ADVERTISEMENT

All 50 states should make ivermectin an over the counter medication.

9k5zkj.jpg
 
The site I linked says that it's "effective against large strongyles, small strongyles, pinworms, ascarids, hairworms, large-mouth stomach worms, bots, lungworms, intestinal threadworms, summer sores and dermatitis." That's a pretty good reason.



Edited to add: apparently it's also apple flavored.

Might have helped RFK Jr with his brain worm but dismissive people in this thread would have ridiculed him if he had.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
@Phenomenally Frantastic has it ever occurred to you that you're just being massively played by people that want political power and or profit. That's what's going on. And you're eating it up. Day after day after day.
If Elon told the world that it was healthy to drink bleach, Phenom would be chugging a bottle of it within minutes. He's absolutely incapable of thinking for himself. It's very weird.
 
@Phenomenally Frantastic has it ever occurred to you that you're just being massively played by people that want political power and or profit. That's what's going on. And you're eating it up. Day after day after day.

Here’s what I found on the Journal:

The International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is generally not considered reputable by the mainstream scientific community. Here's why:

- **Scientific Acceptance**: The field of orthomolecular medicine itself is controversial and not widely accepted within mainstream medicine. It advocates for the use of large doses of vitamins and other nutrients, which lacks robust scientific backing for many of its claims.

- **Journal Rankings and Indexing**: The journal is ranked in the bottom 10% of journals in the field of complementary and alternative medicine according to Scopus, with a CiteScore of 0.102, indicating low impact. It is not indexed by MEDLINE, which is a significant database for biomedical literature, suggesting that its content is not deemed sufficiently rigorous or relevant by the National Library of Medicine's standards.

- **Historical Context**: The journal was established by Abram Hoffer, who had difficulties publishing his research in mainstream medical journals due to the unorthodox nature of his studies. This led to the creation of the journal as an alternative platform, which might indicate a bias towards specific types of research not accepted elsewhere.

- **Criticism and Perception**: Posts on X and various sources on the web highlight skepticism about the journal's credibility. It's often criticized for publishing papers that have been rejected by more established scientific journals, and some of these papers are from authors who are part of the journal's editorial board, suggesting a potential lack of peer review rigor.

- **Editorial Independence**: There are concerns about the independence of the editorial process given the journal's focus on a niche and controversial area of medicine.

Given these points, while the journal might be valuable for those specifically interested in orthomolecular medicine, it does not have the reputation or acceptance for its findings to be considered mainstream or authoritative in the broader scientific community. If you're researching or looking for information in this area, it's advisable to cross-reference findings with publications that have a broader scientific consensus and peer review process.”
 
Here’s what I found on the Journal:

The International Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is generally not considered reputable by the mainstream scientific community. Here's why:

- **Scientific Acceptance**: The field of orthomolecular medicine itself is controversial and not widely accepted within mainstream medicine. It advocates for the use of large doses of vitamins and other nutrients, which lacks robust scientific backing for many of its claims.

- **Journal Rankings and Indexing**: The journal is ranked in the bottom 10% of journals in the field of complementary and alternative medicine according to Scopus, with a CiteScore of 0.102, indicating low impact. It is not indexed by MEDLINE, which is a significant database for biomedical literature, suggesting that its content is not deemed sufficiently rigorous or relevant by the National Library of Medicine's standards.

- **Historical Context**: The journal was established by Abram Hoffer, who had difficulties publishing his research in mainstream medical journals due to the unorthodox nature of his studies. This led to the creation of the journal as an alternative platform, which might indicate a bias towards specific types of research not accepted elsewhere.

- **Criticism and Perception**: Posts on X and various sources on the web highlight skepticism about the journal's credibility. It's often criticized for publishing papers that have been rejected by more established scientific journals, and some of these papers are from authors who are part of the journal's editorial board, suggesting a potential lack of peer review rigor.

- **Editorial Independence**: There are concerns about the independence of the editorial process given the journal's focus on a niche and controversial area of medicine.

Given these points, while the journal might be valuable for those specifically interested in orthomolecular medicine, it does not have the reputation or acceptance for its findings to be considered mainstream or authoritative in the broader scientific community. If you're researching or looking for information in this area, it's advisable to cross-reference findings with publications that have a broader scientific consensus and peer review process.”
The drug has some known uses. My problem is the people pushing this knowing full well that people are buying it and trying it for things it won't fix, or in situations where it may actually harm the person.

I mean we're just recreating the magic elixir guy: (except now it's Mel Gibson on Joe Rogan or Riley Gaines)

wellcomecollection%2F81196a96-c6db-474a-baec-b64ac892e629_quack+doctor.jpg
 
I find the whole Covid/vaccine/alternative medicine thing fascinating. Wasn't that long ago it would have been new age, holistic, liberal (for lack of a better term) folks that advocated for alternate therapies and "non-traditional" medicine. Conservatives (again, I hate these outdated terms) would have been seen as the ones insisting on establishment Western medicine only. Anything outside of conventional medicine is to be rejected.

Somehow since COVID that's shifted dramatically, though I still don't think it's as clear a divide as many insist. Fascinating, though. I think it's further evidence that the conventional terms "liberal" and "conservative" really aren't useful in many situations.
 
Last edited:
I find the whole Covid/vaccine/alternative medicine thing fascinating. Wasn't that long ago it would have been new age, holistic, liberal (for lack of a better term) folks that advocated for alternate therapies and "non-traditional" medicine. Conservatives (again, I hate these outdated terms) would have been seen as the ones insisting on establishment Western medicine only. Anything outside of conventional medicine is to be rejected.

Somehow since COVID that's shifted dramatically, though I still don't think it's as clear a divide as many insist. Fascinating, though.

I think those beliefs have largely existed within small segments of both the left and right side of the political spectrum(hippies and fundamentalists).

What I think we're seeing now is a combination of paranoid leftwingers finding a home within a populist movement and the right wing fringe gaining a controlling interest in the GOP(today's paranoid conspiracy party).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BonzoFury
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT