Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not making the assertion that the drug is useful in treating COVID-19. You are. There are multiple studies that say it's not. Available with a simple Google search.Maybe you should list the dates these studies were done.
Multple BS skewed studies.I'm not making the assertion that the drug is useful in treating COVID-19. You are. There are multiple studies that say it's not. Available with a simple Google search.
I'm pointing out that this settlement by the FDA is not an admission that the drug is effective for treatment of COVID-19. The FDA overstepped its bounds. That's why they
settled.
Again, feel free to deworm away. No one is stopping you.
No..it wasn't. Not for COVID-19. It's been shown to have no effect on treating the virus. Here, or anywhere else in the world. That Indian study, was debunked a long time ago.Multple BS skewed studies.
It was used all over the world with much lower death rates. But you are a bought off WEF Bitch so you post their BS
I showed over a thousand studies. Go tell your WEF Masters your lies dont work hereNo..it wasn't. Not for COVID-19. It's been shown to have no effect on treating the virus. Here, or anywhere else in the world. That Indian study, was debunked a long time ago.
It has been approved (in small doses) to treat parasitic infections for years. And it has been used around the world for that.
Why do we keep recycling these lies.
Peddle your miracle cures somewhere else.
And that's not the reason the FDA settled.
/----/
Looks like Big Pharma was concerned not with people getting sick, but cutting into their exclusive huge global marketing initiative. FDA, CDC and the rest of the clowns jumped on the bandwagon after four phone inquiries about Ivermectin......phone inquiries, not adverse reaction reports.
After 4 years of catastrophic health agency tyranny, physicians finally score a legal victory. I think the FDA settled because their Pharma masters were terrified of discovery. Here is the backstory.
In the wake of that campaign, pharmacies stopped filling valid, legal prescriptions and hospitals removed ivermectin from their formularies. Never had an FDA approved drug, one of the (if not the) safest prescribed medications in history ever been vilified or restricted to this extent. Just like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin had to be stopped.
The FDA’s role in that campaign started with the posting of the below tweet on August 21, 2021, a week after the report on the below left came out, showing a massive rise in ivermectin prescriptions in the U.S during the deadly Delta wave.
The rise in prescribing terrified the Covid cartel because if further knowledge of ivermectin’s efficacy were to be gained “on the ground” (i.e from the direct, lived experience of physicians and patients) it would limit the impacts of their corrupted trials and negative statements by corrupted agency heads and professional societies.
Obviously my readers know why “they” had to bury the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin at all costs: little ‘ole ivermectin threatened both the EUA for the vaccines and the global vaccine market (north of a $100 billion). It also threatened the markets for all the competing pricey, patented, pipeline pharmaceuticals like Remdesivir, Paxlovid, molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibodies (also massive global markets in the many billions).
Pharma’s greatest weapon to attack ivermectin is the FDA. Pharma (and especially Pfizer) has near complete control of the FDA (and the CDC and the NIH). But the FDA couldn’t do it all by themselves so they called in the CDC to do some dirty work: 5 days after the FDA tweet the CDC sent out a warning advisory to all the state medical boards (which was then forwarded to every licensed physician in the country)
But I trust the wider public can see right through such a statement. I mean, who will believe that they can claim innocence when they were forced to settle? You only settle when you know you are going to lose in court or… you cannot risk going through the discovery process. Like I said above, my bet is that they wanted to avoid discovery at all costs.
The FDA Settled With Us Because They Knew They Were Going To Lose
After 4 years of catastrophic health agency tyranny, physicians finally score a legal victory. I think the FDA settled because their Pharma masters were terrified of discovery. Here is the backstory.pierrekorymedicalmusings.com
The Horse Dewormer PR Campaign And My Defense Of Dr. Charles Hoffe Against The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons
The Canadian government severely restricted access to ivermectin by its citizens. Dr. Hoffe thus felt it appropriate for Canadians to obtain veterinary sources of ivermectin. I defend that view.
You only settle when you know you are going to lose in court or… you cannot risk going through the discovery process
because a cured patient is a lost customerWhy did they take down all their advice against using Ivermectin then?
Paid for by big pharma.....Clinical trials were held. No evidence of effectiveness.
And still is....It was used all over the world with much lower death rates
yes, the FDA is big pharma's b*tch....This should shatter any normal person's remaining faith in the FDA as a government agency that protects citizens.
Yes ... ivermectin is effective for intestinal worms in humans ... we know that ... it disrupts the nervous systems in roundworms and insects ... but not humans, at doses used to treat roundworm infestation ...
Can you explain (or post a link) how disrupting the communication systems in multicellular life is effective against simple viruses ... or is this just magically effective against the Covid virus, and none other ...
If Ivermectin is effective against viruses, why haven't we been using it for viral infections ... do you honestly think Big Pharm said they have enough profits? ...
www.nature.com
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen - The Journal of Antibiotics
It's easy to find the evidence for the anti-viral properties of Ivermectin. So why didn't you look?
Did you read this paper? ... I can certainly see why the abstract caught your attention ... did you bother with the conclusions? ...
"In this systematic review, we showed antiviral effects of ivermectin on a broad range of RNA and DNA viruses by reviewing all related evidences since 1970. This study presents the possibility that ivermectin could be a useful antiviral agent in several viruses including those with positive-sense single-stranded RNA, in similar fashion. Since significant effectiveness of ivermectin is seen in the early stages of infection in experimental studies, it is proposed that ivermectin administration may be effective in the early stages or prevention. Of course, confirmation of this statement requires human studies and clinical trials."
That last sentence is there so it could be published ... the claims made are UNconfirmed ... no human studies ... this paper only proposes these tests be done, and I agree more research is always better ...
... but we can't say it's effective in humans until we show it's effective on humans ... now go read the FDA regulations on what tests need to be done before we can claim de-wormer is effective against viruses ...
We've been able to cure AIDS since 1970? ... uh huh ... sure thing ... I gave this shit to my peafowl so nobody would eat them ...
The mechanism of ivermectin is altering PH , where as an antiviral would be considered an antigen ReinyThis study presents the possibility that ivermectin could be a useful antiviral agent
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3VkETk0fqNn2Cu9ZbA7U5_The mechanism of ivermectin is altering PH , where as an antiviral would be considered an antigen Reiny
~S~
Ive heard all your crap before. It was used all over the world with great results. Sell your Snake oil to BRANCH COVIDIANS"In Vitro studies are an important part of preclinical research, however results may be very different in vivo." ... more research is always better ... this paper was published this month and we're still in the "preclinical" part of the research ...
What's with these scientific papers no one reads ... go to your local Feed 'n' Seed store and buy a gallon of the stuff ...
ETA: deleted recommendations of felony behaviors ... I never said "use a tenth of a cow's dose" ... it's a felony in the USA to go "off-label" ...
Ive heard all your crap before. It was used all over the world with great results. Sell your Snake oil to BRANCH COVIDIANS
The mechanism of ivermectin is altering PH , where as an antiviral would be considered an antigen Reiny
~S~
We all know this. I posted these studies early on in the PLANNED DEMIC. Using it here would have saved many lives like it did in INDIAIt reduces the viral load significantly if taken within 48 hours of being infected. I really have to question the credibility now since he/she will quickly criticize any aspect of a drug that has been around since 1981 yet stick his/her head in the sand when it comes to questioning the experimental mRNA...........an injection that was shutdown around 2010 when every test animal died or had to be euthanized.
It reduces the viral load significantly if taken within 48 hours of being infected. I really have to question the credibility now since he/she will quickly criticize any aspect of a drug that has been around since 1981 yet stick his/her head in the sand when it comes to questioning the experimental mRNA...........an injection that was shutdown around 2010 when every test animal died or had to be euthanized.
LOLI have not brought up the mRNA vaccines in this thread ... ivermectin isn't a vaccine ... it will NOT trigger our own immunization system ... in a test tube, it interferes with the viral processes within the human cell ... rather than fill our blood vessels with SARS antibodies ...
Bubba didn't finish Middle School ... of course all of chemistry is voodoo magic ... Biochemistry 301 must seem god-like to y'all ... "vaccines are bad for us on our flat Earth" ... I get it ...
