In article <5jf5jgp4190rr9co964lpmccvlusrrufs1@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>>Yes true, for the treatment of WORMS. If you have guinea worms then yes,
> >>>if you have Covid virus then no.
> >
> >> If you put Invermectin in your system it does what it does. If you
> >> have worms it gets rid of the worms. If you have COVID and have taken
> >> several other medications you ameliiorate or even get rid of Covid. Of
> >> course, in all cases, the use of the correct dosage is paramount.
> >
> >Stop spreading dangerous and completely false health information. Or
> >take plenty o invermectin and the problem will solve it self with you
> >death by suicide. Either way, posting this bullshit will harm or kill
> >people, so stop it.
>
> "Bullshit"? oh ye of closed mind?

that be you.

> Try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/

that's about prevention, not therapeutics.

you know what's even more effective at preventing covid?

vaccination.

> Bullshit bedammed! It works, and not just in a tiny study published
> in Pub Med.

it doesn't work, and in some cases, can make it worse.

since you like pubmed:

<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/>
Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the
use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
....
Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce
all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in
COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an
effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat
COVID-19 patients.

just in case you missed the last sentence:

IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.

instead of waiting 10 days for a ventilator, you can jump the queue and
be on a ventilator in just 5 days. once on a ventilator, the outcome is
not promising.

in other words, it makes it *worse*.

<https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-0634
8-5>
Conclusion
Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of
patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required
invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences
were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

another study found ivermectin doesn't have any significant benefit:

<https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/ivermectin-doesnt-s
peed-recovery-mild-covid-19-study-shows>
Early administration of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin didn't
significantly shorten time to clinical improvement in 400 adults
mildly ill with COVID-19, a clinical trial today in JAMA finds.

that's enough for now.

On 04/09/2021 01:32, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> Stop spreading dangerous and completely false health information. Or
>> take plenty o invermectin and the problem will solve it self with you
>> death by suicide. Either way, posting this bullshit will harm or kill
>> people, so stop it.
>
> "Bullshit"? oh ye of closed mind?
>
> Try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/
>
> Bullshit bedammed! It works, and not just in a tiny study published
> in Pub Med.

"Results: Ivermectin prophylaxis was taken by 76 controls and 41 cases.
Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis (AOR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.15-0.51) was
associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare
workers for the following month."

The result is meaningless, you just can't draw such conclusions on such
a small sample cohort size; there are just too many other factors that
can skew the results, so you need decent sample sizes, at least in the
highish thousands, to average these out.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 21:42:38 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <5jf5jgp4190rr9co964lpmccvlusrrufs1@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >>>Yes true, for the treatment of WORMS. If you have guinea worms then yes,
>> >>>if you have Covid virus then no.
>> >
>> >> If you put Invermectin in your system it does what it does. If you
>> >> have worms it gets rid of the worms. If you have COVID and have taken
>> >> several other medications you ameliiorate or even get rid of Covid. Of
>> >> course, in all cases, the use of the correct dosage is paramount.
>> >
>> >Stop spreading dangerous and completely false health information. Or
>> >take plenty o invermectin and the problem will solve it self with you
>> >death by suicide. Either way, posting this bullshit will harm or kill
>> >people, so stop it.
>>
>> "Bullshit"? oh ye of closed mind?
>
>that be you.
>
>> Try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/
>
>that's about prevention, not therapeutics.

Yep. That's how India uses it.
>
>you know what's even more effective at preventing covid?
>
>vaccination.

About 70% effective against delta I believe, and also, if you do get
infected the virus does not you so hard.
>
>> Bullshit bedammed! It works, and not just in a tiny study published
>> in Pub Med.
>
>it doesn't work, and in some cases, can make it worse.

As with all drugs there are circumstances where it is contraindicated.
That is why self medication should be discouraged.
>
>since you like pubmed:
>
><https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/>
> Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the
> use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
>...
> Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce
> all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in
> COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an
> effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat
> COVID-19 patients.
>
>just in case you missed the last sentence:
>
> IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.

That's another metastudy which does not appear to have filtered on the
way the Ivermectin was administered. In any case, as far as I know,
Ivermectin has not generally been advocated as a palliative or cure on
its own.
>
>
>instead of waiting 10 days for a ventilator, you can jump the queue and
>be on a ventilator in just 5 days. once on a ventilator, the outcome is
>not promising.
>
>in other words, it makes it *worse*.

Ventilators make it worse. The pressure fluctuations damage the
already crippled lungs and too often the damage outways any benefit.
>
><https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-0634
>8-5>
> Conclusion
> Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of
> patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required
> invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences
> were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
>
>another study found ivermectin doesn't have any significant benefit:
>
><https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/ivermectin-doesnt-s
>peed-recovery-mild-covid-19-study-shows>
> Early administration of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin didn't
> significantly shorten time to clinical improvement in 400 adults
> mildly ill with COVID-19, a clinical trial today in JAMA finds.
>
>that's enough for now.

Then there is https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04472585
AFAIK the results are not yet in. But notice the trials include some
with zinc. This makes sense. The virus multiplies in human cells. The
presence of zinc materially inhibits the viral replication. Zinc on
its own does not normall enter cells in sufficient quantities bu in
the presence of a suitable ionophore such as Ivermectin or HCQ the
zinc concentration inside the cells can reach a critical level.
Ivermectin or HCQ are of benefit if the zinc levels are sufficiently
high, which is why test results which ignore zinc are so variable. For
what it is worth I have been taking 30mg per day of zinc for about 16
months now.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 21:42:38 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <5jf5jgp4190rr9co964lpmccvlusrrufs1@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Yes true, for the treatment of WORMS. If you have guinea worms then yes,
>>>>>> if you have Covid virus then no.
>>>>
>>>>> If you put Invermectin in your system it does what it does. If you
>>>>> have worms it gets rid of the worms. If you have COVID and have taken
>>>>> several other medications you ameliiorate or even get rid of Covid. Of
>>>>> course, in all cases, the use of the correct dosage is paramount.
>>>>
>>>> Stop spreading dangerous and completely false health information. Or
>>>> take plenty o invermectin and the problem will solve it self with you
>>>> death by suicide. Either way, posting this bullshit will harm or kill
>>>> people, so stop it.
>>>
>>> "Bullshit"? oh ye of closed mind?
>>
>> that be you.
>>
>>> Try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/
>>
>> that's about prevention, not therapeutics.
>
> Yep. That's how India uses it.
>>
>> you know what's even more effective at preventing covid?
>>
>> vaccination.
>
> About 70% effective against delta I believe, and also, if you do get
> infected the virus does not you so hard.
>>
>>> Bullshit bedammed! It works, and not just in a tiny study published
>>> in Pub Med.
>>
>> it doesn't work, and in some cases, can make it worse.
>
> As with all drugs there are circumstances where it is contraindicated.
> That is why self medication should be discouraged.
>>
>> since you like pubmed:
>>
>> <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/>
>> Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the
>> use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
>> ...
>> Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce
>> all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in
>> COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an
>> effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat
>> COVID-19 patients.
>>
>> just in case you missed the last sentence:
>>
>> IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
>
> That's another metastudy which does not appear to have filtered on the
> way the Ivermectin was administered. In any case, as far as I know,
> Ivermectin has not generally been advocated as a palliative or cure on
> its own.
>>
>>
>> instead of waiting 10 days for a ventilator, you can jump the queue and
>> be on a ventilator in just 5 days. once on a ventilator, the outcome is
>> not promising.
>>
>> in other words, it makes it *worse*.
>
> Ventilators make it worse. The pressure fluctuations damage the
> already crippled lungs and too often the damage outways any benefit.
>>
>> <https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-0634
>> 8-5>
>> Conclusion
>> Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of
>> patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required
>> invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences
>> were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
>>
>> another study found ivermectin doesn't have any significant benefit:
>>
>> <https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/ivermectin-doesnt-s
>> peed-recovery-mild-covid-19-study-shows>
>> Early administration of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin didn't
>> significantly shorten time to clinical improvement in 400 adults
>> mildly ill with COVID-19, a clinical trial today in JAMA finds.
>>
>> that's enough for now.
>
> Then there is https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04472585
> AFAIK the results are not yet in. But notice the trials include some
> with zinc. This makes sense. The virus multiplies in human cells. The
> presence of zinc materially inhibits the viral replication. Zinc on
> its own does not normall enter cells in sufficient quantities bu in
> the presence of a suitable ionophore such as Ivermectin or HCQ the
> zinc concentration inside the cells can reach a critical level.
> Ivermectin or HCQ are of benefit if the zinc levels are sufficiently
> high, which is why test results which ignore zinc are so variable. For
> what it is worth I have been taking 30mg per day of zinc for about 16
> months now.

It doesn't work and just makes the situation worse for everyone. Not only
are the unvaxxed filling hospitals with COVID but now also because they're
overdosing on drugs that don't work. The perfect storm of stupid.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/oklahoma-doctor-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 at 12:55:12, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>already crippled lungs and too often the damage outways any benefit.
[]
The word is outWEIGHS. [Not commenting on the rest of what you - and
others - say (-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The squeamish will squeam a lot.
(Barry Norman on the film "300", in Radio Times 30 March-5 April 2013.)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 at 12:15:06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>In article <QzrYI.20419$F26.2499@fx44.iad>, RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar>
>wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Vaccines have been widely tested and actually work.
>>
>> They work so well, in fact, that fully-vaccinated people and countries
>> continue to get infected and in record numbers.
>
>far, far less than the unvaccinated.
>
>nothing is perfect in this world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KjzLrVUpUU&t=37s is a nice restful
version.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The squeamish will squeam a lot.
(Barry Norman on the film "300", in Radio Times 30 March-5 April 2013.)

On 03/09/2021 17.55, RabidHussar wrote:
> On 2021-09-03 11:49 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-09-03 6:40 a.m., RabidHussar wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-03 12:11 a.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 19:24:33 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>> <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott Alfter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <sgqf7k$11n$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ivermectin is an ANIMAL drug used to tread parasitic worms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been used in HUMANS for DECADES, and is safer than aspirin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes true, for the treatment of WORMS. If you have guinea worms
>>>>>>> then yes,
>>>>>>> if you have Covid virus then no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you assert that drugs that are developed with one purpose in
>>>>>> mind never
>>>>>> find other suitable uses?  If so, you would be gravely mistaken.
>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>> Viagra as an example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://qz.com/1070732/viagras-famously-surprising-origin-story-is-actually-a-pretty-common-way-to-find-new-drugs/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be true in one case but cannot be extrapolated to all cases.
>>>>> For
>>>>> Ivermectin the fact is it is not the case. Studies have not found
>>>>> it to
>>>>> be ineffective and using horse wormer or cattle *pour on* is
>>>>> definitely
>>>>> harmful.
>>>>
>>>> And yet:
>>>> https://rclutz.com/2021/08/19/greenlight-for-ivermectin-in-japan/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html
>>>>
>>>> or https://tinyurl.com/3u937bsr
>>>>
>>>> https://gumshoenews.com/2021/08/22/ivermectin-wins-in-india/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/06/india-could-sentence-who-chief-scientist-to-death-for-misleading-over-ivermectin-and-killing-indians.html
>>>>
>>>> or https://tinyurl.com/ymwzw4wr
>>>
>>> For my own life, I would much rather use Ivermectin than use a
>>> vaccine. Of course, it should be noted that long-term use of the drug
>>> will cause damage to a person's kidneys.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then you are an idiot.
>>
>> Vaccines have been widely tested and actually work.
>
> They work so well, in fact, that fully-vaccinated people and countries
> continue to get infected and in record numbers.
>

Not really. Here, the huge majority of those in hospital are unvaccinated.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 09:23:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 21:42:38 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <5jf5jgp4190rr9co964lpmccvlusrrufs1@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes true, for the treatment of WORMS. If you have guinea worms then yes,
>>>>>>> if you have Covid virus then no.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you put Invermectin in your system it does what it does. If you
>>>>>> have worms it gets rid of the worms. If you have COVID and have taken
>>>>>> several other medications you ameliiorate or even get rid of Covid. Of
>>>>>> course, in all cases, the use of the correct dosage is paramount.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop spreading dangerous and completely false health information. Or
>>>>> take plenty o invermectin and the problem will solve it self with you
>>>>> death by suicide. Either way, posting this bullshit will harm or kill
>>>>> people, so stop it.
>>>>
>>>> "Bullshit"? oh ye of closed mind?
>>>
>>> that be you.
>>>
>>>> Try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/
>>>
>>> that's about prevention, not therapeutics.
>>
>> Yep. That's how India uses it.
>>>
>>> you know what's even more effective at preventing covid?
>>>
>>> vaccination.
>>
>> About 70% effective against delta I believe, and also, if you do get
>> infected the virus does not you so hard.
>>>
>>>> Bullshit bedammed! It works, and not just in a tiny study published
>>>> in Pub Med.
>>>
>>> it doesn't work, and in some cases, can make it worse.
>>
>> As with all drugs there are circumstances where it is contraindicated.
>> That is why self medication should be discouraged.
>>>
>>> since you like pubmed:
>>>
>>> <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/>
>>> Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the
>>> use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
>>> ...
>>> Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce
>>> all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in
>>> COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an
>>> effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat
>>> COVID-19 patients.
>>>
>>> just in case you missed the last sentence:
>>>
>>> IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
>>
>> That's another metastudy which does not appear to have filtered on the
>> way the Ivermectin was administered. In any case, as far as I know,
>> Ivermectin has not generally been advocated as a palliative or cure on
>> its own.
>>>
>>>
>>> instead of waiting 10 days for a ventilator, you can jump the queue and
>>> be on a ventilator in just 5 days. once on a ventilator, the outcome is
>>> not promising.
>>>
>>> in other words, it makes it *worse*.
>>
>> Ventilators make it worse. The pressure fluctuations damage the
>> already crippled lungs and too often the damage outways any benefit.
>>>
>>> <https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-0634
>>> 8-5>
>>> Conclusion
>>> Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of
>>> patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required
>>> invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences
>>> were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
>>>
>>> another study found ivermectin doesn't have any significant benefit:
>>>
>>> <https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/ivermectin-doesnt-s
>>> peed-recovery-mild-covid-19-study-shows>
>>> Early administration of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin didn't
>>> significantly shorten time to clinical improvement in 400 adults
>>> mildly ill with COVID-19, a clinical trial today in JAMA finds.
>>>
>>> that's enough for now.
>>
>> Then there is https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04472585
>> AFAIK the results are not yet in. But notice the trials include some
>> with zinc. This makes sense. The virus multiplies in human cells. The
>> presence of zinc materially inhibits the viral replication. Zinc on
>> its own does not normall enter cells in sufficient quantities bu in
>> the presence of a suitable ionophore such as Ivermectin or HCQ the
>> zinc concentration inside the cells can reach a critical level.
>> Ivermectin or HCQ are of benefit if the zinc levels are sufficiently
>> high, which is why test results which ignore zinc are so variable. For
>> what it is worth I have been taking 30mg per day of zinc for about 16
>> months now.
>
>It doesn't work and just makes the situation worse for everyone. Not only
>are the unvaxxed filling hospitals with COVID but now also because they're
>overdosing on drugs that don't work. The perfect storm of stupid.
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/oklahoma-doctor-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus

Did you notice that earlier I had already written "As with all drugs
there are circumstances where it is contraindicated. That is why self
medication should be discouraged."

Then there is
https://worldfreedomalliance.org/au/news/india-charges-who-scientist-soumya-swaminathan-for-mass-murder-the-beginning-of-accountability/
or https://tinyurl.com/dwyxeusk

India hasw been a good test ground for Ivermectin.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 13:43:11 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 at 12:55:12, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>
>wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>[]
>>already crippled lungs and too often the damage outways any benefit.
>[]
>The word is outWEIGHS. [Not commenting on the rest of what you - and
>others - say (-:]

Yep. Shit sometime happens.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:55:29 -0400, RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> wrote:

>On 2021-09-03 11:49 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-09-03 6:40 a.m., RabidHussar wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-03 12:11 a.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 19:24:33 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>> <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott Alfter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <sgqf7k$11n$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ivermectin is an ANIMAL drug used to tread parasitic worms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been used in HUMANS for DECADES, and is safer than aspirin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes true, for the treatment of WORMS. If you have guinea worms
>>>>>>> then yes,
>>>>>>> if you have Covid virus then no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you assert that drugs that are developed with one purpose in
>>>>>> mind never
>>>>>> find other suitable uses?  If so, you would be gravely mistaken.
>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>> Viagra as an example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://qz.com/1070732/viagras-famously-surprising-origin-story-is-actually-a-pretty-common-way-to-find-new-drugs/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be true in one case but cannot be extrapolated to all cases. For
>>>>> Ivermectin the fact is it is not the case. Studies have not found it to
>>>>> be ineffective and using horse wormer or cattle *pour on* is definitely
>>>>> harmful.
>>>>
>>>> And yet:
>>>> https://rclutz.com/2021/08/19/greenlight-for-ivermectin-in-japan/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html
>>>>
>>>> or https://tinyurl.com/3u937bsr
>>>>
>>>> https://gumshoenews.com/2021/08/22/ivermectin-wins-in-india/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/06/india-could-sentence-who-chief-scientist-to-death-for-misleading-over-ivermectin-and-killing-indians.html
>>>>
>>>> or https://tinyurl.com/ymwzw4wr
>>>
>>> For my own life, I would much rather use Ivermectin than use a
>>> vaccine. Of course, it should be noted that long-term use of the drug
>>> will cause damage to a person's kidneys.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then you are an idiot.
>>
>> Vaccines have been widely tested and actually work.
>
>They work so well, in fact, that fully-vaccinated people and countries
>continue to get infected and in record numbers.

FWIW, I strongly support your decision to use ivermectin and I think you
should take it proactively and in large daily doses. Don't wait for
symptoms to appear, start taking it right away. What could it possibly
hurt? Better safe than sorry.

On 16/09/2021 04:46, Nihilist wrote:
>
> FWIW, I strongly support your decision to use ivermectin and I think you
> should take it proactively and in large daily doses. Don't wait for
> symptoms to appear, start taking it right away. What could it possibly
> hurt? Better safe than sorry.

After all that has gone before in this thread, this is just rank
stupidity; as others besides myself have already pointed out here,
ivermectin has side effects which are potentially more serious than the
disease itself, and there is zilch convincing evidence that it actually
does anything at all to protect from covid-19.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:

> Nihilist wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I strongly support your decision to use ivermectin and I think you
>> should take it proactively and in large daily doses. Don't wait for
>> symptoms to appear, start taking it right away. What could it possibly
>> hurt? Better safe than sorry.
>
> After all that has gone before in this thread, this is just rank
> stupidity; as others besides myself have already pointed out here,
> ivermectin has side effects which are potentially more serious than the
> disease itself, and there is zilch convincing evidence that it actually
> does anything at all to protect from covid-19.

Whoosh!

On 16/09/2021 12.27, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/09/2021 04:46, Nihilist wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I strongly support your decision to use ivermectin and I think you
>> should take it proactively and in large daily doses. Don't wait for
>> symptoms to appear, start taking it right away. What could it possibly
>> hurt? Better safe than sorry.
>
> After all that has gone before in this thread, this is just rank
> stupidity; as others besides myself have already pointed out here,
> ivermectin has side effects which are potentially more serious than the
> disease itself, and there is zilch convincing evidence that it actually
> does anything at all to protect from covid-19.
>

What's wrong with aiding him to win the Darwin Prize? >;-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 16/09/2021 11:34, Andy Burns wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> Nihilist wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I strongly support your decision to use ivermectin and I think you
>>> should take it proactively and in large daily doses. Don't wait for
>>> symptoms to appear, start taking it right away. What could it possibly
>>> hurt? Better safe than sorry.
>>
>> After all that has gone before in this thread, this is just rank
>> stupidity; as others besides myself have already pointed out here,
>> ivermectin has side effects which are potentially more serious than
>> the disease itself, and there is zilch convincing evidence that it
>> actually does anything at all to protect from covid-19.
>
> Whoosh!

Yes, but ... that's the danger of fake news generally isn't it? Think
Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and a fish-tank cleaner that happened to
contain chloroquine, and a stupid and avoidable death.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Nihilist wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:55:29 -0400, RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-09-03 11:49 a.m., Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-03 6:40 a.m., RabidHussar wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-03 12:11 a.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 19:24:33 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>>> <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott Alfter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <sgqf7k$11n$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ivermectin is an ANIMAL drug used to tread parasitic worms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's been used in HUMANS for DECADES, and is safer than aspirin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes true, for the treatment of WORMS. If you have guinea worms
>>>>>>>> then yes,
>>>>>>>> if you have Covid virus then no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you assert that drugs that are developed with one purpose in
>>>>>>> mind never
>>>>>>> find other suitable uses?  If so, you would be gravely mistaken.
>>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>>> Viagra as an example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://qz.com/1070732/viagras-famously-surprising-origin-story-is-actually-a-pretty-common-way-to-find-new-drugs/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be true in one case but cannot be extrapolated to all cases. For
>>>>>> Ivermectin the fact is it is not the case. Studies have not found it to
>>>>>> be ineffective and using horse wormer or cattle *pour on* is definitely
>>>>>> harmful.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet:
>>>>> https://rclutz.com/2021/08/19/greenlight-for-ivermectin-in-japan/
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html
>>>>>
>>>>> or https://tinyurl.com/3u937bsr
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gumshoenews.com/2021/08/22/ivermectin-wins-in-india/
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/06/india-could-sentence-who-chief-scientist-to-death-for-misleading-over-ivermectin-and-killing-indians.html
>>>>>
>>>>> or https://tinyurl.com/ymwzw4wr
>>>>
>>>> For my own life, I would much rather use Ivermectin than use a
>>>> vaccine. Of course, it should be noted that long-term use of the drug
>>>> will cause damage to a person's kidneys.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you are an idiot.
>>>
>>> Vaccines have been widely tested and actually work.
>>
>> They work so well, in fact, that fully-vaccinated people and countries
>> continue to get infected and in record numbers.
>
> FWIW, I strongly support your decision to use ivermectin and I think you
> should take it proactively and in large daily doses. Don't wait for
> symptoms to appear, start taking it right away. What could it possibly
> hurt? Better safe than sorry.
>

You take a REASONABLE dose, and it works. It's safer than Tylenol.

But of course, you're being a sarcastic fuckface, so I'll just
leave this here:

"Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-
scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin."

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html

33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are "Covid-free."

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html

On 17/09/2021 04:11, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>
> You take a REASONABLE dose, and it works. It's safer than Tylenol.

There is to date no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
with sample sizes that are fit for purpose - at least in the mid to
highish thousands - that ivermectin does anything at all to prevent
being infected with covid-19.

> But of course, you're being a sarcastic fuckface, so I'll just
> leave this here:

Yes, a smiley would have appropriate.

> "Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-
> scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin."
>
> https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html

Since before covid-19, there has been a great deal of controversy over
the Indian government's drug regulatory body, the CDSCO, approving drugs
on insufficient evidence, and this appears to be happening all over
again with covid-19:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/11/drug-regulator-india-failed-pandemic-stress/

"India’s drug regulator has failed the pandemic stress test. The U.S.
should take notice

[...]

A decade of regulatory failures

These regulatory failures did not emerge with the Covid-19 pandemic.
They reflect more than a decade of such failures in India.

In the past decade, the CDSCO has been the subject of two parliamentary
investigations and one sweeping injunction by the Indian Supreme Court.
In 2012, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family
Welfare exposed shocking lapses in how four new drugs that had never
been authorized in better regulated markets like those in Europe or the
United States received approval in India.

A subsequent inquiry report into the manner of these approvals was made
public, earlier this year, only after a long battle under India’s Right
to Information Act forced the government to publish the report after
claiming for years that the report was not traceable.

No action was taken against the officers within the CDSCO found to be
responsible for approving these questionable drugs."

> 33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are "Covid-free."
>
> https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html

Caption to photo: "On the vaccination front, around 7 crore people in
the state have received their first dose of the jab"

A crore is a regional unit of 10,000,000, that's the reason why they
have so few cases.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 22:46:01 -0500, Nihilist <argus@argus.invalid>
wrote:

---<snip>---

>FWIW, I strongly support your decision to use ivermectin and I think you
>should take it proactively and in large daily doses. Don't wait for
>symptoms to appear, start taking it right away. What could it possibly
>hurt? Better safe than sorry.

See the following from Pubmed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/

"Conclusion: Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 µg/kg
with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of
SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following
month. Chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of
pandemic.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 18/09/2021 01:41, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> See the following from Pubmed
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/
>
> "Conclusion: Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 µg/kg
> with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of
> SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following
> month. Chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of
> pandemic.

See the following debunking of the above, similar to what I posted
several days ago after you linked to the above previously ...

"Results: Ivermectin prophylaxis was taken by 76 controls and 41 cases.
Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis (AOR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.15-0.51) was
associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare
workers for the following month."

This result is meaningless, you just can't draw such conclusions based
on such a small sample cohort size, because there are just too many
other factors that can skew the results, so you need decent sample
sizes, at least in the mid to highish thousands, to average these out.

.... so now, like any true quasi-religious zealot, you are relinking and
requoting suspect material that has already been debunked, thus proving
that your adherence to this folly is irrational and quasi-religious in
nature.

And something that perhaps I should have added before, but didn't think
of at the time, do not give undue weight to the fact that this report is
held on an nih.gov server - so are lots of others from around the
world, and just as your local library contains a lot of books that are
not recommended reading and/or that you would not wish to read,
pre-print servers contain a lot of academic write-ups that have not been
peer-reviewed, may never be, and so never make it onto the pages of
accredited scientific journals.

The people who decide what to hold on these servers are most probably
archivists and librarians, not top medically trained staff, and see
their role as being to make all information available, regardless of its
quality. It's up to specialists in the field who might want to use the
documents to decide whether any one given document is of sufficient
quality to be given any weight during their research. However, when a
server is freely available online, any fool can plonk a term into a
search engine and arrive at any document on the server, and not know the
questions that should be asked of it to determined its quality and
usefulness. Your linking to the above is a case in point. Among, the
first questions to be asked are:

? Does it come from a reliable source

In this case, probably not, partly because of corruption of the drug
approval process that is currently affecting that country, which I've
linked previously, partly because of the problematic methods used ...

? Is a randomised control trial?

No, "A hospital-based matched case-control study ..."

? What is the sample size?

"76 controls and 41 cases" = totally inadequate to be able to draw any
meaningful conclusions.

Other problems: "Exposure was defined as the intake of ivermectin and/or
hydroxychloroquine and/or vitamin-C and/or other prophylaxis for
COVID-19." Well, which exactly? Who, exactly, was given what, exactly?
The report summary fails to make this clear. In reasonable
quantities, Vitamin-C will always be helpful anyway, its role in helping
combat disease has been known for centuries: that's how British seamen
acquired the American slang name 'limies', because they were given a
measure of lime/lemon/orange juice, which is high in Vitamin C, to drink
every day because of its ability to prevent scurvy; that's why we all
drink Lemsips when we have a cold. So if all the 'cases' were given
Vitamin C, how can the so-called study differentiate between the known
real effects of Vitamin C and the claimed effects of ivermectin?

Useless, no conclusions can be drawn from this mismash.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 04:11, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>>
>> You take a REASONABLE dose, and it works. It's safer than Tylenol.
>
> There is to date no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with
> sample sizes that are fit for purpose  -  at least in the mid to highish
> thousands  -  that ivermectin does anything at all to prevent being infected
> with covid-19.

ivmmeta.com documents 32 randomized controlled trials with 6,648
patients. It shows 84% improvement with ivermectin as a prophylaxis,
63% improvement with early treatment, and 30% improvement with late
treatment.

>> But of course, you're being a sarcastic fuckface, so I'll just
>> leave this here:
>
> Yes, a smiley would have appropriate.
>
>> "Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-
>> scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin."
>>
>> https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html
>>
>
> Since before covid-19, there has been a great deal of controversy over the
> Indian government's drug regulatory body, the CDSCO, approving drugs on
> insufficient evidence, and this appears to be happening all over again with
> covid-19:
>
> https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/11/drug-regulator-india-failed-pandemic-stress/
>
> "India’s drug regulator has failed the pandemic stress test. The U.S. should
> take notice
>
> [...]
>
> A decade of regulatory failures
>
> These regulatory failures did not emerge with the Covid-19 pandemic. They
> reflect more than a decade of such failures in India.
>
> In the past decade, the CDSCO has been the subject of two parliamentary
> investigations and one sweeping injunction by the Indian Supreme Court. In 2012,
> the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare exposed
> shocking lapses in how four new drugs that had never been authorized in better
> regulated markets like those in Europe or the United States received approval in
> India.
>
> A subsequent inquiry report into the manner of these approvals was made public,
> earlier this year, only after a long battle under India’s Right to Information
> Act forced the government to publish the report after claiming for years that
> the report was not traceable.
>
> No action was taken against the officers within the CDSCO found to be
> responsible for approving these questionable drugs."
>
>> 33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are "Covid-free."
>>
>> https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html
>>
>
> Caption to photo: "On the vaccination front, around 7 crore people in the state
> have received their first dose of the jab"
>
> A crore is a regional unit of 10,000,000, that's the reason why they have so few
> cases.
>

Uttar Pradesh is a densely populated state of 241 million people. It
recently recorded only 199 active infections. Even IF the vaccines
worked as well as the shills claimed (and this is only the first dose),
there's NO WAY you can get down to a number that low.

On 19/09/2021 04:53, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
>> On 17/09/2021 04:11, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
>>>
>>> You take a REASONABLE dose, and it works. It's safer than Tylenol.
>>
>> There is to date no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with
>> sample sizes that are fit for purpose  -  at least in the mid to highish
>> thousands  -  that ivermectin does anything at all to prevent being infected
>> with covid-19.
>
> ivmmeta.com documents 32 randomized controlled trials with

.... a total of ...

> 6,648
> patients.

.... whose data cannot be legitimately combined in the manner it is there
due to the widely differing methodologies of the original studies.

> It shows 84% improvement with ivermectin as a prophylaxis,
> 63% improvement with early treatment, and 30% improvement with late
> treatment.

Again, debunked already here in recent weeks, as in:

> h t t p s : / / i v m m e t a . c o m /

https://whois.domaintools.com/ivmmeta.com

Registrant Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248746532

Dates 283 days old
Created on 2020-11-23
Expires on 2021-11-23
Updated on 2020-11-23

So a website created within the last year which has not been updated
with new information since it was created, by someone very intent on
preserving their anonymity, and supporting widely discredited treatments
for covid-19. Not good, but let's see what it says about ivermectin:

Prophylaxis (preventative treatment): largest sample size 2,199 from a
study of healthcare workers in India (where there is also a long-running
background controversy over concerns about corruption within the Indian
drug approval agency), not evenly spread between controls and treatment,
and seemingly not a randomised control trial.

Early treatment: largest sample size 250, and shows NEGATIVE effect
suggesting that Ivermectin is HARMFUL rather than beneficial.

These sample sizes are way too small to be able to draw any meaningful
conclusions. [...] The above is junk science."

>>> 33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are "Covid-free."
>>>
>>> https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html
>>
>> Caption to photo: "On the vaccination front, around 7 crore people in the state
>> have received their first dose of the jab"
>>
>> A crore is a regional unit of 10,000,000, that's the reason why they have so few
>> cases.
>
> Uttar Pradesh is a densely populated state of 241 million people.

Most of whom are younger people than in the aged demographies of the
west such as the US and the UK, and therefore lest prone to suffer
serious consequences or death from the disease.

> It
> recently recorded only 199

.... known ...

> active infections. Even IF the vaccines
> worked as well as the shills claimed (and this is only the first dose),
> there's NO WAY you can get down to a number that low.

Not on its own no, but combined with social isolation, ring-fencing of
outbreak areas, etc, you can make all the controls at your disposal more
effective than if they were all just applied thinly across the entire state.

Anyway, Uttar Pradesh is not an exception within India, *ALL* of India
is densely populated, but despite the headlines of a few months back,
the country is 118th in the infamous international league table of
governmental mishandling of covid-19, I mean the league of death rates
per 100k people. India as a whole has just 32.8 per 100k, while the US
is up, or should that really be down, at 23rd with 203.8, the UK 24th
with 200.8 ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105

If ivermectin was any genuine assistance in preventing covid-19, then
countries where its use is widespread should cluster around the bottom
of the table having the lowest death rates per 100k, while countries
where it is banned or at least not widely used should have the highest
death rates, but, as to be expected from a drug that has no real effect,
some of each are at each end of the table, thus proving that it's other
factors, not ivermectin, that are determining a country's position in
the table. For example, it was widely used in many South American
countries, but they are mostly clustered at the top of the table with
some of the WORST death rates in the world, while it was also widely
used in India, but comparatively it is much lower in the table and have
fared better. Ivermectin was, at least supposedly, not approved nor
widely used in the US, and certainly wasn't widely used in the UK, yet
while both countries are near the top of the table, they have lower
death rates than most of the South American countries that used it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin

"Ivermectin
See also: COVID-19 misinformation § Ivermectin

Food and Drug Administration 201x logo.svg
U.S. FDA Twitter
@US_FDA

You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it.

21 August 2021[115]

In vitro, ivermectin has antiviral effects against several distinct
positive-sense single-strand RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.[116]
Subsequent studies found that ivermectin could inhibit replication of
SARS-CoV-2 in monkey kidney cell culture with an IC50 of 2.2–2.8
μM.[95][117] Based on this information, however, doses much higher than
the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be
required for an antiviral effect.[118][119] Aside from practical
difficulties, such high doses are not covered by current human-use
approvals of the drug and would be toxic, as the antiviral mechanism of
action is considered to operate by the suppression of a host cellular
process,[118] specifically the inhibition of nuclear transport by
importin α/β1.[120][121] Self-medication with a highly concentrated
formula intended for horses has led to numerous hospitalizations, and
overdose can lead to death, possibly due to interaction with other
medications.[122] To resolve uncertainties from previous small or
poor-quality studies, as of June 2021, large scale trials are underway
in the United States and the United Kingdom.[123][124]

Many studies on ivermectin for COVID-19 have serious methodological
limitations, resulting in very low evidence
certainty.[121][125][126][127] As a result, several organizations have
publicly expressed that the evidence of effectiveness against COVID-19
is weak. In February 2021, Merck, the developer of the drug, issued a
statement saying that there is no good evidence ivermectin is effective
against COVID-19, and that attempting such use may be unsafe.[128][129]
The U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a
recommendation for or against its use.[130] In the United Kingdom, the
national COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel determined that the
evidence base and plausibility of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment
were insufficient to pursue further investigations.[131]"

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/miracle-drug-ivermectin-unproven-against-141146354.html

"15 January 2021: Julie CHARPENTRAT - 'Miracle' drug ivermectin unproven
against Covid, scientists warn

[...]

"The policy decisions of ivermectin in Latin America have been largely
based on the analysis presented in a pre-print in early April," experts
at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health said.

A pre-print typically means a study that has been put on the internet
but not undergone peer review -- the process by which findings are
scrutinised by other scientists before they are published in a scholarly
journal.

The paper was later retracted after experts raised methodological concerns.

- 'No evidence' it works -"

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-03-eu-drug-ivermectin-covid.html

"March 22, 2021: EU advises against using drug ivermectin for COVID

[...]

Lab tests had found ivermectin could block replication of the virus that
causes COVID-19 "but at much higher ivermectin concentrations than those
achieved with the currently authorised doses," the regulator added.

Toxic effects at those higher doses could not be ruled out, it said.

"Results from clinical studies were varied, with some studies showing no
benefit and others reporting a potential benefit," the EMA added.""

That last paragraph is exactly what one would expect from a drug that
has no effect, small scale studies randomly influenced by *OTHER*
factors giving contrary, confusing, and misleading results. The few
that happen to come out favourably are then cherry-picked by fake news
propagandists such as yourself, and so the unfunny clown show goes on
and on and on, ad nauseam.

In all this, I'm reminded very much of a passage in what is arguably the
funniest book in the world, Jerome K Jerome's "Three Men In A Boat"
published as long ago as 1889, but still a delight to read:

A Voice in the Wilderness? <voice@wilderness.net> wrote:
>
>You take a REASONABLE dose, and it works. It's safer than Tylenol.

It's interesting.

Everybody has the right to their own personal opinions. But nobody has a
right to their own personal facts. The world just doesn't work that way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 16:31:15, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>A Voice in the Wilderness? <voice@wilderness.net> wrote:
>>
>>You take a REASONABLE dose, and it works. It's safer than Tylenol.
>
>It's interesting.
>
>Everybody has the right to their own personal opinions. But nobody has a
>right to their own personal facts. The world just doesn't work that way.
>--scott

Copied (with attribution); worthy of Scott Adams. (I take it this is
Scott Dorsey.)

Similar to "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to
your *informed* opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
- Harlan Ellison, cited by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2019-12-27
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Mike Jackson |\ _,,,---,,_
and Squeak /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Shame there's no snooze button
[1998] |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'- on a cat who wants breakfast
zzz '---''(_/--' `-'\_)

On 10/10/2021 18:00, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 16:31:15, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> A Voice in the Wilderness?  <voice@wilderness.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You take a REASONABLE dose, and it works. It's safer than Tylenol.
>>
>> It's interesting.
>>
>> Everybody has the right to their own personal opinions.  But nobody has a
>> right to their own personal facts.  The world just doesn't work that way.
>> --scott
>
> Copied (with attribution); worthy of Scott Adams. (I take it this is
> Scott Dorsey.)
>
> Similar to "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to
> your *informed* opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
> - Harlan Ellison, cited by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2019-12-27

Additionally or alternatively, use more reliable information sources.

BBC News - Ivermectin - How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 01:05:00, A Voice in the Wilderness?
<voice@wilderness.net> wrote (my responses usually follow points
raised):
[]
>Massive reddit Movement to Ban All Dissenting Coronavirus Information
>Even Harder
[]
You either ban something, or not; you can't "ban something harder"!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Is it OK to enjoy good work by bad men?
- Michael Hodges interviewing Mary Beard, for RT 2018/4/21-27

On 8/29/21 8:05 PM, A Voice in the Wilderness? wrote:
[...]> We need to begin a discussion about secession.

Send them on helicopter rides.

And would you please stop cross-posting to every group on Usenet?
Otherwise I'm going to add you to the helicopter passenger list.