Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

Post by tomp » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #303

Wistar wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember it differently as not a "lab leak hypothesis" but a claim that the virus was not from nature but was a man-made virus, to wit: "I can present solid scientific evidence to our audience that this virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature. It is a man-made virus created in the lab." — Dr. Li-Meng Yan on the Tucker Carlson show.

There are really two separate lab leak hypotheses: 1. That it was made in the lab and accidentally released 2. That it was made in the lab and released intentionally as some kind of biowarfare or population control. (1) has been discussed as a definite possibility by credible scientists since day 1 (and although it's true that the mainstream media didn't really pick up on it, I don't see much evidence that they inten…

Post by unparagoned » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

ds206 wrote: post #199

void_mint wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, Entirely irrelevant when discussing YouTube, which we're doing now. YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information.

But drug commercials on TV are? I mean, why can't a doctor talk about the benefits of a certain drug with a "but talk to your own doctor first"? How is that any different?

Post by 4bpp » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

void_mint wrote: post #15

goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

> I truly hope in the coming years the censorship of this topic will be the catalyst for allowing free speech to prevail on social media. If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Should YouTube not take steps to prevent the spread of misinformation that could kill people? edit Big downvotes, no response. Great system.

Post by throwkeep » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:06 PM UTC

jiofih wrote: post #225

throwkeep wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary. What is their vested interest in a generic, cheap, decades old, off patent drug? Vested interests tend to be in new, patented treatments. That's where big pharma profit is. So let's try a rephrase: Many people pushing patented treatments have a vested interest in proving off patent alternatives are unnecessary. For exampl…

Being proven right. That’s the anti-vac crowd’s dearest interest.

Post by throwaway4good » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

hosteur wrote: post #290

throwaway4good wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have watched his shows. Intellectual alt right is a quite suitable label for this guy.

I am genuinely curious to know what made you come to that conclusion? Assuming you mean darkhorse, what episode and what in that episode makes him alt right? Please be specific. If there are multiple examples then just provide a few.