ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 6 of 26
« First < 23456 7891016 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Ivermectin Studies
seamonster 12:19 PM 09-03-2021
Ivermectin Has Been Studied to Death and Works



































Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment PatientsAuthors
All studies 63 86% [75‑92%] 72% [55‑82%] 40% [24‑52%] 26,422 613
Peer-reviewedPeer-reviewed 44 86% [73‑92%] 75% [61‑84%] 43% [21‑59%] 17,082 479
Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs 31 84% [25‑96%] 61% [46‑71%] 30% [2‑50%] 6,561 359
Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment

[Reply]
RubberSponge 06:26 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
What’s that have to do with my point?

You didn't have a point that I saw. You had questions.

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Why do people keep equating opposition to this vaccine with general opposition to vaccines? Isn't there a vast difference between an experimental emergency vaccine and one that's been tested for a decade plus and made it through 3 phases of clinical trials?
To be anti-vax you don't have to subscribe to be against all vaccinations. It's a pick a reason for what you want to be against club. Philosophical, political, or spiritual was mentioned for reasons people have had towards vaccine opposition. Nothing about having to be against all vaccines that I could see.


This was interesting in the link.


Originally Posted by :
In 1902, following a smallpox outbreak, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, mandated all city residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. City resident Henning Jacobson refused vaccination on the grounds that the law violated his right to care for his own body how he knew best. In turn, the city filed criminal charges against him. After losing his court battle locally, Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1905 the Court found in the state’s favor, ruling that the state could enact compulsory laws to protect the public in the event of a communicable disease. This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the power of states in public health law. [6],[7]
This was a pretty good read of history as well.

https://www.ncbi.:-).nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463674/
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 06:43 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by RubberSponge:
You didn't have a point that I saw. You had questions.



To be anti-vax you don't have to subscribe to be against all vaccinations. It's a pick a reason for what you want to be against club. Philosophical, political, or spiritual was mentioned for reasons people have had towards vaccine opposition. Nothing about having to be against all vaccines that I could see.


This was interesting in the link.




This was a pretty good read of history as well.

https://www.ncbi.:-).nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463674/
But why did you even bring up general anti-vaxxers? I haven’t been talking about anything but this vaccine.
[Reply]
RubberSponge 07:01 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
But why did you even bring up general anti-vaxxers? I haven’t been talking about anything but this vaccine.
I had to reread my posts to see if I said anything pertaining to "general anti-vaxxers" because I'm not quite certain what you mean by general ant-vaxxers. It certainly isn't a term I think I would use. I did however see you use it here.

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Why do people keep equating opposition to this vaccine with general opposition to vaccines?

In response to me here.

Originally Posted by RubberSponge:
I'm referring to the overall opposition to vaccines since vaccines have been around. Where the opposition is constantly move the goal posts of their opposition to vaccines. Kind of like mentioning a vaccine hasn't had 70years of FDA approval/use, then the next thing they say is that FDA approval/use don't really matter. To me that is hogging both lanes of traffic. Trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't have it both ways.

Mention any vaccine and you will find a rando weirdo there to tell you all about their beliefs about the dangers of whatever thing they are on about at the time, of whatever vaccine at that time. It has happened with every vaccine. Even vaccines after 70yrs of ethical and efficient use.
I am going to take a guess and I didn't communicate it well enough to when I said 'overall'. You probably interpreted that as general in whatever sense you mean it as.

Either way, even George Washington mandated vaccines that were much less safe than todays vaccine standards. How do you feel about George Washington mandating a vaccine that he knew had some issues?
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 07:35 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Why do people keep equating opposition to this vaccine with general opposition to vaccines?
Because those people making such an equation are idiots.
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 07:38 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by RubberSponge:
I had to reread my posts to see if I said anything pertaining to "general anti-vaxxers" because I'm not quite certain what you mean by general ant-vaxxers. It certainly isn't a term I think I would use. I did however see you use it here.




In response to me here.



I am going to take a guess and I didn't communicate it well enough to when I said 'overall'. You probably interpreted that as general in whatever sense you mean it as.

Either way, even George Washington mandated vaccines that were much less safe than todays vaccine standards. How do you feel about George Washington mandating a vaccine that he knew had some issues?
You said this: I'm referring to the overall opposition to vaccines since vaccines have been around.

That seems to be lumping this vaccine in with past vaccines, and lumping skeptics in with people who opposed previous vaccines.

And in this post you’re talking about “today’s vaccine standards.” My point is that this vaccine does not meet today’s vaccine standards. And I’d have the same opinion if George Washington were pushing it. Am I expected to be blindly obedient to George Washington or something?
[Reply]
HonestChieffan 07:54 PM 09-04-2021
if you need some ivomec, i have 5 gallons of pour on

you wont get warbels and way less fly issues
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 08:01 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
if you need some ivomec, i have 5 gallons of pour on

you wont get warbels and way less fly issues

It's been cleared for human use since 1969.
[Reply]
Eleazar 09:39 PM 09-04-2021
Has anyone debunked the studies in this thread? The information is out there and easy to find. I really don't want to do all the typing.

But I guess that's part of the problem, it only takes a minute for someone to start a BS wildfire on Facebook, and the BS gets halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on...
[Reply]
Bump 09:48 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
It's been cleared for human use since 1969.
The 2015 Nobel prize for physiology or medicine has been awarded to three researchers whose work has had a huge effect on the treatment of parasitic diseases that affect many millions of people in poor countries.

One half of the prize goes jointly to William Campbell, emeritus research fellow at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey, and Satoshi Omura, professor emeritus at Kitasato University in Japan, “for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites.” The agent they discovered was avermectin, later chemically modified to create the drug now in widespread use, ivermectin.

and 4 billion doses have been administered




But now since people have such a great distrust of government and these health organizations, they are experimenting and some claim to be having success and that pisses off big pharma and liberals are now shills for them so it's infurating to them. Instead of demanding more research on this and testing, they are upset that it might be cutting into Johnson & Johnsons profits.
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 09:54 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
Has anyone debunked the studies in this thread? The information is out there and easy to find. I really don't want to do all the typing.

But I guess that's part of the problem, it only takes a minute for someone to start a BS wildfire on Facebook, and the BS gets halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on...
No, I don't think anyone has debunked all 63 yet.

But...they have declared that more studies are needed. Perhaps when we reach 1000 studies and the 50th anniversary of the day it came into medical use, we'll be able to properly assess how it compares to the safety and efficacy of the rigorously tested mRNA technology.
[Reply]
RealSNR 10:04 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Why do people keep equating opposition to this vaccine with general opposition to vaccines?
You either approve of vaccines or you don't.

Just like how the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines either work or they don't. There is no 90%. It has to be 100 or 0. That's what I was told on here.

Being purposely obtuse for the sake of attempting to win an argument is fun, isn't it?
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 10:50 PM 09-04-2021

[Reply]
RubberSponge 11:53 PM 09-04-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
You said this: I'm referring to the overall opposition to vaccines since vaccines have been around.

That seems to be lumping this vaccine in with past vaccines, and lumping skeptics in with people who opposed previous vaccines.

And in this post you’re talking about “today’s vaccine standards.” My point is that this vaccine does not meet today’s vaccine standards. And I’d have the same opinion if George Washington were pushing it. Am I expected to be blindly obedient to George Washington or something?
I did say overall. Referring to the reasoning used behind vaccine opposition. If you would have read further in the next sentence I said the goal posts are constantly being moved by those opposed to a vaccine. Which a direct reference to those reasons. Whatever they may be. In the next sentence I quite clearly gave an example that you used as evidence of those goal posts being moved. FDA approval that allowed Ivermectin 30years of use is okay, but that same FDA approval for a vaccine today is not okay. Do you understand what being opposed to a vaccine means? It doesn't mean you are opposed to every vaccine that every other tom, dick and harry are opposed to. It just means you are opposed to a vaccine. A vaccine.

I even gave you a link to an article in another post of the history of anti-vaccination movements from the The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, the oldest private medical society in the United States. Highlighting a conclusion of reasoning used behind those who have vaccine opposition.

My first post to you was an illustration of those goal posts being moved btw.

If you want to use Ivermectin I don't care. That is up to you. However, the Pfizer vaccine, now known as Comirnaty has had full FDA approval for those 16 and older. Your idea that the Pfizer vaccine does not meet todays standards is some straight up conspiracy anti-vax nonsense if that is what you truly believe. Which again is moving the goal post btw. Because it was FDA approval matters for this, but it doesn't for that. Now it is FDA approval process for Comirnaty wasn't up to today's standard of a vaccine. Pick a fucking lane and stay in it. You are all over the damn place with the excuses.

You read that as being having to being obedient to George Washington? Wow. I read it as George Washington mandating a vaccine knowing that is what needed to be done. Whatever the side effects from the vaccine came, was better than the alternative. In other words to me I read it as he put on his big boy pants and did what needed to be done at the time.
[Reply]
Bump 12:09 AM 09-05-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
lol, horses do love them some oats

They'd come up running when they heard that oat can shaking
[Reply]
HonestChieffan 02:51 AM 09-05-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
It's been cleared for human use since 1969.
pour on has not.

ivomec sure has for a number of uses but vastly different formulations

human dosages and formulations not same as vet uses, injectables, and topicals

fun reading about people eating the paste that is a horse product though.

someone needs to make a peanut butter flavor for antivaxers
[Reply]
Page 6 of 26
« First < 23456 7891016 > Last »
Up