Free To Fly

[Guest2]

4 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

Repetition is not correlated with persuasion. Bleach is to Ivermectin what a bucket of water is to a fire extinguisher.

Deicer...Ivermectin is currently being used by numerous physicians to treat Covid. That is simply a fact.

Why is that so bothersome? Is there a fear that if an effective treatment is found (proven) then there will be greater resistance to vaccination?

 

[Seeker]

https://www.rt.com/news/534078-australia-victoria-vaccinated-economy/

Who's going to be first to make a "tin-foil hat" comment.

[deicer]

23 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

Repetition is not correlated with persuasion. Bleach is to Ivermectin what a bucket of water is to a fire extinguisher.

Deicer...Ivermectin is currently being used by numerous physicians to treat Covid. That is simply a fact.

Why is that so bothersome? Is there a fear that if an effective treatment is found (proven) then there will be greater resistance to vaccination?

 

While physicians are using ivermectin, it isn't approved.

To compare it to vaccines is disingenuous at best.

Ivermectin is just the latest in 'alternatives' that the fringe have been pushing.  

How have all the other 'alternatives' worked out?  I don't see glowing reports of how effective they were either.

[UpperDeck]

30 minutes ago, deicer said:

 

To compare it to vaccines is disingenuous at best.

Ivermectin is just the latest in 'alternatives' that the fringe have been pushing.  

 

Deicer.....where did you get the idea that Ivermectin is being compared to a vaccine? Clearly, they are not at all the same thing.

Creating a "great divide"; characterizing opposing opinions as harbored by "fringe elements" is, in my opinion, not very conducive to an upward trajectory of the learning curve.

I hold no brief for any side and the only fringe with which I am familiar is the one around my carpet.

However....it offends me that for reasons unknown, people are using the fact that a drug is misused to support an argument that it has no place in the arsenal used to fight Covid.

Surely there must be a consensus that the deaths and serious illnesses caused by Covid infections must be stopped. Any and all reasonable means to achieve that goal must be pursued. 

I say again...no one should take ANY medication for any purpose without first consulting with and being guided by their physician.

Don't you agree?

[Guest2]

23 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

Deicer.....where did you get the idea that Ivermectin is being compared to a vaccine? Clearly, they are not at all the same thing.

I say again...no one should take ANY medication for any purpose without first consulting with and being guided by their physician.

Don't you agree?

[deicer]

While I will agree with you that no one should take ANY medication without first consulting with and being guided by their physician, I would not be using a physician who would be directing me to take a drug that is not for the condition that I have.

It is also confusing to hear you say: "it offends me that for reasons unknown, people are using the fact that a drug is misused to support an argument that it has no place in the arsenal used to fight Covid."

The reasons are known.  It isn't approved for that use, and they haven't done the research to say it is effective.

So if you are so passionate that ivermectin is a miracle cure/tool/weapon in the fight against covid, where did you get the information that has led you to such a strong belief.

Especially when all legitimate medical practitioners are against it?

[Seeker]

6 minutes ago, deicer said:

 

Especially when all legitimate medical practitioners are against it?

Nice.  The perfect use of the "No True Scotsman" argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Congratulations - nailed it.

[deicer]

There is this article which reports on the studies...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/01/ivermectin-covid-treatment/

It makes reference to the study that is being used as the example...

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Kory-2020-12-08.pdf

The NIH has studied it, and has this recommendation, as well as recommendations for 'other' treatments:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/summary-recommendations/

Ivermectin

• There is insufficient evidence for the Panel to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

So with no clinical evidence except for 'in vitro' experiments, why is this being pushed like hydroxychloroquine?

[UpperDeck]

31 minutes ago, deicer said:

While I will agree with you that no one should take ANY medication without first consulting with and being guided by their physician, I would not be using a physician who would be directing me to take a drug that is not for the condition that I have.

It is also confusing to hear you say: "it offends me that for reasons unknown, people are using the fact that a drug is misused to support an argument that it has no place in the arsenal used to fight Covid."

The reasons are known.  It isn't approved for that use, and they haven't done the research to say it is effective.

So if you are so passionate that ivermectin is a miracle cure/tool/weapon in the fight against covid, where did you get the information that has led you to such a strong belief.

Especially when all legitimate medical practitioners are against it?

Deicer....come on....be fair in this "discussion". I'm not passionately advocating for the use of Ivermectin. And I'm reasonably certain you know that.

With little on my plate, I looked at the use of anti-virals in this battle. I noted that in one study of cyclovir use in 48 "in viro" applications, there were 39 positive results ; 9 neutral and no negatives.

The only approved anti-viral is remdesivir but other drugs are being used in an effort by front-line physicians to save their patients. Their use continues to be "studied" by the FDA.

You can say that these drugs are not approved for anything other than fighting herpes or shingles but I suggest that if they save one life from Covid without costing any.....approval be damned!

"Legitimate medical practitioners...". Really? I expect more of you than that!

I defer to Seeker.

[conehead]

Sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, was originally developed to treat cardiovascular problems. It was meant to dilate the heart's blood vessels by blocking a particular protein called PDE-5.

[UpperDeck]

58 minutes ago, conehead said:

Sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, was originally developed to treat cardiovascular problems. It was meant to dilate the heart's blood vessels by blocking a particular protein called PDE-5.

And look at all the problems ( and "raised" expectations) THAT has caused!!

Lawyers can't use Viagra. It makes them taller.

[IFG]

11 hours ago, Rich Pulman said:

Yabut… mathematically, it’s working just as perfectly as it can given the vaccinated/non-vaccinated ratio.

Exactly! - IFG 

[IFG]

12 hours ago, Seeker said:

.... In my earlier post I posted; "You have to ask yourself;  if the first 3 tries didn't work - maybe it was either wrong to begin with or wrong to be doing now?"  I don't know why this question should ellict such a strong response from you?

At what point do you think it's appropriate to start to ask questions?

Hello again, Seeker - Ok, I'll move "for Pete's sake" to the strong response cupboard  (& try to tone it down)

 My dilemma: the Seeker that wrote: "Look, I'm not blaming the experts - we just really underestimated the problem or overestimated our ability.  Really - not blaming anyone for this.  We're all in it together and it turned out to be harder than we thought" doesn't sound the same as the guy above who predicates his question with the premise vaccinations aren't working. When the manifestly are, but limited by a difficult cohort that won't take them.

An earlier post outlines the confirmation of that in current ON #'s. Again I'd invite you to consider the aspirational #'s if almost everybody was vaxxed. The recent levels of infection & transmission would show about 2-400 instead of 7-900 daily new ones. But with full vaxx uptake, we'd never even have reached those levels. With community spread reduced by more than half, R#'s would be way below the expansionary range, and outbreaks could be quickly contained.

You wrote: "Somewhere early in the process we were told that we (society) could throw a bunch of money and our best experts at the problem, have an expedited vaccine ready in a year or so, vaccinate 75%-80%, achieve herd immunity and then Build Back Better." We could apply the same inference to ON #'s for an 80% uptake, i.e. about 12M vaxx'd instead of current 10M, yielding about 200 or so fewer dailies. Don't know exactly where that would place R#'s, but pretty sure it's < 1. All that with the hope that an even more communicable variant doesn't mutate while we've still got these millions of determined human petri dishes.

The guy that wasn't blaming the experts would be onboard, instead of talking about vaccines "not working". 

Quick thought about Ivermectin that just might resonate for you . Your no-harm-no-foul approach could be analogized with the power of prayer. No apparent harm (not even nausea and/or diarrhea), and far be it from us to prevent good folk from praying their hearts out if they think it "works" .

BTW, of course off-label usage of prescription drugs is widespread and respectable. It's also usually conducted in relatively quiet privacy. The problem with loudly validating these off-label usages online, even as panic courses through the web, is that stupid people feel encouraged to unintentional self-harm. Whether that should matter at all or not is another type of discussion altogether.

Cheers, IFG 

Edited September 7, 2021 by IFG

[Seeker]

Well, there's one thing about Covid that's undeniable - we all sure have learned an awful lot about human nature haven't we?

[J.O.]

It certainly has. I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where we can focus on what we have in common rather than what makes us different.

[Guest1]

1 hour ago, Seeker said:

Well, there's one thing about Covid that's undeniable - we all sure have learned an awful lot about human nature haven't we?

[Specs]

1 hour ago, J.O. said:

It certainly has. I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where we can focus on what we have in common rather than what makes us different.

I've certainly lost a lot of faith in our ability to do anything about climate change.

[A330PilotCanada]

Good Evening All:

A rather informative clip on Ivermectin in which all should be interested in.

 https://youtu.be/HLtCBvKI_Mc

 

[Vsplat]

I'm pretty old and was never all that smart to begin with, so maybe someone here can help answer this.

Why is it that the same crowd that opposes COVID vaccines as insufficiently proven to be safe embraces a medication in a form that has never been tested on humans?   

Vs

[Guest2]

26 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

I'm pretty old and was never all that smart to begin with, so maybe someone here can help answer this.

Why is it that the same crowd that opposes COVID vaccines as insufficiently proven to be safe embraces a medication in a form that has never been tested on humans?   

Vs

Likely because they rely on and trust information posted on Social Media or spewed out by celebrities'. 

[UpperDeck]

5 hours ago, Vsplat said:

I'm pretty old and was never all that smart to begin with, so maybe someone here can help answer this.

Why is it that the same crowd that opposes COVID vaccines as insufficiently proven to be safe embraces a medication in a form that has never been tested on humans?   

Vs

Which medication is being embraced that has never been "tested" on humans? Whatever that medication may be, how did you discern that its promoters are anti-vaxxers?

I assume Innuendo, Deicer and DH know and I may stand alone in my ignorance but I have no idea what medication you're referencing.

[Vsplat]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

"However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock."

[UpperDeck]

19 hours ago, A330PilotCanada said:

Good Evening All:

A rather informative clip on Ivermectin in which all should be interested in.

 https://youtu.be/HLtCBvKI_Mc

 

See what happens, A330? You post something from the Lincoln Project and you get folks like Vsplat confused and concerned!

[A330PilotCanada]

On 9/6/2021 at 3:00 PM, Seeker said:

https://www.rt.com/news/534078-australia-victoria-vaccinated-economy/

Who's going to be first to make a "tin-foil hat" comment.

Good Afternoon Seeker:

I trust that you realize rt.com is Russia Today and if they ever said the sun rises in the east and sets in the west it would still warrant a two source check but I digress

 

[A330PilotCanada]

9 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

See what happens, A330? You post something from the Lincoln Project and you get folks like Vsplat confused and concerned!

Good Afternoon Upper Deck

It was meant to be a light hearted look at the anti-vax movement and those who do not look beyond the rhetoric. Last time I checked COVID-19 was a upper respiratory disease not a exclusive gastro intestinal disease.