Jump to content

Large group of scientists and doctors desperately advocating for ivermectin use for serious covid cases


Rod

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rigid1 said:

So you support a wife being over ruled by a judge to not give her husband who's in a comma to receive a Nobel prize winning drug that will do no harm but possibly help and he was improving by his own doctors (medical professional btw) admission?? That's really fucked up man..You posted this BS article not me, just remember you might be in that situation one day.... SMH

Yes, I support trained medical professionals over wives with no medical training in administering care. His doctors at the hospital, the ones he was under care from, said it made no discernable difference in the first 11 days out of 14 they were ordered to give. Not sure why you're getting so worked up about this.

"But in another hearing last week, doctors from West Chester Hospital told the court that ivermectin had not helped their patient. Wagshul, testifying on behalf of the Smiths, did not convince the judge otherwise.

"Plaintiff's own witness ... testified that 'I honestly don't know' if continued use of ivermectin will benefit Jeff Smith," Oster wrote in the ruling."

 

It's not a BS article, it was posted and discussed a few days ago on here. Just take a deep breath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

Unless that scientific community is the entire country of Japan.

Yeah, well, it's not though. It's like if the president of the AMA here in the US recommended its use and then you claiming "the entire United States." It doesn't really work that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Yes, I support trained medical professionals over wives with no medical training in administering care. His doctors at the hospital, the ones he was under care from, said it made no discernable difference in the first 11 days out of 14 they were ordered to give. Not sure why you're getting so worked up about this.

"But in another hearing last week, doctors from West Chester Hospital told the court that ivermectin had not helped their patient. Wagshul, testifying on behalf of the Smiths, did not convince the judge otherwise.

"Plaintiff's own witness ... testified that 'I honestly don't know' if continued use of ivermectin will benefit Jeff Smith," Oster wrote in the ruling."

 

It's not a BS article, it was posted and discussed a few days ago on here. Just take a deep breath. 

You left out his own doctor authorized it and the hospital said no, his wife and doctor took legal action and won, then some douchebag judge reverses it for this one guy only?? That is so fucking fucked up..His own doctor said it was helping, you know the one he's been seeing for decades, not some guy who  met him 10 days ago..

I can't believe how bent you are from injecting your body with something you have no clue what will do in long term, have know idea what's in it, it doesn't fucking work, and being some lab rat for big pharma that you will try and justify getting vaccinated to everyone here but God forbid someone wants to try a perfectly safe pill that's won a Nobel fucking prize, has been around for decades, and costs pennies and you sit here and try and say I need to calm down??  

Have a great life lab rat

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rigid1 said:

You left out his own doctor authorized it and the hospital said no, his wife and doctor took legal action and won, then some douchebag judge reverses it for this one guy only?? That is so fucking fucked up..His own doctor said it was helping, you know the one he's been seeing for decades, not some guy who  met him 10 days ago..

I can't believe how bent you are from injecting your body with something you have no clue what will do in long term, have know idea what's in it, it doesn't fucking work, and being some lab rat for big pharma that you will try and justify getting vaccinated to everyone here but God forbid someone wants to try a perfectly safe pill that's won a Nobel fucking prize, has been around for decades, and costs pennies and you sit here and try and say I need to calm down??  

Have a great life lab rat

 

Hey lets mandate a drug that has zero history or long term studies is proven to cause blood clots and death, but ban a drug that if taken properly will cause zero detrimental side effects.  Sounds legit to the max

 the MSM has him so twisted up he  doesn't even know up from down. Maybe he will see it but I really doubt it 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, Roosting said:

Hey lets mandate a drug that has zero history or long term studies is proven to cause blood clots and death, but ban a drug that if taken properly will cause zero detrimental side effects.  Sounds legit to the max

 the MSM has him so twisted up he  doesn't even know up from down. Maybe he will see it but I really doubt it 

It's like frigging bizzaro world

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 1:16 AM, Rigid1 said:

I don't get why some are so against the use of Ivermectin? If it works, saves lives I would think you guys would've been a proponent of it? But it's the opposite, very strange to say the least.

 

Where do the leading Republican scientists (not internet scientists) stand on ivermectin and the current vaccines?

The biggest problem from my pov with the virus and the path of returning to normal is that there's not been one particular person in a leadership role the majority of people are willing to trust.  Not Trump, not Biden, not the CDC, etc.  If covid 19 hadn't occurred during a presidential election year, maybe we'd be in a better place right now.

 

As I see things, we're going to be dealing with this right up until the 2024 election because WE all can't seem to find common ground to minimize the spread and it's mutations.  WE are what the virus requires to survive and thrive.

 

Meh, this country is fucked...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rigid1 said:

You left out his own doctor authorized it and the hospital said no, his wife and doctor took legal action and won, then some douchebag judge reverses it for this one guy only?? That is so fucking fucked up..His own doctor said it was helping, you know the one he's been seeing for decades, not some guy who  met him 10 days ago..

I can't believe how bent you are from injecting your body with something you have no clue what will do in long term, have know idea what's in it, it doesn't fucking work, and being some lab rat for big pharma that you will try and justify getting vaccinated to everyone here but God forbid someone wants to try a perfectly safe pill that's won a Nobel fucking prize, has been around for decades, and costs pennies and you sit here and try and say I need to calm down??  

Have a great life lab rat

 

Yes, calm down. You’re getting yourself all worked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roosting said:

Hey lets mandate a drug that has zero history or long term studies is proven to cause blood clots and death, but ban a drug that if taken properly will cause zero detrimental side effects.  Sounds legit to the max

 the MSM has him so twisted up he  doesn't even know up from down. Maybe he will see it but I really doubt it 

Covid has proven to cause blood clots and deaths at a much much higher rate. Here’s issue. You start allowing people to take unproven Covid drugs, it gives them a false sense of security. Then they do the exact opposite of what is proven effective. That’s the worry. It’s not that everyone’s going to overdose, or that everyone’s going to be miraculously cured, it’s that people will be led in the wrong direction. 
 

oh and trust me, I know you guys are all medical lions and not sheep who need to be led so spare the comment.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, akvanden said:

Covid has proven to cause blood clots and deaths at a much much higher rate. Here’s issue. You start allowing people to take unproven Covid drugs, it gives them a false sense of security. Then they do the exact opposite of what is proven effective. That’s the worry. It’s not that everyone’s going to overdose, or that everyone’s going to be miraculously cured, it’s that people will be led in the wrong direction. 
 

oh and trust me, I know you guys are all medical lions and not sheep who need to be led so spare the comment.

the so called vax witch by all measures is not a true vax it is an antibody booster is completely unproven yet a drug with a 40 year history of use with no negative side effects if dosed properly is some how dangerous even if it only provides a placebo effect to C19 patients.

In conclusion the false sense of security for the c19 vax is indeed concerning since there are no long term studies for safety or effectiveness. You argument falls flat and lacks any depth of thought as evidenced by your regurgitation of MSM propaganda claiming otherwise.

you fail. be better. use your brain.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Roosting said:

the so called vax witch by all measures is not a true vax it is an antibody booster is completely unproven yet a drug with a 40 year history of use with no negative side effects if dosed properly is some how dangerous even if it only provides a placebo effect to C19 patients.

In conclusion the false sense of security for the c19 vax is indeed concerning since there are no long term studies for safety or effectiveness. You argument falls flat and lacks any depth of thought as evidenced by your regurgitation of MSM propaganda claiming otherwise.

you fail. be better. use your brain.

We've been through the "it's not a vax" before, and unless you redefining what a vaccination is, you're wrong. Flu vaccines are still vaccines, as is this.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't have years to wait for whatever timeline you deem necessary. My argument doesn't fail, it just follows what the majority of the entire medical profession across the entire world advises

Stop using MSM as your catch-all discredit crutch, go read what the major medical institutions are recommending. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
7 minutes ago, akvanden said:

We've been through the "it's not a vax" before, and unless you redefining what a vaccination is, you're wrong. Flu vaccines are still vaccines, as is this.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't have years to wait for whatever timeline you deem necessary. My argument doesn't fail, it just follows what the majority of the entire medical profession across the entire world advises

Stop using MSM as your catch-all discredit crutch, go read what the major medical institutions are recommending

Do you seriously not think major medical institutions, Dr offices, pharmacists, and hospitals are not influenced by big pharma and politics?? You honestly can not be this naive??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akvanden said:

We've been through the "it's not a vax" before, and unless you redefining what a vaccination is, you're wrong. Flu vaccines are still vaccines, as is this.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't have years to wait for whatever timeline you deem necessary. My argument doesn't fail, it just follows what the majority of the entire medical profession across the entire world advises

Stop using MSM as your catch-all discredit crutch, go read what the major medical institutions are recommending. 

There is a reason those people are not elected officials in government. They would never pass the sniff test yet you are putting your faith on a faceless DR. who should not be in this position. They can recommend but that's it.

world cant wait for what in particular? 

you fail again but in a more spectacular idiotic way. 

might be time for you to step out of this thread as you lack the critical thinking skills needed to maneuver through this issue. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rigid1 said:

Do you seriously not think major medical institutions, Dr offices, pharmacists, and hospitals are not influenced by big pharma and politics?? You honestly can not be this naive??

All of major ones, in some sort of systemic fashion, all fudging clinical studies, silencing the 1000s of doctors at each institution they employ, across the world?? 

Nope. My simple brain can't fathom how that would work. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

All of major ones, in some sort of systemic fashion, all fudging clinical studies, silencing the 1000s of doctors at each institution they employ, across the world?? 

Nope. My simple brain can't fathom how that would work. 

You should have just typed the second bold and called it good to go.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Roosting said:

There is a reason those people are not elected officials in government. They would never pass the sniff test yet you are putting your faith on a faceless DR. who should not be in this position. They can recommend but that's it.

world cant wait for what in particular? 

you fail again but in a more spectacular idiotic way. 

might be time for you to step out of this thread as you lack the critical thinking skills needed to maneuver through this issue. 

Let me get this straight, you want more doctors to be in government, like Faucci, because they'd be more believable? Hmmmm. 

You said there haven't been long long term studies, referencing the vaccine. I said the world can't want until you deem it safe. What clarification is needed?

 Please don't criticize my critical thinking. :sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

Let me get this straight, you want more doctors to be in government, like Faucci, because they'd be more believable? Hmmmm. 

You said there haven't been long long term studies, referencing the vaccine. I said the world can't want until you deem it safe. What clarification is needed?

 Please don't criticize my critical thinking. :sad:

Well you missed the point there completely like 100% back wards to what I wrote 

So I stand by my assertation that you critical thinking skills are indeed lacking.

oxygen helps the brain try some deep breathing exercises and maybe only then you might get a clue. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roosting said:

Well you missed the point there completely like 100% back wards to what I wrote 

So I stand by my assertation that you critical thinking skills are indeed lacking.

oxygen helps the brain try some deep breathing exercises and maybe only then you might get a clue. 

 

46 minutes ago, Roosting said:

There is a reason those people are not elected officials in government. They would never pass the sniff test yet you are putting your faith on a faceless DR. who should not be in this position.

No I think I got it. The faceless PHDs of the world at Mayo, John Hopkins etc  wouldn't pass the sniff test to be in govt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Let me get this straight, you want more doctors to be in government, like Faucci, because they'd be more believable? Hmmmm. 

You said there haven't been long long term studies, referencing the vaccine. I said the world can't want until you deem it safe. What clarification is needed?

 Please don't criticize my critical thinking. :sad:

Facts don't care about your feelings.  You've been brainwashed and are doubling down on the stupid.  Continue please.:lol:

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 hour ago, akvanden said:

 

No I think I got it. The faceless PHDs of the world at Mayo, John Hopkins etc  wouldn't pass the sniff test to be in govt.

I think Ive already helped you out with proving the political bias the Mayo clinic funds remember??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rigid1 said:

I think Ive already helped you out with proving the political bias the Mayo clinic funds remember??

Oh you mean the non profit that cannot by law donate to political parties? Yes, I remember that convo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
23 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Oh you mean the non profit that cannot by law donate to political parties? Yes, I remember that convo. 

Oh really??

Screenshot_20210814-113355.png

Screenshot_20210814-113404.png

Screenshot_20210814-113431.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...