https://today.tamu.edu/2021/08/27/texas-am-expert-warns-against-using-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19/

From the Ag school faculty-this thread pre-loaded with potential!!

Vs the variety of independent docs having success against COVID with it. Interesting.

Read the article please- he is just saying don't take animal meds as they have different dosings and carrier agents that could potentially interact with other meds.

Perfectly reasonable and short article.

Reminds me of a sign above the water fountain in our office: "Please don't spit tobacco juice into the fountain."

We joked, what was worse the sign, or that someone felt it was needed?

Ryota Hayami said:

---

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/08/27/texas-am-expert-warns-against-using-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19/

---

Thread title is misleading. TAMU doctor warns against taking Ivermectin for farm animals.

He even states in the article that Ivermectin is prescribed to humans but has different ingredient dosages than those used for animals.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Vs the variety of independent docs having success against COVID with it. Interesting.

---

No way to prove "success" vs mild illness anyway. Vax vs Unvaxx patients? Now ask those same docs how many of those patients had nasty side effects and had to go to the ER or call poison control.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Vs the variety of independent docs having success against COVID with it. Interesting.

---

Nobody is "having success" with ivermectin. Some physicians with no expertise in the relevant fields are giving it to low risk outpatients who are virtually all going to get better no matter what they take and then claiming success.

There's a reason those touting HCQ, ivermectin, etc. have over time retreated to an incredibly narrow and specific niche time frame and disease severity for which these medications supposedly work. Many of these (usually small) studies supposedly showing benefit are so blatant and transparent about their intentions that they exclude patients above a certain age, those with certain risk factors and my favorite THOSE WHO GET ADMITTED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME AFTER STARTING THE MEDICARIONS. They will sometimes literally claim that anyone admitted to the hospital within X amount of time was too far along for them to help. They are intentionally selecting for the lowest risk populations who THEY KNOW will almost always have mild disease no matter what. They've constructed a virtually unfalsifiable claim, one which would require such vast numbers of patients in multiple clinical trials to disprove that they are relatively sure nobody will ever bother to do it.

It's akin to consistently finding a parking spot at the front of the store at 11 PM on Wednesdays and believing it's due to anything other than the strong natural likelihood of such an event occurring.

Infection_Ag part of the deep state confirmed.

KidDoc said:

---

Read the article please- he is just saying don't take animal meds as they have different dosings and carrier agents that could potentially interact with other meds.

Perfectly reasonable and short article.

---

He's also just saying "vaccines remain a safe and effective way to protect against the virus." and "Ivermectin is approved for use in people, but only in the case of very specific parasitic diseases"

Both also perfectly reasonable. Your post comes with a weird tone and insinuation... what's up with that? Or am I just seeing something that isn't there?

La migra52 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Vs the variety of independent docs having success against COVID with it. Interesting.

---

Nobody is "having success" with ivermectin. Some physicians with no expertise in the relevant fields are giving it to low risk outpatients who are virtually all going to get better no matter what they take and then claiming success.

There's a reason those touting HCQ, ivermectin, etc. have over time retreated to an incredibly narrow and specific niche time frame and disease severity for which these medications supposedly work. Many of these (usually small) studies supposedly showing benefit are so blatant and transparent about their intentions that they exclude patients above a certain age, those with certain risk factors and my favorite THOSE WHO GET ADMITTED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME AFTER STARTING THE MEDICARIONS. They will sometimes literally claim that anyone admitted to the hospital within X amount of time was too far along for them to help. They are intentionally selecting for the lowest risk populations who THEY KNOW will almost always have mild disease no matter what. They've constructed a virtually unfalsifiable claim, one which would require such vast numbers of patients in multiple clinical trials to disprove that they are relatively sure nobody will ever bother to do it.

It's akin to consistently finding a parking spot at the front of the store at 11 PM on Wednesdays and believing it's due to anything other than the strong natural likelihood of such an event occurring.

---

So what you are telling me is, they are manipulating info to make it appear like ivermectin treats covid successfully?

---

Some are, yes. I believe most docs prescribing the medication have good intentions however.

Quote:

---

Is that like the people trying to convince us we absolutely need to / be forced to take a shot for a virus with a 99% survival probability?

---

I don't believe you should be forced to do anything. I've only said private businesses have the right to require it, and that is a good idea for healthcare facilities to require it. But even where it is required, nobody is being tied down and given the shot against their will. Many people are leaving their jobs and finding new ones over this topic.

That being said, the data for the vaccines need not be manipulated to show efficacy, which is the point. Whether or not someone is required to get it is irrelevant to this discussion.

La migra52 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Vs the variety of independent docs having success against COVID with it. Interesting.

---

Nobody is "having success" with ivermectin. Some physicians with no expertise in the relevant fields are giving it to low risk outpatients who are virtually all going to get better no matter what they take and then claiming success.

There's a reason those touting HCQ, ivermectin, etc. have over time retreated to an incredibly narrow and specific niche time frame and disease severity for which these medications supposedly work. Many of these (usually small) studies supposedly showing benefit are so blatant and transparent about their intentions that they exclude patients above a certain age, those with certain risk factors and my favorite THOSE WHO GET ADMITTED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME AFTER STARTING THE MEDICARIONS. They will sometimes literally claim that anyone admitted to the hospital within X amount of time was too far along for them to help. They are intentionally selecting for the lowest risk populations who THEY KNOW will almost always have mild disease no matter what. They've constructed a virtually unfalsifiable claim, one which would require such vast numbers of patients in multiple clinical trials to disprove that they are relatively sure nobody will ever bother to do it.

It's akin to consistently finding a parking spot at the front of the store at 11 PM on Wednesdays and believing it's due to anything other than the strong natural likelihood of such an event occurring.

---

So what you are telling me is, they are manipulating info to make it appear like ivermectin treats covid successfully?

Is that like the people trying to convince us we absolutely need to / be forced to take a shot for a virus with a 99% survival probability?

---

Why absolute death continues to be the only metric most of you consider with blinders on is baffling.