Ivermectin, a Godsend

[JonC]

Yes, there are always risks. The risks from IVM are certainly miniscule compared to those vaccines or Remdesivir. I am glad that I took the risk.

It depends on what part of the resulting population you are (the majority who benefit from the medication or the minority who experience the "miniscule" effect.

Looking at VAERS, even if we were to grant all reported issues were related to the vaccine (I seriously doubt the vaccine causes alcoholism and pregnancy...but for the sake of argument kets pretend it does) the risk of a serious adverse effect from a covid vaccine is under .003% (it is miniscule in comparison to the chances of dying from covid).

But my point is I have not seen any supporters of Ivermectin pointing out that there are very serious possible side-effects (no matter how rare).

 

[JonC]

I thought Ivermectin won a noble prize of something. Did they take the prize back?

No. Medications do not win Nobel prizes.

William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won in 2015 for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy with the discovery of a new medication - Avermectin. Ivermectin is a derisive of Avermectin.

But this does not really count because they were not reputable scientists (by the standards set forth on this thread) as they worked for big pharm and it probably never worked (it was just a money and power grab).

 

[asterisktom]

I have read a lot of conspiracy theories (that scientists work out of greed and are controlled by funding). But if that were true then I suspect the results would have been much better for the vaccines.

The money trail is a matter of public record. It is all in that book that you have no interest in reading. And not just there.

 

[asterisktom]

It depends on what part of the resulting population you are (the majority who benefit from the medication or the minority who experience the "miniscule" effect.

Looking at VAERS, even if we were to grant all reported issues were related to the vaccine (I seriously doubt the vaccine causes alcoholism and pregnancy...but for the sake of argument kets pretend it does) the risk of a serious adverse effect from a covid vaccine is under .003% (it is miniscule in comparison to the chances of dying from covid).

But my point is I have not seen any supporters of Ivermectin pointing out that there are very serious possible side-effects (no matter how rare).

Well, I think I will pass on this. We are miles apart in our assessments. The damage from these jabs is far from miniscule.

 

[JonC]

I think Jon is trying to take it back

When did Ivermectin win a Nobel Prize?

 

[JonC]

Well, I think I will pass on this. We are miles apart in our assessments. The damage from these jabs is far from miniscule.

It depends on how one defines "miniscule". For me, less than a .003% chance of a serious side-effect when facing even a .5% chance of death (much less serious side-effects) from a virus is miniscule. It certainly would meet the definition of rare.

 

[JonC]

The money trail is a matter of public record. It is all in that book that you have no interest in reading. And not just there.

Oh....yes....I agree that science needs funding. Where I disagree is the implications the funding controls the results. Were this true then Ivermectin is in the same boat...as is all current cancer treatments.

 

[asterisktom]

No. Medications do not win Nobel prizes.

William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won in 2015 for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy with the discovery of a new medication - Avermectin. Ivermectin is a derisive of Avermectin.

But this does not really count because they were not reputable scientists (by the standards set forth on this thread) as they worked for big pharm and it probably never worked (it was just a money and power grab).

Of the two one came out, I think, against its use for Covid. The other tergiversated somewhat. But the real interesting thing is that Merck praised its wide-spectrum use to the skies. For about 4 decades - until doing so became politically and financially unfeasible.

 

[asterisktom]

When did Ivermectin win a Nobel Prize?

Loosely speaking. But here is a good link.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015

 

[JonC]

Loosely speaking. But here is a good link.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015

Yes...VERY loosely speaking....if "loosley" is taken loosely

 

[Wingman68]

A couple of excerpt’s from the book on IVM:

‘Japan’s Kitasato Institute published a 2011 paper describing IVM almost never used for any other drug-
“There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title ‘Wonder Drug’, penicillin & aspirin being two that have perhaps had the greatest impact on health & wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on it’s versatility, safety, and the beneficial impact it has had, & continues to have, worldwide-especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.

A French nursing home, all 69 residents-average age 90-& 52 staff all survived C-19 outbreak. As it turns out, they had all taken ivermectin for a scabies infestation. Covid decimated the surrounding community, but only 7 residents & 4 staff were affected & all had mild illness. None required oxygen or hospitalization.

I will buy the book, instead of using recall of a library book, it’s that good.

 

[just-want-peace]

Of course....

Hey, at least he’s honest in this post!!!

 

[Wingman68]

New Hampshire Pharmacies To Begin Dispensing Ivermectin Without Doctor’s Prescription

Say wwhhhaaaat?!

 

[JonC]

New Hampshire Pharmacies To Begin Dispensing Ivermectin Without Doctor’s Prescription

Say wwhhhaaaat?!

Wonder how the liability is gonna work with that.

 

[JonC]

Wait.....I thought Ivermectin was a prescription medication....??

If so, then isn't it illegal to distribute (or, technically, to take) without a prescription?

 

[asterisktom]

Looking at VAERS, even if we were to grant all reported issues were related to the vaccine (I seriously doubt the vaccine causes alcoholism and pregnancy...but for the sake of argument kets pretend it does) the risk of a serious adverse effect from a covid vaccine is under .003% (it is miniscule in comparison to the chances of dying from covid).

Looking a VAERS is one of your main problems, leading you to an overly-rosy picture for the jabs. They seriously under-report the number of vaccine injuries and deaths.

From the book. Emphasis mine:

:"2) Second, as COVID czar, Dr. Fauci stubbornly refused to fix HHS’s designed-to-fail vaccine injury surveillance system (VAERS), which systematically suppresses reporting of most vaccine injuries. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive, voluntary system, jointly managed by the CDC and FDA, that accepts reports from anyone. A 2010 HHS study of the government’s notoriously dysfunctional VAERS concluded that VAERS detects “fewer than 1 percent of vaccine injuries.”15 Put another way, VAERS misses OVER 99 percent of vaccine injuries, thereby lending the illusion of safety to even the most deadly inoculations. In 2010, the federal Agency for Health Care Research Quality (AHRQ) designed and field-tested a state-of-the-art machine-counting (AI) system as an efficient alternative to VAERS. By testing the system for several years on the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, AHRQ proved that it could capture most vaccine injuries. AHRQ initially planned to roll out the system to all remaining HMOs, but after seeing the AHRQ’s frightening results—vaccines were causing serious injuries in 1 of every 40 recipients—CDC killed the project and stowed the new system on a dusty shelf. Dr. Fauci left that system safely cached, throughout the pandemic, allowing HHS’s broken voluntary system to continue to conceal vaccine injuries, including any evidence of pathogenic priming."

 

[asterisktom]

This is the part of Faucis strategy. Excerpted from the book, page 98 on my version.

3) Third, Dr. Fauci’s trump card was his capacity to enlist mainstream and social media companies to make reporting of injuries and deaths disappear from the airwaves, newspapers, and the Internet, and therefore from the public consciousness. Facebook, Google, and the television networks purged doctors and scientists who reported pathogenic priming, and censored reports about the waves of other vaccine injuries. As a federal official sworn for four decades to uphold the Constitution, Dr. Fauci should have been the champion of free speech and vigorous debate during the pandemic. Instead, he worked hand in glove with Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and other Big Tech titans to censor criticism of his various mandates and suppress information about vaccine injuries, including discussions of pathogenic priming.16,17 Email traffic shows that Dr. Fauci colluded directly with Mark Zuckerberg and the social media platforms to censor doctors who reported vaccine failures, harms, and deaths, to deplatform public health advocates like myself, and to evict and muzzle patients who reported their own injuries. The science journals, utterly dependent on Pharma advertising, obligingly refused to publish studies on the rash of deadly and debilitating jab reactions. The Bill Gates-funded fact-checking organization, Politifact,18 worked with Pharma-funded fact-checkers like FactCheck, which receives, funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and whose current CEO is Richard Besser, former acting head of the CDC, which owns $1.8 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock19,20 to “debunk” stories and studies of vaccine injuries.

On October 7, 2021, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, complained in a tweet that America’s people were almost utterly blind to the floods of adverse vaccine events that were killing and debilitating their countrymen: “The real problem here is the damn press and the internet giants. The press and these tech players act to manufacture and reinforce ‘consensus’ around selected and approved narratives. And then this is being weaponized to attack dissenters, including highly qualified physicians.”21

 

[JonC]

Looking a VAERS is one of your main problems, leading you to an overly-rosy picture for the jabs. They seriously under-report the number of vaccine injuries and deaths.

From the book. Emphasis mine:

:"2) Second, as COVID czar, Dr. Fauci stubbornly refused to fix HHS’s designed-to-fail vaccine injury surveillance system (VAERS), which systematically suppresses reporting of most vaccine injuries. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive, voluntary system, jointly managed by the CDC and FDA, that accepts reports from anyone. A 2010 HHS study of the government’s notoriously dysfunctional VAERS concluded that VAERS detects “fewer than 1 percent of vaccine injuries.”15 Put another way, VAERS misses OVER 99 percent of vaccine injuries, thereby lending the illusion of safety to even the most deadly inoculations. In 2010, the federal Agency for Health Care Research Quality (AHRQ) designed and field-tested a state-of-the-art machine-counting (AI) system as an efficient alternative to VAERS. By testing the system for several years on the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, AHRQ proved that it could capture most vaccine injuries. AHRQ initially planned to roll out the system to all remaining HMOs, but after seeing the AHRQ’s frightening results—vaccines were causing serious injuries in 1 of every 40 recipients—CDC killed the project and stowed the new system on a dusty shelf. Dr. Fauci left that system safely cached, throughout the pandemic, allowing HHS’s broken voluntary system to continue to conceal vaccine injuries, including any evidence of pathogenic priming."

I don't look at VAERS to see how any vaccine is going. I posted that for the anti-covid-vaxers on this thread who thi k VAERS is the "gold standard" regardless of what it actually is.

Personally, I don't care. I listen to those who have made medical strides in the past, who have developed effective cancer treatments and have a history of saving lives. They may be wrong....but you gotta put your money down somewhere.

 

[asterisktom]

I don't look at VAERS to see how any vaccine is going. I posted that for the anti-covid-vaxers on this thread who thi k VAERS is the "gold standard" regardless of what it actually is.

Personally, I don't care. I listen to those who have made medical strides in the past, who have developed effective cancer treatments and have a history of saving lives. They may be wrong....but you gotta put your money down somewhere.

Well, it sure looked like you were taking VAERS at face value, citing them as proof when you gave that figure allegedly proving the overall benign record of the jabs.

I do not know of any anti Covid-vaxers who look to VAERS as a "gold standard". I imagine that most who see through these mRNA vaxxes also see through VAERS.

 

[JonC]

Well, it sure looked like you were taking VAERS at face value, citing them as proof when you gave that figure allegedly proving the overall benign record of the jabs.

I do not know of any anti Covid-vaxers who look to VAERS as a "gold standard". I imagine that most who see through these mRNA vaxxes also see through VAERS.

Sorry it looked that way.

I have family members who are anti-vax (long before covid) so I understand that VAERS is pretty much worthless to everybody except the CDC and FDA as they make no connection to a vaccine (it provides post-vaccine data to the CDC and FDA, but does not determine a real link or cause).

My comment was addressing a few here who believe VAERS provides side-effects from vaccine.