National Institutes Of Health Adds Ivermectin To COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

[TigerGrowls]

Another quiet mea culpa from the left. Mrna fans and quad vaxers come on this thread and take your medicine after talking shit about Ivermectin for over 2 years.

National Institutes of Health Adds Ivermectin to COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

Much of the worldwide medical community has not only dismissed the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as ineffective, but many have labeled its improper use as being dangerous. File photo: HJBC, Shutterstock.com, licensed.WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Nati

www.publishedreporter.com

National Institutes Of Health Adds Ivermectin To COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines​

By Christopher Boyle On Sep 1, 2022

Much of the worldwide medical community has not only dismissed the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as ineffective, but many have labeled its improper use as being dangerous. File photo: HJBC, Shutterstock.com, licensed.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has reportedly added the controversial antiparasitic drug Ivermectin to their COVID-19 treatment guidelines list; the drug had been adopted early in the pandemic as an alternative treatment to the virus, although its use by the greater medical community was greatly lambasted, who said that it had no real effect and, in some forms and doses, could be harmful to humans.
The NIH’s research into Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment option was initially publicized by Josh Barnett, a Republican who ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Arizona’s 1st Congressional District; however, he lost the primary on August 2, 2022.
Barnett issued a tweet on August 31, revealing that Ivermectin was now listed on the NIH’s COVID website – under a section titled “Outpatient Repurposed Drugs” – where it is currently stated to be in “Phase 3” of trial tests.

“I have been right, from day one, about everything!” Barnett said. “The crooked NIH has now added Ivermectin to their treatment list. Yes, they added the “horse dewormer”. SMH they were kicking people off social media for talking about.”

 

[yoshi121374]

No, the NIH hasn’t approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19

Despite repeated attempts to debunk misinformation about the anti-parasitic ivermectin as a purported COVID-19 treatment

www.politifact.com

 

[yoshi121374]

NIH funded large trials to see if COVID patients could benefit from ivermectin. They didn't, early data shows.

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – the gold standard for determining effectiveness of drugs – is the largest of its kind.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Jjh7]

No, the NIH hasn’t approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19

Despite repeated attempts to debunk misinformation about the anti-parasitic ivermectin as a purported COVID-19 treatment

www.politifact.com

lol...they mention it as an option but state its still under evaluation. clearly theres belief it will prove at worst mildly effective to add it there at all.

besides, pretty much all anyone was asking for at the height of the crisis was an open mind towards that or other options.

you remember how they handled ivermectin instead? the media and health officials went full blown unhinged lunatic ranting about it being horse medicine and calling any mention of it misinformation, de-platformed who challenged convention on its viability, and generally lost the cot damn minds.

so to turn around now and have it under evaluation is really no different than approving it in the context of their initial response to its suggestion as a treatment. if it bears out to reach approval...what science were they using to lose their collective minds at the very utterance of that horse medication back then? how much time did they waste getting a potentially viable and available treatment option into the evaluation process that may have saved lives or hospital trips.... to politicize a medicine with a media shtshow? in the end the federal health institutions and media just lose one more shred of credibility that possibly remains. better late than never, but seriously...this is indefensible

 

[TigerGrowls]

No, the NIH hasn’t approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19

Despite repeated attempts to debunk misinformation about the anti-parasitic ivermectin as a purported COVID-19 treatment

www.politifact.com

Wow!! The original post links right to NIH website where Ivermectin is clearly listed.

Antivirals, Including Antibody Products | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

These sections summarize the data on antiviral agents, including remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies.

www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov

 

[gardentiger]

Another quiet mea culpa from the left. Mrna fans and quad vaxers come on this thread and take your medicine after talking shit about Ivermectin for over 2 years.

National Institutes of Health Adds Ivermectin to COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

Much of the worldwide medical community has not only dismissed the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as ineffective, but many have labeled its improper use as being dangerous. File photo: HJBC, Shutterstock.com, licensed.WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Nati

www.publishedreporter.com

National Institutes Of Health Adds Ivermectin To COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines​

By Christopher Boyle On Sep 1, 2022

Much of the worldwide medical community has not only dismissed the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as ineffective, but many have labeled its improper use as being dangerous. File photo: HJBC, Shutterstock.com, licensed.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has reportedly added the controversial antiparasitic drug Ivermectin to their COVID-19 treatment guidelines list; the drug had been adopted early in the pandemic as an alternative treatment to the virus, although its use by the greater medical community was greatly lambasted, who said that it had no real effect and, in some forms and doses, could be harmful to humans.
The NIH’s research into Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment option was initially publicized by Josh Barnett, a Republican who ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Arizona’s 1st Congressional District; however, he lost the primary on August 2, 2022.
Barnett issued a tweet on August 31, revealing that Ivermectin was now listed on the NIH’s COVID website – under a section titled “Outpatient Repurposed Drugs” – where it is currently stated to be in “Phase 3” of trial tests.

Joe Rogan should gouge CNN a new a$$whole.

 

[flotiger]

lol...they mention it as an option but state its still under evaluation. clearly theres belief it will prove at worst mildly effective to add it there at all.

besides, pretty much all anyone was asking for at the height of the crisis was an open mind towards that or other options.

you remember how they handled ivermectin instead? the media and health officials went full blown unhinged lunatic ranting about it being horse medicine and calling any mention of it misinformation, de-platformed who challenged convention on its viability, and generally lost the cot damn minds.

so to turn around now and have it under evaluation is really no different than approving it in the context of their initial response to its suggestion as a treatment. if it bears out to reach approval...what science were they using to lose their collective minds at the very utterance of that horse medication back then? how much time did they waste getting a potentially viable and available treatment option into the evaluation process that may have saved lives or hospital trips.... to politicize a medicine with a media shtshow? in the end the federal health institutions and media just lose one more shred of credibility that possibly remains. better late than never, but seriously...this is indefensible

That's what you got from reading that? Lol. Sad.

 

[ctcseb]

Wow!! The original post links right to NIH website where Ivermectin is clearly listed.

Antivirals, Including Antibody Products | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

These sections summarize the data on antiviral agents, including remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies.

www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov

Haha haha. Did you even go to the web site? This is such a perfect example of why conspiracy theorists like you should NEVER be trusted. How about you click on the links on the page you provided!

This isn't an approved page. It's a summary of current findings:

"These sections summarize the data on ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, remdesivir, and other antiviral medications."

If you actually clicked the link regarding your preferred drug of choice from the very page you provided:

"Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection."

"

Recommendation​

• The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials (AIIa).

So, the VERY page that you are using to prove your LIE contradicts you. You manufactured a lie, are spreading it on a message boards and idiots are eating it up!

Man, conspiracy theories are such a crazy mindfvck.

 

[ctcseb]

That's what you got from reading that? Lol. Sad.

It's crazy isn't it? Bias will make people believe the weirdest stuff. The medical field has tested MANY hypotheses over the past 3 years. Just because they are testing them doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions. So for people to say "well, they are testing it so that means they expect it to work and we were right all along" is incredible... Ooof.

 

[Jjh7]

That's what you got from reading that? Lol. Sad.

thats solid point if you dont have any point to make

 

[ctcseb]

thats solid point if you dont have any point to make

There isn't a single scientifically sound study that has validated Ivermectin for Covid 19. Some of the earlier ones that got your hopes up have been retracted. You have no factual basis for saying you have been vindicated. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, what Tiger Growl thought was an inclusion in the "approved" list page was wrong. It's a summary of findings page that you guys are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting on purpose. Click the link he provided and read the summary of findings and "Against" recommendation for Ivermectin.

Maybe that some studies will eventually find that this drug helps. Maybe there never will be (none of them have so far). But at this point, no victory laps for conspiracy theorists that thought they could outdo the PHDs in the medical field with a google search and two dabs of essential oils....

 

[Jjh7]

It's crazy isn't it? Bias will make people believe the weirdest stuff. The medical field has tested MANY hypotheses over the past 3 years. Just because they are testing them doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions. So for people to say "well, they are testing it so that means they expect it to work and we were right all along" is incredible... Ooof.

so you missed the part where i said ".they mention it as an option but state its still under evaluation. clearly theres belief it will prove at worst mildly effective to add it there at all." and "so to turn around now and have it under evaluation".

turns out the people on their soap box pontificating about jumping to conclusions are...jumping to conclusions because theyre...biased... against the direction of the opinion.

my point was even evaluation is so far removed from the psychotic response to its suggestion initially. you might say they too jumped to a conclusion.

incredible. ooof.

 

[Jjh7]

There isn't a single scientifically sound study that has validated Ivermectin for Covid 19. Some of the earlier ones that got your hopes up have been retracted. You have no factual basis for saying you have been vindicated. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, what Tiger Growl thought was an inclusion in the "approved" list page was wrong. It's a summary of findings page that you guys are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting on purpose. Click the link he provided and read the summary of findings and "Against" recommendation for Ivermectin.

Maybe that some studies will eventually find that this drug helps. Maybe there never will be (none of them have so far). But at this point, no victory laps for conspiracy theorists that thought they could outdo the PHDs in the medical field with a google search and two dabs of essential oils....

yea so you missed a pretty critical part of what i said. foundational even. you might find upon reflection that i never once stated it was approved. the point was adding it as something being evaluated was a far cry from the absolute shtshow put on about it being a horse medicine. i could care less about ivermectin. the fact its potentially viable and they had that reaction is the credibility problem for them. if they just took it under under consideration, proceeded with legitimate interest in discovering its effectiveness, and communicated like normal humans about it...it wouldnt be the lightning rod that it is at all. they created the monster.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Haha haha. Did you even go to the web site? This is such a perfect example of why conspiracy theorists like you should NEVER be trusted. How about you click on the links on the page you provided!

This isn't an approved page. It's a summary of current findings:

"These sections summarize the data on ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, remdesivir, and other antiviral medications."

If you actually clicked the link regarding your preferred drug of choice from the very page you provided:

"Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection."

"

Recommendation​

• The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials (AIIa).

So, the VERY page that you are using to prove your LIE contradicts you. You manufactured a lie, are spreading it on a message boards and idiots are eating it up!

Man, conspiracy theories are such a crazy mindfvck.

Go F**K yourself. I am not lying. I did go to NIH website and Ivermectin is clearly listed on the website as a treatment.

 

[ctcseb]

Go F**K yourself. I am not lying. I did go to NIH website and Ivermectin is clearly listed on the website as a treatment.

It's NOT. How insane are you??? This is NOT a approved treatment page. It's a summary of findings page. And their findings are that there hasn't been any evidence that it works so they recommend AGAINST it it's usage. It's not a treatment approved AT all. Their recommendation is the only scope where it is okay to use it is in clinical trials. Please tell me. Do you truly not understand the words in plain English on their page? Or do you understand them and choose not to represent them with integrity?

 

[ctcseb]

"yea so you missed a pretty critical part of what i said. foundational even. you might find upon reflection that i never once stated it was approved. the point was adding it as something being evaluated was a far cry from the absolute shtshow put on about it being a horse medicine. i could care less about ivermectin. the fact its potentially viable and they had that reaction is the credibility problem for them. if they just took it under under consideration, proceeded with legitimate interest in discovering its effectiveness, and communicated like normal humans about it...it wouldnt be the lightning rod that it is at all. they created the monster."

Do you know how drug trials work? The first stage is to prove the safety of the drug. Once you have proven it is safe, you then check for efficacy. None of those things happened, there was no approval from the medical field even as an emergency use and yet people were taking this drug. There was a strong anti-science sentiment from a certain group of people that thought they knew better. That's what the backlash was all about. You had people that let their political beliefs ("freedom", don't want to wear masks, FDA doesn't know shit, government doesn't want treatment so that they can push vaccines, etc.) take precedence over actual medical truth. So, yeah, a lot of people thought it was stupid to let who you vote for dictate what kind of treatment you think will work instead of looking at the facts. So, what you call psychotic response was people asking others to use logic and facts. I get that using logic and facts is hard for some people but over the course of the past few hundred years, this is what has allowed humanity to progress as much as it did. What people did with Ivermectin is no different than people that believe in essential oils. They let a belief drive their choice instead of science. Part of that is some people don't understand that scientific knowledge changes all the time and that it's a good thing. The more we learn about the world, the more accurate our understanding of it becomes. But some people see the dynamic nature of knowledge as a flaw... Thank God we know now letting people bleed doesn't make them healthier. But for some, improved medical knowledge is a bad thing....

You are trying to use the fact that science is doing its job (and testing Ivermecting) against it. The issue was that people didn't want to believe in science at all, not whether Ivermectin was going to be tested or not.

Why do you think Growl made this post? He misunderstood that the inclusion of Ivermectin on the summary of findings page meant the treatment had been approved... So he was like, "VINDICATED", people should not have pounced on us for taking this drug out of spit against the FDA. One of my best friends almost died of Covid 19 and was sick for weeks, not knowing if he was going to make it. He had chosen to call an out of state doctor to procure some Ivermectin and he was miserable. There was an emergency treatment approved at the time that he chose not to take. What would I have told his two daughters if he had died? Your dad picked Ivermectin because he chose to believe Trump over the FDA? That choice is what caused the "backlash" you are whining about. People died because of it. There's interviews with people that regretted their lost one's choice and couldn't believe they went down that path.

 

[yoshi121374]

It's NOT. How insane are you??? This is NOT a approved treatment page. It's a summary of findings page. And their findings are that there hasn't been any evidence that it works so they recommend AGAINST it it's usage. It's not a treatment approved AT all. Their recommendation is the only scope where it is okay to use it is in clinical trials. Please tell me. Do you truly not understand the words in plain English on their page? Or do you understand them and choose not to represent them with integrity?

It's so frustrating to try to have intelligent conversations with these guys. I can only conclude they aren't very smart.

This is a perfect example of their just flat ignorance of how science works

 

[TigerGrowls]

It's NOT. How insane are you??? This is NOT a approved treatment page. It's a summary of findings page. And their findings are that there hasn't been any evidence that it works so they recommend AGAINST it it's usage. It's not a treatment approved AT all. Their recommendation is the only scope where it is okay to use it is in clinical trials. Please tell me. Do you truly not understand the words in plain English on their page? Or do you understand them and choose not to represent them with integrity?

Whatever you say Anvil head. Read the context of the article and it's totally correct. Ivermectin was totally demonized by the left and now not so much.

 

[ctcseb]

Whatever you say Anvil head. Read the context of the article and it's totally correct. Ivermectin was totally demonized by the left and now not so much.

The issue wasn't the drug itself. It was people choosing to follow a treatment course that wasn't proven safe or effective out of spite against the medical establishment. People died because of that.

You are making it a left vs right thing. It was a reason vs belief issue. Some people would rather die than base their decisions on facts. Obviously, it's their prerogative to take that risk (I'm against forcing people). But that does leave them open to criticism.

And FWIW, Ivermectin has not been vindicated as a treatment. NIH still recommends AGAINST using it, so it's status quo there, there hasn't been any change that you can capitalize as a turnaround and create a false narrative around.

Lastly, kudos on the anvil head, I got a chuckle out of that. I had never heard that one and it's pretty funny

 

[dpic73]

Whatever you say Anvil head. Read the context of the article and it's totally correct. Ivermectin was totally demonized by the left and now not so much.

 

[ctcseb]

View embedded media

View embedded media

Crazy world we live in, isn't it? When facts don't matter, there is no limit to how crazy people can get. They believe their opinion has ultimate supremacy. Which leads to people with different opinions just yelling at each other. That's where we are.

We need a MARA movement Make Americans Reasonable Again. We can agree to disagree on how to deal with reality, that's fine (that's where policy disagreements come in, etc.). But we cannot be in a situation where alternate facts are the basis of some people's world.

 

[Jjh7]

"yea so you missed a pretty critical part of what i said. foundational even. you might find upon reflection that i never once stated it was approved. the point was adding it as something being evaluated was a far cry from the absolute shtshow put on about it being a horse medicine. i could care less about ivermectin. the fact its potentially viable and they had that reaction is the credibility problem for them. if they just took it under under consideration, proceeded with legitimate interest in discovering its effectiveness, and communicated like normal humans about it...it wouldnt be the lightning rod that it is at all. they created the monster."

Do you know how drug trials work? The first stage is to prove the safety of the drug. Once you have proven it is safe, you then check for efficacy. None of those things happened, there was no approval from the medical field even as an emergency use and yet people were taking this drug. There was a strong anti-science sentiment from a certain group of people that thought they knew better. That's what the backlash was all about. You had people that let their political beliefs ("freedom", don't want to wear masks, FDA doesn't know shit, government doesn't want treatment so that they can push vaccines, etc.) take precedence over actual medical truth. So, yeah, a lot of people thought it was stupid to let who you vote for dictate what kind of treatment you think will work instead of looking at the facts. So, what you call psychotic response was people asking others to use logic and facts. I get that using logic and facts is hard for some people but over the course of the past few hundred years, this is what has allowed humanity to progress as much as it did. What people did with Ivermectin is no different than people that believe in essential oils. They let a belief drive their choice instead of science. Part of that is some people don't understand that scientific knowledge changes all the time and that it's a good thing. The more we learn about the world, the more accurate our understanding of it becomes. But some people see the dynamic nature of knowledge as a flaw... Thank God we know now letting people bleed doesn't make them healthier. But for some, improved medical knowledge is a bad thing....

You are trying to use the fact that science is doing its job (and testing Ivermecting) against it. The issue was that people didn't want to believe in science at all, not whether Ivermectin was going to be tested or not.

Why do you think Growl made this post? He misunderstood that the inclusion of Ivermectin on the summary of findings page meant the treatment had been approved... So he was like, "VINDICATED", people should not have pounced on us for taking this drug out of spit against the FDA. One of my best friends almost died of Covid 19 and was sick for weeks, not knowing if he was going to make it. He had chosen to call an out of state doctor to procure some Ivermectin and he was miserable. There was an emergency treatment approved at the time that he chose not to take. What would I have told his two daughters if he had died? Your dad picked Ivermectin because he chose to believe Trump over the FDA? That choice is what caused the "backlash" you are whining about. People died because of it. There's interviews with people that regretted their lost one's choice and couldn't believe they went down that path.

This reinvents what actually happened. Yea no sht drug trials take time. Although they reviewed and approved and promoted the sht outta the vaccine pretty fast.

When it came to ivermectin there was no conversation. There was no reasonability in how they assessed its potential viability. It was an instantaneous and vitriolic mental breakdown of a reaction. They went on an all out attack against anyone medically accredited that voiced positive opinions and had every media outlet shouting horse medicine from the mountaintops. Theres no walking that back. Theres no pretending “oh we knew whole time it MIGHT work were evaluating it dont you know anything about SCIENCE!!” If you want to pretend they handled this reasonably, transparantly, at any point were open to any ideas that didnt originate at the nih/cdc, or from voices the science wanted to be heard…pretending is all youre doing.

All reasonable people wanted from health agencies is exactly what youre describing science as being. The reality is, they were hyper-politicized, opaque, defensive, misleading, condescending, and ultimately wrong far too frequently. Any depiction otherwise is, in their parlance, misinformation.

 

[dpic73]

Crazy world we live in, isn't it? When facts don't matter, there is no limit to how crazy people can get. They believe their opinion has ultimate supremacy. Which leads to people with different opinions just yelling at each other. That's where we are.

We need a MARA movement Make Americans Reasonable Again. We can agree to disagree on how to deal with reality, that's fine (that's where policy disagreements come in, etc.). But we cannot be in a situation where alternate facts are the basis of some people's world.

The world has gone mad, I totally agree. And I'm totally with you on the need to confront alternative facts. I've been a member here since 2005 but I was always a lurker and rarely posted until I saw the alarming rise in misinformation starting around 2016 or so haha. My conscience just wouldn't allow me to let it go unchecked and I vowed to confront it wherever/whenever I could. Left to their own devices, the loons will corrupt the truth simply for political reasons and I can't sit back and watch it spread without shining a light. I wish I could though because it takes too much of my time but it's too important to just let it slide - for me anyway. Thanks for your contributions to this board, your voice is needed here ;-)

Did anyone see this? 😂

My precious special daughter was just transported to the ER. (Update #3 on page 3.)

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

clemson.forums.rivals.com

 

[dpic73]

lol...they mention it as an option but state its still under evaluation. clearly theres belief it will prove at worst mildly effective to add it there at all.

besides, pretty much all anyone was asking for at the height of the crisis was an open mind towards that or other options.

you remember how they handled ivermectin instead? the media and health officials went full blown unhinged lunatic ranting about it being horse medicine and calling any mention of it misinformation, de-platformed who challenged convention on its viability, and generally lost the cot damn minds.

so to turn around now and have it under evaluation is really no different than approving it in the context of their initial response to its suggestion as a treatment. if it bears out to reach approval...what science were they using to lose their collective minds at the very utterance of that horse medication back then? how much time did they waste getting a potentially viable and available treatment option into the evaluation process that may have saved lives or hospital trips.... to politicize a medicine with a media shtshow? in the end the federal health institutions and media just lose one more shred of credibility that possibly remains. better late than never, but seriously...this is indefensible

You call it unhinged, I call it alarmed at the rise of unnecessary deaths because people chose to listen to those who didn't have their best interests at heart. I remember so many crazy stories of relatives of hospitalized COVID patients threatening doctors and insisting they use Ivermectin over more proven treatments or the vaccine itself. They just became convinced that they couldn't trust gubment or science because MAGA voices told them so. Hell, there's an entire reddit thread dedicated to people who mocked or dismissed vaccines and other treatments only to die of COVID shortly thereafter. Here's a section on those that insisted on Ivermectin only - it would be hilarious if it wasn't so damn sad.

reddit.com: search results - ivermectin

r/HermanCainAward: Nominees have made public declaration of their anti-mask, anti-vax, or Covid-hoax views, followed by admission to hospital for …

www.reddit.com

 

[TigerRagRob]

Haha haha. Did you even go to the web site? This is such a perfect example of why conspiracy theorists like you should NEVER be trusted. How about you click on the links on the page you provided!

This isn't an approved page. It's a summary of current findings:

"These sections summarize the data on ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, remdesivir, and other antiviral medications."

If you actually clicked the link regarding your preferred drug of choice from the very page you provided:

"Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection."

"

Recommendation​

• The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials (AIIa).

So, the VERY page that you are using to prove your LIE contradicts you. You manufactured a lie, are spreading it on a message boards and idiots are eating it up!

Man, conspiracy theories are such a crazy mindfvck.

No where did the OP state its was approved. The story stated it was added to list and even what you stated is it was added in trials.

 

[ctcseb]

No where did the OP state its was approved. The story stated it was added to list and even what you stated is it was added in trials.

Are you for real? This is 1st grade level comprehension, you cannot possibly have misunderstood that.

The NIH is issuing a recommendation of "DON'T USE THIS ****ING THING, IT HASN"T BEEN PROVEN TO WORK OR BE SAFE". So, they put that as part of their treatment guidelines page to let people know NOT to take it. But Growl and people like him are just saying the first part, that it was added to the treatment guidelines. They don't mention the second part.

You cannot possibly be missing how disingenuous that is. They are banking on people interpreting the incomplete piece of information incorrectly. Most people that see that it was added to the "treatment guidelines" will incorrectly assume that it means it was approved as a treatment. How would they know that it meant it was added as a "DO NOT USE THIS" recommendation.

This underhanded tactic is also proven by the second part of their strategy. They are claiming that it's a reversal of the past state and proves people like them right and proves the people against Ivermectin wrong. This is a huge fallacy. NOTHING has changed. The drug didn't go from unapproved to approved. It's still NOT approved. People that want to take it STILL go against medical advice. People that advise against it because it's not proven are STILL being reasonable. There has been NO reversal, it's just lies and BS. Growl is lying and saying it was a "mea culpa". There was no such thing. They just documented the same thing they have been saying for 2 years.

So, let me ask you again, are you for real? Are you telling me that as a grown man you really think that Growl and his buddies are simply trying point out that it's only recommended for clinical trials??? You and I both know why he did that, he wouldn't have mentioned MRNs fans and quad vaxxers if this wasn't a cry to vindication. He was manipulating the addition of the information to the guidelines page to show he was right. But he isn't. And I cannot believe you would fall for something so obvious, it's mindboggling.

 

[ctcseb]

This reinvents what actually happened. Yea no sht drug trials take time. Although they reviewed and approved and promoted the sht outta the vaccine pretty fast.

When it came to ivermectin there was no conversation. There was no reasonability in how they assessed its potential viability. It was an instantaneous and vitriolic mental breakdown of a reaction. They went on an all out attack against anyone medically accredited that voiced positive opinions and had every media outlet shouting horse medicine from the mountaintops. Theres no walking that back. Theres no pretending “oh we knew whole time it MIGHT work were evaluating it dont you know anything about SCIENCE!!” If you want to pretend they handled this reasonably, transparantly, at any point were open to any ideas that didnt originate at the nih/cdc, or from voices the science wanted to be heard…pretending is all youre doing.

All reasonable people wanted from health agencies is exactly what youre describing science as being. The reality is, they were hyper-politicized, opaque, defensive, misleading, condescending, and ultimately wrong far too frequently. Any depiction otherwise is, in their parlance, misinformation.

I guess maybe our different perspectives come from the fact we are looking at it from different angles. I am not saying the CDC is beyond reproach. I actually believe they should be more honest about vaccine risks for instance. Their constant insistence that the vaccines are 100% safe is statistically impossible. Billions of people mean billions of different biological systems with various degrees of health traits, conditions, etc., some people are bound to have some kind of reaction.

But while you seem intent on looking at what the CDC did wrong, I am looking at what we as individuals did wrong. And lots of people let their political affiliation and not reason drive their decisions. This lead to many unnecessary deaths. And now the same people are doing a victory parade about being right because a "DON"T use Ivermectin" guideline has been added to a web site and they are misrepresenting it as vindication they were right about the drug. This is wrong at a bunch of levels and I'm just calling it out.

 

[TigerRagRob]

Are you for real? This is 1st grade level comprehension, you cannot possibly have misunderstood that.

The NIH is issuing a recommendation of "DON'T USE THIS ****ING THING, IT HASN"T BEEN PROVEN TO WORK OR BE SAFE". So, they put that as part of their treatment guidelines page to let people know NOT to take it. But Growl and people like him are just saying the first part, that it was added to the treatment guidelines. They don't mention the second part.

You cannot possibly be missing how disingenuous that is. They are banking on people interpreting the incomplete piece of information incorrectly. Most people that see that it was added to the "treatment guidelines" will incorrectly assume that it means it was approved as a treatment. How would they know that it meant it was added as a "DO NOT USE THIS" recommendation.

This underhanded tactic is also proven by the second part of their strategy. They are claiming that it's a reversal of the past state and proves people like them right and proves the people against Ivermectin wrong. This is a huge fallacy. NOTHING has changed. The drug didn't go from unapproved to approved. It's still NOT approved. People that want to take it STILL go against medical advice. People that advise against it because it's not proven are STILL being reasonable. There has been NO reversal, it's just lies and BS. Growl is lying and saying it was a "mea culpa". There was no such thing. They just documented the same thing they have been saying for 2 years.

So, let me ask you again, are you for real? Are you telling me that as a grown man you really think that Growl and his buddies are simply trying point out that it's only recommended for clinical trials??? You and I both know why he did that, he wouldn't have mentioned MRNs fans and quad vaxxers if this wasn't a cry to vindication. He was manipulating the addition of the information to the guidelines page to show he was right. But he isn't. And I cannot believe you would fall for something so obvious, it's mindboggling.

It is an approved drug for humans just not for covid treatment. It was added to the list for trials. What more is there to understand. Its like saying tylenol is an approved drug, just not for diarrhea. Ivermectin isnt a stand alone drug used for treating covid. I dont recall people saying that. Its a drug some doctors use in combination with other drugs to treat covid. Like the treatment people like Trump, Joe Rogan, and millions of others got. That treatment plan might have been the most successful fighting covid.

 

[yoshi121374]

It is an approved drug for humans just not for covid treatment. It was added to the list for trials. What more is there to understand. Its like saying tylenol is an approved drug, just not for diarrhea. Ivermectin isnt a stand alone drug used for treating covid. I dont recall people saying that. Its a drug some doctors use in combination with other drugs to treat covid. Like the treatment people like Trump, Joe Rogan, and millions of others got. That treatment plan might have been the most successful fighting covid.

Except every study done shows that it has no positive effect. That's what science is. You test things and record results.

Trump also had monoclonal antibody treatments. If he had eaten bananas at the same time would you be out here claiming bananas cured COVID?

 

[TigerRagRob]

Except every study done shows that it has no positive effect. That's what science is. You test things and record results.

Trump also had monoclonal antibody treatments. If he had eaten bananas at the same time would you be out here claiming bananas cured COVID?

Yes its used in combination with other drugs. Also the studies that showed no effect were studies that used less than the recommended dose. Studies that the recommended dose was used show some to little benefit as a stand alone treatment....

 

[yoshi121374]

Yes its used in combination with other drugs. Also the studies that showed no effect were studies that used less than the recommended dose. Studies that the recommended dose was used show some to little benefit as a stand alone treatment....

Link to these studies?

So when linked with vaccine or other effective treatments is what you are saying?

 

[ctcseb]

It is an approved drug for humans just not for covid treatment. It was added to the list for trials. What more is there to understand. Its like saying tylenol is an approved drug, just not for diarrhea. Ivermectin isnt a stand alone drug used for treating covid. I dont recall people saying that. Its a drug some doctors use in combination with other drugs to treat covid. Like the treatment people like Trump, Joe Rogan, and millions of others got. That treatment plan might have been the most successful fighting covid.

That is not what Growl and the likes are claiming. They are claiming they have been vindicated and they were right about Ivermectin. It's all over social media and Growl is pointing to similar articles. I am refuting their claim.

Growl didn't claim unicorns existed. He didn't claim chili beans cured cancer. I was rebutting something very specific, and you are making up claims to find something that would make Growl "correct". You can play all the games in the world and show intellectual dishonesty, it's pretty easy for anyone reading this thread what kind of BS you are trying to pull with this "frame of reference" change.

 

[TigerRagRob]

Link to these studies?

So when linked with vaccine or other effective treatments is what you are saying?

All im saying is its not a stand alone drug for covid treatment. Its more effective when used in combination with other drugs as a treatment. Nothing more nothing less. This is how my cousin has been treating his patients the last couple of years to great effect. Lots of doctors have been doing it this way and Florida has been out front on this. People should also remember there is more than one way to do things. Both things can be right and both can be wrong. Some ways are better than others....

 

[TigerRagRob]

That is not what Growl and the likes are claiming. They are claiming they have been vindicated and they were right about Ivermectin. It's all over social media and Growl is pointing to similar articles. I am refuting their claim.

Growl didn't claim unicorns existed. He didn't claim chili beans cured cancer. I was rebutting something very specific, and you are making up claims to find something that would make Growl "correct". You can play all the games in the world and show intellectual dishonesty, it's pretty easy for anyone reading this thread what kind of BS you are trying to pull with this "frame of reference" change.

I think they are clapping back because some said they were stupid and its horse meds and all of that. See how they went after Joe Rogan? CNN had such egg on their face with how they went after him with flat out lies. Remember the story about the hospital in OK. How gunshot victims were being denied service due to the number of people being treated for taking horse meds? I think thats what they are lashing out about, but i cant speak for them....PS- I started out by simply pointing out he never said it was approved for covid in the original post..

 

[yoshi121374]

All im saying is its not a stand alone drug for covid treatment. Its more effective when used in combination with other drugs as a treatment. Nothing more nothing less. This is how my cousin has been treating his patients the last couple of years to great effect. Lots of doctors have been doing it this way and Florida has been out front on this. People should also remember there is more than one way to do things. Both things can be right and both can be wrong. Some ways are better than others....

Except no actual studies show that it is effective at all. That's how science works.

 

[TigerGrowls]

"People Need to be Held Accountable for What They Did" - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Attacks Biden Regime for Blocking Life Saving Treatment Ivermectin Against COVID-19 | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

For almost three years, The Gateway Pundit has been reporting about the efficacy of Ivermectin and HCQ in treating COVID-19.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[ctcseb]

"People Need to be Held Accountable for What They Did" - Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Attacks Biden Regime for Blocking Life Saving Treatment Ivermectin Against COVID-19 | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

For almost three years, The Gateway Pundit has been reporting about the efficacy of Ivermectin and HCQ in treating COVID-19.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

OMG!!! I forgot for a second that you guys are smarter than the rest of us and don't believe in the MSM, you have much better sources like:
"The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[33]"

How old are you Growl? You seem like the perfect audience for them:
"A 2020 study by researchers from Northeastern, Harvard, Northwestern and Rutgers universities found that among Republicans and older people The Gateway Pundit was the most shared fake news domain in tweets related to COVID-19, significantly outperforming other fake news domains such as InfoWars, WorldNetDaily, Judicial Watch and Natural News."

Of all their reviewed statements by Politifacts:
- 14% mostly false
- 57% false
- 14% pants on fire

TGP was a one man operation that turned into a multi-million dollar business by click-baiting older rednecky type people. They can't get enough of the lies and conspiracy theories, makes them feel smarter or more special than everyone else. In short, TGP is fulfilling a psychological need and helping uneducated people feel superior, it's an interesting value proposition. That doesn't mean they are seeking the truth.

I won't even comment on your hero, Marjorie Taylor Greene who is easily one of the dumbest people on Earth.

I legitimately hope Ivermectin wasn't suppressed as a viable med because this would be a crime against humanity. But until there are better sources than one of the worst far right fake news sites, I'll have to stick to more credible sources.

 

[scotchtiger]

TGP was a one man operation that turned into a multi-million dollar business by click-baiting older rednecky type people. They can't get enough of the lies and conspiracy theories, makes them feel smarter or more special than everyone else. In short, TGP is fulfilling a psychological need and helping uneducated people feel superior, it's an interesting value proposition.

This makes sense when you see how unbelievably poor the writing quality is in TGP articles. At least in the very few that growls has linked that I’ve attempted to skim.

 

[scotchtiger]

They just became convinced that they couldn't trust gubment or science because MAGA voices told them so.

To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to not 100% trust the government or their version of science after this mess. They have been wrong about shutdowns, vaccine effectiveness, mask mandates and the social impact of these things all along.

I don’t know if ivermectin is helpful for treating COVID or not. What isn’t helpful is vilifying people and calling it horse dewormer when it’s an approved human medication. That’s plainly obvious BS and it pushes people further away.

This topic just shows how badly COVID was handled. The years-long hysteria, the draconian measures, the vilification of independent thought, the credibility-eroding misses.

Perhaps this wouldn’t have happened if we stuck to the original plan - heightened measures to alleviate extreme strain of the medical system then flex back to normal. But nope, years of insanity instead. And that’s why you have things like this. The trust of the people was lost.

 

[TigerRagRob]

Except no actual studies show that it is effective at all. That's how science works.

As a stand alone drug it showed little to no effect. But when used in combination with other drugs it show good effect in a lot of cases. Thats all Im saying...