Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (8 Viewers)

[Sailorsaint]

They just discharged me from the hospital. I am going home.

Great news, Semper Fi!

 

[UK SAINTS]

Did you not see that video above? Research the FLCCC and if you still think they are trustworthy, then go from there. But, I'm going to go with the FDA, CDC, and the majority of health professionals out there. Also, I like Joe Rogan, but he is batsheet crazy.
Big Edit here: I'm not saying this is you, Why continue to push Ivermectin when there is already a proven, FREE, vaccine that would have put a damper on this pandemic sooner? The anti-vaxxers are screaming for Ivermectin like it's the end of the world, but the solution is already there in front of them.

I did indeed watch the video above. In fact, that is what got me researching Ivermectin from other sources.
I stated above that I am NOT pushing Ivermectin or trying to convince anyone NOT to take the vaccine; I thought that was pretty obvious. The vaccine is NOT 100% effective against Covid, so I don't see the need to limit oneself to one method. I'm not convinced that both, used together, might not provide better protection. If you don't, then I'm cool with that.

 

[Sailorsaint]

I did indeed watch the video above. In fact, that is what got me researching Ivermectin from other sources.
I stated above that I am NOT pushing Ivermectin or trying to convince anyone NOT to take the vaccine; I thought that was pretty obvious. The vaccine is NOT 100% effective against Covid, so I don't see the need to limit oneself to one method. I'm not convinced that both, used together, might not provide better protection. If you don't, then I'm cool with that.

I wasn't implying that you were, sorry if you read that into it. I was talking in general. Research is always a good thing, as long as you don't confine it. And you have to research the research as well. A lot of misinformation out there, most of it for personal/political gain.

 

[superchuck500]

Please constructively criticize this article: (I am not trying to push Ivermectin or convince anyone not to get a vaccine). I am just trying to further educate myself.

Trust The Science: The Evidence For Ivermectin And COVID-19

Source: Nworeport Latest peer-reviewed research: Immediate global ivermectin use will end COVID-19 pandemic Peer-Reviewed Publication FRONTLINE COVID-19 CRITICAL CARE ALLIANCE (FLCCC ALLIANCE) WASH…

nworeport.me

“Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

The published research can be found in the latest edition of the American Journal of Therapeutics: Journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics

JOURNAL: American Journal of Therapeutics

Dr. Marik is controversial - and was so even before Covid. For example, he had controversial views for alternative treatments of conditions such as sepsis. He similarly published research papers supporting his views that were later discredited on the basis that researchers could not replicate his findings.

In all, his evidence always seems to be flimsy but I don't know, just going off of what I have read. I don't buy the idea that the global public health infrastructure would reject effective treatment because they favor big Pharma making money - that's absurd to me. And Ivermectin is made by Merck - a large pharmaceutical company that (a) doesn't have a vaccine to sell and (b) has said that there's no clinical evidence that Ivermectin is effective to treat Covid.

That said, I don't think you're going to get a compelling answer to your question, and certainly not here. There is no objective answer, only views about whether the idea is persuasive. The source is suspect and the conclusions are contrary to what trusted institutions, and the drug's manufacturer have publicly stated.

I don't know about using it to treat an infection, but using it as a preventative seems like a poor choice under the circumstances. Using the livestock version because you can't get the human pharma version seems patently dumb.

 

[St. Widge]

Dr. Marik is controversial - and was so even before Covid. For example, he had controversial views for alternative treatments of conditions such as sepsis. He similarly published research papers supporting his views that were later discredited on the basis that researchers could not replicate his findings.

In all, his evidence always seems to be flimsy but I don't know, just going off of what I have read. I don't buy the idea that the global public health infrastructure would reject effective treatment because they favor big Pharma making money - that's absurd to me. And Ivermectin is made by Merck - a large pharmaceutical company that (a) doesn't have a vaccine to sell and (b) has said that there's no clinical evidence that Ivermectin is effective to treat Covid.

That said, I don't think you're going to get a compelling answer to your question, and certainly not here. There is no objective answer, only views about whether the idea is persuasive. The source is suspect and the conclusions are contrary to what trusted institutions, and the drug's manufacturer have publicly stated.

I don't know about using it to treat an infection, but using it as a preventative seems like a poor choice under the circumstances. Using the livestock version because you can't get the human pharma version seems patently dumb.

Even using it as a treatment is patently dumb when there is an EUA for REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) which is an antibody to help fight off COVID-19. It has been proven effective and safe since at least November of 2020 for people who have not yet been hospitalized with COVID.

And the idea that a large pharmaceutical company like Merck would forgo millions or billions of dollars by saying that their drug does not work on COVID, if there was any chance that it could, is just beyond insane.

 

[UK SAINTS]

Dr. Marik is controversial - and was so even before Covid. For example, he had controversial views for alternative treatments of conditions such as sepsis. He similarly published research papers supporting his views that were later discredited on the basis that researchers could not replicate his findings.

In all, his evidence always seems to be flimsy but I don't know, just going off of what I have read. I don't buy the idea that the global public health infrastructure would reject effective treatment because they favor big Pharma making money - that's absurd to me. And Ivermectin is made by Merck - a large pharmaceutical company that (a) doesn't have a vaccine to sell and (b) has said that there's no clinical evidence that Ivermectin is effective to treat Covid.

That said, I don't think you're going to get a compelling answer to your question, and certainly not here. There is no objective answer, only views about whether the idea is persuasive. The source is suspect and the conclusions are contrary to what trusted institutions, and the drug's manufacturer have publicly stated.

I don't know about using it to treat an infection, but using it as a preventative seems like a poor choice under the circumstances. Using the livestock version because you can't get the human pharma version seems patently dumb.

I appreciate your response (as well as SailorSaint's).

I'll do some more reseach in Dr. Marik (and the organization). I'm not exactly sure what "peer-reviewed" entails, but why/why not should not that give more credibility? If it were peer-reviews (and rejected) then that I could understand, but I didn't not find that (yet). I also am a little less-trusting of big Pharma, I guess, because I DO think that monetary gain is nearly always an incentive. I'm not willing to jump at any conspiracy, but try not to just readily dismiss them, either.
Ivermectin is apparently very inexpensive, so is there an incentive for other drug makers to try and dismiss?

And I don't think (certainly hope!) that most partakers are using it in the same dosage as that for a horse. On the other hand, it boggles my mind the fast-food restaurant have to put "May be hot" on their coffee cups.

 

[sammymvpknight]

Please constructively criticize this article: (I am not trying to push Ivermectin or convince anyone not to get a vaccine). I am just trying to further educate myself.

Trust The Science: The Evidence For Ivermectin And COVID-19

Source: Nworeport Latest peer-reviewed research: Immediate global ivermectin use will end COVID-19 pandemic Peer-Reviewed Publication FRONTLINE COVID-19 CRITICAL CARE ALLIANCE (FLCCC ALLIANCE) WASH…

nworeport.me

“Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

The published research can be found in the latest edition of the American Journal of Therapeutics: Journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics

JOURNAL: American Journal of Therapeutics

Your link is dead

 

[St. Widge]

Your link is dead

Well it's from the New World Order Report so the Immuninati probably finally got them.

 

[superchuck500]

I appreciate your response (as well as SailorSaint's).

I'll do some more reseach in Dr. Marik (and the organization). I'm not exactly sure what "peer-reviewed" entails, but why/why not should not that give more credibility? If it were peer-reviews (and rejected) then that I could understand, but I didn't not find that (yet). I also am a little less-trusting of big Pharma, I guess, because I DO think that monetary gain is nearly always an incentive. I'm not willing to jump at any conspiracy, but try not to just readily dismiss them, either.
Ivermectin is apparently very inexpensive, so is there an incentive for other drug makers to try and dismiss?

And I don't think (certainly hope!) that most partakers are using it in the same dosage as that for a horse. On the other hand, it boggles my mind the fast-food restaurant have to put "May be hot" on their coffee cups.

Who are the peers?


And just to be clear, Ivermectin's manufacturer (Merck) has said that there's no evidence it is effective to treat Covid.

 

[UK SAINTS]

Even using it as a treatment is patently dumb when there is a EUA for REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) which is an antibody to help fight off COVID-19. It has been proven effective and safe since at least November of 2020 for people who have not yet been hospitalized with COVID.

And the idea that a large pharmaceutical company like Merck would forgo millions or billions of dollars by saying that their drug does not work on COVID, if there was any chance that it could, is just beyond insane.

Is the above mentioned drug relatively inexpensive and available?

 

[UK SAINTS]

Who are the peers?


And just to be clear, Ivermectin's manufacturer (Merck) has said that there's no evidence it is effective to treat Covid.

I'm not sure. It only states the following:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Peer reviewed by medical experts that included three U.S. government senior scientists and published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the research is the most comprehensive review of the available data taken from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies.

 

[St. Widge]

Is the above mentioned drug relatively inexpensive and available?

It's free and readily available. In fact they call you and ask you if you want it.

 

[Sailorsaint]

I appreciate your response (as well as SailorSaint's).

I'll do some more reseach in Dr. Marik (and the organization). I'm not exactly sure what "peer-reviewed" entails, but why/why not should not that give more credibility? If it were peer-reviews (and rejected) then that I could understand, but I didn't not find that (yet). I also am a little less-trusting of big Pharma, I guess, because I DO think that monetary gain is nearly always an incentive. I'm not willing to jump at any conspiracy, but try not to just readily dismiss them, either.
Ivermectin is apparently very inexpensive, so is there an incentive for other drug makers to try and dismiss?

And I don't think (certainly hope!) that most partakers are using it in the same dosage as that for a horse. On the other hand, it boggles my mind the fast-food restaurant have to put "May be hot" on their coffee cups.

I understand your mistrust of big pharma, I mean look what they did with the roll out of AIDS meds. I'm wondering if the three that are making the Covid vaccine get paid by the dose? Or are they just getting paid a lump sum from the govt to research and produce the meds? We don't pay for it at the counter, are we paying for it in other ways? I know big pharma are making money with this, the question is how much and from what sources.

 

[UK SAINTS]

Your link is dead

I'm sorry that you can't open it. Is this the case with others here?

 

[superchuck500]

I'm not sure. It only states the following:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Peer reviewed by medical experts that included three U.S. government senior scientists and published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the research is the most comprehensive review of the available data taken from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies.

I think that if the question of peer-review matters, it bears finding out who peer reviewed the paper and on what standards.