can-a-president-legally-declare-one

[FairreLilette]

2 hours ago, Velk Kerang said:

The President is also the Command In Chief

I know that Velk 'but' your posts seem to be putting it all on Trump and the whole United States is not the military nor the armed forces.  My own governor put California into lockdown within about a day after France who was the first.   All I am really saying is you need to look at some of these governors as well.  

 

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

"Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-01-08/what-is-a-national-emergency-and-when-can-a-president-legally-declare-one

"In a variety of ways" could that be any more vague?  However, I believe the above is what Trump used to takeover and control 3M or some such company for masks or whatever it was.  I am not going to go searching for past articles from early 2020 and about Trump and 3M or whatever mask company it was.  It's all water under the bridge now.  The WHO, in their protocol, which I posted enough already in this thread, has in their protocol to restrict travel as a last resort.

 

[Drayke Newall]

18 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

"Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-01-08/what-is-a-national-emergency-and-when-can-a-president-legally-declare-one

That article refers to what he can and cant do at large and what he could do would be based on context. In regards to the President calling a national emergency on the 13 March 2020 he instigated it under the clauses of public health safety which he had to specify those emergency powers as congress does its checks and balances to ensure that he does not have more power than needed. His statement declaring the national emergency reinforces the below mentioned. READ: Text of Trump's national emergency declaration over coronavirus

This did not include the laws in place to restrict travel from that article that you quoted as that falls (in the case of a Pandemic and health issue) under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264) of which congress has specifically appointed in such cases the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services as authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. Those enforcing powers are then carried out by  the CDC and surgeon general as ordered by the Secretary of HHS.

Those authorities do not specifically announce such measures as that falls under the jurisdiction of the President as a head of state. As much as an idiot that mouthpiece was much of it was out of his hands and the Secretary of HHS, Surgeon General and CDC could overrule anything he said that they didn't advise.

Also note, in the article below the executive branch only has the power to restrict infected persons or those in 'hotspots in the states' leaving the states. It makes no mention (nor does the CDC documents about the actual law) of them having the power to forcible shut the states borders for every person or so I believe from what I read.

Coronavirus Response: Does President Trump Has Legal Power to Restrict Travel between States | National Review

Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC

Specific Laws and Regulations Governing the Control of Communicable Diseases | Quarantine | CDC

Edited June 7, 2021 by Drayke Newall

[Lyssa Greymoon]

On 6/5/2021 at 5:57 PM, Luna Bliss said:

So far I haven't seen anything that would lead me to discredit Dr. Tess Lawrie in the video, but then I haven't researched her much and not sure I want to go down another insane rabbit hole.

Seems like after over a year of luring people down insane rabbit holes, people would get wise to it and stop falling for it. 

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

On 6/5/2021 at 4:57 PM, Luna Bliss said:

So far I haven't seen anything that would lead me to discredit Dr. Tess Lawrie in the video, but then I haven't researched her much and not sure I want to go down another insane rabbit hole.

Seems like after over a year of luring people down insane rabbit holes, people would get wise to it and stop falling for it. 

One can learn a lot by going down insane rabbit holes. Not all are the same, and learnings from exploring one rabbit hole can apply to other issues.

I rarely engage in a debate unless I can learn from the exploration, so I don't feel "lured" at all. 
I was feeling a bit frustrated and hesitant about exploring this Dr. Tess Lawrie though, as she's not only a doctor but a respected researcher, and I believe even won some awards. And so to see a competent mind or a person with authority in society possibly affected by politicization and an inability to see reality due to personal psychological makeup and/or preferences...well it would be especially disheartening. Even worse, what if I would discover she's a sell-out? I'm open to the possibility too that she might know more about Ivermectin than I do.

[Luna Bliss]

On 6/6/2021 at 3:15 PM, Sid Nagy said:

What prize is here to win?
The whole Internet or only a certain part?

You won a dancing Trump gif...congratulations! lol

 

 

[Sid Nagy]

🤢

😱
 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Sid Nagy

[Luna Bliss]

On 6/6/2021 at 8:29 AM, Roxy Couturier said:

On 6/5/2021 at 4:57 PM, Luna Bliss said:

So far I haven't seen anything that would lead me to discredit Dr. Tess Lawrie in the video, but then I haven't researched her much and not sure I want to go down another insane rabbit hole.

Well a quick google shows she got her Doctorate (and worked for 4 years, though no more than a few months at a time) in South Africa long before Apartheid ended. Which, for me, speaks to character. In fact she seems to have left South Africa right about the time it ended. She continued her work history of working at various jobs for about 6 months to almost a year for 10 years until she landed her current job at a gynecological cancer center.

Considering she got the name of a drug wrong and then doubled down on promoting it (and by extension, her 'research consultancy'), I'd say she's risen to her level of incompetence. Just because someone has a degree does not preclude them from being a. Batspit crazy and b. Dumb as a box of rocks.

Well, if we're going to discredit this woman we have to do it right! lol

I don't think just because someone lives in a country that is prejudiced and/or run by asshats, or goes to school there, that this is a reason to discredit them. I mean, do we discredit all those who lived in the U.S. under slavery?  Now if she actively promoted Apartheid, yeah, wouldn't want to hear much of what she said.

How did she get the name of the drug wrong, or where did you see that?  I want to read more about this.

Agreed, degrees don't prevent someone having questionable moral values, and often people can specialize well but not see a bigger picture.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

On 6/6/2021 at 1:57 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

On 6/5/2021 at 4:37 PM, Rowan Amore said:

But don't you know the NIH, CDC and WHO are all in on the conspiracy?  What conspiracy, I have no idea but...CONSPIRACY!!!

Either that or bureaucratic ineptitude bordering on the criminality seeing how the Wuhan lab leak fiasco is panning out. That is just one aspect of a multitude of falsehoods that have come out of this Covid response by those agencies. 

The thing is, there has not been any new evidence regarding the lab leak hypothesis. It's just a bunch of loud-mouth psuedo-Republicans trying to diss the Democrats, and the media hyping up the story because a good argument brings ratings.

So no, there is no "Wuhan lab leak fiasco panning out'.   No new evidence whatsoever.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

Mid-term elections are approaching, and the attacks from the psuedo-Repubs toward the Dems are increasing.

Trump was back on the scene at the North Carolina Republican Convention....doing the 'us against them' dance....riling everyone up.

I'm convinced now the focus on the lab leak is a deliberate ploy.  Not that we couldn't use some lab safety improvements, but what they're doing with the lab leak hypothesis is likely pure politicization.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Finite]

Got 2nd dose today. I am officially a bubble.

[Luna Bliss]

11 minutes ago, Finite said:

Got 2nd dose today. I am officially a bubble.

In 2 weeks you'll be good to go.

I will be on Friday, and wish I could have waited till then before risking major exposure, but the appliance repair people needed to enter my house today.  Fans blowing like crazy.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Rowan Amore]

53 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The thing is, there has not been any new evidence regarding the lab leak hypothesis. It's just a bunch of loud-mouth psuedo-Republicans trying to diss the Democrats, and the media hyping up the story because a good argument brings ratings.

So no, there is no "Wuhan lab leak fiasco panning out'.   No new evidence whatsoever.

I hope you realize I was being facetious.

[Madelaine McMasters]

On 5/27/2021 at 7:54 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

The way I see it is that there are two predominant things we need to know about any new potential drug. One is its safety and the other is its effectiveness. For a repurposed drug like Ivermectin the safety was already known as it has been used for 30 years and even won the Noble peace prize in 2015 for its safety profile. Very few drugs on the market that have such a low rate of adverse events or deaths. Billions of doses and only 2 deaths which were as a result of an extremely rare genetic disorder. And yet it is very effective as a broad range anti-parasitic as well as anti-viral and bacterial agent with multitudes of studies over the years done even before this pandemic.  https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711 Plenty more studies since too specifically for Covid, a list of which I already have linked multiple times. Quite a few of which were peer reviewed.

Ivermectin has been shown safe at recommended dosing for anti-parasitic applications. That's typically a single weight adjusted dose every 3-12 months. The Australian in-vitro study that ignited interest in ivermectin for Covid-19 used serum levels 152x higher than the standard dose.

Here's that study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

There's a line in it which I think has been very widely misinterpreted: "As we have observed previously ... no toxicity of ivermectin was observed at any of the timepoints tested, in either the sample wells or in parallel tested drug alone samples."

This was an in-vitro study using a cell line propagated from monkey kidneys. Human bodies contain more than just kidneys. I think this critical distinction is lost in public debate.

Here's a NIH analysis of the potential pharmacokinetics (from which I calculated the 152x):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7404744/

In the virus section of the 2017 Nature paper you linked, there are four cited reports (citations 97-100). All of them are for in-vitro experiments focused on Ivermectin's effect on viral reproduction mechanisms of HIV and flaviviruses (dengue). Though that research is nine years old, I find only these clinical trials since then:

http://www.rcpt.org/abstractdb/media/abstract/CON2018/Best Resident27/BRA_77_Eakkawit.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33462580/

I did find one clinical trial that showed ivermectin reduces viral load in mosquitoes. Unfortunately, the dose at which that happens is perilously close to the dose that kills the mosquito. It's not clear how anyone would get the ivermectin into the mosquitoes in the first place, short of spraying it around like we do with other pesticides.

Nearly a decade after test tube experiments suggested ivermectin could treat dengue, there is still no evidence it works in actual humans. If I were going to draw a parallel to the use of ivermectin for Covid-19, this seems a likely candidate.

I think it's probably best to ignore in-vitro studies and focus on clinical trials showing beneficial effects of ivermectin at doses closer to those already shown safe.

I'm currently skimming through Covid-19/ivermectin clinical trial data at clinicaltrials.gov. Some of the studies seem poorly constructed and/or documented. This isn't surprising. Individual doctors and non-research hospitals aren't equipped to launch high quality clinical trials. Of 70 studies registered, 22 have completed and eight have results. I've completely read one and skimmed two others. No evidence of efficacy yet.

Here's the first study of the eight that have results:
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06104-9

This Turkish study was one I saw widely cited in pro-ivermectin circles. Here's the result section of the study's abstract:

Results

A total of 66 patients, 36 in the study group and 30 in the control group were included in the study. Mutations affecting ivermectin metabolism was detected in genetic tests of six (16.7%) patients in the study group and they were excluded from the study. At the end of the 5-day follow-up period, the rate of clinical improvement was 73.3% (22/30) in the study group and was 53.3% (16/30) in the control group (p = 0.10). At the end of the study, mortality developed in 6 patients (20%) in the study group and in 9 (30%) patients in the control group (p = 0.37). At the end of the follow-up period, the average peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) values of the study and control groups were found to be 93.5 and 93.0%, respectively. Partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/FiO2 ratios were determined as 236.3 ± 85.7 and 220.8 ± 127.3 in the study and control groups, respectively. While the blood lymphocyte count was higher in the study group compared to the control group (1698 ± 1438 and 1256 ± 710, respectively) at the end of the follow-up period (p = 0.24); reduction in serum C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin and D-dimer levels was more pronounced in the study group (p = 0.02, p = 0.005 and p = 0.03, respectively).

The accepted "p" value for statistical significance is 0.05 or lower. I have highlighted, in orange, those portions of the result that are statistically insignificant. The SpO2 and (PaO2)/FiO2 measurements were not only approximately equivalent between control and study groups, but also had p values of 0.14 and 0.67 and so are statistically insignificant. I've highlighted in blue the only differences for which where was statistical significance. Those are indicators of inflammation (C-reactive protein and ferritin), or clot susceptibility (D-dimer). Given that there was no statistically significant improvement in clinical improvement, those measurements are of questionable value. We have well tested medications for dealing with both inflammation and clotting.

What really caught my attention in that study, and which I've highlighted in red in both your post and the abstract, was this (screen grabbed from this) :

I have to believe I misunderstand this section of the report, as it seems to indicate that six patients were eliminated from the study after five of them exhibited sufficient symptoms to elicit an assessment of brain damage (encephalopathy).

The abstract refutes its own conclusion that ivermectin increases clinical recovery and reduces mortality. This is the kind of nonsense that gets you rejected in peer reviews.

Dr. John Campbell has been following ivermectin reports on his YouTube channel. Though I find the information density of his videos to be almost intolerably low, he is preaching to the lay public and that's to be expected. I share his curiosity about continuing positive reports from observational analyses, but he's not applying the rigor necessary to establish safety and efficacy. That's not his job, so I'll withhold criticism.

Here are two articles that delve further into complications around ivermectin studies. Notice the involvement of Surgisphere in both...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02958-2
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/surgisphere-sows-confusion-about-another-unproven-covid19-drug-67635

This morning India's Union Health Ministry removed ivermectin from its list of approved treatments:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-drops-ivermectin-hcq-and-favipiravir-from-covid-19-treatment-list-101623058343019.html

My curiosity over ivermectin is waning, but I'll keep it on my radar.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters
Added "or lower" to the p-value explanation.

[Coffee Pancake]

17 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This was an in-vitro study using a cell line propagated from monkey kidneys. Human bodies contain more than just kidneys. I think this critical distinction is lost in public debate.

Misquoting in-vitro (literally in-glass) studies happens so frequently it's perhaps time for the language to be changed.

I'm really starting to think people just don't know what the word means and media are far too eager to report success in that context, out of context.

Quote

It's not clear how anyone would get the ivermectin into the mosquitoes in the first place, short of spraying it around like we do with other pesticides.

Spoons and choo-choo train noises (sorry)

Quote

I have to believe I misunderstand this section of the report, as it seems to indicate that six patients were eliminated from the study after five of them exhibited sufficient symptoms to elicit an assessment of brain damage (encephalopathy).

and this is being pushed by the vaccines cause autism crowd