Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RevTestament

  1. The thing about coffee is that it has lots of caffeine - that's why people drink it. Constant caffeine will constantly stimulate cortisol. In turn cortisol increases insulin resistance - something you don't want if you are concerned about alzheimer's. Many are starting to look at alzheimer's as a metabolic disease. I brought this up previously. The issue is that the brain becomes insulin resistant, and can't get enough glucose - these are the cases where ketones help brain function. Diet Dr Pepper at least does not have sugar, but I have yet to find an acceptable artificial sweetener. Aspartame is known to break down into formaldehyde in the body. https://thebeet.com/heres-what-happens-in-your-body-when-you-drink-a-diet-coke/#:~:text=Aspartame breaks down into the,has been linked to cancer.
  2. I have taken to adding a choc protein powder to my coconut milk. I will also add a choc collagen powder - both are sweetened with erithrytol, stevia and/or monk fruit. It is like the chocolate milk I grew up with, and feels "naughty" when I drink it. It does have more of a powdery residue, but otherwise sometimes just hits the spot. If warmed, it would be like having a hot cocoa. As a supressant, I would think any alcoholic drink would not be a good choice for this. Other than being against the word of wisdom I see nothing wrong with an occasional cup of coffee -even with butter in it - but I wouldn't like it without some kind of sweetener, and on a daily basis I believe the constant cortisol stimulation is not healthy.
  3. There are different kinds of Alzheimer's but I am coming to believe that most suffer from a type where the brain actually becomes insulin resistant. That is why a ketogenic diet helps them. It provides some energy the cells/neurons are being deprived of.
  4. For what it's worth, you are right. The one thing that was supposed to be good about wine - resveratrol - has fallen through as well. The Harvard researcher, Dr David Sinclair, has found no benefit to resveratrol - at least not at the dose in a glass of wine. If anything, it has a detrimental effect on longevity. Alcohol certainly does - in any amount - because it is a toxin. I think excuses are made for it, because there is an industry for it and because people want to drink it. I will say this, however. Probably most of the ancient diseases of the world were a result of bad water. Bad water is still a major problem in the world. I would rather drink wine or beer than potentially bad water. In ancient times before refrigeration, and when traveling, beer or wine was a "safe" drink - one which was not going to make you sick. So, it had an actual purpose. Now, it is nothing more than a social drink, which can be easily abused, and which will shorten life. Wine, beer nor any other alcoholic drink should not be viewed as a health drink - because they are not. They are an option in the event of suspicious water. They are a social drink. In fact there is not much healthy to drink besides water. Fruit juices are unhealthy, and drinking them will also shorten your life. I don't drink tea or coffee. For one thing I don't like these drinks without being sweetened. The sugar necessary to do this is simply not healthy. I also will drink coconut milk - but anymore on a daily basis that is about it. The common soda might be worse for your health than wine or beer. Picking on just one thing when so much is wrong with the SAD is...... well...... kinda narrow minded. If Yeshua were sitting here, what do you think He would say about all the sodas members drink? Yeah, I think He would say it is not good. Yet, it has replaced the beverages at school I grew up with, and.... the kids are much more obese than I remember. I am now convinced that the food pyramid I grew up with was virtually upside down....but I am digressing. When it comes to a healthy diet, there is much to be addressed here in America.... certainly not just beer and wine. And yes, the same could be said for tobacco. So yes, the WOW is correct, but it could be definitely expanded upon in modern America.
  5. False Prophet. All are resurrected including the wicked - those you say "cut themselves off from God." See Matt 25 and Rev 20. Falsehood #1. D&C says those who did not accept Christ will end up "saved" in the telestial kingdom - you say they are not saved but recycled. Falsehood #2. Give up already.
  6. If there is a way, it would be a little complex, and you would probably have to use some code every time. The simpler way is to use an image editor 1st to shrink the image before pasting it.
  7. They are OK https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/11/13/gunmen-rob-latter-day/ https://www.foxnews.com/world/mormon-missionaries-robbed-torreon-mexico
  8. Conspiracy necessarily involves multiple individuals or entities. If corporate minions are merely doing what they have been told, they are not conpirators. If Pfizer tells CNN ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer, and CNN just repeats that, then they are not conspirators. However, Don Lemon was confronted about this by a doctor, and just doubled down on it. Even when the doctor informed him that ivermectin has been safely prescribed to people for years. It is just an incorrect characterization of the drug. It is an untrue spin... a lie. So if big pharma did this, they are only bringing this scrutiny on themselves, and are causing the problem, yet you want to criticize me for noticing that they are liars. Why not just tell the damn truth? That would obviate all the flack. You know, too much water can be deadly. What we are talking about here are the every day uses of the terms in medicine. The very purpose of the FDA is to make sure drugs are safe. If they are approved, they are typically considered safe enough to warrant the risks. What is happening here is that they are flipping the narrative, to try to say one of the safest drugs around is 'dangerous" and "harmful." It is just not honest. So again that only arouses the suspicion of the public. Perhaps it is part of the ineptness of this administration, but I feel it is more likely other things. Anyway, things like this are why people don't want to be forced to make a decision. I have repeatedly said that the studies show it is at least partially efficacious, because that is what they show. I have said repeatedly that Ivermectin is not a cure all. Please stop mischaracterizing me. I have said I didn't come on this thread to be a champion for ivermectin, because I believe Paxlovid will be much more effective. Ivermectin is "safe" as far as normal medical use goes. And yes, all drugs can be misused, and have risks. That goes without saying. That is true. I took the vaccines because at that point I believed any medical risks of the vaccines were minor, and I did not wish to incur the risks and costs of a hospitalization.... or give the disease to my family. I felt the risks these vaccines presented were acceptable. But yes, they do have risks, because as you note all medicines do. Some people had anaphylactic reactions to them, and having experienced two anaphylactic reactions myself the prior year it was a concern for me. Now, other risks have surfaced. Thrombosis, myocarditis, and other risks are easily googled. They are deadly. See, I can say that about the vaccines in the same way it is being said about ivermectin. Could I have died from the vaccine I took? Yes. If I had anaphylactic shock alone some place, I could potentially die. See how easily I turned your point around? You are obviously calling the vaccines safe - the same way I am calling ivermectin safe. How about we stop with this game? As a general rule, yes, the studies tend to show ivermectin is best used early, and is not as efficacious otherwise. I agree. However, in all studies there are outliers. I believe my mother was clearly an exception, but there are other reported cases in which ivermectin had an immediate effect on the covid patient. So, my conclusion only goes against the statistical norm. I feel my mom was very lucky that she had me for a son, or she might be dead. I informed her it was a low risk drug which had support in international studies, and she took it. It is the same process used in taking every drug. If it helps any, I am obviously not anti-vax. I do believe they helped us. I am anti-mandate in the way these vaccines were rolled out. The admin did a shoddy job. They need to be straight forward and not raise suspicions. Being dishonest is a bad idea. Biden has never seemed to have learned that. (Yeah, neither did Trump), which is part of the reasons his ratings are so low, and so many people are resistant to his would-be policies. Do you really want to get into the constitution? You know the constitution has this article which says that powers not vested in the federal government by the states remain in the states. Nowhere did the states vest power to regulate our general health and welfare to the federal government. That would take an amendment by the states. The federal government was never granted the power to mandate a vaccine or force any medicine on us. Emergency is over folks. Covid is being controlled. It is not going to kill us all. Time to move past the narrative. If anyone has such powers, it is the states... not the federal government. I generally recommend getting a vaccination, and recommended that to my wife. Two of my sons have already had covid. It was medically documented. Forcing them to take a vaccine is irrational, and incurs unnecessary risks to use your own words. It is possible they might kill them, when it is medically proven they already have better immunity than they will get from one of the present vaccines. Is that rational? No. It is irrational. It is an irrational and unscientific policy. So go away, and leave them alone already, and in your own words do not promote "beliefs that are needlessly killing Americans."
  9. The Church has never really been that attractive to the overall Christian community. The Book of Mormon prophesied about this issue thusly: 1 Nephi 14:12 12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were afew, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. That is where the Church is today. We have spread over all the face of the earth, but still, as you note, our numbers are small compared to the rest of Christendom. That changes, because God will intervene and bare His holy arm in the eyes of all nations. So it is not really anything that we are going to do the change people's perception. Arthur Schopenhauer said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
  10. So what you are saying here is that they really gave no reason for claiming that ivermectin has "been demonstrated to be harmful to patients." Now they are just being misleading. That is like saying aspirin has been shown to be harmful to patients because some people overdose with it. C'mon. People use various meds to overdose all the time. They don't call those drugs "Harmful." As far as I know no one has died from overdosing ivermectin in the pandemic. I find it misleading. Used appropriately, it is safe, but yeah, I would say taking horse dewormer is not safe. Let's be clear about it can we?
  11. No. I don't. The graph shows the number of deaths falling but lagging behind the number of cases. You would expect the death rate to continue to rise after the initial distribution of Ivermectin because as you note, Ivermectin does not stop the transferability of the disease, but as the cases fall, the death rate would eventually fall. The same happens here in the states. Nothing to commit suicide over here.... I think you are misinterpreting the first set of graphs. The red does not represent "the bad people of Lima that weren't using ivermectin." They were administered ivermectin four months later than the blue, and the covid cases peaked about 3 months later. I would refer the reader to the second set of graphs for Peru. The rise and fall of the death rate is much more clearly associated with the distribution of ivermectin. The second rise was at a completely different time of year, and was after a new president restricted the distribution of ivermectin. You are full of yourself. Go to the websites the data was gotten from. They are given. You don't like it, because data is just data, and it is difficult to debunk data. You can check the data for yourself on these governmental sites. Now you are going to have to say all these governments are liars... international governmental conspiracy!! ... but I forget... only The Nehor can twist things in his "own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing." I would say the last graph is the most compelling. It compares total deaths in areas where ivermectin was used versus areas where it was not. Is it possible that the former just had a smaller outbreak of Covid? I suppose. More detail may prove useful, but the implication is clear. Deaths rose a lot more where Ivermectin was not used in the whole northern end of Argentina.
  12. Hi Navidad! There are many small groups. I wouldn't even hazzard a guess. Most of the polygamous groups are separate from each other. There is one small group maybe 15 miles from me. Their kids seem reasonally well adjusted, but I don't think they really associate themselves with any other groups. Such groups are known essentially by the names of their leader families - like the King polygamists. There are probably at least a dozen of such small polygamist groups in Utah and Arizona. Then there are non-polygamous offshoots as well. As a kid I kind of liked the "separateness" of the LDS culture. It was a refreshing refuge from the world. It was a place that felt godly to me. I just didn't find that in the world, so I thought it was good that the Church had a "separate" feel, if that is what you are talking about. There are plenty of non-US members of the Church, but tbh I really don't know how much they feel integrated into their local cultures. I'm sure it is more of an issue for them than here in the states. Esp since US culture has deteriorated to a point of almost no values. To others we are "nice" but maybe a little weird. Sometimes we are even embraced by various factions of society. The extreme prejudice against polygamy has seemed to have faded, and even forgotten. I'm sure such is not the case in Mexico.
  13. You have not "debunked" them. All you are doing is pointing to known issues with some of them. That leaves "many studies" undebunked. Even the studies which found no efficacy suffer from issues. They are not double-blind, randomized controlled trials. So debunk these epidemiological studies: Even as our own NY newspaper was musing over the mysterious drop in Covid in India, they had implemented ivermectin in their covid patients There are many countries who have had similar results - without vaccines: similar results in Mexico, and other countries. How many do you want? Better not report these in the MSM though. We wouldn't want the truth to get out. It is obviously much better to scare the public by calling ivermectin a dangerous horse dewormer.
  14. The little blurb in the link from the AMA doesn't say it. That is all I was saying. They realize it is from people inappropriately dosing themselves with Vet meds, but they didn't actually say that in the link. As far as I know no persons who have been prescribed ivermectin have called the poison control center. Maybe there are a handful of cases. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not going to look it up. Here is what the AMA statement was: "Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients. Calls to poison control centers due to ivermectin ingestion have increased five-fold from their pre-pandemic baseline."
  15. I never claimed a conspiracy - I don't really appreciate your attempts to paint me as a conspiracy theorist. Maybe there is some conspiracy between Pfizer and CNN, but I think not. I think CNN is just pandering to the money, and rehashing some sound bites. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I think our medical establishment is sometimes overly cautious about medications. I don't really see a need for that in this case. It is not like ivermectin is some unknown dangerous drug. That characterization does make me suspicious of ulterior motives when it is demonstrably false. Calling it a horse dewormer is in the same category. It is a false narrative formed by someone, and I have to question who, and why. I could understand the caution if ivermectin was actually dangerous and had substantial risks - but it does not(maybe if you are pregnant, etc). The link you gave to the AMAs new position again calls ivermectin "harmful" citing a 5 fold increase in calls to poison control centers. What they do not say is those calls are all from people taking stronger formulations of horse dewormer and other veterinary versions. Well, any drug can be abused. If they could get prescriptions, I'm sure people wouldn't be resorting to such ill-advised tactics. Vitamin D has no studies showing it is efficacious(or at least conflicting studies), but are we going to disallow it? It is about the same logic. At least ivermectin has many studies showing at least some efficacy. There are many practitioners dealing with their patients who feel it is efficacious. Your insistence that other equally questionable studies found no efficacy, and no medical organizations are willing to recommend ivermectin without double blind, randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed places is not persuasive to me. I don't claim some kind of "conspiracy." I think they are just demanding a quality of evidence that is not there yet. If anything, I'd say you are the conspiracy theorist since you believe all 64 studies are somehow ignoring or skewing the evidence. So, I'd say the burden is on you to show that - a handful of studies that showed no efficacy just aren't enough. Look, I posted on the thread with what I thought was really good news about paxlovid, and then I mentioned ivermectin, and it seems like I stirred up some hornets nest. I find the evidence persuasive enough to trust ivermectin. You don't. I have no problem with that. I do not believe there is some international conspiracy to skew the evidence. There are studies from Israel and many other countries. It seems covid rates have dramatically dropped wherever ivermectin's use has been widely implemented. I do not recommend people go take horse dewormer not knowing what dosage of this medicine they are going to get or even need. I didn't come to the thread to be some champion for ivermectin. It just seems to be one of the very few efficacious treatments for covid. I believe Paxlovid will end up being a much better covid treatment - probably the best so far. I see no reason to limit myself to partially efficacious vaccines - that do have risks. We are never going to reduce the risks to 0. I am just ready to move on, and I would rather our whole society do so, but obviously that is not in my power, so I can only do what I feel is right for me. I took the precautions. I used a mask. I got double vaccinated. I respected the elderly, and practiced social distancing. I will still do that around the elderly or compromised individuals, and even wear a mask if they want me to, but I feel its time to get on with our lives. I tell you what. When Novavax's vaccine is approved, message me, and I will consider taking it, but until then, I'm good. I resent the federal government ignoring its constitutional mandate (that it received from the states) and trying to force this partially efficacious vaccine down our throats. Their messaging to the public outright sucked, and was practically the opposite of what it should have been - but that is not surprising from this inept administration. I find the current policy to not only be offensive, but unconstitutional, irrational, and not even based on the available science. Thanks.
  16. LOL, that might be very well true, given that most people do recover from this disease. Right now we seem to running at about a 1/2 percent death rate. I'm sure lots of hospitals serve pizza. However, my mother was in the extreme health risk category, where many do not recover. I sincerely doubt pizza cured her... esp given her propensity to never eat it.... 😉
  17. I can blame CNN for providing false and misleading information. It is verifiably false. When conservatives do this, they jump all over it. Why would they provide verifiably false information which seems designed to scare the viewer? Do you think it may be that big pharma, Merck who initially produced ivermectin, and Pfizer are making TONS of money off their vaccines, and now their new antivirals(probably), and don't want this cheap treatment as competition? Do you think that might have anything to do with it when Pfizer is sponsoring so many CNN "informercials?" Because that is what they are at this point. Their "news" is more like infomercials for Pfizer. Don't get me wrong. I am all for their coming out with better antivirals, and really a better vaccine. I think Novavax has a better one, but of course that hasn't been approved yet here... just "over there." As for the evidence, I realize that I wasn't relying on the "gold standard" of scientific studies on ivermectin. Because as of yet, there are none. We've been over this. Medicine usually believes it is not ethical to perform double blind studies when the placebo group is dying. It's a problem. So I have to go on what scientific studies there are, and there are actually quite a few. Do you honestly believe they were all part of a major conspiracy? I don't. I believe when a cheap drug surfaced which had some efficacy, big pharma saw it as a threat to their ongoing studies so steered the MSM away from it. Where else did this narrative come from that ivermectin is a "dangerous" drug used as a horse dewormer? Hell, even the horse dewormer version has less deaths than hand sanitizer in this country - which is exactly 0 compared to several for hand sanitizer. If the American studies on ivermectin do not appear biased, and are done well, I might change my opinion if they show no efficacy. Until then I have to go on the available science when faced with a need to treat loved ones. I would do it again. The fact that the US is almost blocking its use, may mean that thousands of deaths are on their hands. I hope they can live with that if further studies confirm all the international studies. My ongoing point is that given some at least semi-reliable evidence it is efficacious, with virtually no associated risk, what is the harm in using it? It is kinda like refusing to give the patient vitamin D. Neither are a "cure all" but it seems wise given the cost and risk profiles. I realize for some reason ivermectin hits a nerve - I believe it is because covid has become so politicized, but from a purely evidentiary standpoint, I would use it again given no other options, unless and until better evidence comes out. Isn't that what we are doing with the "vaccines?" We are living with an imperfect "solution" because that is what we have atm. And an intransigent administration that refuses to recognize the multiple studies showing natural immunity is better, and seem to still want to force you to keep getting "vaccinated." I am just putting my foot down, and demanding rationality, and an evidentiary-based policy.
  18. Multiply that by tens of thousands of patients all around the world, and you might have something. I used ivermectin for my mom, because there are actual studies showing results when looking at tens of thousands of people. If I had not, she might be dead, and you cannot prove that was not the case, as much as I cannot prove it was, because isolated cases do not prove much. Some people just get better, and hospitalization gives their bodies a little more time to defeat the virus... probably not the case for my 88 years old, 90 pound mother.
  19. It seems you are saying you need double blind studies to believe it does have efficacy, so when you say there are studies which "prove" it does not, it seems only fair to apply the same standard... Oops. You can't. That is my point. Providing equally "flawed" studies in the other direction, just doesn't work too well. When there are dozens of various kinds of studies showing it does. RCTs, epidemiological, etc. I am aware of two American studies currently being performed. Among the large U.S. nation-wide trials currently looking at ivermectin are the ACTIV-6 trial led by Duke University, which is enrolling 15,000 patients, and the 1,200-patient COVID-OUT trial led by Boulware and colleagues at the University of Minnesota. I believe there is a third, but my memory may be failing me. My point is given the dozens of international studies showing it has at least some efficacy, what is the harm in using it? Is it really some "dangerous" horse dewormer as CNN and the MSM are portraying it? NO. It has been approved as safe by the FDA, albeit obviously for a different use, and has been used in humans since its inception. It's not like I was taking some stupid risk on my mom's health. So why the resistance? Why the misinformation from the MSM? That doesn't bother you? Even if it wasn't efficacious, all I really did was waste my $190 and some change for vitamin D, etc. I would gladly do it again. It is apparent to me, that something made a complete turn around for my mom, and I wasn't going to wait another day watching her fade before "my eyes." (I wasn't there. I was arranging care for her from across the country.) Do you believe the providers that are prescribing ivermectin are nefarious and out to scalp the public? Is that your point? Do you believe there is no science to support what they are doing?
  20. It is NOT free. We are all paying for it through inflation. My mother only needed about 10 days of ivermectin. It completely turned her covid around. My brother had already taken her to the ER... that's how the diagnosis was confirmed. So no, a little too late for the vaccine at that point. All they gave her was an antibiotic and a steroid(and an anti-nausea medicine) and sent her home to wait it out. She got worse, until I arranged the ivermectin for her. So this was NOT "early" in the course of her covid. At 88 years old, and 90 pounds she was at severe risk I'd say. She had stopped eating, and was fading fast on the phone. So, I intervened. Sorry. Americans don't like that. Well, many in her situation have died because of the American stance. I really don't understand it. I think it is sad, and preposterous. We were not only glad to pay the $100 for the ivermectin and the delivery to her apartment, but I was glad to pay the provider as well. Very small price to pay compared to a hospital trip and probable death, because that is where she was headed. She could barely talk to me by the time we got her the ivermectin. And literally the next day she was eating and talking again. And my point is now we should have something better... Paxlovid... It seems the most efficacious treatment we have so far... but no one seems to care. They are all wrapped up in the ongoing drama. That's what I am hoping will change. Maybe we can finally get on with life. "There are also studies which show no efficacy." Please provide them. Do they survive the double blind, randomized controlled trial standard that the FDA is demanding of ivermectin? What's good for the goose is good for the gander... The providers on the street see first hand that ivermectin is efficacious. That is why they keep prescribing it... at some risk to their licenses and medical standing. It just helps a lot of people. Paxlovid sounds like it will help more. Hopefully, they won't try to charge $700 like Merck was planning for their less efficacious med, Molnupiravir. P.S. Of course I cannot prove that ivermectin was the key factor for my mom. Maybe the ER prescribed meds just needed a little time to kick in...what do you think? I also ordered her an antiseptic mouthwash, 10,000 IU doses of vitamin D, and some other goodies. I was following the i-mask+ protocol.
  21. Pulleeese. I am not rushing off to die. Did you not read that I took 2 vaccine doses? I am considered fully vaccinated... that is until the powers that be decide that I am not, and need another dose of this partially efficacious vaccine to be considered fully vaccinated. Your melodramatacism does not impress me. Why all the fuss? I am just saying if I get covid now, I don't feel I am at death's door. I have ivermectin, and soon will have Paxlovid... hopefully, and then acquire natural immunity as well.... so much the better it seems... although this government expresses no inclination that is so, and may still expect me to get jabbed again. Good luck with that. That is really not a rational policy...nor one based on science... but appears to be one based on fear. I will not comply to their fear driven media frenzy. If you wish to live in fear, go ahead. It is NOT good. It results in bad, irrational policies, and does have a negative impact on your physical body and mental health in such a chronic state. It tends to elevate cortisol, which in chronic doses is bad. So, I am treating covid pretty much like I treat the flu every year. I am over it, and refuse to live in the ongoing rat race. That is all. Enjoy your fear.
  22. I realize there are criticisms of some of these studies. They are not double blind, randomized controlled trials published in peer reviewed articles, etc. That doesn't mean they are not scientific. Doing these types of studies don't seem real ethical when the ones taking the placebo are dying.... That's a problem. The efficacy of ivermectin was found fairly late - the preferred type of studies take lots of time and money while in the mean time thousands millions are dying. Ivermectin was being used at a time when many didn't have ANYTHING to treat this disease. A fair number of the studies are epidemiological. When tens of thousands are being studied in meta studies, at what point do we say "that is not science? I'm not going to listen to it." That seems to be what the US is doing while dozens of other countries have been using it, and seem to be reversing covid spread. Just sayin'. Even if you take out a dozen of the studies, it still leaves dozens showing ivermectin has efficacy against covid. That is to say essentially ALL the science we have available to us shows that ivermectin has efficacy against covid. I have seen it first hand in my elderly mother. Well, if you want to pour over all the studies, here is a link: https://ivmmeta.com Personally, I have no trouble taking prescribed ivermectin if I get covid. I would probably rather take Paxlovid, but it is not available yet. As a cheap option, I strongly feel ivermectin is better than nothing, but that is not the point I was making in this thread. When we get Paxlovid, we seem to have a very efficacious treatment for this disease. I think that should lessen everyone's fear of this disease, and hopefully bring some of the overreaching policies to an end. I do not care to live with them. I feel they are being made to placate a population that is fearful - fear is a strong motivator. I refuse to live my life under the auspices of media-driven fear. I am trying to live my life as normally as possible, and just put covid in the rear view. This new antiviral is a great step in this direction - a return to normalcy.
  23. It is a completely different molecule than ivermectin, but still its mode of action is basically the same. A protease inhibitor is a protease inhibitor. Not a vaccine. Not an antibiotic, etc. Those are completely different modes of action. Saying these two drugs are completely different ignores this fact.
  24. I would rather get covid, and kill it while becoming immune, than putting up with mandates, the continuing drama, and repeated trips to get vaccine boosters which are making us poorer, and keeping the economy in bad straights. I got the Pfizer vaccine, because I didn't want to run up a hospital bill, but if I have something that is very efficacious against covid, I'm not scared of getting the virus anymore. I had already decided not to dose the vaccine again, because I believe in ivermectin. Apparently, Ivermectin binds to the spike protein of the covid virus, which prevents it from entering our cells. I found someone to prescribe it to my mom, and she started getting better the next day, and fully recovered. There are over 64 international studies done on ivermectin which all show it has some efficacy, yet our government stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, while seeking to make people lose their jobs. It's lunacy, and bad policy. Yeah, but the vaccine efficacy apparently wears off, making natural immunity after getting an infection rendered harmless by paxlovid superior. There are up to 40% of hospitalized covid patients who got your "preferred" vaccine - not great if you ask me. Many of those are going to be elderly, and without some kind of efficacious treatment, are at risk of dying. My mom is in her late 80s, and began to recover the next day after taking ivermectin. Yet, our government doesn't want to use it. FIne. Pay more for Paxlovid after it gets approved I guess. I'm just tired of the politicization of covid, and the turnabouts on policy. Having an efficacious treatment will hopefully get rid of at least some of that, which I am glad of, nevertheless, I feel the public was manipulated by promising something, and then reversing on it. If people aren't as scared, they will act more civil I think. If we had a vaccine which was 96% efficacious indefinitely, then yeah, I would agree with you, but that is not the case. I just don't want continuing jabs of a mRNA vaccine, for which risks of side effects will probably increase.
  25. Not really. It's mode of action is the same as ivermectin, which American medicine seems bound to denounce, while thousands die. (This is a different story, but I have my suspicions that ivermectin is no longer patented, so big pharma cannot make money on it, and therefore, want to sell their patented vaccines and antivirals.) Albeit, I'm sure Paxlovid is more targeted to the specific proteins that Covid needs. Nevertheless, they are apparently both active against covid by being protease inhibitors. Protease inhibitors have been used for a long time. Ivermectin happens to block the 3CL protease activity needed by Covid to break up proteins into smaller pieces it needs.
  • Create New...