| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled 150k Covid-19 Deaths? – The ONS state in black and white that just 17,000 people have died of Covid-19 in the past 2 years, jonrick46 wrote: |
| Excerpt of post by jonrick46: Doc, the case for Ivermectin has to be made through clinical trials to be accepted by the AMA. Even though it was found effective for head lice, rosacea, intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, rules required clinical trials for use as treatment for COVID. So, trials were performed and failed like the latest one which was found to have, I quote, "shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data . . . on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns.” The clinical trial was a fraud. So, when the money is spent on a legitimate clinical trial of Ivermectin, we are just as lost as Eric Baldwin with a gun. We live in a Bizarro World, Doc, where so many just deny the data. If you have the data, tell us what you think would be the best way to mitigate the virus. Don't give me grief and waste your time saying how spineless I am. Give it your best shot! |
You hit bottom already, and now you're just digging a hole.
"Doc, the case for Ivermectin has to be made through clinical trials to be accepted by the AMA."
Well, you see that is false. Until Covid, doctors wrote off label. But once the biowarfare began, doctors were threatened, fired etc. as were pharmacists for functioning like healers.
Fauci took the WORST DRUG in an ebola trial, removed first because the risks outweighed potential benefits and 53% of patients died, and he repurposed it for Covid. Remdesivir is killing people - it did so during the trial, it's doing so now on patients in hospitals.
Ivermectin doesn't kill people. It's one of the safest medicines out there and an 'essential medicine' according to the world health organization. You don't even need a prescription for it in Japan and this has been true for decades. Freepers are using it to save lives and they post about it on FR.
So don't tell me that you can snatch Remdesivir from the drug trial in which it was killing more than half the patients who received it and then VOILA! Bless it with the AMA and you're done! But that's what they must have done, according to you.
Ivermectin works and is safe. Decades of use - noted for its safety record.
They didn't need that tricked up fraudulent study when they have decades of work on Ivermectin. It's disgusting you're carrying water for those who are methodically killing us.
“ethical concerns.” What about denying dying patients the right to try a safe medicine? They're dying, why not let them have Ivermectin? Is that ethical?
How about denying all treatment to elderly sick people with multiple co-morbiditities and just telling them to go home until they can't breath, and intubating them even when you know 85% will not survive that 'therapy'? That pegs your ethics meter, does it?
Pfizer has committed fraud in its trials and refused to provide informed consent and is working to hide its raw data for 75 years? Ethical? That's your preference?
There are lists, and lists of Ivermectin studies that people post and share and you're pretending it's unknown and we just have to follow procedure when Fauci and Co have violated our Constitutional Rights, human rights, the Nuremberg Code and created new procedures to deny people treatment.
You aren't worth the time. You're laboring for our enemies as they work to kill us. That's your ethics showing. You're boneless, not merely spineless.
Ivermectin has been proven safe from the ADA approval process that required clinical trial. However, it has not tested effective as a treatment for COVID-19. A review of the medical literature by the Cochrane Library analyzed 14 randomized controlled clinical trials for Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 infections.6 The Cochrane Library is an organization that examines published studies of medical research to collect data and determine the best evidence-based choices for medical treatments. The 14 studies had enrolled nearly 1,700 patients and compared Ivermectin use to either no treatment, a placebo, or the standard of care for a respiratory infection.
“Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19,” the Cochrane review concluded. “The completed studies are small, and few are considered high quality.” As I told you before, the last clinical trial was found to have fraudulent data. The studies that are finished have yielded little evidence of effectiveness. Some were halted due to lack of benefit along the way. Others have been retracted. So, when are they going start another clinical trial?
The CDC, FDA, and AMA all advise against its use against COVID-19 because there is no evidence it works. Gregory Poland, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), tells Verywell. “If Ivermectin were a miracle cure, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), IDSA, and specialty physician societies would be touting it and pushing it, like they are for vaccines and for monoclonal antibodies, but they’re not.” “You can search for substantial evidence of effectiveness for Ivermectin and you will come up empty handed,” Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells Verywell. “The fact is that there are a large number of trials of Ivermectin that have been done, but the great majority of them are lacking in terms of the fundamentals of clinical trial design.” Proven effectiveness is just as important for FDA authorization or approval. The same people who are demanding more testing for vaccines are saying that Ivermectin should be used, regardless of lack of studies.
Finally Poland says, ““Show me the [Ivermectin] studies. Show me the quality of the studies. Tell me what kind of study design was used—ask the same questions that people rightfully demand of any vaccine, antiviral drug, or monoclonal antibodies,” Poland says. “They have to live by the same scientific rules.”