Which people were going and taking ON THEIR OWN without a prescription.
Still not seeing the problem here?
Study: COVID “Cure” Likely Killed Tens Of Thousands
- Thread starter NoleATL
- Start date
Still not seeing the problem here?
I don't see an issue, people have a right to try whatever they think might help. Doctors don't bat a .1000 either. There are many home remedies that lay people swear by that works for everything from the hiccups to hang nails, to the flu. Redemsivir killed as many people as HCQ. Chemo doesn't work for every cancer patient and weakens the body and in some cases probably hastens death. There's risks to every surgery even the minor ones. So if somebody wants to try HCQ or drinking bleach to cure their covid or leprosy let 'em. Getting the covid vaccine could land them a case of myocarditis or pericarditis.
I dont see an issue with mocking people who die because they take rando drugs off sketch websites.
My dad used ivermectin and some other random treatnents when he got covid. He was in real bad shape and sounded loopy as hell on the phone (so bad i asked my sister if he had substance abuse issues). After about 2 1/2 - 3 weeks, he got better. Praised the ivermectin for his recovery.
I fully support the rights of the herd to thin itself out.
I guess you did not read the actual link and linked study because it makes it pretty clear it is not from directly killing them but by increasing their chances of dying from Covid by either heart rhythm issues (as their circulatory system and lungs are under attack from Covid) and not getting other better treatment until too late:
“That figure stems from a study published in the Nature scientific journal in 2021 which reported an 11 percent increase in the mortality rate, linked to its prescription against Covid-19, because of the potential adverse effects like heart rhythm disorders, and its use instead of other effective treatments.”
Basically the people coming to them after trying the numpty method they read on social media had over a 10 percent higher death rate.
But…My point always has been that hcq has a role based on its biochemistry. I'll let the pulmonologists I know who are successfully using these inhaled forms of your approval
And what are these "other effective treatments"? Remdesivir? Paxlovid? 🤣
But both decisions baffled scientists who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months—and who have many questions about remdesivir's worth. At best, one large, well-designed study found remdesivir modestly reduced the time to recover from COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with severe illness. A few smaller studies found no impact of treatment on the disease whatsoever. Then, on 15 October—in this month's decidedly unfavorable news for Gilead—the fourth and largest controlled study delivered what some believed was a coup de grâce: The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Solidarity trial showed that remdesivir does not reduce mortality or the time COVID-19 patients take to recover.
Science has learned that both FDA's decision and the EU deal came about under unusual circumstances that gave the company important advantages. FDA never consulted a group of outside experts that it has at the ready to weigh in on complicated antiviral drug issues. That group, the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee (AMDAC), mixes infectious disease clinicians with biostatisticians, pharmacists, and a consumer representative to review all available data on experimental treatments and make recommendations to FDA about drug approvals—yet it has not convened once during the pandemic.
The European Union, meanwhile, decided to settle on the remdesivir pricing exactly 1 week before the disappointing Solidarity trial results came out. It was unaware of those results, although Gilead, having donated remdesivir to the trial, was informed of the data on 23 September and knew the trial was a bust.
"This is a very, very bad look for the FDA, and the dealings between Gilead and EU make it another layer of badness," says Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Translational Institute who objected to remdesivir's FDA approval.
Science | AAAS
Giving patients multiple antivirals could help prevent resistance by making it harder for the virus to evolve its way around different compounds at the same time, a strategy that has proved highly effective in treating other viruses, including HIV and hepatitis C, Ho says. Two other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals are authorized in the United States, but they have drawbacks. The other oral drug, molnupiravir, has proven considerably less effective than Paxlovid, and has raised safety concerns because it induces random genetic mutations in the virus—that typically stops it from replicating but could also spawn dangerous new variants, some scientists caution.
Pfizer earlier this month halted a large trial of the drug in standard risk COVID-19 patients because it was failing to show statistically significant protection against death or hospitalization.
Science | AAAS
www.science.org
You can Google for them, if you'd like.
But HCQ and Ivermectin were useless. No matter how many times you want to claim the opposite.
It likely would have been so much better.
It was funny how he credited ivermectin when he felt like shit for the 2-3 weeks he was taking it, forgetting that its about two weeks for covid to run its course
His second week of taking ivermectin and he sounded looped out of his fvcking mind, while feeling worse that second week. I wouldve liked his chances of not getting as sick with the vaccine.
But he made his own choices and if he wouldve died as a result, that would be on him. Nothing me or my sister could say was going to change his mind to sway him over the facebook “do your own research” crowd
Last edited:
Facebook State University Medical School is undefeated in the MAGAsphere.
Funniest part here, is that I believe @KFsdisciple was the poster bagging on vaccine data from certain (smaller) university sources, and he told me 'when Stanford, etc. weigh in I'll listen'. So, I posted a big article from Stanford, supporting the vaccines.
He kinda shut up for a while after that....
Yep: I remembered this correctly:
My response:
And, Stanford weighs in!!!
med.stanford.edu
Stanford Medicine researchers have shown that prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reduces killer T cells’ response to vaccination. These cells are crucial for eliminating the virus from the body.
The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine directed at COVID-19 is much better than natural infection at revving up key immune cells called killer T cells to fight future infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, Stanford Medicine investigators have found.
The scientists also showed, in a study published online in Immunity, that getting infected by SARS-CoV-2 before getting vaccinated lowers the vaccine’s otherwise exceptional ability to spur proliferation and activation of killer T cells directed at SARS-CoV-2. Their finding suggests that those hoping to avoid the manifold health risks associated with COVID-19 would do well to get vaccinated before they contract the disease.
...
In addition, the apparent damage of the CD8+ T cell response by viral infection is cause for concern and may leave even vaccinated individuals with a previous infection at risk for subsequent infections or other health issues.
1Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
2Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
3Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Stanford University and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine,
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
4Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
5Emory Vaccine Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
6Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
7Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
8Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard, MA, USA
9Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
And Emory and Harvard, to boot!!!!
My response:
And, Stanford weighs in!!!
mRNA vaccine beats infection for key defense against COVID-19, Stanford Medicine scientists find
Stanford Medicine researchers have shown that prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reduces killer T cells’ response to vaccination. These cells are crucial for eliminating the virus from the body.mRNA vaccine beats infection for key defense against COVID-19, Stanford Medicine scientists find
Stanford Medicine researchers have shown that prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reduces killer T cells’ response to vaccination. These cells are crucial for eliminating the virus from the body.
The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine directed at COVID-19 is much better than natural infection at revving up key immune cells called killer T cells to fight future infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, Stanford Medicine investigators have found.
The scientists also showed, in a study published online in Immunity, that getting infected by SARS-CoV-2 before getting vaccinated lowers the vaccine’s otherwise exceptional ability to spur proliferation and activation of killer T cells directed at SARS-CoV-2. Their finding suggests that those hoping to avoid the manifold health risks associated with COVID-19 would do well to get vaccinated before they contract the disease.
...
In addition, the apparent damage of the CD8+ T cell response by viral infection is cause for concern and may leave even vaccinated individuals with a previous infection at risk for subsequent infections or other health issues.
1Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
2Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
3Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Stanford University and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine,
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
4Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
5Emory Vaccine Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
6Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
7Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
8Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard, MA, USA
9Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
And Emory and Harvard, to boot!!!!
Are there any studies that contradict your narratives? Do you ever read them? Post them? Or do you just parrot the narrative you want told?
There have been literally hundreds that contradict your narratives. Yet, here you are....
Yes, well I know you didn't answer my question because you're on Pfizer's payroll. You're a pharma whore, and I present alternative views It's cool, we know where each other stands.
Is Stanford on Pfizer's payroll?
This seems to be your "go-to", despite the simple FACT that the large majority of the studies I cite for you have no Pfizer funding or sourcing.
I just wanna point out how glorious it is that you don’t know decimals and said doctors don’t bat 100 instead of 1000. I think we all would be pretty upset if they only got it right 10% of the time.
Guess what else Stanford's researchers "weighed in on", Cletus?
MASKS!!!
Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows
Researchers found that surgical masks impede the spread of COVID-19 and that just a few, low-cost interventions increase mask-wearing compliance.
5 Questions: Stanford scientists on COVID-19 mask guidelines
Scientists say we should wear masks to control the spread of COVID-19. Stanford experts share the evidence that informed the World Health Organization’s recommendations.
There are still people doubting the vaccine's effectiveness? Even idiot Trump admits the vaccine probably saved millions?
Get over it. The vaccine worked, the earth is not flat, and the moon landing was real.
I have NEVER claimed the opposite, Cle'Tus. I have never taken either, nor have I advocated for others to do so. I have never worn a mask. Never been swabbed. Never been injected. I don't overreact to overhyped 'pandemics'.
But you do you, 🤡
Link the 'many times' I have promoted hcq and/or ivermectin on here. Why would I promote a drug for fake pandemics?
You mean all the people who didn't get myocarditis... are die without the shots
Myocarditis are die was the name of my 8th grade band.
68 percent....so incredibly precise. Its almost as if 80 percent of statistics are completely made up
Serious question, do horse chiropractors call themselves doctors as well?
The guy in the video indicates yes.
Now retracted…
gizmodo.com
Influential Hydroxychloroquine Covid-19 Study Finally Retracted
The now-debunked research, endorsed by Donald Trump, led to millions of covid-19 patients receiving a worthless drug.
gizmodo.com
Now retracted…
Influential Hydroxychloroquine Covid-19 Study Finally Retracted
The now-debunked research, endorsed by Donald Trump, led to millions of covid-19 patients receiving a worthless drug.
But America's Frontline Doctors got to bilk hundreds of millions from folks to "buy" prescriptions...
6 major academic publishers face antitrust lawsuit
The defendants, including Elsevier and Wiley, have done “tremendous damage to science and the public interest,” the complaint alleged.- A professor at the University of California, Los Angeles filed a class-action complaint against six major publishers, alleging that several of their policies violate antitrust law and impede academic research.
- The class-action lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal district court in New York,names Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature as defendants. The publishers allegedly agreed to make peer reviewing an unpaid job, prevent academics from submitting manuscripts to more than one journal at a time, and bar them from freely sharing their findings during the lengthy peer review process.
The publishers earn exceptional profits while keeping costs low at the expense of academics, the lawsuit alleges. They did this, according to the complaint, by creating illegal agreements to “cement their market dominance and maximize the amount of money they can divert from scientific research into their pockets.”
One way the plaintiffs allege the publishers maintain control over the industry is through arrangements under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers, also known as STM. The organization — which is also a defendant — publishes two-thirds of all journal articles internationally, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that the six academic publishers have formed a “cartel” through STM, of which they are all members. Members agree to follow STM’s policies, which state that peer review is “volunteer work” and that researchers cannot submit their manuscripts to more than one journal at a time or freely share their work under review, according to the lawsuit.
6 major academic publishers face antitrust lawsuit
The defendants, including Elsevier and Wiley, have done "tremendous damage to science and the public interest,” the complaint alleged.
