Lawyers Guns and Money and the Herman Cain Award

M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
Well, he certainly did seem to indicate that the website I linked did seem to provide a more accurate overall picture of the analysis of Ivermectin which has been done up to this point. He also said that the data indicated that Ivermectin appeared to be of some benefit, according to the data.

This is the hard part. People who HATE being wrong are on both sides of the argument. They will go to their deathbeds swearing that Ivermectin is useless, even if studies show it to be effective. It isn't completely effective, which means that there will always be people who get sick and die, even with Ivermectin, and those cases will be used as proof.

Obviously, the same is true the other way if final analysis is that it isn't effective. People also get better and will take Ivermectin, and that's all the proof some people will need.

If the data indicates that Ivermectin is of some benefit, then it should certainly be considered as a tool.

Which does lead me back to the problem of a company no longer owning a patent, so who is going to pay for everything necessary to get FDA approval for use as a drug to fight COVID? I do believe studies are in place for use, but can and will these studies be presented to the FDA so it can be approved for such use?
I don't think the two "sides" of the Ivermectin debate are taking opposite positions.

It appears to me that most of the people "for" Ivermectin believe it is effective and the evidence that is available right now conclusively supports this.

As far as I can tell, most of the people who are "against" Ivermectin are not arguing that it has been proven to be ineffective, but rather that it has not been shown to be effective as of right now. If further studies show it is effective, these people will not be "wrong" and I don't see that they would hate saying that the new evidence does show it is effective.

I'm not an expert on the FDA approval process, but the NIH treatment guidelines recommend Dexamethasone in some situations:


Wiki says: >>>Dexamethasone was first synthesized in 1957 by Philip Showalter Hench and was approved for medical use in 1961.[8][9][10] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.[11] In 2017, it was the 321st most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than one million prescriptions. . . . A meta-analysis of seven clinical trials of critically ill COVID-19 patients, each treated with one of three different corticosteroids found a statistically significant reduction in death.[28] The largest reduction was obtained with dexamethasone (36% compared to placebo).<<<


In other words, there are existing "old" drugs that have been studied and approved for treating COVID. As far as I can tell, "no patent" is not necessarily a huge problem.

 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
Yep, this was his downfall became a natural medicine doctor, and She and Foley shared a passion for integrative medicine, which is also called alternative or natural medicine.
Obviously his "researching everything" wasn't very good in the end.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Field Marshall

Really, this is just turning into the Darwin Awards.

To be fair, in 20 years time any of us still alive may well be watching legal commercials similar to the mesothelioma ones, only about our Covid vaccines…
:rolleyes:
I've been following some studies and the science is interesting. Drbeen Medical Lectures on Youtube has some excellent videos that explain the vaccine mechanics in easy to understand terms. There is a recent in-vitro study that shows that the spike protein can enter the nucleus and interfere with DNA repair, but I don't know of any cases occuring in mammals. The vaccine was specifically designed not to enter the nucleus, so it definitely warrants further study.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Spartan

Really, this is just turning into the Darwin Awards.

To be fair, in 20 years time any of us still alive may well be watching legal commercials similar to the mesothelioma ones, only about our Covid vaccines…
:rolleyes:
To be fair...

Literally anything could be a "hindsight is 20/20" moment. Hell, we've known tobacco is bad for you and that hasn't stopped anyone.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
To be fair...

Literally anything could be a "hindsight is 20/20" moment. Hell, we've known tobacco is bad for you and that hasn't stopped anyone.
I understand your point, but I would say the known harm from tobacco has probably stopped quite a few people:

1638205730479.png


Choosing COVID infection vs vaccination strikes me as an exceptionally bad choice.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Spartan
I understand your point, but I would say the known harm from tobacco has probably stopped quite a few people:

View attachment 51883

Choosing COVID infection vs vaccination strikes me as an exceptionally bad choice.
It has, but not nearly enough. At this point people can't pretend to be ignorant of the effects of smoking, but plenty of people still do it, and people are somehow still starting when they're young.

I think the point I'm making is that people will do the opposite of what they're "told" just to prove a point. They don't understand that point is sometimes they're stubborn and unreasonable.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top