|
Mark Anderson -> RE: General Vikes Talk (6/16/2021 10:51:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes
quote:
ORIGINAL: jbusse
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pager
quote:
ORIGINAL: jbusse
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer
Just remember when you specifically pick out 3 players out of over average 40 that don't have the vaccine from each team it looks like you are only attacking the religious on the team, instead of the unvaccinated on the team....that is what I am spelling and pointing out.
You do realize Phil
That its just a matter of time before a new COVID variant produces an outbreak of non-vaccinated religious QB zombies.
Thanks for defending personal choice over the well-being of our species.
Good going.
If the well being of our species was of primary importance in the U.S., then ivermectin and a few other medications would have been given a fair shake.
I promise you if injecting Clorox or internal UVB would have saved lives, healthcare professionals would have done it. Convalescence continued to be used even after research showed it wasn't effective. To suggest that providers/public health policy decision makers (most are doctors) that have taken the Hippocratic Oath let politics, religion, or any other reason interfere with providing the best possible care is insulting.
I volunteered to work in our ED clinically during the first peak. While we were still getting images/news reports of body bags in New York. It was scary AF.
What evidence do you have to suggest that ivermectin was given a fair shake? I can cite plenty of studies that provide very strong clinical evidence that it's effective in the treatment of covid. Here's one:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-98106/v1
"Results: In total, 585 participants, including 270 females and 305 males, were included. Of these, 159, 357, and 110 patients received hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide, and ivermectin, respectively, with similar baseline characteristics and time-to-treat between them. The three groups had similar duration of positive rtPCR-SARS-CoV-2, clinical disease duration and recovery speed. Of the 585 patients, none was hospitalized, needed mechanical ventilation, or died, and 1.5% persisted with symptoms after recovery."
Findings of this sort are not at all unusual.
Maybe its just me but I would look for recommendations by the FDA, WHO or the drug's actual manufacturer ... before self published trials in a journal like Research Square.
Ivermectin is FDA approved as an antiparasitic drug. Not COVID-19.
As of April 2021 ... both the World Health Organization and the drug's manufacturer Merck advised AGAINST using the drug for COVID-19 treatment.
From the manufacturer: “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 from pre-clinical studies”, “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease” and “a concerning lack of safety data” in most studies.
Those two would be the last people I would trust. One is compromised and other loves $$$$$.
|
|
|
|