At this point, the media's opinion on anything means nothing.CondensedFoggyAggie said:TheMasterplan said:We all know why the headline is what it is. It is also used for humans but it's more fun to use horsewormer so those on the political left can say, "LOL Trump supporters." That's why people don't trust the media and don't trust experts. Stop being political.CondensedFoggyAggie said:traxter said:Doctors and scientists have been advising against the use of multiple drugs for quite some time. They have advised against ivermectin use as well for quite some time. But suddenly, in the midst of a surge of people taking veterinary ivermectin from animal feed stores, using the term "horse dewormer" becomes part of some sort of political narrative to nullify its benefits?aggierogue said:bigtruckguy3500 said:coolerguy12 said:
Side effect of ivermectin is nothing?
Side effect of abortion is actively ending a human life. You know it's a terrible analogy but went with it anyway.
I would argue that if the doctor in good faith felt the requested treatment would cause harm then they should remove themself from the case and get another doctor assigned. I don't think that can be said for ivermectin.
There is harm to everything, even placebo. In this case the biggest potential harm is that millions of people think an antiparasitic drug will save them if they get COVID, and they're avoiding vaccination because of it. I'm not going to spell out all the potential consequences of that, but it's greater than the individual.
If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion should they be the ones finding another doctor to perform it? If a patient wants me to help them find someone to give them an abortion, I'm going to tell them to Google it themselves.
If this patient wanted ivermectin so bad, he should have found himself a doctor. We do not need judges telling doctors how to practice medicine.
ETA: if something truly has zero harm/risk/side effects, it would be pretty rare for it to have benefit. Something's do have a very favorable NNT and NNH ratio, but nothing with benefit is with zero risk.
Advil or Tylenol has very good benefit for headaches/body pain with little to no side effect when used properly.
Ivermectin is not the reason I'm not getting vaccinated. I didn't even ask my doctor about Ivermectin. He told me it is one of the drugs he prescribes. Many are prescribing it.
It's pretty obvious at this point that there is a campaign effort and a political effort to minimize or nullify a benefit to Ivermectin. The fact that the popular and consistent narrative is "horse dewormer" or "animal drugs" should be an easy tell.
Exhibit A:
Popular 54 year old podcaster (unvaccinated) takes Ivermectin (among several other things) and recovers after a single day of bad Covid symptoms.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CTSsA8wAR2-/?utm_medium=copy_link
Response:
CNN only focuses on Ivermectin and completely omits his quick recovery.
Oh, and he didn't take up a hospital bed.
It literally IS horse dewormer. Or would you prefer "river blindness and intestinal roundworm infection" treatment?
Actually, it's more like people with common sense that read what the vast majority of doctors say vs unverified horse dewormer.
Welp, when you inevitably move on to whale intestine antibiotics, I'll be sure to tell the media not to make fun of you.
Mayo Clinic doctor: Amount of people flocking to Ivermectin is astounding
10,860 Views |
111 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Another Doug
aggierogue said:At this point, the media's opinion on anything means nothing.CondensedFoggyAggie said:TheMasterplan said:We all know why the headline is what it is. It is also used for humans but it's more fun to use horsewormer so those on the political left can say, "LOL Trump supporters." That's why people don't trust the media and don't trust experts. Stop being political.CondensedFoggyAggie said:traxter said:Doctors and scientists have been advising against the use of multiple drugs for quite some time. They have advised against ivermectin use as well for quite some time. But suddenly, in the midst of a surge of people taking veterinary ivermectin from animal feed stores, using the term "horse dewormer" becomes part of some sort of political narrative to nullify its benefits?aggierogue said:bigtruckguy3500 said:coolerguy12 said:
Side effect of ivermectin is nothing?
Side effect of abortion is actively ending a human life. You know it's a terrible analogy but went with it anyway.
I would argue that if the doctor in good faith felt the requested treatment would cause harm then they should remove themself from the case and get another doctor assigned. I don't think that can be said for ivermectin.
There is harm to everything, even placebo. In this case the biggest potential harm is that millions of people think an antiparasitic drug will save them if they get COVID, and they're avoiding vaccination because of it. I'm not going to spell out all the potential consequences of that, but it's greater than the individual.
If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion should they be the ones finding another doctor to perform it? If a patient wants me to help them find someone to give them an abortion, I'm going to tell them to Google it themselves.
If this patient wanted ivermectin so bad, he should have found himself a doctor. We do not need judges telling doctors how to practice medicine.
ETA: if something truly has zero harm/risk/side effects, it would be pretty rare for it to have benefit. Something's do have a very favorable NNT and NNH ratio, but nothing with benefit is with zero risk.
Advil or Tylenol has very good benefit for headaches/body pain with little to no side effect when used properly.
Ivermectin is not the reason I'm not getting vaccinated. I didn't even ask my doctor about Ivermectin. He told me it is one of the drugs he prescribes. Many are prescribing it.
It's pretty obvious at this point that there is a campaign effort and a political effort to minimize or nullify a benefit to Ivermectin. The fact that the popular and consistent narrative is "horse dewormer" or "animal drugs" should be an easy tell.
Exhibit A:
Popular 54 year old podcaster (unvaccinated) takes Ivermectin (among several other things) and recovers after a single day of bad Covid symptoms.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CTSsA8wAR2-/?utm_medium=copy_link
Response:
CNN only focuses on Ivermectin and completely omits his quick recovery.
Oh, and he didn't take up a hospital bed.
It literally IS horse dewormer. Or would you prefer "river blindness and intestinal roundworm infection" treatment?
Actually, it's more like people with common sense that read what the vast majority of doctors say vs unverified horse dewormer.
Welp, when you inevitably move on to whale intestine antibiotics, I'll be sure to tell the media not to make fun of you.
Oh I know many have made up their mind and only things that validate it are considered 'truth', which is why so many unvaxxed are tragically filling the ICU. Great to know you think the media including Fox, OAN, Breitbart and all mean nothing.
Wakesurfer817 said:
Does your freedom to use an ineffective drug trump my freedom to have access to ER's and ICU's?
You can access it just like you can access I-10 during rush hour. It's gonna suck and take longer. But you aren't special enough to trump other peoples right to access.
The real problem is the doctor doesn't have hospital privileges there, and the person is not his patient. As far as I know he hasn't even done an exam.
If the lady wants something else done, she should pull him from the hospital. Forcing a hospital to allow a doc who doesn't practice there to treat their patients against their own treatment is dumb.
If the lady wants something else done, she should pull him from the hospital. Forcing a hospital to allow a doc who doesn't practice there to treat their patients against their own treatment is dumb.
If a judge is going to practice medicine without a license and overrule a doctor, I assume he's ok with a doctor without a law degree making rulings to counter his? If that woman went to this judge and said "make them treat my husband with witchcraft!" Would he do tnat too?
IMHO this is a judge way outside his lane.
IMHO this is a judge way outside his lane.
The American Medical Association (AMA) is calling for the "immediate end" to the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and for doctors to stop prescribing it for that purpose, amid a spike in the use of the drug.
Ivermectin, often used as a deworming agent in animals and sometimes for humans, is not approved to treat COVID-19 and has not been shown to work for that purpose. Poison control centers have recorded a five-fold increase in calls related to ivermectin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The AMA, the country's largest doctors group, is now joining in warning against use of the drug, joining the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.
"We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months," the AMA said in a statement, joined by the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. "As such, we are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial."
Ivermectin, often used as a deworming agent in animals and sometimes for humans, is not approved to treat COVID-19 and has not been shown to work for that purpose. Poison control centers have recorded a five-fold increase in calls related to ivermectin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The AMA, the country's largest doctors group, is now joining in warning against use of the drug, joining the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.
"We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months," the AMA said in a statement, joined by the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. "As such, we are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial."
It wasn't a judge ordering the treatment of Ivermectin, it was the patients wife trying to safe his life because the hospital was failing. I actually spoke with Dr. Wagshul today, via telemed follow up of my recent covid affliction. Dr. Wagshul said he testified for 1.5 hours in support of the wifes desire to have her husband treated with Ivermectin. I asked him how the patient was doing and he said he has improved significantly since starting the Ivermectin treatment.
I call BS on reports of poison center calls because of people over doing it on Ivermectin horse version or not. The LD50 for me would be the equivalent of treating an 18,750 LB horse or 15 tubes of paste in an 18 hour period. There is a lot of dumb people out there but not that dumb.
I call BS on reports of poison center calls because of people over doing it on Ivermectin horse version or not. The LD50 for me would be the equivalent of treating an 18,750 LB horse or 15 tubes of paste in an 18 hour period. There is a lot of dumb people out there but not that dumb.
The question I have on Ivermectin is that my Aggie Vet ( who I trust more than most doctors) said that liver damage can occur in animals if they are treated too often for internal parasites with Ivermectin. He said same could happen in humans and that in poor countries that have used Ivermectin for parasitic diseases in humans have to be monitored for liver issues.
He also said it was also known to be ototoxic ( cause hearing loss) in humans.
Any insight on that from someone who knows...... like one of our resident docs?
He also said it was also known to be ototoxic ( cause hearing loss) in humans.
Any insight on that from someone who knows...... like one of our resident docs?
The ivermectin question is irrelevant. Does he have privileges at that hospital or not?
The rush to Ivermectin is a reflection of a lack of confidence in governmental agencies and the medical community. Covid, its treatments, and mitigation efforts have become highly politicized. Had our elected leaders and agency heads not politicized every aspect of life, citizens would have more trust in them. When medical organizations cannot confidently state that sex is biologically determined, that only women can give birth, and that the object of mass protests (BLM or anti-lockdown) do not determine whether the protest is "covid-safe", they lose credibility. When governmental agencies pretend cloth masks and N95 are somehow equivalent (just wear a mask), they lose credibility.
Ohio: Judge orders Hospital to treat patient with Ivermectin. Patient recovered.
— Jarome Bell (@JaromeBellVA) September 3, 2021
Reports are that he has stabilized, but is not at all ready to come off of the ventilator. I don't know in what universe that is considered to be "recovered".
It cannot even be said that he stabilized because of the ivermectin.
Regarding the doctor, the doctor didn't review the patient's medical history at the time he prescribed the Ivermectin. He hadn't even bothered to request a copy of the patient's medical history from the hospital so that he could review it.
It cannot even be said that he stabilized because of the ivermectin.
Regarding the doctor, the doctor didn't review the patient's medical history at the time he prescribed the Ivermectin. He hadn't even bothered to request a copy of the patient's medical history from the hospital so that he could review it.
But legislatures can tell women what's okay and not okay? All these double standards are hard to keep up with.bigtruckguy3500 said:coolerguy12 said:
Side effect of ivermectin is nothing?
Side effect of abortion is actively ending a human life. You know it's a terrible analogy but went with it anyway.
I would argue that if the doctor in good faith felt the requested treatment would cause harm then they should remove themself from the case and get another doctor assigned. I don't think that can be said for ivermectin.
There is harm to everything, even placebo. In this case the biggest potential harm is that millions of people think an antiparasitic drug will save them if they get COVID, and they're avoiding vaccination because of it. I'm not going to spell out all the potential consequences of that, but it's greater than the individual.
If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion should they be the ones finding another doctor to perform it? If a patient wants me to help them find someone to give them an abortion, I'm going to tell them to Google it themselves.
If this patient wanted ivermectin so bad, he should have found himself a doctor. We do not need judges telling doctors how to practice medicine.
ETA: if something truly has zero harm/risk/side effects, it would be pretty rare for it to have benefit. Something's do have a very favorable NNT and NNH ratio, but nothing with benefit is with zero risk.
Wait, a poster on here said ivermectin is only effective if taken early, which is why a texagger who took it on day 7 still ended up in the hospital for 2 and a half weeks. So now we're saying that this person got a judge order to force the hospital to give them ivermectin and it magically made them better that quickly?
Also something about 99.999% survival rate for a fake virus
bay fan said:But legislatures can tell women what's okay and not okay? All these double standards are hard to keep up with.bigtruckguy3500 said:coolerguy12 said:
Side effect of ivermectin is nothing?
Side effect of abortion is actively ending a human life. You know it's a terrible analogy but went with it anyway.
I would argue that if the doctor in good faith felt the requested treatment would cause harm then they should remove themself from the case and get another doctor assigned. I don't think that can be said for ivermectin.
There is harm to everything, even placebo. In this case the biggest potential harm is that millions of people think an antiparasitic drug will save them if they get COVID, and they're avoiding vaccination because of it. I'm not going to spell out all the potential consequences of that, but it's greater than the individual.
If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion should they be the ones finding another doctor to perform it? If a patient wants me to help them find someone to give them an abortion, I'm going to tell them to Google it themselves.
If this patient wanted ivermectin so bad, he should have found himself a doctor. We do not need judges telling doctors how to practice medicine.
ETA: if something truly has zero harm/risk/side effects, it would be pretty rare for it to have benefit. Something's do have a very favorable NNT and NNH ratio, but nothing with benefit is with zero risk.
Well you know, just be thankful its only a double standard so far.
CondensedFoggyAggie said:aggierogue said:At this point, the media's opinion on anything means nothing.CondensedFoggyAggie said:TheMasterplan said:We all know why the headline is what it is. It is also used for humans but it's more fun to use horsewormer so those on the political left can say, "LOL Trump supporters." That's why people don't trust the media and don't trust experts. Stop being political.CondensedFoggyAggie said:traxter said:Doctors and scientists have been advising against the use of multiple drugs for quite some time. They have advised against ivermectin use as well for quite some time. But suddenly, in the midst of a surge of people taking veterinary ivermectin from animal feed stores, using the term "horse dewormer" becomes part of some sort of political narrative to nullify its benefits?aggierogue said:bigtruckguy3500 said:coolerguy12 said:
Side effect of ivermectin is nothing?
Side effect of abortion is actively ending a human life. You know it's a terrible analogy but went with it anyway.
I would argue that if the doctor in good faith felt the requested treatment would cause harm then they should remove themself from the case and get another doctor assigned. I don't think that can be said for ivermectin.
There is harm to everything, even placebo. In this case the biggest potential harm is that millions of people think an antiparasitic drug will save them if they get COVID, and they're avoiding vaccination because of it. I'm not going to spell out all the potential consequences of that, but it's greater than the individual.
If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion should they be the ones finding another doctor to perform it? If a patient wants me to help them find someone to give them an abortion, I'm going to tell them to Google it themselves.
If this patient wanted ivermectin so bad, he should have found himself a doctor. We do not need judges telling doctors how to practice medicine.
ETA: if something truly has zero harm/risk/side effects, it would be pretty rare for it to have benefit. Something's do have a very favorable NNT and NNH ratio, but nothing with benefit is with zero risk.
Advil or Tylenol has very good benefit for headaches/body pain with little to no side effect when used properly.
Ivermectin is not the reason I'm not getting vaccinated. I didn't even ask my doctor about Ivermectin. He told me it is one of the drugs he prescribes. Many are prescribing it.
It's pretty obvious at this point that there is a campaign effort and a political effort to minimize or nullify a benefit to Ivermectin. The fact that the popular and consistent narrative is "horse dewormer" or "animal drugs" should be an easy tell.
Exhibit A:
Popular 54 year old podcaster (unvaccinated) takes Ivermectin (among several other things) and recovers after a single day of bad Covid symptoms.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CTSsA8wAR2-/?utm_medium=copy_link
Response:
CNN only focuses on Ivermectin and completely omits his quick recovery.
Oh, and he didn't take up a hospital bed.
It literally IS horse dewormer. Or would you prefer "river blindness and intestinal roundworm infection" treatment?
Actually, it's more like people with common sense that read what the vast majority of doctors say vs unverified horse dewormer.
Welp, when you inevitably move on to whale intestine antibiotics, I'll be sure to tell the media not to make fun of you.
Oh I know many have made up their mind and only things that validate it are considered 'truth', which is why so many unvaxxed are tragically filling the ICU. Great to know you think the media including Fox, OAN, Breitbart and all mean nothing.
Oh, you got me. I must be a super conservative that worships Fox News.
Yes, those too mean nothing.
The legislation is there to protect the rights of the human body inside the woman. That woman can inject or not inject herself with whatever she wishes, well unless she is being extorted by her employer.
Ivermectin side effects per Epocrates:Gunny456 said:
The question I have on Ivermectin is that my Aggie Vet ( who I trust more than most doctors) said that liver damage can occur in animals if they are treated too often for internal parasites with Ivermectin. He said same could happen in humans and that in poor countries that have used Ivermectin for parasitic diseases in humans have to be monitored for liver issues.
He also said it was also known to be ototoxic ( cause hearing loss) in humans.
Any insight on that from someone who knows...... like one of our resident docs?
Serious Reactions
- hypotension, orthostatic
- tachycardia
- seizures
- Stevens-Johnson syndrome
- toxic epidermal necrolysis
- asthma exacerbation
- vision loss
- conjunctival hemorrhage
- hepatitis
- pruritus
- rash
- fever
- edema
- lymphadenopathy
- headache
- myalgia
- dizziness
- tachycardia
- abnormal eye sensation
- limbitis
- conjunctivitis
- ocular inflammation
- hypotension, orthostatic
- ALT or AST elevated
Honestly pretty typical side effect profile relative to most any drug. But liver issues are certainly possible.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The vaccine is FDA approved, but it is not well tested on all segments of the population. I'm not antivax, but I think accurate information is important.Aston94 said:I think the point is that the vaccine is much more well tested and FDA approved for use against the virus, and people are refusing to take it but are happy to seek out an off label use of a drug intended for livestock.aggierogue said:
Called doctor yesterday to ask about treatment if I get Covid. He said they would give me Ivermectin, some nasal inhaler I forgot the name of, and some other things. He's treated hundreds of patients already.
Family members in CC got Covid. Spohn hospital treated with Ivermectin.
Some of you act like no one is prescribing it.
Duncan Idaho said:
Also something about 99.999% survival rate for a fake virus
Is this survival rate not close to being accurate?
In my area, the local 10 county area has a death rate of 1.4%. It is decreasing since January when it was 1.5%. It just idiots marginalizing things to make a point.
Salute The Marines said:Duncan Idaho said:
Also something about 99.999% survival rate for a fake virus
Is this survival rate not close to being accurate?
It was in regard to the miracle cure crowd saying that this guy was saved by judicial overreach vs statistically he wasn't going to die.
If I gave everyone in the country black licorice as a preventative/treatment, 99%+ of them wouldnt die.
Salute The Marines said:Duncan Idaho said:
Also something about 99.999% survival rate for a fake virus
Is this survival rate not close to being accurate?
It's been discussed a lot on here. I believe the survival rate is in the 99.6-99.9% range until you hit 70 years old at which it's 97%. Chances of being hospitalized for those up to ~40 years old is about 3%.
The debate whether ivermectin works or not overshadows the statistics that most people will be fine and not hospitalized under this virus. It will also almost be guaranteed that those who take ivermectin will feel better and thus will be convinced that it works.
Adding:
https://ncov2019.live/calculator
Take it for what it's worth
The AMA is a liberal shill organization at this point. They're basically an extension of whatever the CDC says.PJYoung said:
The American Medical Association (AMA) is calling for the "immediate end" to the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and for doctors to stop prescribing it for that purpose, amid a spike in the use of the drug.
Ivermectin, often used as a deworming agent in animals and sometimes for humans, is not approved to treat COVID-19 and has not been shown to work for that purpose. Poison control centers have recorded a five-fold increase in calls related to ivermectin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The AMA, the country's largest doctors group, is now joining in warning against use of the drug, joining the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.
"We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months," the AMA said in a statement, joined by the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. "As such, we are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial."
I mean last year they said you couldn't get covid if you were rioting post George Floyd. Who cares what they have to say?
If I have a choice between something that has not been supposedly " proven scientifically" and basically giving in to a death sentence which is what going to the ICU and being put on a ventilator is... I will take the chance and get my ivermectin pills and at least try something. Just getting plugged into ventilator and hoping for the best is just stupid. Do something... try something!!! There are no guarantees that it will work or that it won't work. Can't hurt because if you are on a ventilator you have a good chance of never waking up.
What segment of the population is it not well tested?
It has been very well tested across a broad spectrum.
If you are referring to children then I would agree, I would not vaccinate my child against the virus unless they were immunosuppresed
It has been very well tested across a broad spectrum.
If you are referring to children then I would agree, I would not vaccinate my child against the virus unless they were immunosuppresed
Zobel said:
The ivermectin question is irrelevant. Does he have privileges at that hospital or not?
What is relevent is the patient and or the patients ward get treatment as requested to save his life. He was frigging dying under the failed care of the treating hospital who refused to administor Ivermectin. Dr. Wagshul was brought in as an expert witness in support of the patient.
That would be a death rate of 1 in 10,000. With more than 650,000 deaths, for the death rate to be that low, we would have to have had more than 6 and a half billion cases in this country. With about 12% of the country having had covid, our population would need to be more then fifty billion, about about seven times the population of the whole world.Salute The Marines said:Duncan Idaho said:
Also something about 99.999% survival rate for a fake virus
Is this survival rate not close to being accurate?
eric76 said:That would be a death rate of 1 in 10,000. With more than 650,000 deaths, for the death rate to be that low, we would have to have had more than 6 and a half billion cases in this country. With about 12% of the country having had covid, our population would need to be more then fifty billion, about about seven times the population of the whole world.Salute The Marines said:Duncan Idaho said:
Also something about 99.999% survival rate for a fake virus
Is this survival rate not close to being accurate?
40,765,356 documented cases
665,858 deaths
1 in 61.22 chance of dying
1 dies
60.22 live
~ 98.36 % survival based on reported data
Now how many asymptotic cases have not been reported ?
And how many death certificates were signed COVID when that wasn't the real cause ?
I personally know of 2
Quote:
One of the largest trials, called the Together Trial, was halted last month because the drug had been shown to be no better than a placebo at preventing hospitalization for Covid. In July, a research paper indicating that the medicine reduced Covid deaths was withdrawn after questions arose about plagiarism and data manipulation.
That big trial must have been the one with 1,500 participants. Double blinded and they had to stop it.
Our local county has used this same cocktail for almost the whole time and they also include HCQ. Hospitals and clinics are all in agreement on it with good results
Pretty informative rebuttal to Rogan. Actually found that informative.bigtruckguy3500 said:
But I have a few questions:
1. The Z-pack addressing bacteria and not virus doesn't seem to be why doctors are prescribing. It seems it is being prescribed to prevent the lungs from getting a secondary bacterial infection. At least that's my take.
2. How is Regeneron (monoclonal antibodies) different than injecting the vaccine? Is this similar? Would getting Regeneron treatment basically be similar to getting vaccinated with the MRNA technology? For a dummy, what is the differences?
3. There seems to be mixed evidence on natural immunity (after recovering from Covid; Israel studies) and vaccine immunity regarding which provides better immunity. This doctor is obviously arguing the vaccine gives better protection and recovery/vax is the best protection. But I've read other evidence of the contrary.
I'm glad this guy didn't just isolate Ivermectin in his video. He seems more credible b/c he addressed each supplement/drug Rogan mentioned. He also seems to have done his homework on Rogan's arguments by showing other episodes and mentioning that he's a fan. Would be interesting to have this doctor on Rogan's podcast, b/c the female doctor (a personal friend of his) who came on his podcast was anything but convincing and no answers for Rogan's questions (I linked her video below).
aggierogue said:Pretty informative rebuttal to Rogan. Actually found that informative.bigtruckguy3500 said:
But I have a few questions:
1. The Z-pack addressing bacteria and not virus doesn't seem to be why doctors are prescribing. It seems it is being prescribed to prevent the lungs from getting a secondary bacterial infection. At least that's my take.
2. How is Regeneron (monoclonal antibodies) different than injecting the vaccine? Is this similar? Would getting Regeneron treatment basically be similar to getting vaccinated with the MRNA technology? For a dummy, what is the differences?
3. There seems to be mixed evidence on natural immunity (after recovering from Covid; Israel studies) and vaccine immunity regarding which provides better immunity. This doctor is obviously arguing the vaccine gives better protection and recovery/vax is the best protection. But I've read other evidence of the contrary.
I'm glad this guy didn't just isolate Ivermectin in his video. He seems more credible b/c he addressed each supplement/drug Rogan mentioned. He also seems to have done his homework on Rogan's arguments by showing other episodes and mentioning that he's a fan. Would be interesting to have this doctor on Rogan's podcast, b/c the female doctor (a personal friend of his) who came on his podcast was anything but convincing and no answers for Rogan's questions (I linked her video below).
The infusions are antibodies that are created. So, if you are sick, they help your immune system with passive immunity by infusing you with antibodies that tag the virus so your immune system can start to tag and destroy it more quickly.
Vaccine does the same thing but it is active and multimodal immunity. When you get mRNA vaccine your muscle cells crank out the spike protein and you immune system recognizes it as a foreign invader and makes antibodies (titers) and T cells also retain some memory of the pathogen. Then when you get exposed your immune system is ready and can win the war more quickly.
The best analogy is that vaccine is like having active intelligence and boots on the ground ready to roll. Antibody infusion is like sending in some troops once the fight has started to help but they have no reinforcements and are temporary.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Featured Stories
See All
Best & worst moments from Texas A&M football's 2024 campaign
by Olin Buchanan
22:50
12h ago
1.7k
Reed Report: Preparing for Aggieland's first top-10 hoops showdown
by Luke Evangelist
5 Thoughts: No. 10 Texas A&M 80, No. 17 Oklahoma 78
by Luke Evangelist
10:08
18h ago
4.6k
Phelps' career night wills Taylor-less Aggies to improbable comeback
by Olin Buchanan