What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way....anyone interested in the entirety of what Hamlin said, here's the entire interview:


If you don't want to watch, you'll be shocked to know the "edited" version presented here (above) isn't really all that honest and it's rather obvious that Hamlin is still trying to process the fact that he basically died and was brought back to life and isn't really ready to talk about the event.
 
Last edited:
There's a LOT of **** the experts got wrong.

A LOT. Here's another that's been evident for a while, but the brainwashing on this was deep and powerful, unfortunately...


Robby Starbuck
@robbystarbuck


Fauci’s NIH now lists IVERMECTIN as an antiviral therapy to treat COVID. The most recent study in Brazil of 88,012 people found Ivermectin cut the chance of COVID death by 92%. Now’s a good time to think about the censorship, pharmacy bans on it and hate people got for using it.

Do you actually read/vet source before you share them or just blindly re-share if it fits your agenda?

I only ask because the one you shared is pretty clearly fake news. His screen grab claims something that isn't true, ivermectin is NOT mentioned as a treatment on the NIH page that he links to, like he claims.

👀

It was listed on that site at the time of the tweet and they later removed it to continue your brainwashing. Before Covid, they considered Ivermectin a ground breaking wonder drug, and deployed it worldwide to humans in the billions without issue.


Suddenly post-Covid it's just a horse dewormer. Yeah, right. IVM worked wonders on Covid in India and Brazil among masses. It also worked wonders on Covid here in the USA, but sadly, only for the few of us that were aware to take it.

@LawFitz : Just to be clear....

1) The tweet you shared (falsely) claimed "NIH listed Ivermectin as an Antiviral treatment for covid"

2) You quoted his post implying it was proof NIH recognizes Ivermectin as a treatment for covid without checking the actual source

however...

3) NIH never listed it as a treatment, but instead said it was being evaluated to see if it was a treatment (as shown in his screen grab)

4) That evaluation later found that Ivermectin was ineffective at treating COVID, and Ivermectin was subsequently removed from the NIH site

5) After it was pointed out you were blindly sharing links with misinformation without validating their accuracy, you called us Brainwashed.


Just making sure I've got this all correct?

👀
 
Last edited:
@LawFitz[/USER] what are your thoughts about this versus what you posted previously?

See my last post, just above.
Thanks for the response. I don’t believe in most conspiracy theories and tend to put my trust in medical experts.

Appreciate your tone and approach, thank you.

I used to be of similar mindset. But too many conspiracy theories have turned into facts, especially over the last three years related to Covid. And there are plenty of medical professionals out there that vouch for and utilize Ivermectin to tremendous effect, for Covid and a number or other ailments. We had/have our miracle drug all along but unfortunately, it is out of patent so they couldn't make billions off of it, like they did with the vaxxes. Brought to you by Pfizer pulled in $100 B in revenues last year. 100 billion reasons why they've lied to us.
 
Just making sure I've got this all correct?

You missed the part about the study that showed 90%+ effectiveness against death in a group of 80k+ in Brazil. And the IVM miracle in Uttar Pradesh, India. And all the doctors who have been using it to effectively treat Covid the last two years. And the institutional opinions about IVM pre-Covid. Here it is again... Miracle antiviral. What kind of bug is Covid again?


And don't take offense to the term brainwashed. It's what they do. Intentionally and with unbelievably great effect. It's their fault, not yours, unless/until you start becoming belligerent to people like me who try in good faith to help. As said, it's easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he's been fooled. Slowly but surely the truth is trickling out everywhere else online, except it seems this forum where too many folks seem cognitively dissonant when it comes to anything that counters their dogma about trusting 'The Science.' Sadly, science has been corrupted by financial and political interests. 😕
 
Just making sure I've got this all correct?

You missed the part about the study that showed 90%+ effectiveness against death in a group of 80k+ in Brazil. And the IVM miracle in Uttar Pradesh, India. And all the doctors who have been using it to effectively treat Covid the last two years. And the institutional opinions about IVM pre-Covid. Here it is again... Miracle antiviral. What kind of bug is Covid again?


And don't take offense to the term brainwashed. It's what they do. Intentionally and with unbelievably great effect. It's their fault, not yours, unless/until you start becoming belligerent to people like me who try in good faith to help. As said, it's easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he's been fooled. Slowly but surely the truth is trickling out everywhere else online, except it seems this forum where too many folks seem cognitively dissonant when it comes to anything that counters their dogma about trusting 'The Science.' Sadly, science has been corrupted by financial and political interests. 😕

I was referring to the NIH study, not the Brazilian study, as that is the study relevant to his tweeted claim.

With that clarified, was my recounting of the exchange accurate?

1) He wrongly claimed NIH listed Ivermectin as effective

2) You shared his post without looking at the source

3) He was wrong, NIH never approved it as effective, just it was evaluating it.

4) That NIH evaluation found Ivermectin to be ineffective

5) You called us brainwashed despite sharing obviously false tweets without verifying the source


If any of the 5 points I shared are incorrect please show me where I was wrong
 
I was referring to the NIH study, not the Brazilian study, as that is the study relevant to his tweeted claim.

From his tweet...

"The most recent study in Brazil of 88,012 people found Ivermectin cut the chance of COVID death by 92%"

And the NIH did in fact list IVM as a Covid treatment at that time. You keep wanting to find a gotcha, but you are completely missing the forrest for the trees as you do so. That is how strong they have hold of you. All good, I will keep trying to help you see them for who they are.
 
Just making sure I've got this all correct?

You missed the part about the study that showed 90%+ effectiveness against death in a group of 80k+ in Brazil. And the IVM miracle in Uttar Pradesh, India. And all the doctors who have been using it to effectively treat Covid the last two years. And the institutional opinions about IVM pre-Covid. Here it is again... Miracle antiviral. What kind of bug is Covid again?


And don't take offense to the term brainwashed. It's what they do. Intentionally and with unbelievably great effect. It's their fault, not yours, unless/until you start becoming belligerent to people like me who try in good faith to help. As said, it's easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he's been fooled. Slowly but surely the truth is trickling out everywhere else online, except it seems this forum where too many folks seem cognitively dissonant when it comes to anything that counters their dogma about trusting 'The Science.' Sadly, science has been corrupted by financial and political interests. 😕
You can't say "don't take offense" when you call someone brainwashed. You are putting yourself in an enlightened position talking down to others. You quickly posted that a "trusted" source with the NIH stated it was an effective treatment for COVID until someone pointed out that it was a fake tweet. Rather than admit that you posted something without fully reading it, you doubled down and said it was on the NIH site until they realized it was hampering brainwashing efforts. In an effort to add legitimacy to your claim, you searched for ivermectin on the NIH site, and found an article calling it a wonder drug. I read the entire article, and it is a wonder drug that moved from the animal world to human use... for removing parasites (Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis). It is a helpful drug for that, but there have been no legitimate studies proving ivermectin as a wonder drug for COVID.

I am distrustful of Big Pharma, and I think the effects of their price structure on the US health system are abhorrent. I was hesitant to take the vaccine at first just because I was worried about the speed of which they were developed and the potential long term effects (I did get the shot and booster eventually). I find it interesting when one side regards their side as absolute truth and looks and talks down to those who are "uninformed".
 
The Brazilian "study" in question was observational only, wasn't randomized, the "data" is from mid-2020, there was only 283 cases among the people taking ivermectin, it wasn't dose controlled, and uses post-hoc analysis to come to a conclusion. The "study" design is a classic example of data-dredging, and would never ever be published in any reputable journal. It also was looking at ivermectin for prophylaxis, not for treatment.
The "study" is "published' on a site that anyone can pay a fee and submit their paper. It would never survive peer review done by a medical student, let alone a medical journal.
And it wasn't a study of 88,012 people, try reading the paper. All post-hoc analysis.
Ivermectin subsequently went through numerous well-designed randomized controlled trials done by multiple countries and published in reputable journals, for both prophylaxis and treatment, and was found to be ineffective.
 
The Brazilian "study" in question was observational only, wasn't randomized, the "data" is from mid-2020, there was only 283 cases among the people taking ivermectin, it wasn't dose controlled, and uses post-hoc analysis to come to a conclusion. The "study" design is a classic example of data-dredging, and would never ever be published in any reputable journal. It also was looking at ivermectin for prophylaxis, not for treatment.
The "study" is "published' on a site that anyone can pay a fee and submit their paper. It would never survive peer review done by a medical student, let alone a medical journal.
And it wasn't a study of 88,012 people, try reading the paper. All post-hoc analysis.
Ivermectin subsequently went through numerous well-designed randomized controlled trials done by multiple countries and published in reputable journals, for both prophylaxis and treatment, and was found to be ineffective.
All points made the last time this "study" was brought up.
 
Just making sure I've got this all correct?

You missed the part about the study that showed 90%+ effectiveness against death in a group of 80k+ in Brazil. And the IVM miracle in Uttar Pradesh, India. And all the doctors who have been using it to effectively treat Covid the last two years. And the institutional opinions about IVM pre-Covid. Here it is again... Miracle antiviral. What kind of bug is Covid again?


And don't take offense to the term brainwashed. It's what they do. Intentionally and with unbelievably great effect. It's their fault, not yours, unless/until you start becoming belligerent to people like me who try in good faith to help. As said, it's easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he's been fooled. Slowly but surely the truth is trickling out everywhere else online, except it seems this forum where too many folks seem cognitively dissonant when it comes to anything that counters their dogma about trusting 'The Science.' Sadly, science has been corrupted by financial and political interests. 😕

I was referring to the NIH study, not the Brazilian study, as that is the study relevant to his tweeted claim.

With that clarified, was my recounting of the exchange accurate?

1) He wrongly claimed NIH listed Ivermectin as effective

2) You shared his post without looking at the source

3) He was wrong, NIH never approved it as effective, just it was evaluating it.

4) That NIH evaluation found Ivermectin to be ineffective

5) You called us brainwashed despite sharing obviously false tweets without verifying the source


If any of the 5 points I shared are incorrect please show me where I was wrong

Tap tap... this thing on?

I promise, nobody sees you desperately tapdancing to another topic rather than admit what you did here. It's not obvious..... don't worry, I'll keep it between us (Wink wink)

Maybe bookmark this for next time you're wondering why nobody takes most of your sources (or you) seriously 😉
 
Last edited:
So is it acceptable now to ask what happened to Damar Hamlin? Commotio Cordis is highly unlikely, so what was it that caused this young man to cardiac arrest?

He himself seems to have an idea but is very reluctant to share. Interesting.

He is reluctant to talk about it because of all the people who were harassing him and his family saying that he was actually dead and that there was some big coverup/conspiracy.
 
So I thought the vaccine causing heart issues was supposed to be soon after it was administered, are people now saying that if you were vaccinated 9 months ago, heart issues will develop 9 months, a year later?
 
So I thought the vaccine causing heart issues was supposed to be soon after it was administered, are people now saying that if you were vaccinated 9 months ago, heart issues will develop 9 months, a year later?
If it fits the narrative, why not?

If the vaccines can cause people to fall off mountains or drown, this isn’t much of a stretch.
 
A "joke". Sure buddy
On one level, we should all be glad that we've finally reached the point where people are instantly forced to walk this sort of thing back when they get called on it.

On the other hand, these are the people who were going to court to force school-children to wear masks against the wishes of local elected officials. Now they're very sad to know that people might be making fun of them in the privacy of their own thoughts. A tiny serving of karma never hurt anybody.
Seemed a pretty obvious joke / statement about trains being gross.
 
So I thought the vaccine causing heart issues was supposed to be soon after it was administered, are people now saying that if you were vaccinated 9 months ago, heart issues will develop 9 months, a year later?

Do you understand it or are you trying to sound credibly critical while not understanding it?
 
My business is through the roof. I can't keep up. Not a flex.

I do peripheral and coronary cases. I see vaccinated, unvaccinated. Boosted, boosted once, not boosted. Younger than ever.

Either the vaccination does not help in this regard, or causes the same in this regard, or doesn't prevent these symptoms when the vaccinated get covid.

Whatever your take is, I don't see the moral high horse here.
 
Last edited:
My business is through the roof. I can't keep up. Not a flex.

I do peripheral and coronary cases. I see vaccinated, unvaccinated. Boosted, boosted once, not boosted. Younger than ever.

Either the vaccination does not help in this regard, or causes the same in this regard, or doesn't prevent these symptoms when the vaccinated get covid.

Whatever your take is, I don't see the moral high horse here.
What type of business, specifically?

I work in a hospital, and haven’t noticed an uptick in vascular pathology among younger people, independent of traditional risk factors. Definitely not anything temporally related to vaccination. I have seen a smattering of vascular/cardiac events in actively/recently infected people though.

My good friend, a cardiologist, has been busy (like virtually all healthcare workers), but he hasn’t noticed what you describe, either.
 
My business is through the roof. I can't keep up. Not a flex.

I do peripheral and coronary cases. I see vaccinated, unvaccinated. Boosted, boosted once, not boosted. Younger than ever.

Either the vaccination does not help in this regard, or causes the same in this regard, or doesn't prevent these symptoms when the vaccinated get covid.

Whatever your take is, I don't see the moral high horse here.

What is your observed incident rate for vaccinated folks who have never been diagnosed with covid, relative to the rest of the population?
 
Another way to put it is that the ivermectin people were wrong, but they were wrong in a way that didn't inflict much harm on others. They bore most of those costs themselves. Anti-vaxxers are wrong IMO, but again they're wrong in a way that mostly (not entirely) just affects them.
The ivermectin advocates influenced other people to use ivermectin instead of getting an mrna vaccine. So did the hydroxychloroquinine advocates before them. Both of those were and are fake treatments, and the advocates influenced and pressured other people to refuse mrna vaccines and take them.

Antivaxxers not only influenced people to refuse helpful mrna vaccinations, but they blocked access to vaccination sites, got some of them shut down, and bombarded the internet with false narratives that continue to this day, and even in this thread.

"Didn't inflict much harm on others" is incorrect.
 
Robby Starbuck
@robbystarbuck


Fauci’s NIH now lists IVERMECTIN as an antiviral therapy to treat COVID. The most recent study in Brazil of 88,012 people found Ivermectin cut the chance of COVID death by 92%. Now’s a good time to think about the censorship, pharmacy bans on it and hate people got for using it.

Wow the brainwashing regarding Ivermectin was so strong that even now you guys are ripe with misinformation about what is truly a miracle drug. Amazing.
I tried googling but can’t find a link for this. Got anything I can read up on Fauci/NIH approval?
I'll help:
Here's the tweet from September 2022: https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1566087211442999299

here's the study (on some site called Cureus??): https://www.cureus.com/articles/111...ly-controlled-population-of-88012-subjects#!/

Here's the page (according to tweet replies IVM was at one time listed on the page in a paragraph of text as "under review" and has since been removed):
If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying what @LawFitz said about ivermectin being a miracle drug is a lie.
And I think I'm understanding you correctly, having read his links and yours. You've backed your assertion up and he has not.
 
Which one has less empirical support: mask mandates, or ivermectin?
How about asking a more honest question:

Which one has less empirical support?
- mask mandates
- ivermectin mandates
- mrna vaccination mandates?

or

Which on has less empirical support?
- individual masking
- individual using ivermectin
- individual getting mrna vaccination

Apples should be compared to apples.
 
And the NIH did in fact list IVM as a Covid treatment at that time.

😂 Except it wasn't.

Did your source claim it was:

1) it was listed as an antiviral treatment
2) it was being evaluated for use as an antiviral treatment

(We all know the answer, just want to hear you say it).

Or you can keep tap dancing around the facts because you got caught sharing fake news. Again. 😜
 
Last edited:
My business is through the roof. I can't keep up. Not a flex.

I do peripheral and coronary cases. I see vaccinated, unvaccinated. Boosted, boosted once, not boosted. Younger than ever.

Either the vaccination does not help in this regard, or causes the same in this regard, or doesn't prevent these symptoms when the vaccinated get covid.

Whatever your take is, I don't see the moral high horse here.
What type of business, specifically?

I work in a hospital, and haven’t noticed an uptick in vascular pathology among younger people, independent of traditional risk factors. Definitely not anything temporally related to vaccination. I have seen a smattering of vascular/cardiac events in actively/recently infected people though.

My good friend, a cardiologist, has been busy (like virtually all healthcare workers), but he hasn’t noticed what you describe, either.

Good for him, we have been increasingly slammed. From PAD to DVT to PE to PCI. All up... PE and DVT massively up.
 
New paper on COVID's major role in increased cardiac events.


"New study on deceased covid patients shows that Covid causes heart damage that may lead to 'sudden cardiac death' and gives an eye opening look at fibrosis of the heart in covid patients."

Why didn't you note the two obvious and major issues with this 'study'?

Sample size and drumroll... vax status.

Two years ago some said the vax effects would be blamed on Long Covid. 🤔
 
So is it acceptable now to ask what happened to Damar Hamlin?
That's already answered over in the Shark Pool. But go ahead and be ghoulish.

Ghoulish, please. I didn't say a word about Damar's possible injury cause until a. he recovered; and b. he gave a very odd response when asked about the cause.

I see we aren't allowed to talk about it even now, without being insulted by people like you. Shameful.
 
observed incident rate for vaccinated folks who have never been diagnosed with covid

How convenient now that everyone has had Covid. How about asking him how many unvaxxed patients he's seeing? Thankfully we still have 20% out there who never took any of your shots as a true control.

Another issue is the sudden shift to protect patient privacy, when before people were demanding to see status so that the unvaxxed could be denied services or even fired from jobs. 🙄
 
New paper on COVID's major role in increased cardiac events.


"New study on deceased covid patients shows that Covid causes heart damage that may lead to 'sudden cardiac death' and gives an eye opening look at fibrosis of the heart in covid patients."
I mean this is a known thing right? Even anecdotal i know of two guys about my age with heart issues that suddenly dropped dead a month or two after COVID. Was pretty sure this was the main factor in excess mortality?

One was a great buddy of mine and got super lucky. Was on a camping trip and he cut it short feeling light headed. Had a widowmaker in the parking lot of a hospital, driving home. Made it 3 more years and I always assumed COVID got him. Left three kids.

Other was extreme obese with no heart attack but treated for a fib and a few others. Dropped dead in sleep. Both under 50.
 
Looks like it needs to be said again....body doesn't distinguish between an antigen introduced via vaccine vs via virus. It doesn't give a ****. That means if people are going to pound on vaccines as the "cause" of the problems, there's another ingredient (or set of ingredients) that they identify as problematic. It's weird how NONE of the assertions come with that tidbit of information. We do get lots of "maybes" and "possible" and "could be" comments. We get ZERO "likely" or "probable" or "is".

Again....lots of theories....nothing of substance.
 
what @LawFitz said about ivermectin being a miracle drug is a lie.

Precovid miracle, post-covid pariah. 😒

"shown to have potent antiviral action against HIV-1 and dengue viruses, both of which are dependent on the importin protein superfamily for several key cellular processes. Ivermectin may be of import in disrupting HIV-1 integrase in HIV-1 as well as NS-5 (non-structural protein 5) polymerase in dengue viruses.99, 100"


Google or better yet DuckDuckGo 'Ivermectin antiviral' to see the miracle your eyes have been blinded from thus far.
 
two guys about my age with heart issues that suddenly dropped dead a month or two after COVID. Was pretty sure this was the main factor in excess mortality?

Painful question, I know. Sorry to have to ask... Did you at all consider their vax history? What was it in terms of uptake and timing? ADE was a huge concern with mRNA tech prior to Covid. Could that have played here?

Sorry for your loss.
 
Just making sure I've got this all correct?

You missed the part about the study that showed 90%+ effectiveness against death in a group of 80k+ in Brazil. And the IVM miracle in Uttar Pradesh, India. And all the doctors who have been using it to effectively treat Covid the last two years. And the institutional opinions about IVM pre-Covid. Here it is again... Miracle antiviral. What kind of bug is Covid again?


And don't take offense to the term brainwashed. It's what they do. Intentionally and with unbelievably great effect. It's their fault, not yours, unless/until you start becoming belligerent to people like me who try in good faith to help. As said, it's easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he's been fooled. Slowly but surely the truth is trickling out everywhere else online, except it seems this forum where too many folks seem cognitively dissonant when it comes to anything that counters their dogma about trusting 'The Science.' Sadly, science has been corrupted by financial and political interests. 😕

I was referring to the NIH study, not the Brazilian study, as that is the study relevant to his tweeted claim.

With that clarified, was my recounting of the exchange accurate?

1) He wrongly claimed NIH listed Ivermectin as effective

2) You shared his post without looking at the source

3) He was wrong, NIH never approved it as effective, just it was evaluating it.

4) That NIH evaluation found Ivermectin to be ineffective

5) You called us brainwashed despite sharing obviously false tweets without verifying the source


If any of the 5 points I shared are incorrect please show me where I was wrong

And the NIH did in fact list IVM as a Covid treatment at that time.

😂 Except it wasn't.

Did your source claim it was:

1) it was listed as an antiviral treatment
2) it was being evaluated for use as an antiviral treatment

(We all know the answer, just want to hear you say it).

Or you can keep tap dancing around the facts because you got caught sharing fake news. Again. 😜

It's weird how Law Fitz keeps hiding from being caught posting blatantly fake news... again.
 
While we're at it...."ADE" stands for Antibody-dependent Enhancement. It's bullet point #1 in 99.9999999999% of vaccine creations in the history of vaccines. It's NOT unique to mRNA and it IS one of the driving factors in "effectiveness" of vaccines as they are evaluated.

One line explanation:

Sometimes antibodies do not prevent cell entry and, on rare occasions, they may actually increase the ability of a virus to enter cells and cause a worsening of disease through a mechanism called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).
 
Last edited:
I find the juxtaposition fascinating of who was in charge of the operation warp speed and claimed it a victory to those against the vaccine in general
 
Last edited:
Covid can cause heart problems. Here's how the virus may do its damage (NBC News, 2/20/2023)
Scientists who studied human hearts found that infection appeared to make it harder for them to beat properly

Researchers from Columbia University in New York City examined autopsied heart tissue from people who had Covid, and found that the infection damaged the way cells in the heart regulate levels of calcium, a mineral that plays an important role in how the organ contracts and pumps blood throughout the body. In another part of the study, the same damage was seen in mice with Covid ...

When a person is infected with Covid, the immune system launches a hefty inflammatory response in an effort to fight off the virus. That inflammation, the new study found, disrupts how calcium is stored in the heart.

Calcium ions — a version of the element that carry a positive charge — are important messengers that regulate heart function, including how quickly and how forcefully the organ contracts. These ions are stored inside cells, on deck for when the body needs to use them. They’re released through channels in the cellular membrane, which ensures that just the right amount of calcium can get out.

The damage caused by inflammation during a Covid infection appears to prop these channels open, letting too much calcium leak from the cells of the heart, said Dr. Andrew Marks, a cardiologist and biophysics professor at Columbia University who co-led the study. This flood of calcium, he said, can decrease heart function and even cause fatal arrhythmias, or irregular heartbeats.

Although inflammation of the heart is a rare but documented side effect of the mRNA Covid vaccines, the study looked only at heart tissue from autopsies before vaccines were available.

Whatever changes we saw were because of infection,” Marks said, adding that the new study was small, and the next step was to conduct the research on a larger scale.

Not yet peer-reviewed, but replicative studies are ongoing.
 
Just making sure I've got this all correct?

You missed the part about the study that showed 90%+ effectiveness against death in a group of 80k+ in Brazil. And the IVM miracle in Uttar Pradesh, India. And all the doctors who have been using it to effectively treat Covid the last two years. And the institutional opinions about IVM pre-Covid. Here it is again... Miracle antiviral. What kind of bug is Covid again?


And don't take offense to the term brainwashed. It's what they do. Intentionally and with unbelievably great effect. It's their fault, not yours, unless/until you start becoming belligerent to people like me who try in good faith to help. As said, it's easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he's been fooled. Slowly but surely the truth is trickling out everywhere else online, except it seems this forum where too many folks seem cognitively dissonant when it comes to anything that counters their dogma about trusting 'The Science.' Sadly, science has been corrupted by financial and political interests. 😕

I was referring to the NIH study, not the Brazilian study, as that is the study relevant to his tweeted claim.

With that clarified, was my recounting of the exchange accurate?

1) He wrongly claimed NIH listed Ivermectin as effective

2) You shared his post without looking at the source

3) He was wrong, NIH never approved it as effective, just it was evaluating it.

4) That NIH evaluation found Ivermectin to be ineffective

5) You called us brainwashed despite sharing obviously false tweets without verifying the source


If any of the 5 points I shared are incorrect please show me where I was wrong

And the NIH did in fact list IVM as a Covid treatment at that time.

😂 Except it wasn't.

Did your source claim it was:

1) it was listed as an antiviral treatment
2) it was being evaluated for use as an antiviral treatment

(We all know the answer, just want to hear you say it).

Or you can keep tap dancing around the facts because you got caught sharing fake news. Again. 😜

It's weird how Law Fitz keeps hiding from being caught posting blatantly fake news... again.

It's weird how hung up you are on a half gotcha at best. NIH posted IVM at that time as a Covid treatment. Then they conveniently removed it, which you conveniently keep dismissing.

Also convenient of you to dismiss the 80k person Brazilian study that found 90%+ effectiveness for IVM. Or the Uddar Predesh example. Always convenient with peeps like you. Carry on your half gotcha though, since it's all you have to hang on.

Miracle drug. Deal with it, because the truth is out there and slowly coming to light.
 
NIH posted IVM at that time as a Covid treatment. Then they conveniently removed it, which you conveniently keep dismissing.

AGAIN (4th time?).... Please show your proof of NIH listing IVM as an approved Covid Treatment.

Are you talking about this screen grab in the tweet that you shared listing it as being evaluated for treatment?

If you mistakenly are, I am happy to help ya out by explaining how the "evaluation > approval" pipeline works. I'm a nice guy like that. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
And yes, there is a difference between "possible COVID treatment" and "approved COVID treatment". I have YET to see a study where ivermectin was given as the sole treatment. It was ALWAYS given as part of a cocktail of drugs VERY early on. So was remdesivir. NEITHER have EVER qualified as "approved COVID treatment" on their own...both were part of a cocktail treatment that had mixed results at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top