Or conversely, yet you did.
I am sorry, did i interrupt a private conversation?
I think this thread is self-immiserating in the way it expects decent people to be upset by good news positively affecting others’ health.
That is miserable.
4 Likes
Yes. Follow the money is an amazingly good predictor at what medical “science” will show.
Proprietary treatments can be worth tens of billions of dollars to drug companies, but generic drugs give minimal profits.
My observation is that experts can be found to support virtually any position given the right financial incentives. Studies will be developed to promote expensive proprietary treatments and to destroy generic alternatives. Officials and prescribers will be lobbied and/or bribed to reach decisions that maximize profits for the drug companies.
This observation does not mean that generic treatments are necessarily good or that proprietary treatments are necessarily bad, only that the huge financial incentives make it impossible to trust much of anything in the literature.
If you doubt the level of corruption involving big Pharma, just look at some of the recent history.
Big Pharma’s Big Fines (propublica.org)
https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-monumental-fraud-not-a-huge-scandal/
1 Like
Out of 53,000+ in the study… no deaths after through day 29 compared to 8 in the control group.
I think that’s something to be hopeful about.
1 Like
Moderator Note
I’m going to put this to bed, hopefully once and for all. It was allowed in the past, as long as it didn’t change the context of what was said. That has not changed. The software here allows for parsing quotes. It’s quite beneficial when a user wants to respond to certain parts of another’s posts without reposting a wall o’ text.
Another rule you seem to overlook, and I do mean you both collectively and in this individual case, is the fact that we don’t question the rules of this forum or it’s moderation within a discussion. That is clearly outlined in the rules of the forum Here and I would appreciate it if you’d address any concerns accordingly (ie in the community feedback forum or via pm to one of the moderators.) I’m tired of this having to be addressed on the open board.
That’s .01% mortality in the CONTROL group. 10X less than that of the flu.
1 Like
I know three people personally that took Ivemectin and recovered from Covid. One lady took Ivemectin two days and was well the third day.
1 Like
Don’t most people recover from Covid without Ivermectin? How can you know if Ivermectin caused your three associate’s recoveries or if they just recovered naturally like most everyone else?
P.S. There is a way to figure this out but you need more than three people.
Yeah after I wrote it I realized wait we don’t know how many people were in either group. So it’s likely not significant is it.
We weren’t talking about the jab.
You’re describing the vaccine.
The Merck drug operates via a mutagenetic mechanism whereby it mutates the viral RNA and then these mutated strands get formed into complexes which enable them to escape cellular proofreading mechanisms. This is how it stops viral replication.
Yeah, but it’s infinity greater than the test group, which had zero.
Were they vaccinated?
No. Jezcoe said: “Ivermectin is worthless when it comes to treating Covid.” Where is the proof for that statement?
1 Like
2 Likes
Why? Three’s enough.
He cited a study, didn’t he?
You should stick to lawyering. A sample size of three for this conclusion is ridiculously small.
Small, but sufficient.
