Judge Reverses Order Forcing Hospital To Give Ivermectin To COVID-19 Patient

If the prisoners cannot gett to the biologial politics thread, two pertinent studies for the reservoirs of SARS-CoV are here:

2013 Yokohama / Raccoon Dogs

Selamectin, Pfizer, Ltd.
 
We’ll expedite this to the thread due to Rodishi’s interest in liver flukes and dandelion powder. Firstly, simian hemorrhagic fever virus is a nidovirus, like coronaviruses. Secondly, it links back to Reston ebolavirus of 1989, because that monkey also was infected with SHFV Arterivirus (Nidovirales).

Post #174

Cameroon: Loa Loa Microfilarial Periodicity in Ivermectin-Treated Patients

This is also a link to Cameroonian geraniin posted earlier in the thread.

Cameroon: Simian Ivermectin / Loa Loa
 
During radical Islam’s operations in the Caucasus, the link to simian viruses was their attack on the Suhkumi station, once housing monkeys used for poliovirus research.

The Russian-NIH link is that....’SHF was first recognized in 1964 in primate centers in both the United States and Soviet Union in several species of recently imported macaques (Macaca mulatta, M. speciosa, M. cynomolgus) originating from a single supplier in India.*

*Lapin BA, Shevtsova ZV (1971) On the Identity of Two Simian Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Strains (Sukhumi and NIH), Z. Versteirkd. 13:21-23.’
(Ch. 21 Arterivirus Pathogenesis and Immune Response, in Nidoviruses, ASM Press, 2008)
 
The criteria outlined is exactly done in order to allow "right to try", otherwise without the risk of lawsuit's and such.

So otherwise it clears the way for "right to try", not obstructs it.

Wonder if all criteria is needed in unison above or just the main one (written consent), that clears the way where as the rest are just final formalities needed or maybe not needed depending on the physician ??
life-threatening disease or condition
which is the first one clear is talking about terminally ill people which is the person is going to die with this illness. Right to try is specifically for terminally ill people as they really got nothing to lose because the doctors have said that they will die because of this illness.
 
Disphit, docking is relevant. What part of that eludes you? Ivermectin cannot be disproven in vivo, either. You thus have no basis for argument.
Conclusion: The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.
and what part of your quoted source do you not understand.

It requires more research is clearly stated but I would guess that is to obvious for ;you to understand when all your trying to do is a political bitch move.

Your source yet you seem to not understand anything you post. You probably read the first line and then make a bunch of assumptions.

Does the meaning of may confuse you, well it may confuse you

What part of more research is foreign to you. Just because it throws a wrench in your point of view does that mean you cannot understand what they are saying. Well it may if it is more important to misquote sources.

Nobody is saying docking is not important but when your at the first stage of vaccination development that is all it is. It has to to be studied extensively not just say it looks promising. This is what your source says.

Instead you seem to be in a hurry to make it political

Jumping to the end conclusion when all you point to is the beginning. Ignoring that there more work needs to be done to determine is it effective , safe, and the predictability.
 
Last edited:
life-threatening disease or condition
which is the first one clear is talking about terminally ill people which is the person is going to die with this illness. Right to try is specifically for terminally ill people as they really got nothing to lose because the doctors have said that they will die because of this illness.
Ok, and I was right in my assessment.
 
Conclusion: The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.
and what part of your quoted source do you not understand.

It requires more research is clearly stated but I would guess that is to obvious for ;you to understand when all your trying to do is a political bitch move.

Your source yet you seem to not understand anything you post. You probably read the first line and then make a bunch of assumptions.

Does the meaning of may confuse you, well it may confuse you

What part of more research is foreign to you. Just because it throws a wrench in your point of view does that mean you cannot understand what they are saying.
We could research till the cows come home, but if people want to utilize their right to try, then it should be their right, and no one else's. I still wonder if what we are seeing is an attempt to drag this all out until the 2022 election is somehow secured by the Democrat's ??

Biden making this thing look as bleak as he can, and doing and saying what he's saying doesn't add up. Ignoring the science makes this political, and those using it for political reason's will be found out. American's aren't this stupid yet, and the left will be found out by their own actions.
 
Ok, and I was right in my assessment.
Only if you believe that terminally ill apply to all people with the virus or that the person in this case has been diagnosed as terminally ill and will die.

Terminal illness or end-stage disease is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma.

So going back to the thread if he was expected to die then the judge could not have overturn because by law he has a right to try if the criteria for it are met. Still only doctors can determine if reasonably expected to die is the issue and if the patient disagrees then I guess he can take it to court. Yet if you are going to probably die then taking it to court seems to be a waste of time and money. yeah you can't take it with you.
 
One vaccine is.

Ivermectin is antiparasitic, not antiviral.



 
Only if you believe that terminally ill apply to all people with the virus or that the person in this case has been diagnosed as terminally ill and will die.

Terminal illness or end-stage disease is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma.

So going back to the thread if he was expected to die then the judge could not have overturn because by law he has a right to try if the criteria for it are met. Still only doctors can determine if reasonably expected to die is the issue and if the patient disagrees then I guess he can take it to court. Yet if you are going to probably die then taking it to court seems to be a waste of time and money. yeah you can't take it with you.
Oh so now the virus is just the flu, so just go home and get well folk's. Quit being so scared of a little oh virus, it won't bite. Someone better tell raging crazy Joe this.

Now ok the tested, non-harmful treatment's and move on already. It's the patient's right to try if think they are in grave danger. It's not like they are authorizing a new vaccine or something. These treatments have been around forever.
 



Traditionalists are freaking because an antibiotic has antiviral capability, undermining a major long-held premise.
 
Conclusion: The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.
and what part of your quoted source do you not understand.

It requires more research is clearly stated but I would guess that is to obvious for ;you to understand when all your trying to do is a political bitch move.

Your source yet you seem to not understand anything you post. You probably read the first line and then make a bunch of assumptions.

Does the meaning of may confuse you, well it may confuse you

What part of more research is foreign to you. Just because it throws a wrench in your point of view does that mean you cannot understand what they are saying.
No, the “may” in the statement is incorrect. That is your mistake. The physical docking is always already an interference, Dipshit.
 
Traditionalists are freaking because an antibiotic has antiviral capability, undermining a major long-held premise.
I was prescribed doxycycline when I had COVID-19, and not sure if it helped, but I want to think that it did.
 



All of those studies say that while they see some action in laboratory settings they are unable to duplicate it "in vivo".

In simpler terms it doesn't work in real life.
 
Who is they ??
crepitus has a list of who "they" are but unfortunately he never remembers which page a specific "they" is on, so he goes someplace else to talk about "them" with the same problem. *sigh* Inside Crepitus world is a brain that only has room for dissing Donald Trump, his employers' preoccupation for his destruction. You know a real Democrat when you meet someone whose brains are filled with the Donald. He gets inside and stays there till kingdom come. TDS is kinda fun to watch as the Demmies turn themselves inside out like circus doggies all jumping through the same hoop, over and over and over some more. I guess that's what they filled all those vaccuous medullas with. *giggle* And it can be entertaining to come here and watch all of the nonsense.
 
Man. You fuckers gotta stop with these “internet doctors”

You can’t be serious
 
Conclusion: The ivermectin docking we identified may interfere with the attachment of the spike to the human cell membrane. Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.
and what part of your quoted source do you not understand.

It requires more research is clearly stated but I would guess that is to obvious for ;you to understand when all your trying to do is a political bitch move.

Your source yet you seem to not understand anything you post. You probably read the first line and then make a bunch of assumptions.

Does the meaning of may confuse you, well it may confuse you

What part of more research is foreign to you. Just because it throws a wrench in your point of view does that mean you cannot understand what they are saying. Well it may if it is more important to misquote sources.

Nobody is saying docking is not important but when your at the first stage of vaccination development that is all it is. It has to to be studied extensively not just say it looks promising. This is what your source says.

Instead you seem to be in a hurry to make it political

Jumping to the end conclusion when all you point to is the beginning. Ignoring that there more work needs to be done to determine is it effective , safe, and the predictability.


The anti vaxxers say they won't take the vaccine because it's experimental and not proven to work.

Yet they will take a horse dewormer that is experimental for the virus and has not been proven to work.
 

Forum List

Back
Top