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
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……..
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.
“But then it hit me. The title of the vanity is give us snd and our doctors ivermectin and HCQ/azithromycin.”
What’s amusing to me is that I probably made the first post here at FR suggesting that HCQ could help with covid. I may have inadvertently armed the haters, lol.
I had been nosing around PubMed after I heard that Covid was a SARS virus and I ran across a 2005 NIH paper speculating that HCQ had helped prevent infection during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak. So I mentioned that on a Covid thread and provided a link.
SARS-1 didn’t last long enough to allow much testing. Covid has, and in some countries hospital workers have been given HCQ and ivermectin to see if it would protect them from infection. It doesn’t seem to have worked, infection rates remained the same. That’s likely why enthusiasm has waned in the medical world versus the freeper school of medicine which is certain that it’s a plot.