Messaging between the Houses

[Ooloo]

It's not being dispensed based on race! Except where it is.

Hint: I'm talking about the places it is. Like in NYC, for example. And the biden admin openly stating that it intended to ration monoclonal antibodies based on "equity", which is code for "white people last". Which is retarded, racist, ideological policy. Not sensible policy.

[Ooloo]

Here I'll make my point extremely easy to understand:

Distributing medical treatment based on anything other than the specific person in question and their specific medical needs is bound to be terrible policy.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here I'll make my point extremely easy to understand:

Distributing medical treatment based on anything other than the specific person in question and their specific medical needs is bound to be terrible policy.

That's why I don't like ivermectin. It's an anti-parasite not an anti-viral.

Poorer countries are 'seeming' to have success with it because they can't even afford to test and don't have have mortality boards, so their numbers are lower.

It's like that British helmet thing wot Lune talked about a bit ago.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's why I don't like ivermectin. It's an anti-parasite not an anti-viral.

Poorer countries are 'seeming' to have success with it because they can't even afford to test and don't have have mortality boards, so their numbers are lower.

It's like that British helmet thing wot Lune talked about a bit ago.

Ivermectin's efficacy is really kind of irrelevant, because for one thing it's really extremely safe for humans, at normal human doses. Yes it's primary effect is anti-parasitic, but it has also shown antiviral properties under certain conditions for certain people. So why oppose it? Why ridicule and chastise people who want to explore it's possible applications? And when people say "horse paste" they're just talking about a formulation for horses that is way higher than a human dose, because horses weigh more than humans. We already give tons and tons of different drugs to both humans and animals. I'm sure there's something on the market called like "Equiprin" or something which is just a huge dose of aspirin for horses. And yet when people take aspirin for a headache we don't say they're taking "horse medicine".

So if there's any evidence at all that it's effective as a theraputic, and essentially zero evidence that it's dangerous at theraputic levels, why oppose it at all?

[robayon]

Because then the precious horsies don't get their meds

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ivermectin's efficacy is really kind of irrelevant, because for one thing it's really extremely safe for humans, at normal human doses. Yes it's primary effect is anti-parasitic, but it has also shown antiviral properties under certain conditions for certain people. So why oppose it? Why ridicule and chastise people who want to explore it's possible applications? And when people say "horse paste" they're just talking about a formulation for horses that is way higher than a human dose, because horses weigh more than humans. We already give tons and tons of different drugs to both humans and animals.

So if there's any evidence at all that it's effective as a theraputic, and essentially zero evidence that it's dangerous at theraputic levels, why oppose it at all?

Why aren't you demanding years of peer-reviewed study for it for covid like you are the mRNA technology invented in 2003? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Reiwa]

OK that was fun but he's done.

[Homesteaded]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why aren't you demanding years of peer-reviewed study for it for covid like you are the mRNA technology invented in 2003? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because it's safety has nothing to do with covid. It is a drug that has been dosed in the billions of times to humans. It's one of the safest drugs out there. Ask yourself why you have an issue with people taking something that is incredibly safe.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why aren't you demanding years of peer-reviewed study for it for covid like you are the mRNA technology invented in 2003? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is this a serious question?

The unique thing about the covid vaccines is the fact that they are NEW, period. Not that they are only being *used* newly.

IE: Ivermectin has decades of clinical data with regard to safety in humans. Meaning, if you take it you don't die or suffer any long term side effects based on decades of monitoring and research. The covid vaccines have about... 1 year of monitoring and research? You don't see any difference between these two things?

So the question of safety, and the question of efficacy are separate questions. I have an issue with people who claim that ivermectin is somehow dangerous. You can claim it's ineffective for covid all you want (although there's evidence to the contrary), you just can't claim it's dangerous to humans because it's not.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because it's safety has nothing to do with covid. It is a drug that has been dosed in the billions of times to humans. It's one of the safest drugs out there. Ask yourself why you have an issue with people taking something that is incredibly safe.

Can't take certain drugs when you have certain diseases. A novel disease requires pharmacological interactions to be studied for that disease.