Posted on 09/03/2021 10:43:00 PM PDT by ransomnote
The medical community, starting with Wuhan Fauci, the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA, and all who are slave to their dictates have violated our trust, and that is a tremendous understatment.
The truth about the disastrous Covid-19 'vaccines' is leaking out despite all the Hospital/Medical board/University/ MSM/Big Tech help censoring and threatening people to silence.
I see two new alternatives being floated as possible vaccine or treatment alternatives. I provide information about each of these insultingly inferior options below.
It's past time to allow doctors to return to prescribing Ivermectin and HCQ, as they have been doing safetly for decades, along with other options our physicians feel are best for us and let us choose.
Given a choice, anyone comparing the historical safety record of HCQ, Ivermectin etc. to these two new alternatives would be hard pressed to find a reason WHY they would choose that which the medical establishment will likely allow (Prevnar13, Bacitinib) over those which the CDC/FDA have witheld from dying people for NO REASON for almost 2 years now. NONE.
After tormenting the nation with a fake plandemic, fake PCR tests, irrational/unhealthy mask mandates, isolation, denial of care, toxic vaccines, divisive fear mongering, and lockdowns, the medical establishment isn't done with us yet. It's not giving up attempts at full medical tyranny. We can't give up striving for our freedom, either. If we find it too hard, awkward or exhausting to resist vaccine passports, mandates and other lies, we become slaves.
Pneumonia Vaccine May Affect Course of COVID-19 | Kaiser Permanente
The study upon which Kaiser based its report:
From 2010 to the present, the CDC published reports of post vaccination deaths to VAERS for a total of 126 vaccines.
115 vaccines received 1% or less of the total number of reports of deaths following vaccination except the 9 vaccines receiving the highest number of reports.
[Data In VAERS as of 9/3/2021]. Note that Covid 'vaccines' include 2 out of every 3 deaths reported following vaccination, and published to VAERS, from 2010 to the present.
Following Covid 'vaccines,' PREVNAR13 by Pfizer\WYETH accounts for 4% of reports, which is 2 times to 4 times greater than the remaining 122 Vaccines for which the VAERS database contains published reports of death following Vaccination.
Naturally, Pfizer/Wyeth's vaccine is now being promoted as a potential 'vaccine' alternative for Covid-19 'vaccines'.
Baricitinib Uses - full webpage on Drugs.com
Baricitinib Warnings, on Free Republic, from Drugs.com
Baricitinib SIde-effects, on Free Republic from Drugs.com
Arthritis Drug ‘Will Save Thousands’ Of Covid-19 Patients After Excellent Trial Results
Forbes ^ | 1 September 2021 | Victoria Forster
Posted on 9/3/2021, 7:52:10 PM by Fractal Trader
ransomnote: See anything you like?
I have thought a fair amount about this thread and read it thoroughly.
First. Let me say your voice on this thread is invaluable. If demonstrates the group think that exists and I note it’s the same people posting the same opinions on the same way.
But then it hit me. The title of the vanity is give us snd and our doctors ivermectin and HCQ/azithromycin.
And the simple and unassailable fact is this. We as physicians have those drugs. I can prescribe them. I even know the pharmacies that fill them. I am prescribed them in the past for this disease. We all want something simple that works. The reason it so not widespread is because these meds do not work at least in the way the other side hopes these meds work.
I am sure there will be attacks that we or I am beholden to the usual boogie men. Big Pharma doesn’t push things on me. There is no rep in my hospital demanding I use any product. The CDC doesn’t have people in my hospital monitoring us. I do not live in fear of living my license for my judgments.
People seem to confuse the right to try with the duty to act. A patient can demand what they want but if in my judgment it won’t work or is dangerous I am not compelled to order the treatment. And the danger with ivermectin is that it delays precious time that monoclonal can be administered. People are hanging their hat on marginal treatments and delaying getting to targeted treatment that everyone agrees works. The monoclonals.
So we have these drugs. The reason they are bit more readily used is because they don it work to the standard what we who treat would want it to work and we have good alternatives. I took an oath to first do no harm. In my judgment using HCQ or ivermectin when I can get people to monoclonals violates that oath
Oh eff-off Pelham! For some reason you so-called medical know-it-alls, if you are in fact that, attempt to quiet the opposing views. Views that aggregate data from many other reliable sources. You vaxxers are afraid of something—it is the fact that you screwed up by getting the jabs, and now demand that EVERYONE get the jab as well, or else! Too bad sucker!
Were the Ivermectin and HCQ studied by themselves or combined with zinc?
The protocol that’s being recommended is a cocktail which includes zinc, vitamins C & D, and azithromyacin is what is reputed to work.
If the trial is set up to test only Ivermectin or HCQ by themselves, it is designed to fail.
It’s the height of dishonesty to set up a trial designed to fail to test something and then claim it doesn’t work because “studies show”.
And then the medical and scientific communities wonder why people don’t trust them.
People are not as stupid as TPTB think they are or wish they were.
I recall early on a woman doctor was treating patients as if they were simply bacterial pneumonia cases and having a tremendous rate of success.
Of course, she was ignored and that dropped down memory hole.
Given that fact that spike proteins can cause blood clotting leading to death, I would think it fits the definition pretty accurately.
And your judgment could be wrong, and if it doesn’t work, is the patient any worse off than if they did the nothing you offered them?
And there is the chance that it COULD work but you will never know unless you try.
Unless you don’t want to know if it works, which would not surprise me in the least considering your hardcore vax pushing.
And the danger with ivermectin is that it delays precious time that monoclonal can be administered. People are hanging their hat on marginal treatments and delaying getting to targeted treatment that everyone agrees works. The monoclonals.
Which have been available for how long exactly?
And everywhere?
That argument fails when one considers that they have only recently been started and for the entire last year and a half, they were not available.
Or have you already forgotten the terart saga?
https://freerepublic.com/tag/by:terart/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
And tell us again how easy monoclonals are to get……..
Brava!
👏👏👏👏
You might as well have started that sentence with, "Well... back in my day, "
1. I missed the news stories about bodies stacking up from HCQ and Ivermectin. I do know two people who beat covid with HCQ.
2. The jury is out on whether you are doing harm by injecting the vaxx treatment. Obviously, some have immediate harm, but we do not know the 2nd or 3rd order consequences yet.
You must have poked them in some tender places.
Only a few of the usual GovCo players have popped up and then only for their usual ad hominem shade casting on you, not the research.
Keep up the great work! Real scientists take ALL of the data and never stop asking questions.
GovCo shills, otoh, just cast shade and argue about your lack of qualifications that clearly fail to meet their approval.
Just wordy nerdy Peter Principled brainiacs on display, showing us all how their egos know best while telling us to comply or shut up.
I like your stuff much better, thank YOU very much!
These are very clever arguments but not on point. I was speaking as to HCQ snd Ivermectin being ineffective. It’s particularly clever for people to say they are safe drugs that have been around for years. True. But they don’t work with CoVId. And as for your friends who survived would the outcome have been different without HCQ?
There is no question this is a complex systems question. But I think we are oversimplifying on both sides.
In my medical judgment I am not violating my oath on going no harm by advocating for vaccines. I can clearly observe that the amount of vaccinated patients in critical condition continues to be scant. You are attempting to enforce a presumed future analysis that does not exist to apply to a judgment today. I can only know what we know today. And today the vaccines appear to be working. Monoclonals work. Given this it would be doing harm to recommend a lesser treatment for the disease m
The treatment that is clinically superior is regeneron and monoclonals.
I can tell you they were too exhausted to get out of their bed, fever, weak, etc.
One dose of HCQ and both were up, energy, etc. It took less than 12 hours. One is my son-in-law, the other a business connection locally.
But, I guess you could say that is anecdotal... and I would gently point out that seeing what happens in your ICU is anecdotal also.
I believe the word anecdotal is maligned to only allow big pharma to introduce treatments. Anecdotal evidence, witnesses, and other types are all evidence. Particularly when there is little in the way of a long-term study and the future is unknown.
I can clearly observe that the amount of vaccinated patients in critical condition continues to be scant.
I pointed out that this is also an anecdotal observation - and from news stories in other places and the hospital my ICU nurse son-in-law works in, their ICU is filled mainly with the vaxxed. Another anecdotal observation. Which is correct??
You are attempting to enforce a presumed future analysis that does not exist to apply to a judgment today.
I gently point out that I am referring to the vaxx trials being rushed and shortened and then released to the control groups being ended so that no one can know - what will happen as a result. I also gently point out that judgment today *should* include the risk of what we do not know because of the corrupt process that led to emergency usage. Also, if you have no idea of the consequences of what you are advocating be injected, you are can't fully inform patients of a true potential risk.
Even the ferrets are dead, or we could ask them.
And today the vaccines appear to be working.
But this of course depends entirely on dumbing down what it means for a vaccine to work. It involves changing the definition, and assuming this will continue. It certainly won't, or you wouldn't be trying to choose what booster shot you might choose. This may be part of a 5-6 month cycle of trying to prop them up, since the vaxx doesn't cover the whole strike zone.
I hasten to add I don't envy people in your position, who witness adverse selection all day and are often helpless to stem the tide of death. I know an emergency room doctor - known him since 1973. As of last year, he is still (!) in that stressful emergency room environment week after week. Most people burn out in a decade.
>> I guess you could say that is anecdotal.
With a recovery rate between 98% - 100% depending on age — and prior to the vax — natural immunity is the likely winner with the various treatments possibly hastening recovery time.
Compare this to your ICU experience…
https://rumble.com/vm2711-west-virginia-vaccinated-people-dropping-like-flies.html
...attempt to quiet the opposing views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh you poor babies. Your side got that 2aProtectstherest guy zotted for the sin of winning arguments against you day in and day out, then celebrated his zotting afterwards. You’d do exactly the same thing to gas-dr and a few others if given half a chance, and you know it. So please spare us the sanctimony.
Hahahahahahaha.
And Biden won the election.
#AdmittedShill
#FantasyLand
Thread and excerpt below.
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
American Journal of Therapuetics ^ | May-Jun 2021 | Kory, Pierre MD; Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto MD; Varon Joseph MD; Iglesias, Jose DO; Marik, Paul MD
Posted on 4/30/2021, 8:14:43 PM by SeekAndFind
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
