SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> So,,after decades
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1691781704

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/23 at 12:21:43

Title: So,,after decades
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/23 at 12:21:43

The Science Changed,, and Then after the need for an Experimental Authorization is over,, now the science changes again.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fda-drops-ivermectin-bombshell

FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, said during oral arguments on Aug. 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

YaKnow,, the conspiracy theorists are absolutely killing it..

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Eegore on 08/11/23 at 15:44:28

They should be held accountable for being inaccurate or negligent, but nothing about the information you reference here says Ivermectin is effective in the treatment of Covid. You act like the "science" changed and now Ivermectin is effective - nobody is saying that in your reference.

Nothing about the science of Ivermectin has changed in your reference.

This is about how the FDA presented information on social media. The FDA never said doctors can't prescribe it, but the employers of these doctors used the FDA media as an excuse for sure.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/11/23 at 15:46:56

Inaccurate?? No, they LIED, because IF an alternative treatment existed, there could not BE any Experimental Authorization for the Jabs.. And you know that.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Eegore on 08/11/23 at 15:51:41

Except there is no substantial clinical evidence.

Your evidence is the India studies where the hospital didn't even have the equipment to run the tests and the patient birthdates changed multiple times. Then they admitted it was altered and faked. Also you used a Facebook post as evidence.

That's not science, you were lied to. Your reference LIED to you. But if you Observe that, you can't keep saying Ivermectin was proven to be effective.

For someone that gripes about people who believe anything they are told you sure hang onto information that literally says they aren't telling you the truth.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by MnSpring on 08/11/23 at 16:39:45

6545474F5245200 wrote:

" Except there is no substantial clinical evidence..."

Because it was not allowed !
Which, 'substantial clinical evidence', showed it did not.
(as well as other drugs)

' This is about how the FDA presented information '
Yep, and it was very clear,
the goal was to tell doctors they could not !

Remember the movie, 'Catch-22'.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Eegore on 08/11/23 at 16:58:05

Because it was not allowed !

The FDA can not stop all worldwide clinical outcomes from being looked at. There is not enough clinical evidence to support Ivermectin as a cure for Covid, globally.

Which, 'substantial clinical evidence', showed it did not.
(as well as other drugs)

All clinical evidence. All evidence will show something is not something until there is evidence that shows it IS something. What we need is more objectively verifiable proof at Ivermectin is effective against Covid. More trials would definitely help, but real ones, not the LIES referenced on this forum that literally say they aren't true.

Yep, and it was very clear,
the goal was to tell doctors they could not !

I think the goal was to tell normal humans they should not. The statement "You are not a Cow" on a social media post is hardly something I would expect to find in FDA guidance to physicians. No reasonable person would think a Twitter post is how the FDA directs physicians to act, which by the way is something they don't have authority to do anyway.

Should they be held accountable? Yes. Should we falsely claim a social media post was an unauthorized directive to physicians? No. Choose the right battle, be honest and say their information influenced the Employers of physicians.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/12/23 at 15:24:15

They did everything they could. They fukking Wrecked doctors who dared to claim anything counter to The official Narrative.

No
Alternative
Treatment
Could be allowed to exist.
Tap dance in your pretenses,, it's You, after all. Nobody expects otherwise from you.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Eegore on 08/12/23 at 21:33:48

No.
Information.
In your reference indicates the FDA has changed positions. You were lied to about that. But if you Observe it, you can't keep making the false claim that the "science" changed.

Why aren't you pissed at the employer of these doctors that fired them?

Why are other doctors that, to this day, that prescribe Ivermectin for Covid still working? Why hasn't the FDA gotten them fired?

Why do you consider a Twitter post from the FDA to be a directive to physicians?

The FDA obviously is presenting an agenda, but you don't need to misrepresent information that anyone could read and interpret themselves as false. Nobody is fooled when you use lies to show the truth.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/12/23 at 22:04:05

So you are saying there wasn't a push to make it so Ivermectin was not used?

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Eegore on 08/12/23 at 22:13:41

So you are saying there wasn't a push to make it so Ivermectin was not used?

No. I've never said - or implied - anything like that.

I am saying that the information you are providing here is not the FDA "REVERSING" positions. You were lied to about that. You were lied to.

I mean how can you even think they REVERSED positions when Your own post says they did not?

The information is specific to a social media post where the FDA compared humans to Cows and said to "Stop it". This is not a directive to doctors. However, the Employer of these physicians fired them anyway.

No reasonable person would think a Twitter/Facebook post from the FDA is a directive to physicians (something they can not do anyway).

Blame the FDA for what they actually did, not the made up garbage they they did not do.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/13/23 at 07:05:18

The government and media sang in unified voices that it COULD NOT BE USED.
Now it's okay.

The FDA APPROVAL OF THE JAB means it's okay to Admit Ivermectin works.
They Couldn't say that AND get the Emergency Authorization for the Jabs.

Now you can dance and work however you want. But everyone SAW what they did. You can try to play semantical gamez, nobody has Ever seen you do that.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Serowbot on 08/13/23 at 07:39:12

5E4147405D5A6B5B6B53414D06340 wrote:

The government and media sang in unified voices that it COULD NOT BE USED.
Now it's okay.

They "sang" that was not effective.
Now they've changed their tune to, "It's not effective but use it if you want to"
They added a verse.
In support of the right to be stupid :-?

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/13/23 at 11:58:40

Why was it not allowed before?

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Eegore on 08/13/23 at 14:39:32

Why was it not allowed before?

Seriously man. It WAS allowed. You were LIED to about that. Tons and tons of prescriptions prove it is allowed. But if you Observe this you cant keep claiming they REVERSED their stance.

The FDA has not Authorized Ivermectin for Covid treatment. This does not mean it can not be prescribed for it. You were LIED to about that restriction, or don't understand how this works.

Tons of drugs, daily, are prescribed for diseases they are not Authorized to treat, known as off-label treatment. There's a good chance this even happened to You. Your website reference removed that part about OLT.

The FDA has NOT REVERSED their opinion or Authorization on Ivermectin. That is different than the Emergency Authorization stuff.

You are right about the Alternative Treatment stuff regarding Emergency Use.

You are Wrong that Ivermectin could not be prescribed to treat Covid legally, which means you are wrong that the FDA REVERSED their stance. You were LIED to about that.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Serowbot on 08/13/23 at 15:47:12

It's mostly for pets.
But it's not for viruses. It's for parasites

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug. After its discovery in 1975, its first uses were in veterinary medicine to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis. Approved for human use in 1987, today it is used to treat infestations including head lice, scabies, river blindness, strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by WebsterMark on 08/14/23 at 10:05:40

4767656D7067020 wrote:

Part of my job puts me in touch with people on the CDC, and my understanding on the topic is exactly as Eegore stated.

Now, that’s not to say doctors weren’t intimidated by media reports not to prescribe it or evaluate it themselves. It’s absolutely true the possibility of it as a treatment was shut down. And the only reason it was shut down is because Trump mentioned it as a possible valid treatment possibility. When Trump mentioned there was research into various disinfectant techniques, even UV light, the media went crazy because they saw an opportunity to damage Trump. It was reported Trump told people to drink bleach and it was repeated verbatim even though it wasn’t true. Some on this forum repeated that lie and they probably still believe it to this day.

I have no idea if it’s a valid strategy against a Covid infection. Might be. I have no idea if the FDA has already evaluated it or has it on their schedule to evaluate in the future.

Title: Re: So,,after decades
Post by Eegore on 08/14/23 at 11:26:53

Now, that’s not to say doctors weren’t intimidated by media reports not to prescribe it or evaluate it themselves.

I agree with this, and also their employers, which is what happened in the case JoG presents. The FDA had nothing to do with it directly, as in they have zero power to control the doctor's prescriptions or the employers. I know a physician today that prescribes Ivermectin for Covid. The Twitter post from the FDA is a garbage argument to make, nobody truly believes the FDA provides physician directives that way, but people will pretend they do because they are mad. However the overall impact of the FDA's collective statements should be scrutinized. The FDA should be held accountable for that.

I also agree that this had more to do with Trump than the Emergency Use Authorization. I base this on the timing of the response and that physicians today can still prescribe Ivermectin, among other components I won't bother to go into, but the evidence points more towards Trump than EAU.

I have no idea if it’s a valid strategy against a Covid infection. Might be. I have no idea if the FDA has already evaluated it or has it on their schedule to evaluate in the future.

I think it's lower on the list now since multiple independent global trials have shown zero consistent positive results for Covid treatment, including ones from major anti-vaccine research centers. Its a drug designed for bacteria not virus. Trials have been showing the predicted outcomes of how that type of drug would interact, but I don't know how many it takes to make a final decision on this one.

If anything this shows how much influence a single made-up clinical paper combined with TDS can have. This combo hits both sides.