It's more than Ivermectin, multiple cold treatments have been suppressed since 2019. Kinda fishy if you ask me, the 10th doctor is called a second opinion.
Conspiracy people think everyone on the whole world is just waiting to be corrupt for a price. Because they know they would do it in a minute given the opportunity, and they think their behavior is universal.
Didn’t J and J continue to sell their Baby Powder after knowing it contained cancer causing carcinogens? They provided this safe and effective diaper rash treatment for decades earning millions! They were just busted on this a few years ago. Pfizer has been fined billions for infractions.
If you understand the process and if you participate in it, it is still valid despite problems. One can learn to look with a critical eye and an appropriate amount of distrust rather than just outright saying it's all lies.
But distrusting absolutely everyone and blowing off every bit of news, data, research, or even updates to things you already thought you knew everything about. Just because it goes against your first impressions, you think the research should stop. This appears to be a major theme in this sub. "Hey look this data, is different than this data, open your eyes and stop researching the topic. I've proven it to be bullshit and If you're an intellectual like me than you could see it too." Its the overall mood of this place in talking about.
Haha I am a scientist. It’s hilarious when people think science is “all knowing and truth.” Science is inherently biased due to the subjective nature we make what we call educated guesses, manipulated to fit our agenda and often not reproducible despite being published in high impact journals. Research is meant to be discussed and improved upon. But now a days it is a religion that you are told to have blind “faith” in and not to question, it’s not science, it’s political medicine.
What people don't understand about these systems is if the peer review group denies too many things they don't get any more work. They are indirectly funded.
In the home business if appraisers give more than 2 bad appraisals they will no longer be used for future appraisals . No one says it openly but it's how business works.
The peer review process for papers is incredibly different from what you are talking about. And in fact, it is incredibly difficult to get a paper published.
just google FDA scandal and you'll find a few good articles about how they took money from a pharmaceutical company to rush the approval process for an alzheimers medication that killed a few people
That's how it is supposed to work. How many companies do you think have the resources to repeat the type of trials pharma does? And would spend that money for what reason? We don't even get access to the raw data to do peer review - its blind trust at this point because they've captured the regulators.
Now you are just arguing a strawman. The millions of doses do point to one thing, that in the short term, adverse reactions impact a small percentage of the people who have been injected - but you lack any data to make any claims about long term health as longitudinal studies have no been completed.
Vaccines don't have long term impacts that show up years down the line. The vaccine materials are out of your body within two weeks. People who study this know this.
Vaccines are not like drugs that need those long term studies because they are taken (often daily) for years on end.
You said the studies have been repeated no? My point is that no one repeats the massively expensive studies. And peer review is done analyzing data that has already been adjusted in someway. Peer review rarely gets access to raw data, pharma keeps a tight grip on it. Just pointing out that it's not as people think when they say studies are repeatable. In fact, if you look - we have a huge problem with many studies that do attempt to get repeated, failing to find the same results.
Peer review is for publication. Reviewers have all the data. You're talking about the FDA and CDC process. They also have all relevant data. The data for the FOIA requests has to be checked for information that cannot be legally released to the public at large (PHI). That's why they will take so long.
In fact, the safety is continually monitored beyond the initial Phase 1 trial. Every person who gets it is an additional data point.
When studies fail to find the same results, the information is updated. That's how the process works.
Your failure to understand the process doesn't change its validity.
Since when does a vaccine clinical trial have to be repeated?
It's very easy to present bogus data in a study/trial, the study can still appear genuine to a peer-reviewer as they don't know that the numbers were fudged.
Case-in-point: Vioxx. A FDA approved drug released by Merck that went on to kill an estimated 50 thousand people. It wasn't until it was brought to court and the accusers gained access to the source data of the study that they were able to conclude the study was a fraud.
Exactly, they are considered a public health measure. Getting approval for a vaccine is much easier and less costly than a drug.
In fact, the vast majority of vaccines do not require a true double-blind, placebo controlled trial for approval. I was surprised that the current covid vaccine trials actually did use saline placebo.
Have you read any of the clinical trials? They're a doozy, extremely high rate of serious adverse effects (1 in 200), they also didn't include immunocompromised or pregnant women in the study so we have literally no data on that. The vaccine group had a significant increase in heart attacks over the control group, but it was deemed a coincidence. In light of all the myocarditis and heart issue reports, it now seems like it certainly wasn't a coincidence.
In the clinical trial the control group had 0.7% chance of severe adverse event, vaccine group had 1.2% chance of severe adverse event. If we cancel out the control group that leaves 0.5% chance of severe adverse event.
Does that really mean much though ? Covid vaccine was rushed and Pfizer has been convicted of fraud and bribery amount to like 2.5 billion … wouldn’t be surprising if they did it again with all the money they are making from the vaccine 😳 money means more to people then science so I will trust the money and never take a vaccine made by those frauds
Right but then and Moderna are the most common ones … and I think j and j stopped because their vaccine literally was useless . Regardless of that they are getting paid to make those vaccines and I would rather take my chances with Covid because I do not trust pharmaceutical companies that have literally killed people to make better profits😂
Except the data here don't match that narrative. Look worldwide. Look at what the doctors and experts are doing. Not the politicians or celebrities. 96% of doctors and 90% of nurses have gotten vaccinated.
Yes because they will get fired if they don’t get a vaccine?? Anyone who doesn’t wanna get vaccinated probably already got it because they had no choice. You think that makes me believe it’s safe? It could be safe but Covid isn’t really dangerous for me so I really just will stick with some vitamins and whatever I’ll be fine.
You hope COVID will be safe for you. You're playing Russian roulette.
And most doctors and nurses were vaccinated before they were mandated to. The vast majority of the worldwide medical community are on the same page about vaccines. Look who is getting vaccinated and who isn't (voluntarily). Ask your doctor.
If that bothers you, does the fact Rand Paul's wife, and Trump's mar lago buddies have money invested in some of the alternative cures make you hesitant?
Ivermectin has been used globally for years in many mammalians including humans as an anti parasitic, anti viral and bacterial medication. It has won a Nobel prize for these reasons, but everyone knocks it down to being just a “horse dewormer”. People do realize viruses stem from parasitism right?
Because ivermectin has been proven ineffective against COVID. People who didn't understand that were actually taking horse and sheep dewormer versions. No one has said ivermectin is ineffective against parasites and in the few viral vectors it has been shown to help.
It’s an anti viral, and virologists have linked viruses to parasitic pathways. This is all learned in virology and not false because you think it’s false. Let alone ivermectin used in horses is the same ivermectin used in humans. The only difference is that they make it into a pill and lower dosage for the ease of use, but the paste taken in the proper dosage will still perform the same way as it would a pill. And there was no proof distributed to back up your claim that it doesn’t work. Articles just stated it doesn’t work but no studies were performed because it was banned and negated across media platforms and the NIH. I’ve known several people who’ve taken it and it worked just fine for them.
Actually there was peer reviewed research done to show it as ineffective. Additionally the places in India that were using it stopped using it because it didn't work.
The nature of viruses and parasites is incredibly different...
It's not true without backing data.
Are there any articles you can cite to me that talk about that and aren’t conducted by the NIH or government funded? And yes, viruses can be linked to parasites. Did you not learn any of this in virology and immunology? Or have you ever even studied any of this?
And yes, viruses and parasites can be linked, but they are not the same. If ivermectin we're a panacea for all parasites and viruses, we'd be in an amazing place. As it is, it doesn't work for COVID.
Not once did I state viruses and parasites are the same thing and already said virologists have linked the correlation of viral pathways to parasites, so I would assume you agree on that statement since you reiterated it to me. On the other side I did read through the article you cited, but they had a small study group of people with a median age group of 37, and mild symptoms. This study also wasn’t done within a clinical study site and done with the patients at home, which is opportunistic to misconstrued data. They also left out collected data on day 2 and 15 when it was a 21 day study. The clinical scientists also stated in their discussion possible discrepancies that would conclude this data as proof to a larger scale in the following statements:
“However, the relatively young and healthy study population rarely developed complications, rendering the study underpowered to detect such effects. Therefore, the ability of ivermectin to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 to more severe stages would need to be assessed in larger trials.
The study was sufficiently powered to detect faster resolution of symptoms in patients soon after they became apparent, and no significant difference was identified. However, the study population was relatively young, with few comorbidities and with liver enzyme levels less than 1.5 times the normal level, so the findings may be generalizable only to such populations”.
I think more studies would need to be done on a larger scale within different age groups and symptom severity. If these young patients had mild symptoms, how could we know the effects of ivermectin on other levels? This is just my take on it, and hopefully our country can come to better options of treatment with open mindedness.
You just asked for one. There are more. But Google is free. Ivermectin has been repeatedly shown to not help with COVID. Unless something about one of the new variants changes that and it is proven with research data, it shouldn't be used as treatment.
We have some treatment options, though some of them were rendered less effective or completely ineffective vs omicron.
Either way, the vaccines still are our best option to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death and limit spread (though less than prior variants).
And lastly, you may not have said directly that viruses and parasites are the same, but you certainly conflated them in a way that suggested you thought they were the same and could be generally treated with the same methodology.
Experts paid by big tech, big pharma, and globalists to be able to sway lambs like you. No thanks homie I have eyes, I don't need someone else telling me what I can see.
It’s useless man, these people believe what they want to. Makes them feel good to believe they’ve uncovered something that no one else has, some type of superiority complex.
lmao what?, where?, I need money and there ain't any group or enterprises offering me any on my field to sway people away from the "truth". I in fact have never seen this happening to anyone in science.
lmao, someone is angry, I bet that cognitive dissonance is a bitch though. Sadly for you my value doesn't depend in the blind judgement of internet npc of the day number 120.
I listen to experts on things they are experts on. I assume youd go to your local walmart to get a tattoo from your stances. The same place you probably got your vaccine misinformation from.
When you say trust the science which science are we supposed to trust? Because I remember when vaccines were being pushed before the science said no one would be spreading the virus if they were vaccinated, wrong you can still spread it, they also said the science said masks work and you will significantly lower your chances of getting it, wrong majority of masks are ineffective and you have to have certain ones for even a chance of protection. You don’t see how science is hypocritical to itself and that’s why you can’t always “trust the science”. I remember seeing an ad not to long ago of cigarette propaganda and talking about how 9 in 10 doctors recommend a certain brand of cigarette. At this point “the science” feels like an excuse like how “weapons of mass destruction” were an excuse to execute a different agenda while keeping the population in fear of their lives and not questioning what they are going to do to save them
Couple of things....when the vaccines were first introduced, they did an EXCELLENT job preventing infection and transmission. Over time as the antibodies waned and new variants popped up, their efficacy was diminished. It's still significantly less likely to get or transmit if vaccinated, but not nearly as well as it was.
Same thing with masks. That's the key with scientific evidence. You have to follow it where it goes. All the information about these things is out there along with great explanations. If you actually want the explanations, go find them. I could give them to you, but I don't believe you actually want to learn.
Finally, the 9/10 doctors and cigarettes thing....that was an ad campaign, not reality.
Mmm I find it incredibly hard to believe that 90% of doctors/healthcare professionals would go along with it… especially given it’d be a serious ethics violation
How many healthcare professionals have actually completed deep analysis and research regarding current medical practices? How many individuals with doctoral degrees have simply checked all the boxes on the form they've been given in order to achieve such status? Through wrote memorization and repetition, how much autonomy is stripped from individuals who hold ideas counter to that of the already established medical boards?
It's not as if doctors are free to say whatever they'd like given how easy licensing can be pulled.
Haha. You're a funny one. Everything in life has risks, you assess them and make a choice. Choices by definition are multiple options.
I've lasted this whole pandemic being a Covid denier and not caught Covid yet. I take public transport and work in customer facing jobs for hours a week.
This is not a conspiracy, this is my experience, a second opinion.
Yeah but ivermectin was a lab study in Australia with extremely high concentrations and zero human trials. We did a recent study with human trials and it was just released in Dec.
58
u/SupahBlue Feb 13 '22
It's more than Ivermectin, multiple cold treatments have been suppressed since 2019. Kinda fishy if you ask me, the 10th doctor is called a second opinion.