"And CNN is saying I'm taking horse dewormer. They must know that is a lie.... If the internet says it, who cares? But CNN is saying it. Jim Acosta! CNN was saying I am a distributor of misinformation.... I don't know what's going on, man... One of the speculations involves the Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines. That, in order for there to be an emergency use authorization, there has to be no treatment for a disease. So, because there is this treatment in Ivermectin... there's a lot of pushback against potential treatments, pretending they don't really work or they are conspiracy theories. The grand conspiracy is that the pharmaceutical companies are in cahoots to try and make anybody who takes this stuff look crazy.... But what's crazy is look how better I got! I got better pretty quick, bitch. Because I wasn't scared during the entire pandemic, what they would like is that when I did get sick that I was really sick and became really scared and learned my lesson. Instead, it is the worst-case scenario for them. I bounce back about as quick as I can. They're haters. But that's their life. Imagine spending any time whatsoever wishing that a person felt bad... It doesn't make people feel worse."
Said Joe Rogan, on his podcast,
transcribed at Real Clear Politics. This is the same podcast episode I blogged last night,
here, but I think this additional transcription is well worth reading and discussing.
He's outraged if something sloppy is said about him, but he lobs a conspiracy theory against the pharmaceutical companies. But I doubt that he will sue CNN. "Bro, do I have to sue CNN?" is rhetoric, and it works as speech. He doesn't need to get litigious. But maybe he should...
पोस्ट्स
१०४ टिप्पण्या:
Are we at the point where everyone accepts the notion CNN is more than just biased politically but is running a propaganda campaign for the political left (which is now the mainstream far left)?
If the answer is ‘no’ then Joe and everyone subjected to CNN smears and propaganda should sue CNN until CNN is rubble. Sue like lawsuits are JDAMs.
Any organization or person calling Ivermectin horse de-wormer should be de-platformed. It's a type of therapeutic which led to a Nobel Prize 6 years ago for it's impact to mankind.
I don't believe the science supports it's use for Covid-related treatment, but doctors shouldn't be mocked for using what they have at hand and looking for evidence to support the use of existing treatments instead of forcing the discovery through pharmaceutical development processes.
Should Rogan sue? Is Rogan a public figure? Is Jim Acosta expressing an opinion or does he purport to state a fact? Would the hassle or potential for damages help persuade CNN to stop the libel?
His conspiracy theory is the first logical explanation I’ve heard for the government’s repeated denigration of alternative treatments.
Joe doesn’t claim he’s a news outlet so he gets the same hall pass Jon Stewart gets.
America hates CNN. It is the Enemy of the People.
Rogan can be smart about social issues in a common sense sort of way. However, when it comes to how science works, he is a full-on nut job. Cross examination would be very unpleasant for him during a lawsuit as all his weirdo conspiracy theories that he likes to hide are made plain. He is just Gwyneth Paltrow but with testosterone.
What grates the nerves of The Powers That Be is Rogan is the counterfactual which disrupts their narrative. They love stories of anti-vax dying, but someone wIth
a public platform who quickly recovers using Ivermectin must drive them insane.
In a defamation case, my near-total attention is on what the proposed defendant said, wrote, or otherwise published. Not on what the proposed plaintiff says.
I'm curious about what CNN actually published about Joe Rogan and Ivermectin. In my experience, CNN is certainly not perfect but they are about a million times more accurate and reliable than Joe Rogan.
Althouse doesn't any analysis of a defamation claim essentially start with the alleged tortious publication? What was it in this case? I actually did a quick search with terms like "CNN" "Jim Acosta" "Ivermectin" and "Joe Rogan." I'll continue the search; but so far all that I have seen are the stories about Joe Rogan threatening a law suit and not any details of a CNN publication.
Althouse, do you know what exactly it was, that CNN published, that Joe Rogan found offensive?
A billion people
around the world take ivermectin daily.
The human not the animal version.
The reason people take the animal version in the us is because it is available over the counter. The human version is prescription only and doctors are not permitted to prescribe it.
It may or may not be effective against kung flu. It is certainly safe.
Even in very heavy doses, side effects are mild. Itchy eyes, stomach ache, diarrhea.
John Henry
Is THIS the segment that offended Joe Rogan?!? Jim Acosta -- called out by name by Rogan on his podcast -- is not part of the segment. It's CNN program host Don Lemon and Dr. Jonathan Reiner (a regular CNN medical analyst who is a teaching cardiologist on the GWU medical school faculty).
I still don't know what the words are, that Joe Rogan thinks are actionable. Still looking, and hoping that someone can point them out with a recording or a transcript.
Craig, I've mentioned the conspiracy theory about hql and the emergency use authorization several times here as far back as spring 2020
John Henry
Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines.
in order for there to be an emergency use authorization, there has to be no treatment for a disease
If (IF) this is true, it Sure Explains a LOT
How do you justify experimental 'vaccines' if there is a treatment?
How do you justify eviction moratoriums if there is a treatment?
How do you justify lock down orders if there is a treatment?
How do you justify drive thru voting if there is a treatment?
How do you justify no signatures on ballot requests if there is a treatment?
How do you justify THE LAST EIGHTEEN MONTHS! if there is a treatment?
Mr. Begley nailed it. America really does either hate or laugh at CNN. It's a running joke and everybody knows it except for those faces coming at you from the CNN tv screen. Rogan doesn't need to worry about suing them. They are a Lilliputian to him. Any random Joe Rogan podcast gets at least 4 times the listeners of the highest rated CNN show. No one hears Jim Acosta except his mother. Maybe.
As for the Ivermectin incident, I read two good posts on it over the last two days. Matt Taibbi in Substack, and Kevin Williamson in "National Review" in an article entitled "Like a Rolling Stone". Both discuss the fake story of the Oklahoma/Ivermectin incident and how the left media took it and ran with it...over a cliff.
The media is lost in a dark hole. And Rogan is Rogan. Buyer beware. Know what you're getting when you listen to him. He's entertaining, but more or less a random guy on the street. Not an expert on anything except martial arts, working out, and stand-up comedy. The rest is just him talking off the cuff. Like some of us here, and I include myself in that group.
I agree with Joe
Merck should sue CNN. That's where the real slander and damages are.
And CNN is saying I'm taking horse dewormer... Because I wasn't scared during the entire pandemic, what they would like is that when I did get sick that I was really sick and became really scared and learned my lesson. Instead, it is the worst-case scenario for them. I bounce back about as quick as I can.
Reminiscent of the The Diet of Worms, 1521?
Martin Luther was summoned to the Diet in order to renounce or reaffirm his views in response to a Papal bull of Pope Leo X. In answer to questioning, he defended these views and refused to recant them. At the end of the Diet, the Emperor issued the Edict of Worms (Wormser Edikt), a decree which condemned Luther as "a notorious heretic" and banned citizens of the Empire from propagating his ideas. Although the Protestant Reformation is usually considered to have begun in 1517, the edict signals the first overt schism.
On the one hand:
"Is Ivermectin given to horses as a deformer?"
"Yes."
"So then the statement is literally true."
On the other hand:
This is, definitionally, actual malice.
Keep it coming, CNN. You're doing great.
‘…he lobs a conspiracy theory against the pharmaceutical companies”
One important aspect of the pandemic which has thus far not been investigated is any action by big pharma to prevent recognition of existing drugs for effective treatment of early stage COVID. Rogan is correct on the law for emergency use authorization. With many, many billions of dollars of market cap at stake, is there not a nearly unlimited motivation for big pharma to block such recognition? Follow the money.
Do you remember the pop up research institute that did an early hit job on hydroxychloroquine? I believe it consisted of 2 or 3 brothers with fake bios who put out a fake piece of research showing HQX did not work. Turns out they faked the data - they had no real data. But the study got hyped before the fraud was discovered. The ‘institute’ disappeared like a thief in the night, the protagonists never to be heard from since. But we still don’t know who put up the money for their fakery. Are you willing to bet against big pharma as the source of the funding?
It's simple fact that August of last year, prior to the election, and hundreds of thousands of deaths ago, a study was done in a Ft Lauderdale hospital, on a small scale and not double blinded, of about 300 patients, roughly half of whom were given Ivermectin, and roughly half were not and a statistically significant -- odds that it was by chance > 5%, actually less in the case of these studies-- reduction in mortality was observed. Mortality was cut by roughly half. The decision was made not to follow this up a year ago with large scale double blind studies. A decision driven by Dr Fauci's policies about resources to treatments vs vaccines.
It's hard not to wonder whether the refusal to recognize such a promising study had anything to do with the prong of the 'election fortification' campaign to deny Americans any hope on COVID prior to the election.
The leftwing corruption machine and their insider pals at BIG Corporate + liar Fauci and his gain of Function connection to the Wuhan Labs = this was all done on purpose, and - keeping people sick and dying is also on purpose. Keeping people away for drugs that work or combinations of drugs that work - is all part of the deep state Chi Com shit show.
Temujin said...
America really does either hate or laugh at CNN. It's a running joke and everybody knows it except for those faces coming at you from the CNN tv screen
but! but! a Life Long Liberal just said, that in his "experience, CNN is certainly not perfect but they are about a million times more accurate and reliable than Joe Rogan."
In Fact, that LLL, said that CNN is NEARLY as Awesome as is Rachel Madcow
(who is NEARLY as infallible as his favorite source, The Bollock)
Temujin said...
...
As for the Ivermectin incident, I read two good posts on it over the last two days. Matt Taibbi in Substack, and Kevin Williamson in "National Review" in an article entitled "Like a Rolling Stone". Both discuss the fake story of the Oklahoma/Ivermectin incident and how the left media took it and ran with it...over a cliff.
...
Since we are on the subject of CNN and media inaccuracy, I just wanted to point out that Daniel Dale of CNN took a very detailed look at the Oklahoma/Ivermectin emergency treatment story. Dale carefully dissected the story and exposed how it started and was inaccurate. The story was "a comprehensive mess" in Dale's telling.
That's CNN, Temujin. Reporting the story that you wanted to be reported.
And HERE I have the video receipt for you.
Upon further thought, I'm going to disagree with my own comment posted earlier. I do think Rogan should sue them. It's time to remove the incentive from this fake news companies to keep cranking out this crap. They are now solely in the business of fiction writing with the goal being to do whatever it takes to promote Democrat or Woke agendas (usually, but not always the same thing).
They need to start feeling some pain for doing this. Beside the lowering viewer/reader numbers. They need to feel multi-million dollar hits where their Board of Directors have to take notice. Or where the bottom line takes a hit, and with it, their stock price.
Rogan has the guns to do this. He should.
He's outraged if something sloppy is said about him, but he lobs a conspiracy theory against the pharmaceutical companies. But I doubt that he will sue CNN. "Bro, do I have to sue CNN?" is rhetoric, and it works as speech. He doesn't need to get litigious. But maybe he should...
This is the only logical conclusion.
Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are being used in other countries. They are very cheap. And they are as or more effective than the expensive vaccines that the drug companies are making Billions off of.
Most importantly Ivermectin works on the Delta variant whereas vaccines by the very nature of how vaccines work they do not work on new variants as well.
COVID was used to steal an election in our country and it is being used in many countries right now to take freedom from people.
What is really amazing is how many sheep there are following Chuck's advice to trust the Biden administration, Anthony Fauchi, and the Drug Corporations.
You have to be really dumb to trust those people.
Rogan prefaces his conspiracy theory by labeling it speculative and a conspiracy theory. If you present your conspiracy theory as a speculative conspiracy theory, is it truly a conspiracy theory?.....Beyond this, Rogan presents his theories while smoking a cigar. I instinctively distrust health advice given by cigar smokers...That said, for all I know he might be right, and CNN has certainly been wrong in the past. I'm glad he's pushing back. Acosta looks to be the one in the wrong in this contretemps and it's Acosta's reputation that will suffer. Rogan has a broader platform and more credibility than CNN.
Rogan said, "But what's crazy is look how better I got! I got better pretty quick, bitch."
A pharmacologist would reject the above saying, "Sample size equals one."
Pharmacology is based largely on statistical analysis of outcomes and Rogan's experiment lacks enough data to do any meaningful analysis. However the sample is large enough to prove something about Rogan.
"If the internet says it, who cares? But CNN is saying it. Jim Acosta! CNN was saying I am a distributor of misinformation.... I don't know what's going on, man...
Bro, what's going on is CNN is no better than the internet. Where have you been, man?
"I don't believe the science supports it's use for Covid-related treatment, but doctors shouldn't be mocked for using what they have at hand and looking for evidence to support the use of existing treatments instead of forcing the discovery through pharmaceutical development processes."
You may not believe it, but they believe it in India, Africa, South America, and other locations where Ivermectin is being used as a prophylaxis, and as an outpatient treatment with great success. It's even being prescribed here. My wife has a prescription for it. Anyone who denigrates a Nobel prize winning pharmaceutical that is cheep and readily available with fewer side effects than aspirin or says that people are taking horse dewormer should be severely beaten.
Journalism in the U S needs massive reform. The question is how it might be brought about. Maybe large numbers of citizens will have to “GameStop” a large media company and take it over.
Conspiracy theory. There's THAT label, professor. I think maybe you can do better.
That's the label for the application of logic to make sense out a situation that makes no sense:
"I got sick. I was given drugs to treat my malady. The drugs seem to improve my condition. The narrative says that treating my condition in this way is a crime against nature, and if I am not already vaccinated, I should just do what I am told until I improve or die. This makes no sense to me, and I do not accept this. How do I apply logic to understand why this series of events is taking place?"
Logically, if a case can be brought that will possibly derail the vaccine rollout through an application of law that can work ONLY if a viable treatment can be proven effective, humans with access to logic can easily get to the place that tells them that these cheap, seemingly safe treatments will be prohibited to us as long as the controlling institutions need to make the case that there is no treatment so that the "emergency" vaccinations will continue according to plan.
This seems Orwellian in its implications, but so have many other things that we have since learned to be true. Simply labeling this with a "conspiracy theory" sign and walking on is the kind of behavior I have expected our gracious host to call out in the past.
Agree or disagree, the truth will likely emerge eventually as it usually does. We will know the truth of this someday or die first. Most will forget about it.
A few will not. This effort to beat up Rogan is about getting those people to stay silent.
typingtalker said...
Rogan said, "But what's crazy is look how better I got! I got better pretty quick, bitch."
A pharmacologist would reject the above saying, "Sample size equals one."
Pharmacology is based largely on statistical analysis of outcomes and Rogan's experiment lacks enough data to do any meaningful analysis. However the sample is large enough to prove something about Rogan.
India, Japan several other countries.
Have sample sizes in the millions. Billions of people have taken Ivermectin. It was the Nobel prize 5 years ago.
There are numerous studies and they have shown greatly reduced mortality rates treating COVID. They are not hard to find.
You have to try very hard to be gullible enough to buy this crap.
It must be terrifying to contract covid after refusing vaccination. At that point reaching for any possible cure it's just human nature. It sounds like he threw everything at it including the kitchen sink. If it was me and I took the ivermectin I would be proud to call it a horse dewormer. The fact that he finds it offensive means that he actually has some doubt as to the efficacy of the drug and the wisdom of his choices.
Temujin said...
They need to start feeling some pain for doing this. Beside the lowering viewer/reader numbers. They need to feel multi-million dollar hits where their Board of Directors have to take notice. Or where the bottom line takes a hit, and with it, their stock price.
Rogan has the guns to do this. He should.
The major media is owned by about 10 people.
ABC NBC CNN CBS NYT WAPO all make about as much money as NPR.
Those 10 people fund this with pocket change. Even likely judgement would be pocket change to Disney or Jeff Bezos.
What reason is there to believe that Rogan dislikes CNN other than this one instance where he was attacked? Am I supposed to believe Rogan is some Right-winger? Or crusader for media ethics and free speech?
William said...
Rogan prefaces his conspiracy theory by labeling it speculative and a conspiracy theory. If you present your conspiracy theory as a speculative conspiracy theory, is it truly a conspiracy theory?.....Beyond this, Rogan presents his theories while smoking a cigar. I instinctively distrust health advice given by cigar smokers...That said, for all I know he might be right, and CNN has certainly been wrong in the past. I'm glad he's pushing back. Acosta looks to be the one in the wrong in this contretemps and it's Acosta's reputation that will suffer. Rogan has a broader platform and more credibility than CNN.
I'm still asking what it was, exactly, that Jim Acosta said about Joe Rogan. You appear to know. Can you answer for me? I'd like to have a link.
Many and maybe most Americans wonder why there is a lack of scientific method to any phase of the novel coronavirus. That goes way beyond using bizarre mechanistic models to “prove” masks “work” and the weird political filter both the experts and media chorus applied to public gatherings. We start asking why. Why are they ignoring natural immunity? Why do early interventions work using cheap FDA approved drugs off-label here and around the world but get gaslighted? It can’t simply be anti-Trump gamesmanship like the Monoculture did with HCQ. Trump has been gone long enough that the questions persist. Why does Ivermectin work in other countries when used early yet this easily prescribed medicine gets the “injecting bleach” treatment in the media? This pattern of simple early interventions being ignored in favor of a brand new tactic of 100% vaccination rate makes no sense. So why are all our leaders herding in one inexplicable direction?
When reasonable explanations are not provided to the public novel and usually nefarious theories will take their place.
Big Pharma makes Ivermectin.
Drug companies cannot encourage off-label use, but doctors can prescribe it for off-label use.
Rohan’s conspiracy theory makes no sense. Drug companies make money from off-label use just as they make money from vaccines.
CNN promotes conspiracy theories as well.
Conspiracy theorists suing each other makes little sense.
Achilles: "What is really amazing is how many sheep there are following Chuck's advice to trust the Biden administration, Anthony Fauchi, and the Drug Corporations."
Our pro-marxist LLR Chuck was extolling and praising the biden Surrender/Capitulation plan in Afghanistan AFTER it was completely melting down...as Chuck does with all things democratical.
But only every single time, without exception.
Yes, he should sue them for defamation. He should also sue them for fun.
I'd like to see a lawsuit if only for the discovery. Get every email from the vaccine manufacturers. From Fauci. Between the manufacturers and Fauci. Let's see who is making billions off of perpetual virus fear porn.
The best part is, he could crowd-source the funding. He has millions of listeners who would be more than happy to send him five or ten dollars for the entertainment value alone...
It is hardly an irrational conspiracy theory to recognize the OBVIOUS that pharmaceuticals have a HUGE financial interest (billions of dollars) in pushing everyone in the country and the world to get one, two, three doses of vaccine -- a booster every six months for life -- all at a significant profit.
Pharmacology is based largely on statistical analysis of outcomes
What do you make of the statistical analysis of outcomes ten years after taking the COVID vaccines, which is the usual process for getting FDA approval?
What? They didn't wait ten years to see what the outcomes will be?
The fact is that today pharmacology is based largely on politics and ideology, just like practically everything else.
Didn't he also take monoclonal antibodies? Not saying ivermectin necessarily has no benefit, but it seems like antibodies would be the most obvious candidate for why he recovered quickly.
Rogan is the anecdote that we are using to drive the narrative. It's a shame we have no trusted system to validate therapies for medical issues.
Is this what Rogan is talking about?
https://mobile.twitter.com/Acosta/status/1434655525329907714
Is there something more?
Something different?
Blogger typingtalker said...
"Pharmacology is based largely on statistical analysis of outcomes and Rogan's experiment lacks enough data to do any meaningful analysis. However the sample is large enough to prove something about Rogan."
Funny. Where is the large sample size study providing the meaningful analysis that supports ridiculing a sick individual who followed his doctor's advice to include this drug in his treatment?
I voted no on the poll. I don't see that what CNN did amounts to defamation. Ivermectin is apparently used as a dewormer for animals. What CNN did along with most of the left is to defame the drug itself which is FDA approved as a prescribable drug for humans. In short, CNN and the rest of the media is lying about ivermectin.
Rogan, of course, is correct about the media wanting him to get very sick and die from COVID. They wanted Rogan die, they wanted Patrick Reed to die, and they wanted Trump to die of COVID last Fall. Death has always been a seller for the news media, "Dirty Laundry" was on topic 39 years ago, but it is far worse here- they are hoping for death for purely political purposes, not monetary ones.
My father is a retired pharmacist. There are many more prescriptions written for off-label use than anyone realizes. Completely legal & rational, when prescribed responsibly.
I used to take warfarin to help my blood clotting problem. My grandfather called it "rat poison". Indeed, warfarin is also a rodenticide.
I think this is it; the full extent of the defamation... Jim Acosta states that "Joe Rogan... says he has been taking the livestock de-wormer Ivermectin... it doesn't have any effect on COVID, obviously..."
https://twitter.com/PoliticusSarah/status/1434621133534421001
rehajm @7:27: “… Sue like lawsuits are JDAMs.”
Word.
Chuck,
Was Dale the one who debunked the story, or was he simply following on after it got debunked by someone else. If he was the debunker, then good on him. If he was just borrowing the work of other people and passing it off as his own fact checking, then his work is worthless ass covering.
" there's a lot of pushback against potential treatments, pretending they don't really work or they are conspiracy theories." This is interesting. If this disease is as dangerous as the left and the government says it is, I would think we would be trying anything that might work to control it. Ever seen one of those pandemic movies? The characters try anything hoping it will work to stop the disease. For covid19 any kind of talk of something that works must be banned. On Youtube and Facebook and Twitter, you are not allowed to bring up Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, not wearing a facemask, not social distancing etc. I have a theory. If you protect the elderly, those whose immune systems are compromised in some way, the obese and those who already have a disease of some sort, I don't think covid is as dangerous to those outside of those groups. No more dangerous than the flu. I'm vaccinated. I don't really care about the unvaccinated. Why should I? I'm protected, right? I think the left loves to keep people scared. They study this and take notes, seeing how far they can go. They want to know what they can get away with and which groups are most resistant to their efforts. All in preparation for when they declare a climate emergency and then they really get to tell all of us how to live.
Critter said...
"‘…he lobs a conspiracy theory against the pharmaceutical companies”
One important aspect of the pandemic which has thus far not been investigated is any action by big pharma to prevent recognition of existing drugs for effective treatment of early stage COVID. Rogan is correct on the law for emergency use authorization. With many, many billions of dollars of market cap at stake, is there not a nearly unlimited motivation for big pharma to block such recognition? Follow the money.
Do you remember the pop up research institute that did an early hit job on hydroxychloroquine? I believe it consisted of 2 or 3 brothers with fake bios who put out a fake piece of research showing HQX did not work. Turns out they faked the data - they had no real data. But the study got hyped before the fraud was discovered. The ‘institute’ disappeared like a thief in the night, the protagonists never to be heard from since. But we still don’t know who put up the money for their fakery. Are you willing to bet against big pharma as the source of the funding?"
Here's an article from Science Magazine about the Surgisphere article that the Lancet published before properly vetting it, then ended up retracting it.
To be continued...
More about HCQ:
Back around April or May of last year I hunted up some of the rationale for state governments' restrictions on prescribing HCQ, and found that many state boards of pharmacy were advocating restrictions on the premise that physicians might stockpile the medications, causing shortages for people who take it for chronic diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis: Boards of pharmacy and other actions relating to COVID-19 prescribing
Then of course there were the frantic headlines about people using fish tank cleaner to combat COVIDd, even though the chemical used was not HCQ but a related one, chloroquine phosphate.
Meanwhile, in Michigan, The Henry Ford Clinic conducted a study on the effectiveness of HCQ (in conjunction with other treatments) and found that:
"The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication."
Hit pieces soon followed, prompting the Henry Ford to issue an open letter denouncing the political resistance to their study. From the letter:
"Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events. Our goal as scientists has solely been to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations. To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community – staying focused on our core mission in the interest of our patients, our community, and our commitment to clinical and academic integrity."
Big Pharma may have been in on the fix, but I'm suggesting that politics is the biggest player - restricting therapeutics early on after diaqnosis or inpatient admissions probably caused more needless deaths from COVID, which in turn supported the need for lockdowns and, by extension, absentee and mail-in voting.
Even though libel/slander lawsuits are notorious for their low success rate, Rogan's suit could be the case to topple NYT v. Sullivan. Thomas and Gorsuch are on record that that case should be reconsidered. In the age of youtube anyone can become, instantly, a public figure.
Added: I think one of the MDs who frequent this page described some of the biochemical mechanisms that might make antimalarial medications effective against COVID. If I remember, it had something to do with interrupting the virus' takeover of cells to replicate itself. The same may be true of ivermectin. It's above my pay grade, though, so I'll defer to the real experts.
@tim in vermont, Here's the Ft. Lauderdale study on ivermectin.
"Results: Two hundred eighty patients, 173 treated with ivermectin and 107 without ivermectin, were reviewed. Most patients in both groups also received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both. Univariate analysis showed lower mortality in the ivermectin group (15.0% vs 25.2%; OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.96; P = .03). Mortality also was lower among ivermectin-treated patients with severe pulmonary involvement (38.8% vs 80.7%; OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.47; P = .001). No significant differences were found in extubation rates (36.1% vs 15.4%; OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 0.88-11.00; P = .07) or length of stay. After multivariate adjustment for confounders and mortality risks, the mortality difference remained significant (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.80; P = .03). One hundred ninety-six patients were included in the propensity-matched cohort. Mortality was significantly lower in the ivermectin group (13.3% vs 24.5%; OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P < .05), an 11.2% (95% CI, 0.38%-22.1%) absolute risk reduction, with a number needed to treat of 8.9 (95% CI, 4.5-263).
Interpretation: Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Temujin @ 8:43: “… It's time to remove the incentive from this fake news companies to keep cranking out this crap.”
Yes. And while these people will not care much about the cost of litigation, they will care greatly about what turns up in discovery. God forbid that should ever leak to the trusting public on whose loyalty their entire livelihoods depend.
You people are nucking futs. Don't you remember when Trump was pushing the vaccines (and practically claimed he himself cooked them up in kitchen at the White House), you were gung ho for them. Now, it is some nefarious plot by big pharma.
Even though libel/slander lawsuits are notorious for their low success rate, Rogan's suit could be the case to topple NYT v. Sullivan. Thomas and Gorsuch are on record that that case should be reconsidered. In the age of youtube anyone can become, instantly, a public figure.
Be careful what you wish for. What can be used against the NYT can also be used against Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, Donald Trump; or heck even some of the commenters on this site (heck Michael K and others have libeled me on this very site, it would be sweet if I could sue them and even Althouse for that libel)
I would just like someone at CNN to be forced to tell us why "horse dewormer" was relevant to the story.
How and why, exactly, was that framing of the story chosen?
This is just like the CNN chyrons reminding us for months that Covid Vaccines were experimental and not fully FDA approved.
Oh wait, that didn't happen.
And yet, it's just as true and more relevant that "horse dewormer".
Ever seen one of those pandemic movies? The characters try anything hoping it will work to stop the disease.
So you are looking to Hollywood for sound advice on how to handle a pandemic?
"He's outraged if something sloppy is said about him, but he lobs a conspiracy theory against the pharmaceutical companies."
CNN lied.
Rogan is expressing an opinion.
I personally find it very interesting the the Left can't find a single treatment for Covid that they don't attack.
I don't think it's about the vaccine. I think it's that they want people to live in fear, and that developing effective treatments for Covid takes away that fear.
But every cheap and effective treatment for Covid has been bitterly attacked by the lovers of vaccines. And it's hard to find a good reason for that
"He's outraged if something sloppy is said about him, but he lobs a conspiracy theory against the pharmaceutical companies."
Why would you characterize the claim against him as "sloppy," when it appears to have been a quite deliberate effort to distort the facts, demeaning him and disparaging the medication? Do you think the claim was asserted in the context of a "sloppy" investigation, or that the writer was haphazard in the choice of words?
Yancey Ward: "Chuck, Was Dale the one who debunked the story, or was he simply following on after it got debunked by someone else."
Dale has always been and continues to be a major pusher of FakeNews and disinformation/misinformation and, in every case, a purposeful pusher of said lies/hoaxes.
In this particular case, Dale was forced to grudgingly admit the obvious after many others, including principled leftists, called out the original story as utterly fake and made up.
It is hardly surprising that our pro-marxist LLR Chuck is white knighting for known leftist liars and agitators since Chuck is also one.
“Didn't he also take monoclonal antibodies?”
Good question Balf. I haven’t heard so much about this treatment as HCQ and Ivermectin. But what has filtered into my memory is a study that showed monoclonal antibodies ineffective. Of course. Just tossing this in FWIW.
Chuck said...
Since we are on the subject of CNN and media inaccuracy, I just wanted to point out that Daniel Dale of CNN took a very detailed look at the Oklahoma/Ivermectin emergency treatment story. Dale carefully dissected the story and exposed how it started and was inaccurate. The story was "a comprehensive mess" in Dale's telling.
Oh, Chuck, never stop being Chuck.
https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2021/09/07/daniel-dale-rides-to-fake-news-rescue-after-ok-hospitals-overrun-with-ivermectin-patients-story-implodes-n439087
Dale went on in a lengthy thread, which you can read in full here, to engage in “bothsidesism,” saying that while the story was “poorly framed” that critics of the story on the right were also to blame for jumping to conclusions about the entire story being fake:
From Dale: "We now know at least one other hospital the doctor works with has indeed seen patients with ivermectin issues"
The story:
Ivermectin ODs are so bad, and so common in rural OK, that hospital ERs are refusing gunshot victims because they don't ahve room to take them thanks to IVM overdoses
The defense: Well, one hospital in rural OK said they've "seen patients with ivermectin issues".
Have they said that their ERs are full? No
Have they said that thanks to those patients, they had to turn away gunshot victims? No
Does anyone have any hospital on record saying anything like what the lefties in the press were "reporting"?
No.
Is the story 100% garbage? Yes
Should the people who jumped on it early be praised for doing so? Yes
Does Dale criticize them instead, inventing a straw man to beat up since they haven't done anything wrong?
Yes, he does.
Because the claim on the conservative side was never that there were "no IVM OD cases", the claim was that the story line was utterly false
No, Dale gets no credit
“Drug companies make money from off-label use just as they make money from vaccines.”
True. Dimes versus hundred dollar bills. That’s a really persuasive take on “nothing to see here move along” isn’t it? Denying there’s a financial incentive after literally billions in government funding rained down to hurry the vaccines to market? How fresh.
In a defamation case, my near-total attention is on what the proposed defendant said, wrote, or otherwise published.
Ah, yes... the famous defamation case of Eeyore vs. Tigger et al.
As I recall Chuck lost that one thanks to the brilliant summary presented by the defendant's counsel, Winfred T. Pooh, Esq.
I'm predicting difficult times ahead for his doctor (should he/she be uncovered); they don't care for witches in Austin.
https://twitter.com/PoliticusSarah/status/1434621133534421001
The above is the Jim Acosta CNN interview with Dr. Fauci. Not only does Jim Acosta say Joe Rogan was taking a horse dewormer rather than a medication, ivermectin, in the form developed for humans (a medication whose developers won the Nobel prize won the Nobel prize, a medication recommended by the Japanese Academy of Medicine as a Covid treatment) but Dr. Fauci is on the show, saying that statements such as those made by Joe Rogan are "the enemy of public health."
I say sue. I can't help noticing that the media/political/military complex is escaping from all attempts to make The Blob accountable, slipping through our hands like a greased pig at the county fair. And it may be that a comedian will have what it takes to catch them. Appeals to honor, talk of journalistic integrity, professional medical standards - all completely fail. There's no there there. Maybe a mixed media arts guy v. the voice of the parrot now heard in the land?
Field Marshall Freder Frederson: "You people are nucking futs. Don't you remember when Trump was pushing the vaccines (and practically claimed he himself cooked them up in kitchen at the White House), you were gung ho for them. Now, it is some nefarious plot by big pharma."
Idiot Freder shows up late, utterly oblivious, spouting talking points rendered moot 6 months ago, completely off topic, vomiting up "whataboutism" all over the floor, and, as always, too dumb to realize it.
Freder, the very best time for you to delete your previous moronic post would be......right now.
Field Marshall Freder: "Be careful what you wish for. What can be used against the NYT can also be used against Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, Donald Trump; or heck even some of the commenters on this site (heck Michael K and others have libeled me on this very site, it would be sweet if I could sue them and even Althouse for that libel)"
LOL
It's as though reality cannot penetrate the Lefty Bubble at all.
Again, the best part? Freder doesn't even realize it.
Fauci directed 24 billion to vaccines and all but ignored treatments while hundreds of thousands of people were dying. There is a lot of evidence that Ivermectin works against Covid19, although that evidence falls short of the "gold standard" of large scale double blind studies, but it's a lot more fun to say that there is no evidence that it is to accurately describe the situation and lose rhetorical points.
Right now there is a large scale (n=4000) study of Ivermectin treatment of Covid19 underway. A year late, and hundreds of thousands dead I the meanwhile, but it's going on. It makes one wonder why they would be doing such an expensive study if there is "zero evidence" that it works. Well no it doesn't. They are doing the study because there are many indications that it works. Simply head on over to https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=ivermectin+covid&btnG=&oq= and poke around if you doubt it.
Freder Frederson said...
You people are nucking futs. Don't you remember when Trump was pushing the vaccines (and practically claimed he himself cooked them up in kitchen at the White House), you were gung ho for them. Now, it is some nefarious plot by big pharma.
We're not nuts, you're just a complete moron.
I'm still a fan of the vaccines. I got vaccinated as soon as I could.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Left is on an insane jihad against any treatment for Covid, especially ones that keep people from being hospitalized in the first place.
Would you care to explain why you all are doing that?
Be careful what you wish for. What can be used against the NYT can also be used against Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, Donald Trump; or heck even some of the commenters on this site (heck Michael K and others have libeled me on this very site, it would be sweet if I could
We live in a US where the Left routinely "deplatforms" and censors any views / news it doesn't like.
So your threat is hollow
Freder Frederson said...
So you are looking to Hollywood for sound advice on how to handle a pandemic?
Who do you look too? Mask man Fauci, the guy who helped fund Gain of Function research in San-Covid viruses at the WIV?
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
But what has filtered into my memory is a study that showed monoclonal antibodies ineffective.
There was a recent study that claimed that.
Of course, in order to make the claim work, they had to ignore the fact that the proper protocol for the monoclonal antibody treatment is to give it to people infected with Covid, before they have it so bad they're hospitalized.
So when you run a study where you only give the MAbs to people who've been hospitalized with Covid, it's pretty clear your'e dishonestly gaming the system to try to get a "study" that blocks the use of another treatment.
Which then leaves one to ask: why are the so against developing treatments that work?
Achilles wrote in part, There are numerous studies and they have shown greatly reduced mortality rates treating COVID. They are not hard to find.
You have to try very hard to be gullible enough to buy this crap.
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19
Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
Apparently they are hard to find.
wldswan, the link that you posted at 3:02 pm blog time is the same one I posted at 10:58 am blog time.
Greg the Class Traitor: I didn't link to Dale's Twitter thread (although I have read it). I specifically and deliberately linked to Dale's video essay. Because it is exactly what I said it was; a thorough and clear examination of the Oklahoma story.
Yancey Ward: Notice that not once did I claim that Daniel Dale of CNN "debunked" the Oklahoma story. I didn't claim, and didn't try to suggest, that Dale was the person who somehow broke the news that the Oklahoma hospital did not have significant numbers of Ivermectin poisonings. What I said was that Daniel Dale of CNN had done an in-depth look at it, and had done much to clarify things. He did, and I am right about that.
And of course I was doing it to stick my finger in the eyes of the Trump cultists here who lose their minds at the first mention of CNN. CNN, clarifying an Ivermectin story.
'You people are nucking futs. Don't you remember when Trump was pushing the vaccines (and practically claimed he himself cooked them up in kitchen at the White House), you were gung ho for them. Now, it is some nefarious plot by big pharma.'
Ummm...I was gung ho for them because someone in my family had an extremely depressed immune system and covid might have been a death sentence.
And also because it was sold as a 'vaccine.' You know, the thing that is supposed to prevent you from getting the disease, not a thing that just makes it more bearable if you do catch it.
I will not be signing up for the lifetime booster plan...
Freder,
I was never, ever gung ho for the vaccine. And once I found out it's not actually a vaccine- under the old unimproved definition, I was against it.
Why? The vaccine, well vaccines, for the dreaded covid all work in the same manner- they force the body to produce a whole complete spike protein- which is a known pathogen. Then, the body is supposed to produce antibodies against this one part of a KNOWN pathogen.
Now- a thought- if they can use mRNA to force human cells to produce the spike protein, then why don't they mix the mRNA in with a bunch of yeast, produce mass quantities of the spike protein, then inject the spike protein directly into the body? The answer is absurdly easy- the spike protein is a known pathogen and injecting whole complete known pathogens in the body would never ever be approved. But for unknown reasons, the two step process for getting them in the body- inject mRNA, then have the body produce pathogens itself, managed to get through the approval process!?
The vaccines are not safe. We don't know the long term effects. And, as Israel is proving, their effectiveness wanes so quickly they really are useless. And they're not even good against the currently circulating variants that were created by vaccinated people.
William,
The cigar smoking while discussing rapid recovery from a respiratory virus was the ultimate FU/troll.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
...
...
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Left is on an insane jihad against any treatment for Covid, especially ones that keep people from being hospitalized in the first place.
Would you care to explain why you all are doing that?
...
The New York Times has a running feature; their "Coronavirus Drug and Treatment Tracker." Regularly updated, they note which treatments and developing drugs are widely used, promising, not promising, etc. Monoclonal antibodies are noted to be in wide use, as is Remdesivir, which now has FDA authorization.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-drugs-treatments.html
I picked the New York Times, as a kind of avatar for the mainstream media and as a daily diary for the educated American left. I hope that this comment of mine hits you where it hurts, if there is such a place.
But because I am someone who likes to rub it in when I have a point to make, here too is the Washington Post doing a story on the promise of monoclonal antibodies:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/covid-monoclonal-abbott/2021/08/19/a39a0b5e-0029-11ec-a664-4f6de3e17ff0_story.html
CNN was on the monoclonal antibody story way back in December of 2020:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/health/monoclonal-antibodies-coronavirus-access/index.html
And CNN updated all of that information just this month, with a clear-eyed appraisal of how far we have come with monoclonal antibodies:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/health/monoclonal-antibodies-coronavirus-access/index.html
We in the supermajority of reasonable, educated, vaccinated Americans aren't doubting all COVID therapies. We're just questioning the weird ones that are promoted by such notable medical experts as Louie Gohmert, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Qreene and of course Donald Trump. If only Ivermectin and hydroxychoroquine had bigger marketing budgets, they might have been able to afford standups by Sebastian Gorka and Larry Elder.
Freder, people calling you an imbecile isn't libel or slander since it is true.
Don't you remember when Trump was pushing the vaccines (and practically claimed he himself cooked them up in kitchen at the White House), you were gung ho for them. Now, it is some nefarious plot by big pharma.
As someone who has been vaccinated and has worked for Big Pharma, I wonder if BP is behind the anti-Ivermectin and anti-HCQ hysteria on the left. They made tons of money on the vaccines and will make tons more on their proprietary medications. Why let cheap off-the-shelf meds screw up their profits?
I have no issues with the vaccine. Life is risk management. I took the vaccine because my wife interacts daily with HS student who often come to school ill. However, if I get Covid, I want my doctor to prescribe the medications that will help me. I will risk Ivermectin and HCQ.
Don't be stupid with your Trump anecdotes. With the exception of Chuck and Howard, this blog has greatly improved since AA paused us to consider our behavior. Stupid troll statement just bring us back to where we were before.
Pro-marxist LLR Chuck: "What I said was that Daniel Dale of CNN had done an in-depth look at it, and had done much to clarify things. He did, and I am right about that."
A sad and pathetic lie offered up in service to aid the sad and pathetic liar Daniel Dale whose entire lie filled effort was an attempt to shift as much responsibility for the Story line lie to conservative news sources.
But Dale's lies failed and LLR Chuck's Dale-like lies have also failed.
Exit observation: Try to find someone to love that will love and defend and adore you as much as LLR Chuck loves and defends and adores his far left lying hack legacy media charlatans.
In other Lefty/LLR-lefty news, and this will be of interest to Field Marshall Freder as well as his co-leftist LLR Chuck, without prior notice or public discussion, the CDC has changed the definition of "vaccine" to encompass utterly non-vaccine results...just in time for the permanent repeated "booster-ization" policies that our lefty/LLR-lefties are preparing to roll out....not to mention the inevitable politicization of Booster shot status to ensure vaccine passports can be leveraged ever further for political and social control.
Not to mention the astonishing forced wealth transfer to insiders and away from the "deplorable" masses.
I have to admit when I first heard Larry Elder, a black conservative, was attacked by white leftists in California my first thought was to ask if anyone knew the whereabouts of LLR Chuck, who happens to be notorious for his viciously racist attacks against black conservatives at Althouse blog.
causing shortages for people who take it for chronic diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis
Has anyone tracked these people to see how many got sick, hospitalized, or dead?
Gospace wrote, The vaccine, well vaccines, for the dreaded covid all work in the same manner- they force the body to produce a whole complete spike protein- which is a known pathogen. Then, the body is supposed to produce antibodies against this one part of a KNOWN pathogen.
From Salk ...
LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.
(My bold)
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
Da Fauch should debunk Joe's claims by pointing to false positives of the PCR tests:
Da Fauch and friends
From comments:
Woem Yrom
1 week ago
At the 4 minute mark: Fauci has known since at least July that most Covid “cases” are false. The US routinely uses 42-45 cycles, Fauci says any positive test above 35 cycles is a false positive. This is what the whole pandemic is based on - fake test results. Watch Fauci admit it.
Chuck said...
The New York Times has a running feature; their "Coronavirus Drug and Treatment Tracker." Regularly updated, they note which treatments and developing drugs are widely used, promising, not promising, etc. Monoclonal antibodies are noted to be in wide use, as is Remdesivir, which now has FDA authorization.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-drugs-treatments.html
1: You didn't answer my question, which was "why are left wing 'scientists' coming up with 'studies' of SC2 treatments where they deliberately use a regime different that what's promoted for the treatment by it's advocates?"
2:. Went to the NYT site. Clicked on the "Pseudosceince". Discovered they're still lying sacks of shit.
A: Pushing the trump said to drink bleach and shove a flashing up your ass" hoax
Response:
https://trendingpolitics.com/trump-is-right-again-internal-disinfecting-of-people-is-already-being-done/
B: Still hating on HCQ.
When it works: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/
The abstract:
"Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe."
So, what does the NYT do? They find studies where it wasn't given early, wasn't given with zinc, and wasn't given with Azithromycin.
All so they can dishonestly report that it doesn't work
Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
So what is he really saying? That there are not yet the gold standard types of studies that doctors rely on to make their decisions. "Overall, the reliable evidence available doesn't support..." Why isn't there any of this "reliable evidence" available? Because a year ago when small scale studies showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality by an amount too large to be attributed to chance with over a 95% certainty, none of these large scale follow up studies were actually done.
I might go so far as to say that the quote contains a falsehood. There is no "reliable evidence" either way, it seems to say that there is reliable evidence that Ivermectin does not work. There are in fact no gold standard studies that say "ivermectin" doesn't work because there are no gold standard studies, period. They haven't been done. But there are plenty of studies on small and large scales, here and abroad, that don't meet that "gold standard" criteria that show that Ivermectin is very likely to reduce mortality.
When the large scale randomized and double blinded studies do come out that will almost certainly prove out the stuff that has been going on abroad where Ivermectin is widely used to great effect, and the small scale studies we have had here in the US for over a year, those of you who laugh at "horse dewormer" please reflect on the hundreds of thousands of lives that were lost in the meanwhile and consider how many of them could have been saved we didn't have a CDC and FDA that put politics over lives.
The "horse dewormer" motif in their propaganda is just an extension of their highly successful propaganda theme based on the lie that Trump ever suggested the people drink bleach, but whatever1 "One death is a tragedy, a hundred thousands deaths is a statistic." amIright?
Many and maybe most Americans wonder why there is a lack of scientific method to any phase of the novel coronavirus.
On the contrary, there was a wealth of scientific method -- hypothesis, testing, verification, etc. -- in the initial phase of COVID. That is, in its creation in the Chinese lab with U.S. financial support.
They want to know what they can get away with and which groups are most resistant to their efforts.
I no longer dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand - too many of them have been vindicated recently. So I can't rule this one out.
But I don't understand the mechanism here. Who is "they"? Do I have to posit the involvement of the "shadowy cabal" that apparently actually was acting in last year's election? Or is it enough to have an unaffiliated group of people who share a rough set of goals, acting independently in ways that further those goals, a la The Wisdom of Crowds? I confess to a growing sense of dread that there really is something like this going on, as I watch society become less and less liberal, more and more authoritarian - all emanating from the left side of the aisle.
Or is this idea completely off-base and the real driver is Big Pharma, who, having now found that there's a way around super-expensive long-term human trials, want to be able to apply the same rationale in broader circumstances?
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-science-has-been-corrupted/
Ralph L said...
"...causing shortages for people who take it for chronic diseases like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis...
Has anyone tracked these people to see how many got sick, hospitalized, or dead?"
I've wondered the same myself but haven't seen any studies yet. The CDC is probably incurious. My Dad's brother had lupus and died last December, but not from COVID.
Howard said: It must be terrifying to contract covid after refusing vaccination. At that point reaching for any possible cure it's just human nature. It sounds like he threw everything at it including the kitchen sink.}}}}
Two people at my office are home sick now for a week with Covid. Two otherwise healthy VACCINATED people.
I challenge anyone to make a cogent, moral case for why my VACCINATED but still vulnerable-to-Covid self shouldn't have access to a drug which is as safe as any OTC medication. I have a right to try to save myself. So far, I have the right to take vitamin D3, vitamin C, and zinc which may lessen my chances of being infected or becoming seriously ill. Why can't I also have a safe drug which shows great promise?
"We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier,..."
This. I talked to my doctor about 6 months ago asking if she would consider prescribing HCQ for me if I got the Rona. She said that she would not because "what we are finding in our group is that some patients developed heart rhythm irregularities and there wasn't evidence that it was helping."
She was talking about giving HCQ to severely ill hospitalized patients---not outpatient treatment started at the very first signs of infection. I just gave up further discussion; what's the point?
Australia just BANNED ivermectin. Not because it was causing people to get sick, not because it was helping people. But because it was causing people to forgo an experimental vaccine that has been killing some people. Can't have that.
Get yours now while you still can. Biden will be banning it ( or trying to ) soon.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा