So let me ask a question of logic. There is quite clearly a lot of division in the ranks of medicine whether Ivermectin works of not. If it were a sure fire cure and worked well, wouldn’t every physician be using it? I know I would be.
Thus the point that for some to proffer that there is some conspiracy that ivermectin is being withheld intentionally means that every physician except a few vocal ones are in on the con job.
We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data.
i think the key point is that a number of possible therapeutics or combinations of older drugs have been proposed and some put into implementation in some countries, but no major western country has even done a broad survey or study, at all, on the main ones.
what i have seen is very small studies which in some cases seem to defy common sense or be designed to fail.
the ivermectin problem could have been conclusively examined with a very large sample size last year. the fact this has not been done with ivermectin, hcq/az/zinc, etc., should be extremely alarming to everyone paying attention.
aren’t some of these drugs keyword-banned on social media?
Why have doctors - who have been doctors for decades - and promoted Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine been removed from their positions and fired?
What was the treatment that President Donald Trump received when he was diagnosed with COVID, went into the hospital for treatment, and came out of the hospital 3 days later?
As a dodtor, do you know what President Trump was treated with? And if you do, why don't you promote that treatment for all who contract/diagnosed with COVID?
On the other hand - in the USA - the political and legal data on COVID is absolute.
If you advise your patients to get the experimental COVID vaccine and one of them is harmed, you have zero professional and financial liability.
If you advise your patients to take Ivermectin - a FDA approved drug with a 40 year history - and one of them is harmed, you will lose your medical license, your money, and maybe even go to jail.
Bottom Line...
There may be many USA physicians who believe Ivermectin is helpful and low risk, but most of them, quite reasonably, are afraid to take the personal risk.
Not if you were being paid by Big Pharma!
But I am pretty sure you already knew that.
You pro vaccine whores are a very deceitful lot!
You are one of the so-called docs doing the con
“If it were a sure fire cure and worked well, wouldn’t every physician be using it?”
__________
Actually, no, not in today’s professional disciplinary environment.
__________
“I know I would be.”
____________
Either you are suffering from tremendous naiveté, whistling past the graveyard, or actively perpetuating a false narrative.
__________
Thus the point that for some to proffer that there is some conspiracy that ivermectin is being withheld intentionally means that every physician except a few vocal ones are in on the con job.
__________
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. The bravest and most honest doctors still speaking on the record are admitting that the initial phrase of the Hippocratic Oath, “Furst, do no harm.”, has crashed, burned, and is now in ashes.”
__________
“We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data.”
__________
You have no credibility, Gas Dr. Your words are no longer having any persuasive effect.
A cloud of condescension surrounds everything you say. Kindly ply your flimsy wares elsewhere.
So let me ask a question of logic. There is quite clearly a lot of division in the ranks of medicine whether Ivermectin works of not. If it were a sure fire cure and worked well, wouldn’t every physician be using it? I know I would be.
Thus the point that for some to proffer that there is some conspiracy that ivermectin is being withheld intentionally means that every physician except a few vocal ones are in on the con job.
We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data
~~~~~~~~~~~
From onset of Covid, physicians were reprimanded for prescribing Ivermectin off label, something they had done in the past without a problem.
I read the intimidating ‘releases’ and updates by the coordinating agency for AMerican pharmacies, that hinted heavily any pharmacist filling a prescription for Ivermectin would be seen as unprofessional and in need of extra attention. It was prohibited there for quite awhile, and doctors are still afraid to prescribe it even though there was slight softening of the ‘against’ to ‘neutral’ status of the FDA/CDC toward Ivermectin.
IN the meantime, those agencies and academic research organizations crank out fake studies wherein they simply refuse to prescribe Ivermectin and recommended levels during early stages of the illness. As foreign countries report astonishing success with Ivermectin, the US runs limited trials, often will doses too small, for Ivermectin before publishing that it was ineffective.
The CDC/FDA are still running interference and while some physicians will prescribe it, many are still afraid to do so, even though they feel it works.
The ‘unequivocal’ only exists in MSM and Fauci approved circles. Internationally, countries are reporting success and some in the US pine for the old days when they could be trusted to write off label as they deemed fit. It’s all a political scam now.
” If it were a sure fire cure and worked well, wouldn’t every physician be using it? I know I would be.”
LOL, as if you don’t know the answer to that. For others, all physicians have to answer to others, be it employers, insurance companies, hospitals, medical groups, etc. and everyone has to operate in a way that shields them from liability.
So what’s the best liability shield?
Easy Answer: “Dr. Fauchi says Ivermectin doesn’t work, therefore don’t sue me if you die”
Game over...90% or more of doctors will treat Ivermectin as radioactive.
But a question for you: We’re now well over a year since Ivermectin was shown, in vitro and at super-high doses, to kill off the virus, and is now being used around the world - Why hasn’t there been any large-scale studies on it? Maybe because they fear the results?
There is no equivocal data about Ivermectin safety. It has been around for over 40 years and is on the safe medicines list. The equivocation is around it’s effectiveness for Covid and, looked at objectively, it has been successful everywhere it’s been used. Just look at India.
They keep calling for this type of trial and that for Ivermectin, how about trials for the so-called vaccines, none of which has gone through any rigorous testing. The general public is being used as guinea pigs.
The Governors of most states are not allowing it due to the CDC. Get informed rather than being a political hack.
“We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data.”
From what I have read, ivermectin works in the majority of cases when used in correct fashion, but is not effective in every case, just as no drug is. The divergence of opinion comes from people in control of the pharmaceutical industry that have locked out any news about the MATH + stellar successes, for instance, that uses ivermectin in association with other therapeutics.
I was equivocal on your posts until this one. The data before was slightly muddy.
But your illogic and irrationality in this post lets me know you have as much credibility as a Washington Post “fact checker.” Whether you are even a doctor is doubtful.
People who put a professional title in their handle on a political blog are suspect right off the bat. They are people of questionable character, and certainly not people of trustworthy character.
Propagandists are a dreary fact of life, nowadays.
thanx for that...
** divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data**
same logic(or lack of it) could be said about the “vaccines”.
Phase 3 COVE study ... EUA for Moderna was given based on originally 5 out of 95 people (90 in the placebo group), then 11 out of 196 people(185 in the placebo group) getting the shot and their reaction to it...and most Drs. jumped on board.
Moderna’s actual Phase III is a 24 to 25-month study of 30k participants (actually 25,654) that really started in December 2020...so results wont be around until after 01/2023?
As a comparison, the Ebola vaccine was 5 years in the making. The startup was in 2014. It was given FDA full approval 12/2019. By that time, there were no cases so they had taken it to Africa during an outbreak, using that as their trial.
We are the guinea pigs...and the vaccine is really no longer being sold as a vaccine...
yet, the logic about ivermectin use\non-use isn’t that it doesn’t work, it’s that there isn’t enough proof that it does work?
“We are not — the reason there is divergence of opinion is because there is equivocal data.”
To the informed, but not medically educated person, there is equivocal data on every tiny aspect of this virus, from determining how many people have or have had it, to effective treatment, to its real mortality rate, everything. That’s without even getting into the “vaccines”. There is contradictory information about everything. There seems to be no facts regarding this virus.