If Internet algorithms can't tell the difference between criticism and advocacy, what's safe to report? Why one filmmaker believes "YouTube is unfit for the purpose for hosting journalism."
I have long covid. My dr. rx'd ivermectin in December and it was a gamechanger for me. Took me from so debilitated and ill I was about to hire help, to being ok to manage on my own. Not a cure, but a huge shift in the right direction. The fact that this drug has been politicized and propagandized makes me want to give up on this damn country.
How dare your body respond to a medication that the great and good of this country have declared to be a veterinary drug of no merit against this plague of our time. Shame.
Assuming this is true, that is another indication that long COVID is caused by long-term low-level infection being maintained in some organ(s). We know Ebola does this in testes. We know that West Nile Virus does this in kidneys, and it may be a major reason for idiopathic kidney failure.
One issue with long-term infections is that this is a way that viruses can adapt and mutate.
Woman going downhill, doc uses ivermectin as last resort, she quickly gets better and gets out of ICU. New doc in the non-ICU wing of hospital refuses to use ivermectin because he is very smarter than everyone else, and she goes downhill again, heads to ICU, and family has to sue to get her on ivermectin again. That works and she's safe today.
Doing really well. Eating a version of the GAPS diet to heal my gut, and all kinds of meditation and other things to calm down my nervous system. Currently no long covid symptoms, just super weak from 14 months of illness.
THAT is what makes you want to give up on this country?! You must have a much higher tolerance for bullshit than I do. Cheers for improving and get well.
Ditto. Long covid here as well. But it was only the animal dosage version that did it for me. Also helped my exercise routine. Feel like I can run a lot faster/longer now.
I'm certainly open to the idea that Ivermectin might do something, and since it's essentially harmless and normally used to treat all kinds of parasitic infections in humans, I fully believe that a COVID sufferer has an absolute right to try it. (Were not talking about poisonous chemotherapy drugs, so the risks are minimal and certainly consistent with the kinds of risks that we expect individuals to routinely judge for themselves.)
I do agree with you, though, that there may be a placebo effect here or worse, just a coincidence. People recover from long COVID, so how are we to know that the recovery wasn't just coincidental? The same phenomenon is at work in a lot of areas of medicine. Consider back problems and herniated disks. If you herniate a disk and are in severe pain, you can be evaluated by your physician, be recommended for surgery, have the surgery, and do physical therapy, and in around six months, you'll fully recover. In the alternative, if you show regular improvement, you can wait and recover. Did the surgery actually improve your condition, or did time improve your condition? Who can say? (I mention the example because I personally experienced the problem. I had a herniated disk with nerve involvement so extreme that I had flank spasms mistaken for a potential kidney stone. After relief of initial pain and a course of muscle relaxers, I wore lower-back supports and experienced a gradual improvement over seven months. I had an uncle with similar back problems at a similar age, and he opted for surgery. Surgery comes with post-surgical restrictions on movement essentially identical to the restrictions imposed on me by the back pain and that I followed out of necessity, and the recovery involved physical therapy with a recovery timeline of around six months. In my personal experience, the recovery without intervention was identical to the expected period of recovery with surgical intervention.) The fact is that when we're suffering, we have a bias toward action to correct the suffering, and when you do something and an effect coincides with the action, you can easily reach the mistaken conclusion that the action caused the result, a result that may have happened as a part of the normal process of recovery.
I think that a lot of people fail to understand the basic idea in this case. You can't take one example of a person taking Ivermectin and recovering and conclude much of anything. People recover all of the time both on and off Ivermectin. How do we identify real effects if you cannot confirm them from individual responses? You have to look at large populations and search for statistical evidence of an effect.
With Ivermectin and other treatments, I'm not so sure that there are meaningful studies to support an effect. To be fair to the believers in Ivermectin, I don't think that the powerful are allowing the studies for fear of vindicating the faith of the dirty masses, and they should allow the studies. The best way to restore trust between people of different levels of expertise and understanding would be to encourage large-scale studies and make the results available for all to see. If Ivermectic be ineffective, you won't persuade all of the faithful, but an openness to investigate, a willingness to risk being wrong, and the humility to admit the possibility of error or actual error would go a long way toward convincing the persuadable who rightly wonder what supposed experts have to hide.
No personal disrespect to the poster with the screen name "Nell Goddin", but- naturalistic photograph notwithstanding- the uncheckable claims of a basically anonymous poster on the Internet about their own medical experience don't even count as series-of-one anecdote, in terms of credibility.
This is a simple matter of skepticism. When it comes to personal anecdotes on the Internet, there are rules for assessing veracity (which is never going to be more than conditional), and medical claims require a lot more evidence than most topics. They also tend to be resistant to skeptical inquiry.
This comment is not to be read as a dismissive hand-wave of the possible therapeutic value of invermectin. I'm given to understand that reasonably rigorous studies of various sorts are being run on its possible uses against covid, and I'm waiting for more evidence to arrive before granting full credence to one position or another.
Nell my close friend of 30 years ended up in ICU for 6 days with blood clots in both lungs. My friend took the Pfizer vaccine. He’s a real person not a statistic. The hospital reported to VAERS. This is a fact. Glad to hear you are getting better from long Covid.
"it tends to have the impact of further convincing people that they’re being lied to by mainstream news and partners in Silicon Valley, which in turn might lead to urging people in the opposite direction of the content moderators’ intent"
I can attest this is absolutely true. Pretty much EVERYTHING I read and hear in mainstream media sources relating to any issue of substance, I almost automatically regard as misleading (at best). I consider ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and FOX first and foremost as sources of misinformation and propaganda.
"Pretty much EVERYTHING I read and hear in mainstream media sources relating to any issue of substance, I almost automatically regard as misleading (at best)."
That reminds me of an anecdote that I heard about Richard Helms, the director of the CIA back in the 60s. When one of his son's friends told him that he got most of his news from the networks he replied "Ignore that crap - it is all propaganda."
Of course as the man behind Operation Mockingbird he would know. I don't think much has changed.
This article (cited below) may be the most well researched and assessed information regarding the Covid-19 virus I've encountered thus far.💡☠ Wouldn't it be novel we could all put aside dogmatic differences, and try to find agreement; just for the fun of it❔
Even with a site that attracts a huge quotient of indisputably bigoted and willfully ignorant comment writers, I can often find insight- not derived from the content per se so much as in terms of the mentality of the posters. There's no need for "reading between the lines" to obtain those insights; the writers often give away more than they realize, quite openly.
And, yes, there is often a "real-life Idiocracy" entertainment factor involved.
The CIA was (and I am sure still very much is) a fun place. Just finished Mary's Mosaic and now working on The Devil's Chessboard. Both highly recommended.
Stopped mainstream media couple of month's ago and get all my information from the internet now. Feel so much more accurately and better informed ever since. Will never go back!
If you think the Internet is something, hit the stacks of a well-stocked college library on the subjects you're most curious about. It's much, much easier to search and browse.
Its so curious how CNN, for example, and its lack of integrity gets confused with YouTube, in the sense that their content makers are, in the former case, 100% centralized and controlled, versus the latter, rather 100% decentralized and free to create as they wish (the ideal).
The fascinating thing about Alex Jones is he takes really good info not found anywhere else, and mixes it with batshit crazy. The end result seems to be that the good info is discredited as 'crazy Alex Jones conspiracy theories'.
And that way all the factual info he presented gets discredited too by lumping it in with the bay shit crazy. Gee what a great way to discredit real info. Gordon Duff over at Veterans Today uses the same template!
Except nobody predicted the flooding this week. I mean *absolutely nobody in public service or the media* foresaw the possibility of people dying in basements and on highways in NYC. But when they tell you a Superblizzardnado is coming... you can be sure they will close schools for 2 inches of snow.
I have even come to the point where when the accuse the Right of doing something, I consider it a giveaway to their own action. Not that the Right doesn't have its own problems. I didn't vote for Trump you understand, stupid, inchoate clown. Did I do that correctly Matt? or are we past that pro forma declaration yet?
If anybody is interested, Merck is developing Molnupiravir (MK-4482)as a therapeutic to treat COVID-19 infections. It is in Phase 3. Merck received a base award amount of $1.2 bil on 6/7/21 from the federal government representing 1.7 mil doses; do the math. Link to comparison of Molnupiravir v. Ivermectin: https://austinpublishinggroup.com/pharmacology-therapeutics/fulltext/ajpt-v9-id1149.pdf
Not surprisingly, the two are similar. With neither showing any serious adverse side effects. "Molnupiravir is a pro-drug of the novel active antiviral nucleoside analogue ... It's a broad spectrum antiviral agent. ... Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum, anti-parasitic, antibiotic and which has demonstrated broad-spectrum antiviral activity" ... Merck had the patent on Ivermectin until 1996. So it is not a coincidence that they have developed this very expensive drug, Molnupiravir, funded by the US taxpayer and which is similar. It follows, then, why there is so much disparagement of Ivermectin. If widely accepted, it could rain on Merck's parade and greatly embarrass BARDA. What I cannot grasp is that for the 10 months when the vaccines were being developed, certain caring, critical care physicians sought out existing drugs and developed protocols. These have been changed multiple times and are currently undergoing more changes to address the variants issue. The FLCCC Alliance recommends the use Ivermectin as part of more expansive protocols which they have developed for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 at all stages by both the vaxxed and the un-vaxxed. These physicians should be lauded, not abused.
J&J did the same thing with Ketamine. (Off-patent since ~1982) IIRC, its an isomer of Ketamine, re-branded "Spravato" (esketamine) and is now many multiples more expensive. We keep falling for the same old crap. :-(
The only good-ish news here is that generic ketamine can still be prescribed cheaply and “off-label”. I’m a prescriber and that’s what I do when I think ketamine will be helpful. Have many colleagues who do the same. All the excellent research is on generic ketamine, with a much smaller body of evidence on esketamine/spravato. Are: Ivermectin, this next part is here-say, but would love to know if anyone here has encountered these situations… A pro-ivermectin pharmacist friend of mine told me that major pharmacies have been refusing to fill ketamine prescriptions that patients bring in from verified medical providers as policy. Further, he claimed that the providers who prescribe it are being flagged and reported (to whom, I’m not sure). Anyone know the veracity of these claims?
The only good-ish news here is that generic ketamine can still be prescribed cheaply and “off-label”. I’m a prescriber and that’s what I do when I think ketamine will be helpful. Have many colleagues who do the same. All the excellent research is on generic ketamine, with a much smaller body of evidence on esketamine/spravato. Are: Ivermectin, this next part is here-say, but would love to know if anyone here has encountered these situations… A pro-ivermectin pharmacist friend of mine told me that major pharmacies have been refusing to fill ketamine prescriptions that patients bring in from verified medical providers as policy. Further, he claimed that the providers who prescribe it are being flagged and reported (to whom, I’m not sure). Anyone know the veracity of these claims?
Bingo...I've been following the application of ivermectin for long-term covid in Israel. There has been notable success...again, never really followed by mainstream, commercial media here...a profit motive is likely.
Posting comments full of disinformation while complaining of the same is disingenuous (to put it mildly).
1. Molnupiravir and ivermectin are NOT similar chemically.
2. They do NOT have the same mechanism of action.
3. Molnupiravir is NOT the only antiviral nucleoside analog - remdesivir, fapipiravir and a few others belong to the same group, all of them tried as a treatment of Covid-19.
4. Merck is NOT the only pharma company developing antiviral drugs with this type of activity (inhibitors of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase). A connection with ivermectin exists only in your imagination.
And no, I'm not associated in any way with Merck or any other pharmaceutical company or any company working on Covid-19 treatment.
Now to ivermectin.
There are 7 studies on prophylactic use of ivermectin, all of them small and therefore subject to various biases. All reported favorable results with ivermectin vs control, but all used different protocols (doses, frequency, duration, combination with other drugs, reported outcomes). Carvallo study - the darling of ivermectin crowd - actually used a combination of weekly ivermectin with a nasal spray of carrageenan. Without control groups that had only ivermectin or only carrageenan. As it was pointed out repeatedly (and should be obvious to anyone with scientific background), that's a terrible study design. You never know what worked - ivermectin or carrageenan or both.
It's even worse with mild COVID cases - half of about 10 studies found no difference between ivermectin and control. Again, with the caveat that all of them were small, poorly designed, used completely different protocols, and are pretty much useless in terms of development of a treatment protocol. The only reliable data on ivermectin is in the treatment of severe cases in hospital setting, where it is clearly beneficial. There are no published studies on ivermectin efficacy in "long Covid" treatment, but both for severe cases and for "long Covid" doctors will readily prescribe it as a compassionate use drug.
So, to summarize...
There is no conspiracy between doctors, CDC and pharma companies to prevent people from accessing a cheap life-saving treatment. Ivermectin will be prescribed to you if its use is justified (like in the case of severe or "long" Covid). There is no advantage to ivermectin as compared to vaccination, and there is no reason for people to start dosing themselves with ivermectin as an alternative to vaccines.
Especially since ivermectin - like any other wide-spectrum anti-parasitic drug - is not without problems. It's been learned from many decades of using ivermectin in tropical countries (look up "Mectizan Donation Program") that it is associated with higher rate of asthma and skin allergies, like eczema and atopic dermatitis. Especially in children. And repeated treatment with ivermectin induces resistance in helminths (worms). Remember, ivermectin is not only a "horse dewormer", it's also a safe and cheap dewormer of other farm animals. Last thing you want to do is start using it indiscriminately, like antibiotics were used in the past. Anybody wants to pay a premium for their food? Or go back to the time when all meats had to be cooked through and through, until nearly inedible, to avoid helminth infection?
Hi Tashaj, Whatever you say about Molnupiravir and Ivermectin is fine with me. You can trash my comment until the cows come home. You're the boss. You know it all. Me? I'm more impressed by results. And by the 64 trials and 31 randomized controlled trials which support Ivermectin. So regardless of how you cherry-pick the data, I'll just keep taking my doctor-prescribed dose twice a week. Along with the suggested supplements. And I'll keep wearing an N95 indoors in public places. And so far, in an area which is dense with Delta, I have avoided infection. PS I am well over 65 years of age, to boot.
Thanks for the solipsistic update on your superhero-like methods deployed and successes realized in your battle with Coronazilla. Boorish. Almost beyond belief, but...
No. Tess Lawrie’s peer-reviewed meta analysis doesn’t even rely on the studies you and the subject of Matt’s story both like to pretend are the heart of the argument. And talking about using ivermectin post hospitalization makes clear you don’t understand the disease course of covid at all. Also, if you want to pretend that a coordinated nationwide campaign to dismiss ivermectin as a “veterinary” pharmaceutical in every headline, then you are best naive if not outright lying.
I think it’s time to divest doctors of the right to prescribe and let patients decode for themselves, as is done in many countries. It’s okay if you disagree, but it doesn’t matter if you do.
"a coordinated nationwide campaign to dismiss ivermectin as a “veterinary” pharmaceutical in every headline," - did you leave out "there is not"? Because it's plain for everyone to see. Even Ryan Grim of Intercept, who used to be pretty good. I really wonder where the memo came from and how it's enforced. Any journalistic whistle-blowers out there?
Yes, typo. Oh the answer to your question can be easily found. Look at the article on how the FDA manipulates the media in the recent issue of Scientific American.
Tess Lawrie has been "decoded" as an uber-quack, which indeed she is--in spades. Not to mention a quack-grifter. And the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is little more than a criminal organization committing wholesale fraud.
And while we divest "doctors of the right to prescribe and let patients decode for themselves," why don't we go ahead and divest auto mechanics of the right to overhaul transmissions and perform brake jobs. Let the motorists of the land decode for themselves, I say!
Ivermectin; IVM (red block) inhibits and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors (green). The green dotted lines depict activation pathways and the red dotted lines depict the inhibition pathways. The TLR-4 receptors are directly activated by SARS-CoV-2 and also by LPS mediated activation (seen during ICU settings) causing activation of NF-Kb pathway and MAP3 Kinases leading to increased intranuclear gene expression for proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines (responsible for cytokine storm) and NO release (responsible for blood vessel dilatation, fluid leak, low blood pressure, ARDS and sepsis). The NF-Kb and STAT-3 pathway activation is central to the pathogenesis and sequelae of COVID-19. STAT-3 physically binds to PAK-1 and increases IL-6 transcription. The annexin A2 at the cell surface converts plasminogen; PLG to plasmin under the presence of t-PA. Plasmin triggers activation and nuclear translocation of STAT-3. An upregulation of STAT-3 stimulates hyaluronan synthase-2 in the lung cells causing hyaluronan deposition leading to diffuse alveolar damage and hypoxia. STAT-3 also directly activates TGF-beta initiating pulmonary fibrosis; a typical characteristic of SARS-COV-2 lung pathology. The damaged type 2 cells express PAI-1 and an already hypoxic state also causes an upregulation of PAI (through Hypoxic inducible factor-1) along with direct stimulation by STAT-3. Simultaneous STAT-3 and PAI-1 activation inhibits t-PA and urokinase-type plasminogen activator leading to thrombi formation. Also, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the CD147 on red blood cells and causes clumping. IVM in turn, binds to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and hence prevents clumping. T cell lymphopenia in COVID-19 can also be attributed to the direct activation of PD-L1 receptors on endothelial cells by STAT-3. IVM directly inhibits the NF-kb pathway, STAT-3, and indirectly inhibits PAK-1 by increasing its ubiquitin-mediated degradation. The natural antiviral response of a cell is through interferon regulatory genes and viral RNA mediated activation of TLR-3 and TLR7/8- Myd88 activation of transcription of interferon-regulator (IRF) family. For a virus to establish an infection, this antiviral response needs to be inhibited by blocking interferon production. The proteins such as importin and KPNA mediate nuclear transport of viral protein and subsequent IFN signaling. The SARS-CoV-2 proteins (ORF-3a, NSP-1, and ORF-6) directly block IFN signaling causing the surrounding cells to become unsuspecting victims of the infection. IVM inhibits both importin a-b (green) as well as the KPNA-1 receptors (brown) causing natural antiviral IFN release. IVM also inhibits viral RdrP, responsible for viral replication. IVM Ivermectin, ACE-2 angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2, LPS Lipopolysaccharide, TLR Toll-like receptor, t-PA tissue-like plasminogen activator, PLG Plasminogen, IMPab Importin alpha-beta, Rdrp RNA dependant RNA polymerase, KPNA-1 Karyopherin Subunit Alpha 1, NF-kB nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells, Map3Kinases Mitogen-activated Kinases, PAK-1 P21 Activated Kinase 1, STAT-3 Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3, PAI-1 Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, HIF-1 Hypoxia-Inducible Factor
IVM Ivermectin, ACE-2 angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2, LPS Lipopolysaccharide, TLR Toll-like receptor, t-PA tissue-like plasminogen activator, PLG Plasminogen, IMPab Importin alpha-beta, Rdrp RNA dependant RNA polymerase, KPNA-1 Karyopherin Subunit Alpha 1, NF-kB nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells. The proteins such as importin and KPNA mediate nuclear transport of viral protein and subsequent IFN signaling. Winter is icummen in,Lhude sing Goddamm. Raineth drop and staineth slop, And how the wind doth ramm! Sing: Goddamm. Skiddeth bus and sloppeth us, An ague hath my ham. Freezeth river, turneth liver, Damn you, sing: Goddamm. Goddamm, Goddamm, 'tis why I am, Goddamm,So 'gainst the winter's balm. Sing goddamm, damm, sing Goddamm. Sing goddamm, sing goddamm, DAMM. SARS-CoV-2 proteins (ORF-3a, NSP-1, and ORF-6) directly block IFN signaling causing the surrounding cells to become unsuspecting victims of the infection. The natural antiviral response of a cell is through interferon regulatory genes and viral RNA mediated activation of TLR-3 and TLR7/8- Myd88 activation of transcription of interferon-regulator (IRF) family. The TLR-4 receptors are directly activated by SARS-CoV-2 and also by LPS mediated activation (seen during ICU settings) causing activation of NF-Kb pathway and MAP3 Kinases leading to increased intranuclear gene expression for proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines (responsible for cytokine storm) and NO release (responsible for blood vessel dilatation, fluid leak, low blood pressure, ARDS and sepsis).The natural antiviral response of a cell is through interferon regulatory genes and viral RNA mediated activation of TLR-3 and TLR7/8- Myd88 activation of transcription of interferon-regulator (IRF) family. For a virus to establish an infection, this antiviral response needs to be inhibited by blockin.g interferon production. IVM Ivermectin, ACE-2 angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2, LPS Lipopolysaccharide, TLR Toll-like receptor, t-PA tissue-like plasminogen activator, PLG Plasminogen, IMPab Importin alpha-beta, Rdrp RNA dependant RNA polymerase, KPNA-1 Karyopherin The damaged type 2 cells express PAI-1 and an already hypoxic state also causes an upregulation of PAI (through Hypoxic inducible factor-1) along with direct stimulation by STAT-3. Simultaneous STAT-3 and PAI-1 activation inhibits t-PA and urokinase-type plasminogen activator leading to thrombi formation. Also, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the CD147 on red blood cells and causes clumping. NO release (responsible for blood vessel dilatation, fluid leak, low blood pressure, ARDS and sepsis). The NF-Kb and STAT-3 pathway activation is central to the pathogenesis and sequelae of COVID-19. STAT-3 physically binds to PAK-1 and increases IL-6 transcription. The annexin A2 at the cell surface converts plasminogen; PLG to plasmin under the presence of t-PA. Plasmin triggers activation and nuclear translocation of STAT-3. An upregulation of STAT-3 stimulates hyaluronan synthase-2 in the lung cells causing hyaluronan deposition leading to diffuse alveolar damage and hypoxia.
Nate: I cannot account for a single study by Dr. Carvallo, but what I can do is refer you here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ where you can read extensively about the scientific rationale justifying the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19.
The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is little more than a criminal organization committing wholesale fraud. Pierre Kory and Joe Mercola are uber-quacks and sordid grifters on the double-make. Glad your healthy, but your personal anecdote is as meaningless as my anecdote documenting the scrape I healed by using a toothpaste/vaseline pumice.
It amuses me that you actually perceive that there are interests out there that would willingly pay me for the type of comments I make here. It embarrases me. Because when I check my online banking balance, I am SO TRANSPARENTLY not being paid for this shit. You're the expert---line me up some paid gigs and I'll split the proceeds 50/50 with you. Deal?
The most important issue in this piece is not whether ivermectin is an efficacious treatment for Covid. The biggest issue is whether we, as free people with freedom of speech and thought, are to be allowed to hear all sides and judge for ourselves. That's an issue that transcends YouTube. One of the most exceptional things about America is that the founders really trusted that the great mass of people could actually govern themselves, and that they could be trusted to speak and think freely. That concept flies in the face of most of human history, wherein those in power tend to hold tightly the reins of information, in the belief that people aren't to be trusted with "dangerous" ideas.
As Matt rightly notes, any attempt to censor simply leads people to believe that someone is hiding something. We should demand free and open debate on EVERYTHING to do with Covid, even theories that some might find absurd. Trust the people.. the truth will rise to the surface. You'll convert many skeptics if they feel that there is total transparency. To think otherwise is to adopt the thinking of tyrants and dictators.
They don't trust us with the information, so they censor or actually, lie. These are two bad things. One leads to loss of freedom; the other loss of trust. We need both freedom and trust.
"One of the most exceptional things about America is that the founders really trusted that the great mass of people could actually govern themselves, and that they could be trusted to speak and think freely."
The first part might be true if you define the great mass of people as white male property owners. As for the second, let's not forget the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.
You must be grateful to live in a country whose self-correcting system allows the mass of people to continually move closer to its founding ideals. That means we have the wherewithal to fight ideas like the internment of Japanese citizens in 1941 by F.D.R., escalation of the Viet Nam war by LBJ and Nixon and Internet censorship today.
And yet, those so-called "self-correcting systems" failed to stop even *one of the things you mention above. And, the Japanese were not interned in 1941. Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7th, 1941 leaving three weeks remaining in 1941 to take retaliatory action. The U.S. declared war on Japan, Dec. 8, 1941.
According to nps.gov: "On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the US Army to remove all persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and imprison them without due process of law."
There is no real advantage in quoting history if we are not interested in the accuracy of our facts.
Doesn't change the essence of the argument. It also doesn't change the fact that these ideas keep coming up, such as banning free speech, or excommunicating vaccine resistors from society.
Wow you are SOOO TOTALLY GENIUS? I have LITERALLY never read ANYTHING about HISTORY before your COMMENT? which is SO TOTALLEH AHXMAZING. you must be a genius no srsly.
People who don’t pay taxes really cannot be trusted to choose tax rates for others. We’ve proven this. Race aside, having or not having skin in the game distorts democracy to the point of collapse.
I agree. But it's the people who "don't pay taxes" who are currently running the country into the ground. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc.---who entrusted these motherfuckers to choose our tax rates? Some skin in the game and some dog teeth in the pot---ya! Don't worry about race, though. They mostly white motherfuckers with nothin' but foreskin in the game.
Well that's a lie. The wealthy pay taxes. Corporations never pay taxes, wage earners do. You're spewing tropes and lies because you don't actually understand how this works.
Nicely observed. Even under that *stirring and *soaring Jeffersonian Statement: "All men are created equal ....." in Jefferson's day, "men" were *legally defined as: FREE.
WHITE. MALE. LANDOWNERS. OVER TWENTY-ONE. The *mistake of thinking that "All men are created equal.... even CAN be interpreted by today's standards without a string of pretzel logic that would break one's very *neck, is not only silly, but textbook definition naive. These facts *fully underscore many modern *misinterpretations of the "intent" of the Founders - people presuming a 21st Century interpretation of language written (in this example) in the mid-1700s.
Its insane to suggest that people who don't work, don't own land and don't produce anything of value, regardless of race or gender, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
It should also be insane to believe that these voters should have the right to vote for the removal of my property to be paid to them. The problem is that it isn't, in fact, its supported by a majority of the idiots we have voting today. Without defined rights, majority rule is tyranny by a different name.
"People who don't work...and don't produce anything of value..." You mean like hedge fund managers, investment bankers and Big Tech workers? And not to worry---nobody will be "voting" for the right to remove your property or my property or anybody's property. That will all be accomplished systematically and without any poll tallies. You and millions of others are, myself included, a few short years away from the great anthropocene frog march to the Yukon gulags, to cultivate root vegetables and work in the hydrogen factories, in the service of The New Climate World Order. So don't sweat it.
That was certainly the view of the Founders. One man, one vote style democracy was defined *by them as the equivalent of "Fifty-one percent mob rule". The way people think of "Democracy" today is FAR removed from the way it was considered at the time of its U.S. Founding.
And, Sir, what is, or is *not "insane to suggest" is a matter for you to take up with Thomas Jefferson, not with yours truly.
The Founders were not "whack" when they were dealing with Thirteen Rather Sparsely populated podunk little Colonies. Isn't is just a *bit "whack" to wrench the Founders out of their own time period when literally *most people were fully illiterate, and *then to judge them by the Standards of Today, with the land area of today's U.S. and possessions, and the FACT of 330 Million people ? Given the facts on the ground in the Founder's day, throwing shade upon their accomplishments says *far more about today's commentator than about the actual Founders themselves. The Founders did NOT walk on water. There.
That they did not anticipate things like today's Big Pharma ? They actually did, even tho no one in those days could imagine the Global Size and Clout of Big Pharma:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson
So, they didn't anticipate McDee's by name. What a bunch of dunderheads !
Yes, you've hit on a very interesting phenomenon: the idea that today's mid-wit students and professors are somehow qualified to judge not just those who are alive today, but also everyone who EVER LIVED. That, along with the idea that everyone falls into just two groups, victim or victimizer, is another tenant of Marxism.
Times change, but human nature doesn't. The founders knew that centralized, top-down power is the worst way of organizing a civilization. Power corrupts, and there is more money and more power concentrated in Washington DC than anywhere at anytime in history. The only real solution to corruption is to start chipping away at that power. Unfortunately, these people have many ways to defend their positions, and will not hesitate to use them, as we've seen.
You're a rather vague, opaque kinda guy. "Chipping away?" This sounds more like a strategy that Mary Poppins might employ to get Bert over for afternoon tea. And then once you urge us to start this "chipping away" process you seem to give up the ghost by declaring, with confidence lacking, that "unfortunately these people have many ways to defend their positions." No flanking maneuvers in your strategic handbag? I daresay, you're going to have a hard go of it enlisting others to bivouac with you with that sort of strategic hesitancy. I mean, I'm not suggesting a full-on banzai charge here, but if these people indeed "have many ways to defend their positions" as you say, something more than a few ice hammers will have to be put to use if victory is to be achieved and a short walk to the gallows forestalled. I mean, really...
"One more time, for all the old times...." Historical figures can be judged ONLY by the conditions and *contexts of their OWN time periods. So, before digging up all of the impotent name-calling such as "Marxist", et al, just NOTICE that judging people according TO their own time period is just *logically self-evident.
So, to whatever degree your ability for reading comprehension allows, or disallows you to *grasp the foregoing, I am not interested in addressing, because I learned in Logic 101 to waste no time with "Strawman Arguments".
If you would reread my comment, you would "comprehend" that I'm adding to your argument, not denying it. But you can't have a discussion with someone who just wants to argue at any price.
Your original thesis seemed to be that America has never been perfect, therefore there is nothing about our country that merits preservation. That's a much over-used rhetorical device that is as vile as it is false.
One MORE time. My "original thesis" is not a thesis. It is a fact of basic LOGIC, to wit: "We cannot accurately judge ANY historical figure OUT of the context of their OWN time period !" I just cannot *make it any more simple than that, and, this (really, I promise this time) is my *final effort in repeating that statement. Readers can either fully *ignore it, or do with it what they will, but I am *not going to continue going all "broken record" on it ! Thank you for the discourse.
That’s like saying that the past, present and future are each demarcated from each other and no comparisons or symmetries are acceptable. Geez, how would we know there was time or temporality other than the present??
The Founders most DEFINITELY did not trust "the great mass of people." And like it or not, the functioning of a healthy modern society depends on the work and judgements of experts. Unquestionably, Big Pharma and the entire edifice of the American health care system require extensive and revolutionary reform. In the meantime, allowing quacks, charlatans, grifters, and quick-buck artists in through the backdoor is, to say the least, NOT what the doctor ordered.
You're wrong on the Founders. They set a system in motion that was founded on principals that were pointing us toward freedom and justice.
"Experts" are great, but what do we do when so many experts disagree? Do we allow the government to choose which experts we can hear, and those whose opinions we're not allowed to hear? Over time, the truth does rise to the surface. If that isn't true, then we should simply acquiesce to the "progressive" (regressive) idea that we must be ruled by an elite group of experts, who feed us only what they want us to know.
Read more, comment less. I'm not wrong on the Founders. Read more, comment less. I've spent a lifetime reading and re-reading the many of the best secondary monographs on American colonial history.
"...They set a system in motion that was founded on principals [principles, not principals] that were pointing us toward freedom and justice." This is insipid--- mewling meaninglessness. It is not a refutation of my comment in any way. It's as airy and hollow as a Hallmark greeting card verse. Read the Federalist Papers, particularly Madison. I can also furnish you a long reading list of superb scholarship that will introduce you to the the founder's well-documented wariness of the common rabble. Read more, comment less. Opinions are worthless. Remember that the next time you have one.
"Experts" are great, but what do we do when so many experts disagree? Do we allow the government to choose which experts we can hear, and those whose opinions we're not allowed to hear?" Experts always disagree. When have experts not disagreed? That's what experts do best--disagree. To take your beloved founders as an example, they made a religion of disagreeing with one another.
If you don't like what a certain group of experts are offering, start reading some more. Less commenting, more reading. If you don't subscribe to the prevailing opinions or ideas, read some more so you're able to formulate your own coherent opinions, buttressed by documented facts, not cheaply manufactured propaganda. Read more, comment less.
Your scholarly devotion has devolved into Internet trolling and insults. For someone who holds their own scholarship in such high regard, you lower yourself to cheap insults.
The Founders' concern about the "rabble" lead them to form a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. Does that mean they didn't trust the people? No. It meant they didn't trust the passions of the day, and wanted to slow things down with a more deliberative process.
You're extremely proud of your ability to read, perhaps you're the one who should search out more facts and opinions before you spout. Then you might not be so certain that "experts" should rule over the rabble.
Huh-uh. When a specific strain of "stupid" becomes anathema and too threatening to American elites, the first order of the day for state gauleiters will be to direct their propaganda field operatives to substack comment sections like this one.
So there’s a theory that if a bunch of chimps pound away at keyboards long enough, they’ll come up with Shakespeare. Now we can see that isn’t true. Hunter Thompson is dead.
I hate to be "WELL AKSHULLY" guy, but I'm gonna have to be.
Galileo was right, but only by accident. Resistance to heliocentricism had almost nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with science. The best science of the day indicated that Galileo had gone way beyond the data they had available. Most SCIENTISTS thought heliocentricism was wrong, based largely on older Greek work that was entirely reasonable based on the then current data. It wasn't until better telescopes provided more accurate data that a serious case for heliocentricism could be made.
How this applies to our present situation is left as an exercise for the reader.
Copernicus asserted heliocentrism on the basis of observations, likewise Bruno confirmed Copernicus’ “theory” on the basis of observations, and Galileo doubly confirmed the heliocentric model with observations of the Moon’s surface, of the phases of Venus, and of sunspots on the Sun, among other discoveries from observation, eg Jupiter.
This was the time when conceptualuzation was being criticized by induction via Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, etc. Galileo was under intense pressure from authorities, as the assertion of heliocentrism was considered heresy. So, it was not by accident that Galileo was right. See Feyerabend on Galileo.
eh, in the cosmological sense- beyond the orbital bias conferred by planetary revolution around a type G star- relative perspective applies; there's no objective reason why each of our personal locations on this planet is not, in fact, the "center of the universe."
The more important question is: what makes it important? For someone concerned with, say, satellite launches, the reality of earth orbit around the sun is proof of an imperative principle of physics; in considerations of the philosophy of being, it's practically irrelevant.
It's a terrible shame that the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the day was so insecure about early astronomical researches that they felt the need to pass sweeping judgements about the findings, and the discoverers.
If iv*rmectin was so ineffective, they wouldn't be so against it. Nobody cares about cranks who talk about how the earth is flat or if the moon landing wasn't real, or who advocate taking horse painkillers like ketamine to treat mental health issues - yet they're very concerned with shutting this topic down. Why?
Or how about "vaccine is ineffective". Two Pfizer shots Apr 15 and May 2; caught COVID with a positive test on 8/19. MIL had her J&J shot in late June, caught COVID with a positive test date of 8/24.
Outcomes for the two of us were totally similar with my wife's, who took no vaccine but IS taking ivermectin. Positive test on 8/24, asymptomatic now.
Try this one on: current policies dictate that after a positive COVID test, you're considered infectious and _no one can visit you_. My wife broke her leg last weekend and my MIL had some heart palpitations caused by overly thin blood as a result of the cold medications she was taking for COVID interacting with the warfarin she takes. In both cases I couldn't even visit them or act as an advocate in the hospital because I was going to catch the COVID I probably brought home to them in the first place and was definitely immune to.
I know public health policy is hard, but this is exceedingly dumb at this point.
Amen. I wouldn't say I've been ignoring policy, for example, I wear masks because they are easy and I dont want to cause a fuss, the people at my grocer don't get paid enough to deal with it, but at some point, ignoring the authorities becomes the only viable way of dealing with them.
I live in a lake community south of Charlotte, NC, so I am in SC but on the border with NC. NC has a mask mandate and SC doesn't. I simply refuse to go over the border for anything anymore, despite my typical errands being in both states. I just... can't. No more masking. I've switched my favorite grocery store from one that was in NC to one here and we are avoiding some of our NC restaurants and gym due to this.
They'd have a hard time justifying taking down the proceedings of the Michigan House. They (the online giants) all realize just how close to the edge of being winked out of existence they are.
I was not impressed with her claims, far too absolutist and just plain wrong on the main count: the vaccinated are not reeling from the Delta variant, the unvaccinated are.
Here claim that receiving the flu vaccine over several years sets the person up for more extreme symptomology makes no sense; it is as if prior vaccinations - a stronger immune system - is deleterious in the face of a new mutation.
In the case of COVID, the initial form or mutant is just as effectively countered by the vaccinations as are the subsequent mutations. There is not that much difference.
It is also absurd to claim that vaccinated persons are transmitting the virus. What is the action of the vaccination? catch and release? No, viral pathogens that enter a vaccinated person are destroyed by the immune system. A vaccinated person is neither symptomatic nor transmitting the virus: can’t get it can’t give it.
Exceptions like long COVID or people testing pos after vax should be examined more carefully for other diseases. Flu symptoms can arise from many other causes, e.g. allergies!
Bottom line: ER’s are flooded by the unvaccinated!
Really? Have you looked at Israel, UK, Seychelles? Their rates of infection mirror the rates of vax vs unvaxxed almost perfectly.
“ 95% of the severe patients are vaccinated.” Furthermore, “85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people” and the hospital is “opening more and more COVID wards.”
Where's the data to back up your claims? Seems we can't get real data...CDC isn't counting breakthrough cases any more? Any contact tracing of those people? How do we know. The point is the narrative (as is your go-to) that only the unvaccinated are the problem and thus they MUST get vaccinated, is always the only argument!
It’s already been revealed that the “pAndemIc of tHe unVaccinAted” press release relied on pre delta data from March, to the shock of a number of scientists. Iverson had a little piece on it but I don’t think she talked in much detail. The cultists simultaneously claim the pandemic is spreading only among the unvaccinated AND the vaccines were never designed to limit spread to begin with. What?
Yeah, until the next strain comes around! I can't figure out if my immune system is awesome (mild cases) or awful (keep getting it). At this rate, I'll get the next varient but will probably not even notice. "Wait, I thought I had a sniffle there for a moment.. nah, I'm fine."
Right? I've been taking Vit C, Vit D, zinc and elderberry for the last 18 months. What to do to boost one's immunity was also dropped from social media in the early months. That will also confound and anger me!
I heard about a guy who was wearing a seatbelt and Still got injured in a car crash. Worse than somebody else who crashed who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.
So your hur hur hur response citing anecdotal evidence is pointless. The vaccine wasn't supposed to stop people from getting infected in the first place, it was only designed to lessen symptoms in the original COVID-19 virus. Its effect on Delta is spotty at best.
This lie to the American public, at least by omission, is further harming government credibility, as if it could get much worse. No one wants a booster shot that is not effective against Delta. No one wants a vaccine that doesn't stop you from getting the disease. Even if it is effective in that manner against the original COVID-19, that is not what is floating around now, and certainly not what will be floating around in 6 months if the medical professionals I talk to have any credibility.
It took getting the disease and then researching this to find out the answer, which is that we were all sold a bill of goods.
And follow the egos. Fauci has been beating the vaccine drum for decades. He was instrumental in spending gobs of money on a failed HIV vaccine and steering money away from therapeutics.
I wonder what he thinks the endgame is for him. If nothing else, the historians will get him. A big mea culpa now would probably have a better result long term.
And if it was supposedly to gain all these insights into bat-origin coronaviruses, as Peter Daszak told Fauci in his email, why do these people never seem to have a clue? What did we ACTUALLY get for the money we spent?
The Arpanet was a DoD funded research project. So was CPOF - it's the main C2 tool used in the Army for something like 15 of the last 20 years. So sometimes the research dollars produce results. But the DoD also invests in stupid things, as you cite above. Its location in China wasn't necessarily dumb from a national security perspective as long as nothing classified was transmitted, i.e. the data flow was all one way. The research itself probably was stupid.
No it is not. It is very intelligent. Wildlife, and bats in particular, are the primary reservoir of coronaviruses. SARS-1 came from bats. So, it is smart to support (cheap) research on bat coronaviruses. If we had not done this, we WOULD NOT HAVE ANY data on bat coronaviruses in China.
Hydroxy cloroquin and ivermectin are old drugs that are very safe and very cheap. Big pharma would rather have us using drugs like Remdesavir that cost $3,000 per treatment.
From same comment mentioned above (IM Doc on Naked Capitalism...)
"Remdesevir is loaded with all kinds of safety problems that I have seen with my own eyes. And it has the extra benefit of obviously not working – it literally does not do a god damned thing. Multiple studies have hinted at this."
It was my understanding that remdasivir was given early on with mixed results. At that time no one knew WHAT worked and so doctors were trying all sorts of things.
"The agency added that the NIH has also determined there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for the treatment of COVID.
Not actually correct – the NIH current status on ivermectin is there is not enough data to recommend OR to discourage its use. The NIH changed this recommendation in December of 2020 as previously the NIH status on ivermectin usage was to discourage its use. Usually the status in which ivermectin is now placed would be accompanied with all kinds of funds to study the true efficacy of the drug, to see if it is successful. That of course is not being done at this time.
Interestingly, 2 of our other COVID modalities have exactly the same recommend/discourage status. That would be remdesevir and outpatient monoclonal antibodies. EXACTLY the same status on both of these as ivermectin currently. The NIH states there is not enough evidence to recommend or to discourage the use of either of these.
And yet we continue right on with both the others without a blink of an eye.
A little math –
Ivermectin course for COVID is less than twenty dollars.
A course of REMDESEVIR is currently right at 8800 dollars.
An outpatient treatment with monoclonal antibodies is right at 23000 – 25000 dollars with all the infusion costs added."
Hat tip to IM Doc (commentariat on Naked Capitalism....best source for info on Covid I've found...)
major, controlled studies of efficacy going on, two in the US and one in Britain. So the FDA, or somebody with money, thinks it's worth a try - not at all what they're telling us. It would be unethical to trial a drug with no reason to think it might work.
Dude, I KNOW that you are fully aware that Big Pharma, and "unethical" are *not mutually exclusive concepts ! The "somebody with money" of your *own statement really was NOT, as you note, the FDA ! The FDA could even be the one to "initiate the action", but they are *not the motive power behind this SARS Co V 2 racket.
This idea that "they're censoring it so it must work" is stupid. I don't agree with the censorship and I don't know if ivermectin works or not (though I lean towards thinking it doesn't based on the principle of something sounding too good to be true probably being so). It makes perfect sense to me why someone who believes censorship is justified to save lives would want to stop what they see as a quack bullshit treatment being recommended online. If people think they're being protected by the ivermectin they took when they aren't, it could lead to people to avoid taking any other protective measures against Covid, thus spreading the disease to people who are at risk, or dying from it themselves.
My wife refused to get vaccinated but took ivermectin when she got Delta. I don't know what to say about it, the holistic treehugger types she works with are dead set against what they call 'unnecessary' vaccination. Their belief structures seem to be that the immune system is zero sum and if you attenuate it for one disease, you're making it less effective against others.
I don't feel confident enough to argue too hard against this, but I don't personally believe it. I got vaccinated and I probably have more vaccines in me than most - 2 heps, anthrax, probably one of the rare people that has had a smallpox booster in this century, a few others courtesy of Uncle Sam. Come to me with a needle with a vaccine in it and i'll offer up an arm.
It's just wrong. The immune system eventually wears out, if you live that long. By the time you are 112, you may be down to one or 2 clone lineages of B and T cells. So you won't mount a great response. But, the design of living organisms is that they are self-renewing colonies of trillions of cells that work together. The immune system can keep fielding new challenges just fine. In fact, allergies are an instance of immune systems not having enough to work on. So, kind of like a bored kid, those cells find SOMETHING to do. (Like the time when I, at the age of 7 got a saw for Christmas from my father. It was supposed to saw through steel and wood, anything. Bored me, I tried it out on my dad's rolltop desk... :-D It's funny now. It wasn't then. Anyway, an immune system without enough to do is something like that.)
There are people that inject snake venoms to the point that they are hyper-immune and can take a mortal dose of venom without serious harm. It still hurts terribly, but they recover in a day or so. The only indications I have on those people is that they have better health for longer lives.
If the Immune System eventually "wears out", then I am damned glad that no one seems to have Polio anymore ! I also had Chicken Pox, Mumps, and Measles the "old fashioned" way. With the exception of Shingles as a "gift" from Chicken Pox, Mumps, and Measles do not "come back" either ! This I have proven by taking care of children who also had Mumps and Measles in *spite of having also been injected with today's "foolproof" vaccines for BOTH !
As to "if you live long enough", that condition also applies to ALL males dying of prostate cancer. In my Seventies, I don't have a trace of it, but IF I LIVE LONG ENOUGH ...... what does *that mean ? When Methuselah becomes *MY little brother ? Sheeee-*IT ! ;-D ;-D
Indeed, they DO, but all that tells us is that "eventually *Somethin' gonna kill yuh ! I do not regard that as particularly "new" news.
Most old timers who are taken out by virus, usually go via flu going into pleuresy/pneumonia. But, there is *still falling down stairs ....etc. You get the drift ! ;-D
The commenter, previously billing himself on this queue as "Brian The Scientist", rarely bothers impeding himself with actual facts, altho he will *claim the knowledge of the gawds on most all subject of science. Brian finally "trimmed" his original self-chosen online handle when sufficient numbers of commenters proved him *wrong on the bulk of his "scientific" claims. So, consider this an "unofficial", and definitely "unsolicited" bit of background trivia. ;-D ;-D I would go with trusting your OWN experience, as I see that you usually do.
And, yes. Troops going to Vietnam were subjected to 21 Overseas shots, administered by *air gun as the troops were slow marched by the medics. Frequently "off target", the air guns could either administer the shot, OR rip a long divot in your skin due to the movement of the march.
They still used air guns at Benning but they had us stand still for them, thank goodness. Still a lot of shots in rapid fire fashion. All our upper arms were aching that night.
It was kinda funny in one respect. The soldier wielding the air gun on my left arm complained about how hard it was to get a shot in on my arm. I didn't tell him it was one of my prime insulin injection sites and had seen a LOT of needles. Since insulin dependent people aren't supposed to deploy and my G6 (the guy in that picture) went the extra mile to get me signed off by the divisional doctor AND tossed a little fridge into one of the ISU-90s (half a Conex, air transport container) to keep the insulin cold over where we were going.
I like to get all kinds of opinions. Some people I disagree with even when i'm soliciting same, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
By all *means, do all of your own research ! Yes ! I guessed that you probably *did remember Brian from the days of the longer title. I just posted under the principle of: "Better to *have redundant info and not *need it, than the obverse !" ;-D
I have long covid. My dr. rx'd ivermectin in December and it was a gamechanger for me. Took me from so debilitated and ill I was about to hire help, to being ok to manage on my own. Not a cure, but a huge shift in the right direction. The fact that this drug has been politicized and propagandized makes me want to give up on this damn country.
How dare your body respond to a medication that the great and good of this country have declared to be a veterinary drug of no merit against this plague of our time. Shame.
He's clearly a White Supremacist.
Assuming this is true, that is another indication that long COVID is caused by long-term low-level infection being maintained in some organ(s). We know Ebola does this in testes. We know that West Nile Virus does this in kidneys, and it may be a major reason for idiopathic kidney failure.
One issue with long-term infections is that this is a way that viruses can adapt and mutate.
Yep, I took ivermectin over 7 months after first having long covid symptoms. Seems like viral persistence was happening.
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/after-judge-orders-hospital-to-use-experimental-covid-19-treatment-woman-recovers/article_a9eb315c-5694-11eb-aac5-53b541448755.html
Woman going downhill, doc uses ivermectin as last resort, she quickly gets better and gets out of ICU. New doc in the non-ICU wing of hospital refuses to use ivermectin because he is very smarter than everyone else, and she goes downhill again, heads to ICU, and family has to sue to get her on ivermectin again. That works and she's safe today.
If you have a link to that story I would appreciate it.
So how are you now?
Doing really well. Eating a version of the GAPS diet to heal my gut, and all kinds of meditation and other things to calm down my nervous system. Currently no long covid symptoms, just super weak from 14 months of illness.
Improving diet and meditation to get well?! What anti-science, unproven, conspiratorial nonsense! The vaccine cures Long Covid, "like a lightning bolt:" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/long-haul-covid-vaccine_l_604f55b6c5b60e0725f91ed6
lol
Seems as anecdotal as IVM
Brian, you may find this interesting. Patterson is well credentialed. https://youtu.be/JwjJs5ZHKJI?list=PLCXya1JzWcnSCHNSipO8fWFonSWyyDQq5
THAT is what makes you want to give up on this country?! You must have a much higher tolerance for bullshit than I do. Cheers for improving and get well.
Oh, only one item on a long list :) Thanks for the good wishes
Is there some country where good information and transparency is abundant, or better? Where?
Iceland.
Ditto. Long covid here as well. But it was only the animal dosage version that did it for me. Also helped my exercise routine. Feel like I can run a lot faster/longer now.
Sounds like placebo to me..
I'm certainly open to the idea that Ivermectin might do something, and since it's essentially harmless and normally used to treat all kinds of parasitic infections in humans, I fully believe that a COVID sufferer has an absolute right to try it. (Were not talking about poisonous chemotherapy drugs, so the risks are minimal and certainly consistent with the kinds of risks that we expect individuals to routinely judge for themselves.)
I do agree with you, though, that there may be a placebo effect here or worse, just a coincidence. People recover from long COVID, so how are we to know that the recovery wasn't just coincidental? The same phenomenon is at work in a lot of areas of medicine. Consider back problems and herniated disks. If you herniate a disk and are in severe pain, you can be evaluated by your physician, be recommended for surgery, have the surgery, and do physical therapy, and in around six months, you'll fully recover. In the alternative, if you show regular improvement, you can wait and recover. Did the surgery actually improve your condition, or did time improve your condition? Who can say? (I mention the example because I personally experienced the problem. I had a herniated disk with nerve involvement so extreme that I had flank spasms mistaken for a potential kidney stone. After relief of initial pain and a course of muscle relaxers, I wore lower-back supports and experienced a gradual improvement over seven months. I had an uncle with similar back problems at a similar age, and he opted for surgery. Surgery comes with post-surgical restrictions on movement essentially identical to the restrictions imposed on me by the back pain and that I followed out of necessity, and the recovery involved physical therapy with a recovery timeline of around six months. In my personal experience, the recovery without intervention was identical to the expected period of recovery with surgical intervention.) The fact is that when we're suffering, we have a bias toward action to correct the suffering, and when you do something and an effect coincides with the action, you can easily reach the mistaken conclusion that the action caused the result, a result that may have happened as a part of the normal process of recovery.
I think that a lot of people fail to understand the basic idea in this case. You can't take one example of a person taking Ivermectin and recovering and conclude much of anything. People recover all of the time both on and off Ivermectin. How do we identify real effects if you cannot confirm them from individual responses? You have to look at large populations and search for statistical evidence of an effect.
With Ivermectin and other treatments, I'm not so sure that there are meaningful studies to support an effect. To be fair to the believers in Ivermectin, I don't think that the powerful are allowing the studies for fear of vindicating the faith of the dirty masses, and they should allow the studies. The best way to restore trust between people of different levels of expertise and understanding would be to encourage large-scale studies and make the results available for all to see. If Ivermectic be ineffective, you won't persuade all of the faithful, but an openness to investigate, a willingness to risk being wrong, and the humility to admit the possibility of error or actual error would go a long way toward convincing the persuadable who rightly wonder what supposed experts have to hide.
No personal disrespect to the poster with the screen name "Nell Goddin", but- naturalistic photograph notwithstanding- the uncheckable claims of a basically anonymous poster on the Internet about their own medical experience don't even count as series-of-one anecdote, in terms of credibility.
This is a simple matter of skepticism. When it comes to personal anecdotes on the Internet, there are rules for assessing veracity (which is never going to be more than conditional), and medical claims require a lot more evidence than most topics. They also tend to be resistant to skeptical inquiry.
This comment is not to be read as a dismissive hand-wave of the possible therapeutic value of invermectin. I'm given to understand that reasonably rigorous studies of various sorts are being run on its possible uses against covid, and I'm waiting for more evidence to arrive before granting full credence to one position or another.
Here ya go, Mr. Skeptic. Long list of studies already completed. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FLCCC-Protocols-%E2%80%93-A-Guide-to-the-Management-of-COVID-19.pdf
Nell my close friend of 30 years ended up in ICU for 6 days with blood clots in both lungs. My friend took the Pfizer vaccine. He’s a real person not a statistic. The hospital reported to VAERS. This is a fact. Glad to hear you are getting better from long Covid.
"it tends to have the impact of further convincing people that they’re being lied to by mainstream news and partners in Silicon Valley, which in turn might lead to urging people in the opposite direction of the content moderators’ intent"
I can attest this is absolutely true. Pretty much EVERYTHING I read and hear in mainstream media sources relating to any issue of substance, I almost automatically regard as misleading (at best). I consider ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and FOX first and foremost as sources of misinformation and propaganda.
"Pretty much EVERYTHING I read and hear in mainstream media sources relating to any issue of substance, I almost automatically regard as misleading (at best)."
That reminds me of an anecdote that I heard about Richard Helms, the director of the CIA back in the 60s. When one of his son's friends told him that he got most of his news from the networks he replied "Ignore that crap - it is all propaganda."
Of course as the man behind Operation Mockingbird he would know. I don't think much has changed.
Agreed! I shun the mainstream media and get all my information from the internet. Feeling a lot more accurately informed ever since.
Ditto. I'll read Matt's articles, but on most sites I prefer to go straight to the comments. People-generated discussion is way better than fake news.
@Danno
Boy, does THAT depend *specifically upon the comment queue.
@ Atma ✔
Now THAT is a perfectly placed asterisk mon ami.👍
This article (cited below) may be the most well researched and assessed information regarding the Covid-19 virus I've encountered thus far.💡☠ Wouldn't it be novel we could all put aside dogmatic differences, and try to find agreement; just for the fun of it❔
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/02/covid-19-as-bioweapon-the-origins-of-a-conspiracy-theory/
Enjoy🤩
EA
If the Techno-types want to offload the over-eaters, old and terminally gullible, they created the right tool.
Even with a site that attracts a huge quotient of indisputably bigoted and willfully ignorant comment writers, I can often find insight- not derived from the content per se so much as in terms of the mentality of the posters. There's no need for "reading between the lines" to obtain those insights; the writers often give away more than they realize, quite openly.
And, yes, there is often a "real-life Idiocracy" entertainment factor involved.
The Man Who Kept the Secrets.
The CIA was (and I am sure still very much is) a fun place. Just finished Mary's Mosaic and now working on The Devil's Chessboard. Both highly recommended.
Dull, duller, Dulles.
Reading Devils Chessboard now, nothing is as it seems, everyone has their own agenda in positions of power.
Well that's because they are.
Alex Jones has a better record for accuracy. (And he'd make a great metal vocalist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw8pz6OhPPM )
Alec Jones asserted Sandy Hook mass murder of 1st graders did not occur, he was taken to court and lost. He’s accurate?
Jones' involvement in Sandy Hook seemed every bit as suspicious as the event itself.
Stopped mainstream media couple of month's ago and get all my information from the internet now. Feel so much more accurately and better informed ever since. Will never go back!
If you think the Internet is something, hit the stacks of a well-stocked college library on the subjects you're most curious about. It's much, much easier to search and browse.
If you're into, you know, print.
They call it “programming” for a reason. ;-)
Its so curious how CNN, for example, and its lack of integrity gets confused with YouTube, in the sense that their content makers are, in the former case, 100% centralized and controlled, versus the latter, rather 100% decentralized and free to create as they wish (the ideal).
I've always said that about Alex, but I'm never quite sure who he's working for, either.
I wonder the same thing.
The fascinating thing about Alex Jones is he takes really good info not found anywhere else, and mixes it with batshit crazy. The end result seems to be that the good info is discredited as 'crazy Alex Jones conspiracy theories'.
And that way all the factual info he presented gets discredited too by lumping it in with the bay shit crazy. Gee what a great way to discredit real info. Gordon Duff over at Veterans Today uses the same template!
Yeah, Alex Jones is Bill Hicks.
I completely believe them when they say it's currently raining in New York, or that the Cubs won today.
You're leaving out their superb coverage of car chases. Credit where due.
Except nobody predicted the flooding this week. I mean *absolutely nobody in public service or the media* foresaw the possibility of people dying in basements and on highways in NYC. But when they tell you a Superblizzardnado is coming... you can be sure they will close schools for 2 inches of snow.
I have even come to the point where when the accuse the Right of doing something, I consider it a giveaway to their own action. Not that the Right doesn't have its own problems. I didn't vote for Trump you understand, stupid, inchoate clown. Did I do that correctly Matt? or are we past that pro forma declaration yet?
When I feel like drinking kool aid I watch th msm. Dont drink much of that poisonous coloured liquid anymore
If anybody is interested, Merck is developing Molnupiravir (MK-4482)as a therapeutic to treat COVID-19 infections. It is in Phase 3. Merck received a base award amount of $1.2 bil on 6/7/21 from the federal government representing 1.7 mil doses; do the math. Link to comparison of Molnupiravir v. Ivermectin: https://austinpublishinggroup.com/pharmacology-therapeutics/fulltext/ajpt-v9-id1149.pdf
Not surprisingly, the two are similar. With neither showing any serious adverse side effects. "Molnupiravir is a pro-drug of the novel active antiviral nucleoside analogue ... It's a broad spectrum antiviral agent. ... Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum, anti-parasitic, antibiotic and which has demonstrated broad-spectrum antiviral activity" ... Merck had the patent on Ivermectin until 1996. So it is not a coincidence that they have developed this very expensive drug, Molnupiravir, funded by the US taxpayer and which is similar. It follows, then, why there is so much disparagement of Ivermectin. If widely accepted, it could rain on Merck's parade and greatly embarrass BARDA. What I cannot grasp is that for the 10 months when the vaccines were being developed, certain caring, critical care physicians sought out existing drugs and developed protocols. These have been changed multiple times and are currently undergoing more changes to address the variants issue. The FLCCC Alliance recommends the use Ivermectin as part of more expansive protocols which they have developed for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 at all stages by both the vaxxed and the un-vaxxed. These physicians should be lauded, not abused.
J&J did the same thing with Ketamine. (Off-patent since ~1982) IIRC, its an isomer of Ketamine, re-branded "Spravato" (esketamine) and is now many multiples more expensive. We keep falling for the same old crap. :-(
Yes, Thomas. It's an old pharma practice called "Evergreening".
The only good-ish news here is that generic ketamine can still be prescribed cheaply and “off-label”. I’m a prescriber and that’s what I do when I think ketamine will be helpful. Have many colleagues who do the same. All the excellent research is on generic ketamine, with a much smaller body of evidence on esketamine/spravato. Are: Ivermectin, this next part is here-say, but would love to know if anyone here has encountered these situations… A pro-ivermectin pharmacist friend of mine told me that major pharmacies have been refusing to fill ketamine prescriptions that patients bring in from verified medical providers as policy. Further, he claimed that the providers who prescribe it are being flagged and reported (to whom, I’m not sure). Anyone know the veracity of these claims?
shoot- wish I could edit my comment. I misspoke: he claims pharmacies are refusing to fill *ivermectin* prescriptions (not ketamine).
That’s true with many drugs, but your doctors have been captured and only prescribe “the latest and greatest”.
The only good-ish news here is that generic ketamine can still be prescribed cheaply and “off-label”. I’m a prescriber and that’s what I do when I think ketamine will be helpful. Have many colleagues who do the same. All the excellent research is on generic ketamine, with a much smaller body of evidence on esketamine/spravato. Are: Ivermectin, this next part is here-say, but would love to know if anyone here has encountered these situations… A pro-ivermectin pharmacist friend of mine told me that major pharmacies have been refusing to fill ketamine prescriptions that patients bring in from verified medical providers as policy. Further, he claimed that the providers who prescribe it are being flagged and reported (to whom, I’m not sure). Anyone know the veracity of these claims?
Bingo...I've been following the application of ivermectin for long-term covid in Israel. There has been notable success...again, never really followed by mainstream, commercial media here...a profit motive is likely.
Posting comments full of disinformation while complaining of the same is disingenuous (to put it mildly).
1. Molnupiravir and ivermectin are NOT similar chemically.
2. They do NOT have the same mechanism of action.
3. Molnupiravir is NOT the only antiviral nucleoside analog - remdesivir, fapipiravir and a few others belong to the same group, all of them tried as a treatment of Covid-19.
4. Merck is NOT the only pharma company developing antiviral drugs with this type of activity (inhibitors of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase). A connection with ivermectin exists only in your imagination.
And no, I'm not associated in any way with Merck or any other pharmaceutical company or any company working on Covid-19 treatment.
Now to ivermectin.
There are 7 studies on prophylactic use of ivermectin, all of them small and therefore subject to various biases. All reported favorable results with ivermectin vs control, but all used different protocols (doses, frequency, duration, combination with other drugs, reported outcomes). Carvallo study - the darling of ivermectin crowd - actually used a combination of weekly ivermectin with a nasal spray of carrageenan. Without control groups that had only ivermectin or only carrageenan. As it was pointed out repeatedly (and should be obvious to anyone with scientific background), that's a terrible study design. You never know what worked - ivermectin or carrageenan or both.
It's even worse with mild COVID cases - half of about 10 studies found no difference between ivermectin and control. Again, with the caveat that all of them were small, poorly designed, used completely different protocols, and are pretty much useless in terms of development of a treatment protocol. The only reliable data on ivermectin is in the treatment of severe cases in hospital setting, where it is clearly beneficial. There are no published studies on ivermectin efficacy in "long Covid" treatment, but both for severe cases and for "long Covid" doctors will readily prescribe it as a compassionate use drug.
So, to summarize...
There is no conspiracy between doctors, CDC and pharma companies to prevent people from accessing a cheap life-saving treatment. Ivermectin will be prescribed to you if its use is justified (like in the case of severe or "long" Covid). There is no advantage to ivermectin as compared to vaccination, and there is no reason for people to start dosing themselves with ivermectin as an alternative to vaccines.
Especially since ivermectin - like any other wide-spectrum anti-parasitic drug - is not without problems. It's been learned from many decades of using ivermectin in tropical countries (look up "Mectizan Donation Program") that it is associated with higher rate of asthma and skin allergies, like eczema and atopic dermatitis. Especially in children. And repeated treatment with ivermectin induces resistance in helminths (worms). Remember, ivermectin is not only a "horse dewormer", it's also a safe and cheap dewormer of other farm animals. Last thing you want to do is start using it indiscriminately, like antibiotics were used in the past. Anybody wants to pay a premium for their food? Or go back to the time when all meats had to be cooked through and through, until nearly inedible, to avoid helminth infection?
Hi Tashaj, Whatever you say about Molnupiravir and Ivermectin is fine with me. You can trash my comment until the cows come home. You're the boss. You know it all. Me? I'm more impressed by results. And by the 64 trials and 31 randomized controlled trials which support Ivermectin. So regardless of how you cherry-pick the data, I'll just keep taking my doctor-prescribed dose twice a week. Along with the suggested supplements. And I'll keep wearing an N95 indoors in public places. And so far, in an area which is dense with Delta, I have avoided infection. PS I am well over 65 years of age, to boot.
Thanks for the solipsistic update on your superhero-like methods deployed and successes realized in your battle with Coronazilla. Boorish. Almost beyond belief, but...
No. Tess Lawrie’s peer-reviewed meta analysis doesn’t even rely on the studies you and the subject of Matt’s story both like to pretend are the heart of the argument. And talking about using ivermectin post hospitalization makes clear you don’t understand the disease course of covid at all. Also, if you want to pretend that a coordinated nationwide campaign to dismiss ivermectin as a “veterinary” pharmaceutical in every headline, then you are best naive if not outright lying.
I think it’s time to divest doctors of the right to prescribe and let patients decode for themselves, as is done in many countries. It’s okay if you disagree, but it doesn’t matter if you do.
"a coordinated nationwide campaign to dismiss ivermectin as a “veterinary” pharmaceutical in every headline," - did you leave out "there is not"? Because it's plain for everyone to see. Even Ryan Grim of Intercept, who used to be pretty good. I really wonder where the memo came from and how it's enforced. Any journalistic whistle-blowers out there?
Yes, typo. Oh the answer to your question can be easily found. Look at the article on how the FDA manipulates the media in the recent issue of Scientific American.
Try this one - actually found on Google News: https://www.opindia.com/2021/09/watch-alex-jones-takes-ivermectin-live-on-air-after-joe-rogan-uses-it-horse-dewormer-fda-cdc/. Try to ignore the Alex Jones part; he's a distraction. Of interest because it's an Indian point of view, and goes into the experience of Uttar Pradesh, their largest state, with Ivermectin - which they use a lot of anyway, and doubtless produce.
Which one? The "Observatory" on the lab-leak origin? I have that magazine, and the previous one.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-fda-manipulates-the-media/
Tess Lawrie has been "decoded" as an uber-quack, which indeed she is--in spades. Not to mention a quack-grifter. And the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is little more than a criminal organization committing wholesale fraud.
And while we divest "doctors of the right to prescribe and let patients decode for themselves," why don't we go ahead and divest auto mechanics of the right to overhaul transmissions and perform brake jobs. Let the motorists of the land decode for themselves, I say!
It’s vein opening time for you.
Which countries?
So no matter how you do the study, ivermectin does better than the control. Do you understand what you just said?
Have fun here - mechanism of ivermectin
Ivermectin; IVM (red block) inhibits and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors (green). The green dotted lines depict activation pathways and the red dotted lines depict the inhibition pathways. The TLR-4 receptors are directly activated by SARS-CoV-2 and also by LPS mediated activation (seen during ICU settings) causing activation of NF-Kb pathway and MAP3 Kinases leading to increased intranuclear gene expression for proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines (responsible for cytokine storm) and NO release (responsible for blood vessel dilatation, fluid leak, low blood pressure, ARDS and sepsis). The NF-Kb and STAT-3 pathway activation is central to the pathogenesis and sequelae of COVID-19. STAT-3 physically binds to PAK-1 and increases IL-6 transcription. The annexin A2 at the cell surface converts plasminogen; PLG to plasmin under the presence of t-PA. Plasmin triggers activation and nuclear translocation of STAT-3. An upregulation of STAT-3 stimulates hyaluronan synthase-2 in the lung cells causing hyaluronan deposition leading to diffuse alveolar damage and hypoxia. STAT-3 also directly activates TGF-beta initiating pulmonary fibrosis; a typical characteristic of SARS-COV-2 lung pathology. The damaged type 2 cells express PAI-1 and an already hypoxic state also causes an upregulation of PAI (through Hypoxic inducible factor-1) along with direct stimulation by STAT-3. Simultaneous STAT-3 and PAI-1 activation inhibits t-PA and urokinase-type plasminogen activator leading to thrombi formation. Also, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the CD147 on red blood cells and causes clumping. IVM in turn, binds to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and hence prevents clumping. T cell lymphopenia in COVID-19 can also be attributed to the direct activation of PD-L1 receptors on endothelial cells by STAT-3. IVM directly inhibits the NF-kb pathway, STAT-3, and indirectly inhibits PAK-1 by increasing its ubiquitin-mediated degradation. The natural antiviral response of a cell is through interferon regulatory genes and viral RNA mediated activation of TLR-3 and TLR7/8- Myd88 activation of transcription of interferon-regulator (IRF) family. For a virus to establish an infection, this antiviral response needs to be inhibited by blocking interferon production. The proteins such as importin and KPNA mediate nuclear transport of viral protein and subsequent IFN signaling. The SARS-CoV-2 proteins (ORF-3a, NSP-1, and ORF-6) directly block IFN signaling causing the surrounding cells to become unsuspecting victims of the infection. IVM inhibits both importin a-b (green) as well as the KPNA-1 receptors (brown) causing natural antiviral IFN release. IVM also inhibits viral RdrP, responsible for viral replication. IVM Ivermectin, ACE-2 angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2, LPS Lipopolysaccharide, TLR Toll-like receptor, t-PA tissue-like plasminogen activator, PLG Plasminogen, IMPab Importin alpha-beta, Rdrp RNA dependant RNA polymerase, KPNA-1 Karyopherin Subunit Alpha 1, NF-kB nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells, Map3Kinases Mitogen-activated Kinases, PAK-1 P21 Activated Kinase 1, STAT-3 Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3, PAI-1 Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, HIF-1 Hypoxia-Inducible Factor
Fred baby---you got it all wrong! Correction:
IVM Ivermectin, ACE-2 angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2, LPS Lipopolysaccharide, TLR Toll-like receptor, t-PA tissue-like plasminogen activator, PLG Plasminogen, IMPab Importin alpha-beta, Rdrp RNA dependant RNA polymerase, KPNA-1 Karyopherin Subunit Alpha 1, NF-kB nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells. The proteins such as importin and KPNA mediate nuclear transport of viral protein and subsequent IFN signaling. Winter is icummen in,Lhude sing Goddamm. Raineth drop and staineth slop, And how the wind doth ramm! Sing: Goddamm. Skiddeth bus and sloppeth us, An ague hath my ham. Freezeth river, turneth liver, Damn you, sing: Goddamm. Goddamm, Goddamm, 'tis why I am, Goddamm,So 'gainst the winter's balm. Sing goddamm, damm, sing Goddamm. Sing goddamm, sing goddamm, DAMM. SARS-CoV-2 proteins (ORF-3a, NSP-1, and ORF-6) directly block IFN signaling causing the surrounding cells to become unsuspecting victims of the infection. The natural antiviral response of a cell is through interferon regulatory genes and viral RNA mediated activation of TLR-3 and TLR7/8- Myd88 activation of transcription of interferon-regulator (IRF) family. The TLR-4 receptors are directly activated by SARS-CoV-2 and also by LPS mediated activation (seen during ICU settings) causing activation of NF-Kb pathway and MAP3 Kinases leading to increased intranuclear gene expression for proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines (responsible for cytokine storm) and NO release (responsible for blood vessel dilatation, fluid leak, low blood pressure, ARDS and sepsis).The natural antiviral response of a cell is through interferon regulatory genes and viral RNA mediated activation of TLR-3 and TLR7/8- Myd88 activation of transcription of interferon-regulator (IRF) family. For a virus to establish an infection, this antiviral response needs to be inhibited by blockin.g interferon production. IVM Ivermectin, ACE-2 angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2, LPS Lipopolysaccharide, TLR Toll-like receptor, t-PA tissue-like plasminogen activator, PLG Plasminogen, IMPab Importin alpha-beta, Rdrp RNA dependant RNA polymerase, KPNA-1 Karyopherin The damaged type 2 cells express PAI-1 and an already hypoxic state also causes an upregulation of PAI (through Hypoxic inducible factor-1) along with direct stimulation by STAT-3. Simultaneous STAT-3 and PAI-1 activation inhibits t-PA and urokinase-type plasminogen activator leading to thrombi formation. Also, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the CD147 on red blood cells and causes clumping. NO release (responsible for blood vessel dilatation, fluid leak, low blood pressure, ARDS and sepsis). The NF-Kb and STAT-3 pathway activation is central to the pathogenesis and sequelae of COVID-19. STAT-3 physically binds to PAK-1 and increases IL-6 transcription. The annexin A2 at the cell surface converts plasminogen; PLG to plasmin under the presence of t-PA. Plasmin triggers activation and nuclear translocation of STAT-3. An upregulation of STAT-3 stimulates hyaluronan synthase-2 in the lung cells causing hyaluronan deposition leading to diffuse alveolar damage and hypoxia.
You copied Tucker’s announcement??
How 'bout furnishing sources, supplying quotes, using proper attribution. Then I'll "have fun."
Aunt Martha: I am sure that Fred could explain it to you, but for sure he could never understand it for you.
Fur shur, Gene, fur shur...
This needs a link. A confirmed pathway would be thorough proof.
Are truffles illegal? Are truffles drugs? Talk about credulous!
The fruit of some psilocybin mushroom species does take the form of truffles, yes.
Only one like?
I suggest you get over the notion of valuing "likes" as if they had some intrinsic worth.
"The only reliable data on ivermectin is in the treatment of severe cases in hospital setting, where it is clearly beneficial."
Buried in your comment you admit that much. How important is that benefit?
So, see, they aren't lying to us, are they?
Oh - wait a minute...
Thank you!
Thanks for that post!
None of which changes the Carvalho study
Nate: I cannot account for a single study by Dr. Carvallo, but what I can do is refer you here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ where you can read extensively about the scientific rationale justifying the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19.
The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is little more than a criminal organization committing wholesale fraud. Pierre Kory and Joe Mercola are uber-quacks and sordid grifters on the double-make. Glad your healthy, but your personal anecdote is as meaningless as my anecdote documenting the scrape I healed by using a toothpaste/vaseline pumice.
You’re so transparently a paid whore there isn’t enough ivermectin in the world to clear up the parasites inhabiting your cooch. Best use kerosene.
It amuses me that you actually perceive that there are interests out there that would willingly pay me for the type of comments I make here. It embarrases me. Because when I check my online banking balance, I am SO TRANSPARENTLY not being paid for this shit. You're the expert---line me up some paid gigs and I'll split the proceeds 50/50 with you. Deal?
Hi Aunt Martha, your comment is duly noted although I reject it out of hand. Thank you for exercising your right to free speech.
This? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33031948/
holy crap--this comparison of the two drugs is some of the most unqualified, positive analysis I've seen--apart from the FLCCC folks themselves
Always nice to hear from Big Pharma.
🤣 Who cares what you think? 😆
The most important issue in this piece is not whether ivermectin is an efficacious treatment for Covid. The biggest issue is whether we, as free people with freedom of speech and thought, are to be allowed to hear all sides and judge for ourselves. That's an issue that transcends YouTube. One of the most exceptional things about America is that the founders really trusted that the great mass of people could actually govern themselves, and that they could be trusted to speak and think freely. That concept flies in the face of most of human history, wherein those in power tend to hold tightly the reins of information, in the belief that people aren't to be trusted with "dangerous" ideas.
As Matt rightly notes, any attempt to censor simply leads people to believe that someone is hiding something. We should demand free and open debate on EVERYTHING to do with Covid, even theories that some might find absurd. Trust the people.. the truth will rise to the surface. You'll convert many skeptics if they feel that there is total transparency. To think otherwise is to adopt the thinking of tyrants and dictators.
They don't trust us with the information, so they censor or actually, lie. These are two bad things. One leads to loss of freedom; the other loss of trust. We need both freedom and trust.
"One of the most exceptional things about America is that the founders really trusted that the great mass of people could actually govern themselves, and that they could be trusted to speak and think freely."
The first part might be true if you define the great mass of people as white male property owners. As for the second, let's not forget the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.
You must be grateful to live in a country whose self-correcting system allows the mass of people to continually move closer to its founding ideals. That means we have the wherewithal to fight ideas like the internment of Japanese citizens in 1941 by F.D.R., escalation of the Viet Nam war by LBJ and Nixon and Internet censorship today.
@SoCalGuy
And yet, those so-called "self-correcting systems" failed to stop even *one of the things you mention above. And, the Japanese were not interned in 1941. Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7th, 1941 leaving three weeks remaining in 1941 to take retaliatory action. The U.S. declared war on Japan, Dec. 8, 1941.
According to nps.gov: "On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the US Army to remove all persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and imprison them without due process of law."
There is no real advantage in quoting history if we are not interested in the accuracy of our facts.
Doesn't change the essence of the argument. It also doesn't change the fact that these ideas keep coming up, such as banning free speech, or excommunicating vaccine resistors from society.
@SoCalGuy
No, it just shows that you are willing to "shoot from the lip" backing your arguments with *glaringly incorrect historical references. 'Nuff said.
OK, you win.
You're not "fighting" anything, you're huffing and puffing in the comment section of a substack newsletter.
Wow you are SOOO TOTALLY GENIUS? I have LITERALLY never read ANYTHING about HISTORY before your COMMENT? which is SO TOTALLEH AHXMAZING. you must be a genius no srsly.
People who don’t pay taxes really cannot be trusted to choose tax rates for others. We’ve proven this. Race aside, having or not having skin in the game distorts democracy to the point of collapse.
I agree. But it's the people who "don't pay taxes" who are currently running the country into the ground. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc.---who entrusted these motherfuckers to choose our tax rates? Some skin in the game and some dog teeth in the pot---ya! Don't worry about race, though. They mostly white motherfuckers with nothin' but foreskin in the game.
Well that's a lie. The wealthy pay taxes. Corporations never pay taxes, wage earners do. You're spewing tropes and lies because you don't actually understand how this works.
@kass
Nicely observed. Even under that *stirring and *soaring Jeffersonian Statement: "All men are created equal ....." in Jefferson's day, "men" were *legally defined as: FREE.
WHITE. MALE. LANDOWNERS. OVER TWENTY-ONE. The *mistake of thinking that "All men are created equal.... even CAN be interpreted by today's standards without a string of pretzel logic that would break one's very *neck, is not only silly, but textbook definition naive. These facts *fully underscore many modern *misinterpretations of the "intent" of the Founders - people presuming a 21st Century interpretation of language written (in this example) in the mid-1700s.
You’re an idiot, probably senile , and definitely store your shit in a bag in your dining room complete with date of dump and weight in grams.
Sevender...you're getting out of line...don't make me come after you...
You can’t get off the couch without tripping over your fat meat curtains.
Its insane to suggest that people who don't work, don't own land and don't produce anything of value, regardless of race or gender, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
It should also be insane to believe that these voters should have the right to vote for the removal of my property to be paid to them. The problem is that it isn't, in fact, its supported by a majority of the idiots we have voting today. Without defined rights, majority rule is tyranny by a different name.
"People who don't work...and don't produce anything of value..." You mean like hedge fund managers, investment bankers and Big Tech workers? And not to worry---nobody will be "voting" for the right to remove your property or my property or anybody's property. That will all be accomplished systematically and without any poll tallies. You and millions of others are, myself included, a few short years away from the great anthropocene frog march to the Yukon gulags, to cultivate root vegetables and work in the hydrogen factories, in the service of The New Climate World Order. So don't sweat it.
You forget your meds?
@Nick M.
That was certainly the view of the Founders. One man, one vote style democracy was defined *by them as the equivalent of "Fifty-one percent mob rule". The way people think of "Democracy" today is FAR removed from the way it was considered at the time of its U.S. Founding.
And, Sir, what is, or is *not "insane to suggest" is a matter for you to take up with Thomas Jefferson, not with yours truly.
Totally agree!! “The wisdom of crowds” was an interesting book.
So is “the madness of crowds”.
@SoCalGuy
The Founders were not "whack" when they were dealing with Thirteen Rather Sparsely populated podunk little Colonies. Isn't is just a *bit "whack" to wrench the Founders out of their own time period when literally *most people were fully illiterate, and *then to judge them by the Standards of Today, with the land area of today's U.S. and possessions, and the FACT of 330 Million people ? Given the facts on the ground in the Founder's day, throwing shade upon their accomplishments says *far more about today's commentator than about the actual Founders themselves. The Founders did NOT walk on water. There.
That they did not anticipate things like today's Big Pharma ? They actually did, even tho no one in those days could imagine the Global Size and Clout of Big Pharma:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson
So, they didn't anticipate McDee's by name. What a bunch of dunderheads !
Yes, you've hit on a very interesting phenomenon: the idea that today's mid-wit students and professors are somehow qualified to judge not just those who are alive today, but also everyone who EVER LIVED. That, along with the idea that everyone falls into just two groups, victim or victimizer, is another tenant of Marxism.
Times change, but human nature doesn't. The founders knew that centralized, top-down power is the worst way of organizing a civilization. Power corrupts, and there is more money and more power concentrated in Washington DC than anywhere at anytime in history. The only real solution to corruption is to start chipping away at that power. Unfortunately, these people have many ways to defend their positions, and will not hesitate to use them, as we've seen.
You're a rather vague, opaque kinda guy. "Chipping away?" This sounds more like a strategy that Mary Poppins might employ to get Bert over for afternoon tea. And then once you urge us to start this "chipping away" process you seem to give up the ghost by declaring, with confidence lacking, that "unfortunately these people have many ways to defend their positions." No flanking maneuvers in your strategic handbag? I daresay, you're going to have a hard go of it enlisting others to bivouac with you with that sort of strategic hesitancy. I mean, I'm not suggesting a full-on banzai charge here, but if these people indeed "have many ways to defend their positions" as you say, something more than a few ice hammers will have to be put to use if victory is to be achieved and a short walk to the gallows forestalled. I mean, really...
@SoCalGuy
"One more time, for all the old times...." Historical figures can be judged ONLY by the conditions and *contexts of their OWN time periods. So, before digging up all of the impotent name-calling such as "Marxist", et al, just NOTICE that judging people according TO their own time period is just *logically self-evident.
So, to whatever degree your ability for reading comprehension allows, or disallows you to *grasp the foregoing, I am not interested in addressing, because I learned in Logic 101 to waste no time with "Strawman Arguments".
If you would reread my comment, you would "comprehend" that I'm adding to your argument, not denying it. But you can't have a discussion with someone who just wants to argue at any price.
Your original thesis seemed to be that America has never been perfect, therefore there is nothing about our country that merits preservation. That's a much over-used rhetorical device that is as vile as it is false.
@SoCalGuy
One MORE time. My "original thesis" is not a thesis. It is a fact of basic LOGIC, to wit: "We cannot accurately judge ANY historical figure OUT of the context of their OWN time period !" I just cannot *make it any more simple than that, and, this (really, I promise this time) is my *final effort in repeating that statement. Readers can either fully *ignore it, or do with it what they will, but I am *not going to continue going all "broken record" on it ! Thank you for the discourse.
You're amazing. I agreed with you before, and I agree with you on that point now. Maybe it's time to adjust your meds.
That’s like saying that the past, present and future are each demarcated from each other and no comparisons or symmetries are acceptable. Geez, how would we know there was time or temporality other than the present??
Madison’s argument was that the Senate was needed to protect the people against its predictable ‘fickleness and passion.’
IVM was discovered in 2015 and they won a Nobel!!
The Founders most DEFINITELY did not trust "the great mass of people." And like it or not, the functioning of a healthy modern society depends on the work and judgements of experts. Unquestionably, Big Pharma and the entire edifice of the American health care system require extensive and revolutionary reform. In the meantime, allowing quacks, charlatans, grifters, and quick-buck artists in through the backdoor is, to say the least, NOT what the doctor ordered.
You're wrong on the Founders. They set a system in motion that was founded on principals that were pointing us toward freedom and justice.
"Experts" are great, but what do we do when so many experts disagree? Do we allow the government to choose which experts we can hear, and those whose opinions we're not allowed to hear? Over time, the truth does rise to the surface. If that isn't true, then we should simply acquiesce to the "progressive" (regressive) idea that we must be ruled by an elite group of experts, who feed us only what they want us to know.
Read more, comment less. I'm not wrong on the Founders. Read more, comment less. I've spent a lifetime reading and re-reading the many of the best secondary monographs on American colonial history.
"...They set a system in motion that was founded on principals [principles, not principals] that were pointing us toward freedom and justice." This is insipid--- mewling meaninglessness. It is not a refutation of my comment in any way. It's as airy and hollow as a Hallmark greeting card verse. Read the Federalist Papers, particularly Madison. I can also furnish you a long reading list of superb scholarship that will introduce you to the the founder's well-documented wariness of the common rabble. Read more, comment less. Opinions are worthless. Remember that the next time you have one.
"Experts" are great, but what do we do when so many experts disagree? Do we allow the government to choose which experts we can hear, and those whose opinions we're not allowed to hear?" Experts always disagree. When have experts not disagreed? That's what experts do best--disagree. To take your beloved founders as an example, they made a religion of disagreeing with one another.
If you don't like what a certain group of experts are offering, start reading some more. Less commenting, more reading. If you don't subscribe to the prevailing opinions or ideas, read some more so you're able to formulate your own coherent opinions, buttressed by documented facts, not cheaply manufactured propaganda. Read more, comment less.
Your scholarly devotion has devolved into Internet trolling and insults. For someone who holds their own scholarship in such high regard, you lower yourself to cheap insults.
The Founders' concern about the "rabble" lead them to form a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. Does that mean they didn't trust the people? No. It meant they didn't trust the passions of the day, and wanted to slow things down with a more deliberative process.
You're extremely proud of your ability to read, perhaps you're the one who should search out more facts and opinions before you spout. Then you might not be so certain that "experts" should rule over the rabble.
Huh-uh. When a specific strain of "stupid" becomes anathema and too threatening to American elites, the first order of the day for state gauleiters will be to direct their propaganda field operatives to substack comment sections like this one.
Hmm. That bears repeating:
"we have the "mainstream is always wrong" fallacy, basically the same as an ad hominem attack."
So there’s a theory that if a bunch of chimps pound away at keyboards long enough, they’ll come up with Shakespeare. Now we can see that isn’t true. Hunter Thompson is dead.
1633 you tube suspends Galileo for his ridiculous, heretical misinformation that the earth circles the sun.
I hate to be "WELL AKSHULLY" guy, but I'm gonna have to be.
Galileo was right, but only by accident. Resistance to heliocentricism had almost nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with science. The best science of the day indicated that Galileo had gone way beyond the data they had available. Most SCIENTISTS thought heliocentricism was wrong, based largely on older Greek work that was entirely reasonable based on the then current data. It wasn't until better telescopes provided more accurate data that a serious case for heliocentricism could be made.
How this applies to our present situation is left as an exercise for the reader.
Copernicus asserted heliocentrism on the basis of observations, likewise Bruno confirmed Copernicus’ “theory” on the basis of observations, and Galileo doubly confirmed the heliocentric model with observations of the Moon’s surface, of the phases of Venus, and of sunspots on the Sun, among other discoveries from observation, eg Jupiter.
This was the time when conceptualuzation was being criticized by induction via Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, etc. Galileo was under intense pressure from authorities, as the assertion of heliocentrism was considered heresy. So, it was not by accident that Galileo was right. See Feyerabend on Galileo.
The Druids did a better job of sky science. Read "The Discovery of Middle Earth" by Graham Robb.
eh, in the cosmological sense- beyond the orbital bias conferred by planetary revolution around a type G star- relative perspective applies; there's no objective reason why each of our personal locations on this planet is not, in fact, the "center of the universe."
The more important question is: what makes it important? For someone concerned with, say, satellite launches, the reality of earth orbit around the sun is proof of an imperative principle of physics; in considerations of the philosophy of being, it's practically irrelevant.
It's a terrible shame that the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the day was so insecure about early astronomical researches that they felt the need to pass sweeping judgements about the findings, and the discoverers.
So what you are saying is... San Francisco is the new Vatican?
Copernicus published in 1543!
And yet it moves!
If iv*rmectin was so ineffective, they wouldn't be so against it. Nobody cares about cranks who talk about how the earth is flat or if the moon landing wasn't real, or who advocate taking horse painkillers like ketamine to treat mental health issues - yet they're very concerned with shutting this topic down. Why?
Three words: Emergency Use Authorization
Or how about "vaccine is ineffective". Two Pfizer shots Apr 15 and May 2; caught COVID with a positive test on 8/19. MIL had her J&J shot in late June, caught COVID with a positive test date of 8/24.
Outcomes for the two of us were totally similar with my wife's, who took no vaccine but IS taking ivermectin. Positive test on 8/24, asymptomatic now.
Shhh. Natural immunity is not to be discussed. It doesn't exist.
Try this one on: current policies dictate that after a positive COVID test, you're considered infectious and _no one can visit you_. My wife broke her leg last weekend and my MIL had some heart palpitations caused by overly thin blood as a result of the cold medications she was taking for COVID interacting with the warfarin she takes. In both cases I couldn't even visit them or act as an advocate in the hospital because I was going to catch the COVID I probably brought home to them in the first place and was definitely immune to.
I know public health policy is hard, but this is exceedingly dumb at this point.
Amen. I wouldn't say I've been ignoring policy, for example, I wear masks because they are easy and I dont want to cause a fuss, the people at my grocer don't get paid enough to deal with it, but at some point, ignoring the authorities becomes the only viable way of dealing with them.
I live in a lake community south of Charlotte, NC, so I am in SC but on the border with NC. NC has a mask mandate and SC doesn't. I simply refuse to go over the border for anything anymore, despite my typical errands being in both states. I just... can't. No more masking. I've switched my favorite grocery store from one that was in NC to one here and we are avoiding some of our NC restaurants and gym due to this.
I'm vaxxed as of mid June but saw this yesterday and it makes a lot of sense to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOOZpGA_VI
SHOCKED YouTube hasn't taken it down!
They'd have a hard time justifying taking down the proceedings of the Michigan House. They (the online giants) all realize just how close to the edge of being winked out of existence they are.
They took this one down. https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-removes-video-desantis-medical-123609052.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
I admire her ability to throw woketard language right back at them.
So refreshing!
I was not impressed with her claims, far too absolutist and just plain wrong on the main count: the vaccinated are not reeling from the Delta variant, the unvaccinated are.
Here claim that receiving the flu vaccine over several years sets the person up for more extreme symptomology makes no sense; it is as if prior vaccinations - a stronger immune system - is deleterious in the face of a new mutation.
In the case of COVID, the initial form or mutant is just as effectively countered by the vaccinations as are the subsequent mutations. There is not that much difference.
It is also absurd to claim that vaccinated persons are transmitting the virus. What is the action of the vaccination? catch and release? No, viral pathogens that enter a vaccinated person are destroyed by the immune system. A vaccinated person is neither symptomatic nor transmitting the virus: can’t get it can’t give it.
Exceptions like long COVID or people testing pos after vax should be examined more carefully for other diseases. Flu symptoms can arise from many other causes, e.g. allergies!
Bottom line: ER’s are flooded by the unvaccinated!
You’re unusually low IQ. Even for someone with an “I believe” sign on his lawn.
Really? Have you looked at Israel, UK, Seychelles? Their rates of infection mirror the rates of vax vs unvaxxed almost perfectly.
“ 95% of the severe patients are vaccinated.” Furthermore, “85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people” and the hospital is “opening more and more COVID wards.”
https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/08/08/israel-hospital-vaccinated.html
Israel's 20% Unvaccinated Now Account for Half of All Serious COVID-19 Cases
Looks like a fact-check issue, when the figure is 72 cases, it does seem relevant.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-covid-unvaccinated-half-serious-cases-delta-pfizer-1.10146662
Where's the data to back up your claims? Seems we can't get real data...CDC isn't counting breakthrough cases any more? Any contact tracing of those people? How do we know. The point is the narrative (as is your go-to) that only the unvaccinated are the problem and thus they MUST get vaccinated, is always the only argument!
It’s already been revealed that the “pAndemIc of tHe unVaccinAted” press release relied on pre delta data from March, to the shock of a number of scientists. Iverson had a little piece on it but I don’t think she talked in much detail. The cultists simultaneously claim the pandemic is spreading only among the unvaccinated AND the vaccines were never designed to limit spread to begin with. What?
https://publichealthinsider.com/2021/09/03/new-data-dashboard-tracks-covid-19-risk-for-unvaccinated-people-compared-to-vaccinated-people/
Yep. Got COVID the first time before vax was available, in May of 2020. Mild case.
Got the double vax this year and just recovered from the Delta varient. Mild case as well. Not getting the booster.
Wow! You should be anti-bodied to the max by now!
Yeah, until the next strain comes around! I can't figure out if my immune system is awesome (mild cases) or awful (keep getting it). At this rate, I'll get the next varient but will probably not even notice. "Wait, I thought I had a sniffle there for a moment.. nah, I'm fine."
Right? I've been taking Vit C, Vit D, zinc and elderberry for the last 18 months. What to do to boost one's immunity was also dropped from social media in the early months. That will also confound and anger me!
I heard about a guy who was wearing a seatbelt and Still got injured in a car crash. Worse than somebody else who crashed who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.
So your hur hur hur response citing anecdotal evidence is pointless. The vaccine wasn't supposed to stop people from getting infected in the first place, it was only designed to lessen symptoms in the original COVID-19 virus. Its effect on Delta is spotty at best.
This lie to the American public, at least by omission, is further harming government credibility, as if it could get much worse. No one wants a booster shot that is not effective against Delta. No one wants a vaccine that doesn't stop you from getting the disease. Even if it is effective in that manner against the original COVID-19, that is not what is floating around now, and certainly not what will be floating around in 6 months if the medical professionals I talk to have any credibility.
It took getting the disease and then researching this to find out the answer, which is that we were all sold a bill of goods.
You, you wife, and your mother in law? Can’t argue with that sampling of the population!
Lets talk about the control groups that were intentionally destroyed for the mRNA vaccines. You know, "Real Science".
Well yeah, nothing but what you think is true is true if you can discredit everything as anecdotal except sanctified data.
Exactly. Follow the money.
And follow the egos. Fauci has been beating the vaccine drum for decades. He was instrumental in spending gobs of money on a failed HIV vaccine and steering money away from therapeutics.
He was instrumental in funding the research that caused the current pandemic.
OH SHIT DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD?
I wonder what he thinks the endgame is for him. If nothing else, the historians will get him. A big mea culpa now would probably have a better result long term.
As was Collins and the DOD.
The idea that the DOD was funding viral research in China is rather mind-boggling in its stupidity.
And if it was supposedly to gain all these insights into bat-origin coronaviruses, as Peter Daszak told Fauci in his email, why do these people never seem to have a clue? What did we ACTUALLY get for the money we spent?
The Arpanet was a DoD funded research project. So was CPOF - it's the main C2 tool used in the Army for something like 15 of the last 20 years. So sometimes the research dollars produce results. But the DoD also invests in stupid things, as you cite above. Its location in China wasn't necessarily dumb from a national security perspective as long as nothing classified was transmitted, i.e. the data flow was all one way. The research itself probably was stupid.
No it is not. It is very intelligent. Wildlife, and bats in particular, are the primary reservoir of coronaviruses. SARS-1 came from bats. So, it is smart to support (cheap) research on bat coronaviruses. If we had not done this, we WOULD NOT HAVE ANY data on bat coronaviruses in China.
So, you’re the “crystal clear” explainer?
I think that eua thing has been debunked. The eua did not depend on suppressing information about other viable prophylactics
An EUA require non existent treatment alternatives.
Hydroxy cloroquin and ivermectin are old drugs that are very safe and very cheap. Big pharma would rather have us using drugs like Remdesavir that cost $3,000 per treatment.
Working in pharma, this is true. Remdesavir should not have been approved in my opinion. It's a lousy drug that barely works.
From same comment mentioned above (IM Doc on Naked Capitalism...)
"Remdesevir is loaded with all kinds of safety problems that I have seen with my own eyes. And it has the extra benefit of obviously not working – it literally does not do a god damned thing. Multiple studies have hinted at this."
Seems to agree with you.
Yeah. I looked at the data. It sucked.
It was my understanding that remdasivir was given early on with mixed results. At that time no one knew WHAT worked and so doctors were trying all sorts of things.
"The agency added that the NIH has also determined there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for the treatment of COVID.
Not actually correct – the NIH current status on ivermectin is there is not enough data to recommend OR to discourage its use. The NIH changed this recommendation in December of 2020 as previously the NIH status on ivermectin usage was to discourage its use. Usually the status in which ivermectin is now placed would be accompanied with all kinds of funds to study the true efficacy of the drug, to see if it is successful. That of course is not being done at this time.
Interestingly, 2 of our other COVID modalities have exactly the same recommend/discourage status. That would be remdesevir and outpatient monoclonal antibodies. EXACTLY the same status on both of these as ivermectin currently. The NIH states there is not enough evidence to recommend or to discourage the use of either of these.
And yet we continue right on with both the others without a blink of an eye.
A little math –
Ivermectin course for COVID is less than twenty dollars.
A course of REMDESEVIR is currently right at 8800 dollars.
An outpatient treatment with monoclonal antibodies is right at 23000 – 25000 dollars with all the infusion costs added."
Hat tip to IM Doc (commentariat on Naked Capitalism....best source for info on Covid I've found...)
I don't have a link to hand, but apparently there are THREE
major, controlled studies of efficacy going on, two in the US and one in Britain. So the FDA, or somebody with money, thinks it's worth a try - not at all what they're telling us. It would be unethical to trial a drug with no reason to think it might work.
@Charles
Dude, I KNOW that you are fully aware that Big Pharma, and "unethical" are *not mutually exclusive concepts ! The "somebody with money" of your *own statement really was NOT, as you note, the FDA ! The FDA could even be the one to "initiate the action", but they are *not the motive power behind this SARS Co V 2 racket.
This idea that "they're censoring it so it must work" is stupid. I don't agree with the censorship and I don't know if ivermectin works or not (though I lean towards thinking it doesn't based on the principle of something sounding too good to be true probably being so). It makes perfect sense to me why someone who believes censorship is justified to save lives would want to stop what they see as a quack bullshit treatment being recommended online. If people think they're being protected by the ivermectin they took when they aren't, it could lead to people to avoid taking any other protective measures against Covid, thus spreading the disease to people who are at risk, or dying from it themselves.
Yes. Ivermectin is a drug that if you get COVID, I would say to use. But get vaccinated FFS. It's not perfect, but Ivermectin is far less effective.
My wife refused to get vaccinated but took ivermectin when she got Delta. I don't know what to say about it, the holistic treehugger types she works with are dead set against what they call 'unnecessary' vaccination. Their belief structures seem to be that the immune system is zero sum and if you attenuate it for one disease, you're making it less effective against others.
I don't feel confident enough to argue too hard against this, but I don't personally believe it. I got vaccinated and I probably have more vaccines in me than most - 2 heps, anthrax, probably one of the rare people that has had a smallpox booster in this century, a few others courtesy of Uncle Sam. Come to me with a needle with a vaccine in it and i'll offer up an arm.
It's just wrong. The immune system eventually wears out, if you live that long. By the time you are 112, you may be down to one or 2 clone lineages of B and T cells. So you won't mount a great response. But, the design of living organisms is that they are self-renewing colonies of trillions of cells that work together. The immune system can keep fielding new challenges just fine. In fact, allergies are an instance of immune systems not having enough to work on. So, kind of like a bored kid, those cells find SOMETHING to do. (Like the time when I, at the age of 7 got a saw for Christmas from my father. It was supposed to saw through steel and wood, anything. Bored me, I tried it out on my dad's rolltop desk... :-D It's funny now. It wasn't then. Anyway, an immune system without enough to do is something like that.)
There are people that inject snake venoms to the point that they are hyper-immune and can take a mortal dose of venom without serious harm. It still hurts terribly, but they recover in a day or so. The only indications I have on those people is that they have better health for longer lives.
@Brian
If the Immune System eventually "wears out", then I am damned glad that no one seems to have Polio anymore ! I also had Chicken Pox, Mumps, and Measles the "old fashioned" way. With the exception of Shingles as a "gift" from Chicken Pox, Mumps, and Measles do not "come back" either ! This I have proven by taking care of children who also had Mumps and Measles in *spite of having also been injected with today's "foolproof" vaccines for BOTH !
As to "if you live long enough", that condition also applies to ALL males dying of prostate cancer. In my Seventies, I don't have a trace of it, but IF I LIVE LONG ENOUGH ...... what does *that mean ? When Methuselah becomes *MY little brother ? Sheeee-*IT ! ;-D ;-D
Thanks for putting this out there. Immune systems age like all the other body parts.
@Waiting
Indeed, they DO, but all that tells us is that "eventually *Somethin' gonna kill yuh ! I do not regard that as particularly "new" news.
Most old timers who are taken out by virus, usually go via flu going into pleuresy/pneumonia. But, there is *still falling down stairs ....etc. You get the drift ! ;-D
@HBI
The commenter, previously billing himself on this queue as "Brian The Scientist", rarely bothers impeding himself with actual facts, altho he will *claim the knowledge of the gawds on most all subject of science. Brian finally "trimmed" his original self-chosen online handle when sufficient numbers of commenters proved him *wrong on the bulk of his "scientific" claims. So, consider this an "unofficial", and definitely "unsolicited" bit of background trivia. ;-D ;-D I would go with trusting your OWN experience, as I see that you usually do.
And, yes. Troops going to Vietnam were subjected to 21 Overseas shots, administered by *air gun as the troops were slow marched by the medics. Frequently "off target", the air guns could either administer the shot, OR rip a long divot in your skin due to the movement of the march.
They still used air guns at Benning but they had us stand still for them, thank goodness. Still a lot of shots in rapid fire fashion. All our upper arms were aching that night.
It was kinda funny in one respect. The soldier wielding the air gun on my left arm complained about how hard it was to get a shot in on my arm. I didn't tell him it was one of my prime insulin injection sites and had seen a LOT of needles. Since insulin dependent people aren't supposed to deploy and my G6 (the guy in that picture) went the extra mile to get me signed off by the divisional doctor AND tossed a little fridge into one of the ISU-90s (half a Conex, air transport container) to keep the insulin cold over where we were going.
I like to get all kinds of opinions. Some people I disagree with even when i'm soliciting same, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
@HBI
By all *means, do all of your own research ! Yes ! I guessed that you probably *did remember Brian from the days of the longer title. I just posted under the principle of: "Better to *have redundant info and not *need it, than the obverse !" ;-D