Josh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:33 pm
There’s no control group for effects of the vaccine over any decent period of time. Normally, vaccines are studied over a multi year period.
Pregnant women normally can take vaccines once they’ve been taken for 8 years by others.
For a control group we have you and everyone else who has chosen not to take the vaccine. We have no shortage of unvaccinated people to study. There are tens of millions of them. To my knowledge, we haven't reached 100% universal vaccination just yet.
Of course you missed my larger point which is that whatever criticism you have about the clinical trial process for the Covid vaccines applies 100-fold for Ivermectin. Which has received absolutely no systematic phased trials for it's use as an anti-viral on severely ill Covid patients.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
He's actually batting 1000. Anti-mask, anti-vax, GoFundMe page for medical bills, and Ivermectin.
Texas Anti-Mask ‘Freedom Rally’ Organizer Fighting For His Life With COVID-19
His pregnant wife said this week that the hospital was “out of options” for her husband.
A Texas man who helped organize protests against pandemic restrictions is fighting for his life after being hospitalized for nearly a month with COVID-19, the San Angelo Standard-Times reported.
His wife, Jessica Wallace, wrote Wednesday on Facebook that she had a “heartbreaking update” about her husband, Caleb.
“He’s not doing good. It’s not looking in our favor,” she said. “His lungs are stiff due to the fibrosis. They called and said they’ve run out of options for him and asked if I would consent to a do not resuscitate. And it would be up to us when to stop treatments.”
“My heart just can’t. I can’t imagine my life without him.”
Caleb Wallace, a 30-year-old father of three, has been unconscious, ventilated and heavily sedated in the ICU at Shannon Medical Center in San Angelo since Aug. 8, the Standard-Times reported. His wife said on a GoFundMe page for household and medical bills that he was was intubated multiple times, had high fevers, infection and bleeding in his chest.
In July, Caleb Wallace reportedly helped organize “The Freedom Rally,” an event that billed itself as a protest against the “government being in control of our lives.” He also founded “The San Angelo Freedom Defenders,” which hosted a rally last year to “end COVID tyranny.”
He wrote a letter in April to the San Angelo Independent School District and published by a local news outlet demanding that the school district “rescind ALL COVID-related policies immediately.” He falsely claimed that wearing masks had harmful effects on children and that there was “little evidence that masks worked for anyone.”
When he first felt symptoms on July 26, his wife told the Standard-Times, he refused to get tested or seek medical care. He instead began treating himself with a cocktail of Vitamin C, zinc, aspirin and ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that has been falsely promoted as an effective treatment for COVID-19 by conservative media. He was taken to the hospital on July 30.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:33 pm
There’s no control group for effects of the vaccine over any decent period of time. Normally, vaccines are studied over a multi year period.
Pregnant women normally can take vaccines once they’ve been taken for 8 years by others.
For a control group we have you and everyone else who has chosen not to take the vaccine. We have no shortage of unvaccinated people to study. There are tens of millions of them. To my knowledge, we haven't reached 100% universal vaccination just yet.
Of course you missed my larger point which is that whatever criticism you have about the clinical trial process for the Covid vaccines applies 100-fold for Ivermectin. Which has received absolutely no systematic phased trials for it's use as an anti-viral on severely ill Covid patients.
Do the peer-reviewed studies show that Ivermectin is an effective therapy for Covid? You seem to want to make this a vaccine vs Ivermectin issue, which doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. Ivermectin is being widely used in some parts of the world as a prophylaxis and a therapy for those with Covid. How does it compare with other Covid therapy studies is the better question, IMO.
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:33 pm
There’s no control group for effects of the vaccine over any decent period of time. Normally, vaccines are studied over a multi year period.
Pregnant women normally can take vaccines once they’ve been taken for 8 years by others.
For a control group we have you and everyone else who has chosen not to take the vaccine. We have no shortage of unvaccinated people to study. There are tens of millions of them. To my knowledge, we haven't reached 100% universal vaccination just yet.
Of course you missed my larger point which is that whatever criticism you have about the clinical trial process for the Covid vaccines applies 100-fold for Ivermectin. Which has received absolutely no systematic phased trials for it's use as an anti-viral on severely ill Covid patients.
Do the peer-reviewed studies show that Ivermectin is an effective therapy for Covid? You seem to want to make this a vaccine vs Ivermectin issue, which doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. Ivermectin is being widely used in some parts of the world as a prophylaxis and a therapy for those with Covid. How does it compare with other Covid therapy studies is the better question, IMO.
I am merely calling out the inconsistency of those who reject the vaccines due to what they claim is inadequate clinical study, while promoting Ivermectin which has had 100x less in the way of clinical studies of its use as an antiviral for Covid patients. I’m not aiming at anyone here specifically. But in the larger world, most of the Ivermectin advocacy is within the anti-vax community online.
Ivermectin might be the most wonderful Covid therapy of all time. I have no idea and no opinion on that. I’m just puzzled by the apparent double standard.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
For a control group we have you and everyone else who has chosen not to take the vaccine. We have no shortage of unvaccinated people to study. There are tens of millions of them. To my knowledge, we haven't reached 100% universal vaccination just yet.
Of course you missed my larger point which is that whatever criticism you have about the clinical trial process for the Covid vaccines applies 100-fold for Ivermectin. Which has received absolutely no systematic phased trials for it's use as an anti-viral on severely ill Covid patients.
Do the peer-reviewed studies show that Ivermectin is an effective therapy for Covid? You seem to want to make this a vaccine vs Ivermectin issue, which doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. Ivermectin is being widely used in some parts of the world as a prophylaxis and a therapy for those with Covid. How does it compare with other Covid therapy studies is the better question, IMO.
I am merely calling out the inconsistency of those who reject the vaccines due to what they claim is inadequate clinical study, while promoting Ivermectin which has had 100x less in the way of clinical studies of its use as an antiviral for Covid patients. I’m not aiming at anyone here specifically. But in the larger world, most of the Ivermectin advocacy is within the anti-vax community online.
Ivermectin might be the most wonderful Covid therapy of all time. I have no idea and no opinion on that. I’m just puzzled by the apparent double standard.
For the record, I don't remember claiming there are inadequate clinical studies for the vaccines.
I'm confused by what you mean by 100x less in the way of clinical studies. Are you referring specifically to the ant-viral aspect or generally as a therapy for treating Covid? There are plenty of studies available as a general therapy for Covid. I'm just assuming the anti-viral component in Ivermectin is why it's shown to be a good general therapy for Covid.
GaryK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:24 pm
Do the peer-reviewed studies show that Ivermectin is an effective therapy for Covid? You seem to want to make this a vaccine vs Ivermectin issue, which doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. Ivermectin is being widely used in some parts of the world as a prophylaxis and a therapy for those with Covid. How does it compare with other Covid therapy studies is the better question, IMO.
I am merely calling out the inconsistency of those who reject the vaccines due to what they claim is inadequate clinical study, while promoting Ivermectin which has had 100x less in the way of clinical studies of its use as an antiviral for Covid patients. I’m not aiming at anyone here specifically. But in the larger world, most of the Ivermectin advocacy is within the anti-vax community online.
Ivermectin might be the most wonderful Covid therapy of all time. I have no idea and no opinion on that. I’m just puzzled by the apparent double standard.
For the record, I don't remember claiming there are inadequate clinical studies for the vaccines.
I'm confused by what you mean by 100x less in the way of clinical studies. Are you referring specifically to the ant-viral aspect or generally as a therapy for treating Covid? There are plenty of studies available as a general therapy for Covid. I'm just assuming the anti-viral component in Ivermectin is why it's shown to be a good general therapy for Covid.
I'm not talking about you or anyone here really. But if you take a walk on the wild side of social media internet medicine on places like Facebook, it is mostly the anti-vax community that is most obsessed with Ivermectin. So the same people who are hesitant about the vaccines because they say there has been inadequate clinical trials are jumping whole-hog into Ivermectin promotion despite the fact that there is 100x less study and clinical trials about Ivermectin AS AN ANTIVIRAL THERAPY FOR COVID.
To reiterate the point I made above, Ivermectin might be the best available Covid therapy available. But....No systematic randomized double-blind studies have been conducted on the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral to determine (1) ideal dosages or ideal treatment regimen for anti-viral use, (2) side effects on ill patients suffering from severe respiratory disease, (3) potential interactions with other drugs and therapies that are being simultaneously given to Covid patients, or (4) whether Ivermectin is a more effective or less effective therapy than other drugs already approved or in the pipeline.
30 years of clinical experience using Ivermectin as deworming medicine does not answer any of the questions above.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
I am merely calling out the inconsistency of those who reject the vaccines due to what they claim is inadequate clinical study, while promoting Ivermectin which has had 100x less in the way of clinical studies of its use as an antiviral for Covid patients. I’m not aiming at anyone here specifically. But in the larger world, most of the Ivermectin advocacy is within the anti-vax community online.
Ivermectin might be the most wonderful Covid therapy of all time. I have no idea and no opinion on that. I’m just puzzled by the apparent double standard.
For the record, I don't remember claiming there are inadequate clinical studies for the vaccines.
I'm confused by what you mean by 100x less in the way of clinical studies. Are you referring specifically to the ant-viral aspect or generally as a therapy for treating Covid? There are plenty of studies available as a general therapy for Covid. I'm just assuming the anti-viral component in Ivermectin is why it's shown to be a good general therapy for Covid.
I'm not talking about you or anyone here really. But if you take a walk on the wild side of social media internet medicine on places like Facebook, it is mostly the anti-vax community that is most obsessed with Ivermectin. So the same people who are hesitant about the vaccines because they say there has been inadequate clinical trials are jumping whole-hog into Ivermectin promotion despite the fact that there is 100x less study and clinical trials about Ivermectin AS AN ANTIVIRAL THERAPY FOR COVID.
To reiterate the point I made above, Ivermectin might be the best available Covid therapy available. But....No systematic randomized double-blind studies have been conducted on the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral to determine (1) ideal dosages or ideal treatment regimen for anti-viral use, (2) side effects on ill patients suffering from severe respiratory disease, (3) potential interactions with other drugs and therapies that are being simultaneously given to Covid patients, or (4) whether Ivermectin is a more effective or less effective therapy than other drugs already approved or in the pipeline.
30 years of clinical experience using Ivermectin as deworming medicine does not answer any of the questions above.
I didn't take it that you were talking about me. I very seldom use Facebook for anything other than business, so I see practically none of the stuff you are describing.
With this being a very recent pandemic, which of the current Covid therapies have 100x more ANTIVIRAL studies than Ivermectin? Long before this Covid pandemic started, Ivermectin was known to have antiviral properties.
GaryK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:27 pm
For the record, I don't remember claiming there are inadequate clinical studies for the vaccines.
I'm confused by what you mean by 100x less in the way of clinical studies. Are you referring specifically to the ant-viral aspect or generally as a therapy for treating Covid? There are plenty of studies available as a general therapy for Covid. I'm just assuming the anti-viral component in Ivermectin is why it's shown to be a good general therapy for Covid.
I'm not talking about you or anyone here really. But if you take a walk on the wild side of social media internet medicine on places like Facebook, it is mostly the anti-vax community that is most obsessed with Ivermectin. So the same people who are hesitant about the vaccines because they say there has been inadequate clinical trials are jumping whole-hog into Ivermectin promotion despite the fact that there is 100x less study and clinical trials about Ivermectin AS AN ANTIVIRAL THERAPY FOR COVID.
To reiterate the point I made above, Ivermectin might be the best available Covid therapy available. But....No systematic randomized double-blind studies have been conducted on the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral to determine (1) ideal dosages or ideal treatment regimen for anti-viral use, (2) side effects on ill patients suffering from severe respiratory disease, (3) potential interactions with other drugs and therapies that are being simultaneously given to Covid patients, or (4) whether Ivermectin is a more effective or less effective therapy than other drugs already approved or in the pipeline.
30 years of clinical experience using Ivermectin as deworming medicine does not answer any of the questions above.
I didn't take it that you were talking about me. I very seldom use Facebook for anything other than business, so I see practically none of the stuff you are describing.
With this being a very recent pandemic, which of the current Covid therapies have 100x more ANTIVIRAL studies than Ivermectin? Long before this Covid pandemic started, Ivermectin was known to have antiviral properties.
The Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna vaccines have all had clinical trials involving at least 100x more people than all of the combined trials involving the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral agent for Covid.
Without looking it up, I would suspect that Remdesivir and the various monoclonal antibody treatments currently in use have also been much more rigorously studied as a Covid therapy than Ivermectin as well.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
I'm not talking about you or anyone here really. But if you take a walk on the wild side of social media internet medicine on places like Facebook, it is mostly the anti-vax community that is most obsessed with Ivermectin. So the same people who are hesitant about the vaccines because they say there has been inadequate clinical trials are jumping whole-hog into Ivermectin promotion despite the fact that there is 100x less study and clinical trials about Ivermectin AS AN ANTIVIRAL THERAPY FOR COVID.
To reiterate the point I made above, Ivermectin might be the best available Covid therapy available. But....No systematic randomized double-blind studies have been conducted on the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral to determine (1) ideal dosages or ideal treatment regimen for anti-viral use, (2) side effects on ill patients suffering from severe respiratory disease, (3) potential interactions with other drugs and therapies that are being simultaneously given to Covid patients, or (4) whether Ivermectin is a more effective or less effective therapy than other drugs already approved or in the pipeline.
30 years of clinical experience using Ivermectin as deworming medicine does not answer any of the questions above.
I didn't take it that you were talking about me. I very seldom use Facebook for anything other than business, so I see practically none of the stuff you are describing.
With this being a very recent pandemic, which of the current Covid therapies have 100x more ANTIVIRAL studies than Ivermectin? Long before this Covid pandemic started, Ivermectin was known to have antiviral properties.
The Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna vaccines have all had clinical trials involving at least 100x more people than all of the combined trials involving the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral agent for Covid.
Without looking it up, I would suspect that Remdesivir and the various monoclonal antibody treatments currently in use have also been much more rigorously studied as a Covid therapy than Ivermectin as well.
Ivermectin is a therapeutic, and it's long term safety has been demonstrated, you're comparing apples and oranges
I'm not talking about you or anyone here really. But if you take a walk on the wild side of social media internet medicine on places like Facebook, it is mostly the anti-vax community that is most obsessed with Ivermectin. So the same people who are hesitant about the vaccines because they say there has been inadequate clinical trials are jumping whole-hog into Ivermectin promotion despite the fact that there is 100x less study and clinical trials about Ivermectin AS AN ANTIVIRAL THERAPY FOR COVID.
To reiterate the point I made above, Ivermectin might be the best available Covid therapy available. But....No systematic randomized double-blind studies have been conducted on the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral to determine (1) ideal dosages or ideal treatment regimen for anti-viral use, (2) side effects on ill patients suffering from severe respiratory disease, (3) potential interactions with other drugs and therapies that are being simultaneously given to Covid patients, or (4) whether Ivermectin is a more effective or less effective therapy than other drugs already approved or in the pipeline.
30 years of clinical experience using Ivermectin as deworming medicine does not answer any of the questions above.
I didn't take it that you were talking about me. I very seldom use Facebook for anything other than business, so I see practically none of the stuff you are describing.
With this being a very recent pandemic, which of the current Covid therapies have 100x more ANTIVIRAL studies than Ivermectin? Long before this Covid pandemic started, Ivermectin was known to have antiviral properties.
The Pfizer, J&J, and Moderna vaccines have all had clinical trials involving at least 100x more people than all of the combined trials involving the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral agent for Covid.
Without looking it up, I would suspect that Remdesivir and the various monoclonal antibody treatments currently in use have also been much more rigorously studied as a Covid therapy than Ivermectin as well.