Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).

"It’s as if this was some super poisonous stuff, the way they scare people with such language, but is ivermectin so dangerous? Actually, it’s not—the FDA has approved ivermectin as a safe and effective antiparasitic, and the drug is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Merck, although trash-talking its own product for purposes of use targeting COVID-19, has even donated 4 billion doses to prevent river blindness and other tropical bone diseases, report Mr. Henderson and Mr. Hooper. The effort is known as the Mectizan program."

"And what about all the positive studies? There are dozens of positive ones while dedicated, knowledgeable doctors worldwide treat millions of people with the drug—and it’s working against COVID-19, often cutting the duration of disease time in half. Upstanding organizations, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), tout the drug as “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” The WSJ writers declare the drug’s under investigation in about 70 clinical trials with mounting statistically significant evidence, making it potentially a robust public health tool targeting COVID-19. This drug could also be predominantly used in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) where vaccination rates are slow. "

Ivermectin is the answer for places like India which will never fully vaccinate for a few years.

https://trialsitenews.com/wsj-brings-some-objectivity-to-the-media-asks-what-the-fdas-agency-is-with-ivermectin/

Free WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393?page=1

Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.

Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:55:14 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
>
> "It’s as if this was some super poisonous stuff, the way they scare people with such language, but is ivermectin so dangerous? Actually, it’s not—the FDA has approved ivermectin as a safe and effective antiparasitic, and the drug is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Merck, although trash-talking its own product for purposes of use targeting COVID-19, has even donated 4 billion doses to prevent river blindness and other tropical bone diseases, report Mr. Henderson and Mr. Hooper. The effort is known as the Mectizan program."

The fact that a drug is safe for treating one disease does not mean it is "safe" period or safe for treating any other particular disease. Don't try to over simplify things.

> "And what about all the positive studies? There are dozens of positive ones while dedicated, knowledgeable doctors worldwide treat millions of people with the drug—and it’s working against COVID-19, often cutting the duration of disease time in half. Upstanding organizations, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), tout the drug as “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” The WSJ writers declare the drug’s under investigation in about 70 clinical trials with mounting statistically significant evidence, making it potentially a robust public health tool targeting COVID-19. This drug could also be predominantly used in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) where vaccination rates are slow. "

You mean like Missouri? It is a sad situation when people have to get protection from disease in shame as if they were buying illegal drugs. Oh, wait, that's ok! Got any special K? No, I'm fresh out bro!

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/29/health/vaccines-in-secret-missouri/index..html

> Ivermectin is the answer for places like India which will never fully vaccinate for a few years.

Really? It's better to treat the sick than it is to prevent disease? It's not like we can pump out billions of doses of any drug overnight. Be realistic in your expectations.

> https://trialsitenews.com/wsj-brings-some-objectivity-to-the-media-asks-what-the-fdas-agency-is-with-ivermectin/
>
> Free WSJ:
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393?page=1
>
> Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.
>
> Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19.. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.

If that is so, why would the makers not want to sell as much as possible? Fighting viruses in a test tube is not the same as in a person. This is likely a matter of not enough information having been collected yet. Remember the many poor quality studies that reported how well hydroxychloroquine worked?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
>
A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
companies.
--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:23:37 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
>>
>A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
>then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
>That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
>companies.

It's best to read the FDA's actual statements, keeping in mind that
the FDA is *very* risk-averse. They are afraid of being mauled by
Congress, from long experience.

..<https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-frequently-asked-questions>

See Ivermectin Question under Drugs in the above.

..<https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/faq-covid-19-and-ivermectin-intended-animals>

Basically, until the direct double-blind clinical studies are done,
the advice will be No. However, doctors can still prescribe
Ivermectin, so it has been tried, and a number of peer-reviewed
meta-analysis papers published.

..<https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485>

..<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/>

The bottom line appears to be that while Ivermectin does work against
COVID, it does not work well enough to save us from COVID. But there
is little reason not to use it if nothing better is available.

Joe Gwinn

On 7/29/2021 2:40 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> The bottom line appears to be that while Ivermectin does work against
> COVID, it does not work well enough to save us from COVID. But there
> is little reason not to use it if nothing better is available.

Until the same set of antivaxxers claim it causes autism or has
microchips "in solution" that magically reassemble themselves once
inside the organism (and, of course, they are then TRACKED with
all the 5G towers going up!)

Gotta wonder how these deniers avail themselves of *any* medical
(or MODERN!) technology!

Are you sure your toaster isn't recording your morning conversations?
Or, that the "hum" from your refrigerator's compressor isn't actually
a special form of RADIATION that is going to sterilize you?

<rolls eyes>

Obviously, *prevention* is much better than treating an established
infection. Ask an HIV/AIDS patient (or, *any* patient, for that matter)

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:23:37 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> ><bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
> >>
> >A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
> >then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
> >That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
> >companies.
> It's best to read the FDA's actual statements, keeping in mind that
> the FDA is *very* risk-averse. They are afraid of being mauled by
> Congress, from long experience.
>
> .<https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-frequently-asked-questions>
>
> See Ivermectin Question under Drugs in the above.

Their answer is antiquated, not up to date.

>
> .<https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/faq-covid-19-and-ivermectin-intended-animals>

More obsolete and/or misleading statements.

>
>
> Basically, until the direct double-blind clinical studies are done,
> the advice will be No. However, doctors can still prescribe
> Ivermectin, so it has been tried, and a number of peer-reviewed
> meta-analysis papers published.
>
> .<https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485>
>
> .<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/>
>
>
> The bottom line appears to be that while Ivermectin does work against
> COVID, it does not work well enough to save us from COVID. But there
> is little reason not to use it if nothing better is available.

A multitude of double blind studies have been performed on ivermectin as a preventative and it does spectacularly well.

FDA has enough hard scientific evidence to issue an EUA for that use.

I tend to trust the Nobel laureates who promote its use more than the bureaucrats at FDA.

>
>
> Joe Gwinn

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 4:23:44 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
> >
> A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
> then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
> That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
> companies.

I don't think there are any studies showing spectacular treatment success, but there are now numerous studies showing spectacular success as a preventative. They might argue the best preventative in US is the vaccine, but our emerging experience with Delta variant shows that might not be true. The drug should be approved for EUA for at risk populations, the very old and immuno suppressed people.

> --
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 4:23:44 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
> >
> A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
> then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
> That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
> companies.

That is one of the least thought out statements I've seen posted on s.e.d. Are you John Larkin using a pseudonym?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:16:24 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> A multitude of double blind studies have been performed on ivermectin as a preventative and it does spectacularly well.

A veritable *multitude* eh? That changes everything! How many were actually good studies? Double blind is just one feature of a good study.

By "preventative" you mean a drug you can take that will provide protection for 8 or 16 or 24 hours? Maybe 48 hours? A vaccine protects for months at least.

> FDA has enough hard scientific evidence to issue an EUA for that use.

If they did, they would.

> I tend to trust the Nobel laureates who promote its use more than the bureaucrats at FDA.

You mean like Linus Pauling? I've heard great things about Vitamin C and COVID.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 3:46:37 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

> Really? It's better to treat the sick than it is to prevent disease? It's not like we can pump out billions of doses of any drug overnight. Be realistic in your expectations.

The dosing is 1mg per month per individual. Then that 1e-3 x 1e6= 1kg per month per million people and 1000kg for a billion people per month, a metric ton. So supply is not a real issue at all.

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:16:24 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > A multitude of double blind studies have been performed on ivermectin as a preventative and it does spectacularly well.
> A veritable *multitude* eh? That changes everything! How many were actually good studies? Double blind is just one feature of a good study.
>
> By "preventative" you mean a drug you can take that will provide protection for 8 or 16 or 24 hours? Maybe 48 hours? A vaccine protects for months at least.

That is a month of protection from 3-consecutive day dose, then stop dosing, wait 30-days, repeat.

> > FDA has enough hard scientific evidence to issue an EUA for that use.
> If they did, they would.

Get a clue. That's what all the fuss is about.

> > I tend to trust the Nobel laureates who promote its use more than the bureaucrats at FDA.
> You mean like Linus Pauling? I've heard great things about Vitamin C and COVID.

Nothing like going back 40 years.

>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 3:46:37 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Really? It's better to treat the sick than it is to prevent disease? It's not like we can pump out billions of doses of any drug overnight. Be realistic in your expectations.
> The dosing is 1mg per month per individual. Then that 1e-3 x 1e6= 1kg per month per million people and 1000kg for a billion people per month, a metric ton. So supply is not a real issue at all.

You seem to oversimplify this. To provide for everyone on earth it would be 7 billion pills per what? Even if the quantity is minimal, that doesn't address the dose interval. Is this a one per day pill, one per week, one per month, one per year? Do we just have a spray in a public doorway as people walk through? Or is it like the hand sanitizers at the entrance to every shop?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:45:34 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:16:24 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > A multitude of double blind studies have been performed on ivermectin as a preventative and it does spectacularly well.
> > A veritable *multitude* eh? That changes everything! How many were actually good studies? Double blind is just one feature of a good study.
> >
> > By "preventative" you mean a drug you can take that will provide protection for 8 or 16 or 24 hours? Maybe 48 hours? A vaccine protects for months at least.
> That is a month of protection from 3-consecutive day dose, then stop dosing, wait 30-days, repeat.

So that's 36 doses times 7 billion each year. Still not an easy number to produce. Why is that better than 14 billion total?

> > > FDA has enough hard scientific evidence to issue an EUA for that use.
> > If they did, they would.
> Get a clue. That's what all the fuss is about.

There's lots of fuss about a lot of things... such as Hydroxychloroquine. Sure seems a lot alike to me. Why is this different in terms of the FDA response?

> > > I tend to trust the Nobel laureates who promote its use more than the bureaucrats at FDA.
> > You mean like Linus Pauling? I've heard great things about Vitamin C and COVID.
> Nothing like going back 40 years.

Oh, so human nature has changed tremendously in 40 years? "Get a clue". Vitamin C is hugely promoted for COVID and Linus Pauling is often cited as a prophet.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 4:23:44 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
>> >
>> A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
>> then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
>> That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
>> companies.
>
>That is one of the least thought out statements I've seen posted on s.e.d. Are you John Larkin using a pseudonym?

It's unoriginal and perfectly well thought-out.

Motive doesn't prove anything.

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:17:18 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 4:23:44 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
>>> >
>>> A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
>>> then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
>>> That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
>>> companies.
>>
>>That is one of the least thought out statements I've seen posted on s.e.d. Are you John Larkin using a pseudonym?
>
>It's unoriginal and perfectly well thought-out.
>
>Motive doesn't prove anything.

Spehro has been our house guest. We are definitely not the same
person.

In article <sdv928$c3b$1@dont-email.me>,
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>Are you sure your toaster isn't recording your morning conversations?
>Or, that the "hum" from your refrigerator's compressor isn't actually
>a special form of RADIATION that is going to sterilize you?

Oh, that refrigerator hum is from the creation of "Care about what the
Kardashians are doing this week" mind-control field.

The toaster is simply there to monitor the effectiveness of that field.

Bottom line

Human beings are greedy and punitive !

It is all about punishment and rewards.

Rewards in terms of profits and large management salaries.

It is all about punishment: e.g. Jansen Vaccine is part of Johnson and
Johnson that needs to be punished for past deeds ! So downplay this
vaccine even though it was the only one of the big ones to be
double-blind tested against three variants: original, Brazilian and African

We will never get the truth from the authorities as 99.99% are
attorneys. Truth adjusting and side stepping is their training.
Just look at the U.S. congress. 99% attorneys.
And at least one paid bathing suit model who has attained the pinnacle
of position in congress dishing out crapola.

On 7/30/2021 11:51 AM, Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <sdv928$c3b$1@dont-email.me>,
> Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Are you sure your toaster isn't recording your morning conversations?
>> Or, that the "hum" from your refrigerator's compressor isn't actually
>> a special form of RADIATION that is going to sterilize you?
>
> Oh, that refrigerator hum is from the creation of "Care about what the
> Kardashians are doing this week" mind-control field.

Hmmm... mine must be defective as I don't give a rat's ass (or even
less!) what the "starved for attention" crowd is up to!

> The toaster is simply there to monitor the effectiveness of that field.

So, obviously, the toaster isn't working either! Or, perhaps the
folks that monitor it's reports are too busy with other things?

What I *have* noticed, however, is that the MICROWAVE is actually
a transdimensional portal! I've discovered that I can exchange frozen
items for thawed/heated items with the beings of that other dimension
simply by placing them inside and pressing the START button!

I was tempted to put some hard currency in it to see what *they*
use, over there, but figured that I'd likely not be able to use
any of the currency that they exchanged for mine! (and, there's
always the risk that they might use poultry or other live game as
currency and that would leave me with a real mess!!)

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 1:11:30 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:

> What I *have* noticed, however, is that the MICROWAVE is actually
> a transdimensional portal! I've discovered that I can exchange frozen
> items for thawed/heated items with the beings of that other dimension
> simply by placing them inside and pressing the START button!

This is remarkably similar to an earlier observation on related technologies

<https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/03/12>

On 7/30/2021 4:14 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 1:11:30 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
>
>> What I *have* noticed, however, is that the MICROWAVE is actually
>> a transdimensional portal! I've discovered that I can exchange frozen
>> items for thawed/heated items with the beings of that other dimension
>> simply by placing them inside and pressing the START button!
>
> This is remarkably similar to an earlier observation on related technologies

Ah, well... you can't expect a young kid to understand interdimensional
transfers!!

On 30-Jul-21 3:55 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:

> "And what about all the positive studies? There are dozens of positive ones while dedicated, knowledgeable doctors worldwide treat millions of people with the drug—and it’s working against COVID-19, often cutting the duration of disease time in half. Upstanding organizations, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), tout the drug as “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” The WSJ writers declare the drug’s under investigation in about 70 clinical trials with mounting statistically significant evidence, making it potentially a robust public health tool targeting COVID-19. This drug could also be predominantly used in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) where vaccination rates are slow."

There mere fact that it takes multiple trials to gain mounting
statistically significant evidence means that any effect, even if one
exists, is small.

The drug might provide some marginal benefit, but it is certainly not
the magic bullet touted by some. If it were, that would have been obvious.

Sylvia.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:55:41 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 10:17:18 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
><speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
>><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 4:23:44 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
>>>> >
>>>> A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
>>>> then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
>>>> That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
>>>> companies.
>>>
>>>That is one of the least thought out statements I've seen posted on s.e.d. Are you John Larkin using a pseudonym?
>>
>>It's unoriginal and perfectly well thought-out.
>>
>>Motive doesn't prove anything.
>
>Spehro has been our house guest. We are definitely not the same
>person.

Indeed, and I have fond memories of the pasta meal, despite my
jet-lagged dull state. John has even met my son.

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 4:23:44 PM UTC-4, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Something very very fishy is going on here, and it most probably has to do with pharmaceutical industry profits (ivermectin is very low cost.).
> >> >
> >> A cynic might point out that if there was a mostly effective treatment
> >> then the emergency authorization for the vaccines should be rescinded.
> >> That would result in some significant financial effects on the drug
> >> companies.
> >
> >That is one of the least thought out statements I've seen posted on s.e.d. Are you John Larkin using a pseudonym?
> It's unoriginal and perfectly well thought-out.
>
> Motive doesn't prove anything.

I have no idea why you are talking about motive. My comment about the pseudonym was simply for comic effect as this is the same sort of poor logic that Larkin often uses. Reminds me of a true story of an "engineer" doing a site survey with another. On doing the floor space calculation he wanted to divide length by width to get area. To justify that approach he said, "How many quarters in a dollar? How many quarters in two dollars? See?"

The illogic is that because a treatment exists (with undefined efficacy) a vaccine authorization should be rescinded. One does not follow from the other. At least you didn't end your comments with "See?"

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30-Jul-21 3:55 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
> > "And what about all the positive studies? There are dozens of positive ones while dedicated, knowledgeable doctors worldwide treat millions of people with the drug—and it’s working against COVID-19, often cutting the duration of disease time in half. Upstanding organizations, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), tout the drug as “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” The WSJ writers declare the drug’s under investigation in about 70 clinical trials with mounting statistically significant evidence, making it potentially a robust public health tool targeting COVID-19. This drug could also be predominantly used in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) where vaccination rates are slow."
> There mere fact that it takes multiple trials to gain mounting
> statistically significant evidence means that any effect, even if one
> exists, is small.
>
> The drug might provide some marginal benefit, but it is certainly not
> the magic bullet touted by some. If it were, that would have been obvious..

You have no idea what you're talking about. Many of the studies, although somewhat unconventional, still provided scientifically valid results. The studies were not conducted by armchair experimentalists, but by clinicians rushing to demonstrate effectiveness to justify funding large scale emergency treatment of their local populations who were dropping like flies from disease.
There must be reruns of Oprah you could be watching instead of making lightweight clueless comments on usenet.
>
> Sylvia.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 12:31:23 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 30-Jul-21 3:55 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >
> > > "And what about all the positive studies? There are dozens of positive ones while dedicated, knowledgeable doctors worldwide treat millions of people with the drug—and it’s working against COVID-19, often cutting the duration of disease time in half. Upstanding organizations, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), tout the drug as “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” The WSJ writers declare the drug’s under investigation in about 70 clinical trials with mounting statistically significant evidence, making it potentially a robust public health tool targeting COVID-19. This drug could also be predominantly used in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) where vaccination rates are slow."
> > There mere fact that it takes multiple trials to gain mounting
> > statistically significant evidence means that any effect, even if one
> > exists, is small.
> >
> > The drug might provide some marginal benefit, but it is certainly not
> > the magic bullet touted by some. If it were, that would have been obvious.
> You have no idea what you're talking about. Many of the studies, although somewhat unconventional, still provided scientifically valid results. The studies were not conducted by armchair experimentalists, but by clinicians rushing to demonstrate effectiveness to justify funding large scale emergency treatment of their local populations who were dropping like flies from disease.
> There must be reruns of Oprah you could be watching instead of making lightweight clueless comments on usenet.
>
As a man of science myself, I look at things that people tell me with a great deal of skepticism. So when I read about how the vaccine has directly killed 15,000 people and blown out the hearts in 500 children under the age of 18....yes I am a bit skeptical. But my science is not your science so keep bowing down those scientists who concocted the vacccine and take them all at their word. They are the "True" scientists and you are a true man of science

> >
> > Sylvia.