Reply To: Please explain Ivermectin

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Please explain Ivermectin Reply To: Please explain Ivermectin

#2014392

“First question – do you accept that there is a pandemic.”
Covid is real, it is a virus that causes a disease that initially was very dangerous to a narrow demographic and has now become considerably more dangerous in stark contrast to Mullers Ratchet because of a Marek’s Disease vaccine induced evolutionary pressure even to people previously not real risk.

“If you don’t – then, it is indeed easy: you don’t think that there is a threat, there is no need for any intervention, etc. There is no need to ivermectin either. This is, of course, refuted by statistics and personal experience of many people.”
I just want to point out that people don’t understand what they are experiencing, for example, if someone’s parent was hospitalized with covid and the hospital killed the parent through negligence not noticeable to the person, he will process his experience as his parent dying of covid.

“Now, if there is a pandemic, there are many independent ways to deal with this – SD, masks, washing surfaces, washing hands, ventilation, (later) vaccines, vitamins, medicines. They were not just invented, these are standard public policies for pandemics.”

Actually, masks & social distancing are not only not standard, but were considered to be dumb and counterproductive in all of the pandemic guidance papers written throughout the 2000’s. DA Henderson’s historical overview of pandemics actually concluded that communities fared best during pandemics with the least amount of disruption of normal living. And medicines, and more specifically, repurposing already approved drugs to meet the new pathogen, which was very standard practice, was summarily chucked by the medical/political establishment.

“After some experience, some were judged less important (surfaces), the rest are multiple layers of defense.”
It had almost nothing to do with any actual experience, or else masks/lockdowns/social distancing among everyone not at severe risk would have been discontinued very quickly.

“Some are more expensive or inconvenient or risky, so I understand why someone will be against masks (convenience) or against SD (love of people), or washing hands (laziness), or vaccines (risk).”
How about against all of them because they are greatly harmful interventions to both physical health and mental health, they disrupt society, and are child abuse when applied to kids. I am not against hand washing, and nor is anyone remotely credible that I know or have heard of, so it is very disingenuous for you to lump hand washing in with the rest of the policy abominations. People who say that masks and social distancing are just a matter of convenience simply do not comprehend the enormous toll they take on physical/mental health, immune health, etc. See reference to Henderson cited earlier. These policies are killers, as in they cause significant excess mortality. Furthermore, masks spread covid in the hands of the public (something that even Fauci publicly warned about the possibility of early on), and they encourage people to eschew more sensible things that actually help mitigate transmission because they feel that the mask protects them from contracting or spreading covid. Masks/SD were the most abominable and evil policies ever implemented by a civilized country on its own population.

“You seem to say that they are all suspect because they are proposed by “corrupt government”,”
I don’t seem to say that, I said it pretty bluntly.

“except the ones that are proposed by a group of “non-corrupt” scientists.”
Which policies would those be?? I wasn’t aware that I endorsed any in any post made here. I endorse treatments that work. And I would add that it is indeed logical to put more faith in a group of non-corrupt scientists, as you say, than in institutions corrupted by government and political intrusions and financial entanglements.

“This is strange, given that these are standard policies not developed specifically for COVID and accepted during initial emergency by multiple independent-thinking countries and bodies.”
Again, these were not standard. What happened in the beginning was that the western world got whipped into a panicked frenzy, and acted in lockstep, and certainly not on the basis of any sound judgement or deliberative process. I don’t grant a single word of your premise here, as it’s utterly unmoored from reality.

“Anyway, I am looking how those who are skeptical can positively contribute without causing controversies and opposition when they just call for medicines others like.”
You do realize that if a medicine like Ivermectin works, then everyone who is against it has blood on their hands, especially those who advocate against it publicly?? I work with doctors who use Ivermectin on patients, as in thousands of them, and none have lost a single patient who came in within 7 days of contracting covid — not. even. one. Let that sink in. The anti-Ivermectin side is not a legitimate debate position, it is pure Nazi evil from the depths of Hell, and a testament to the bottomless corruption at the heart of the medical community (specifically worded that way to exclude most doctors/med professionals who are merely gullible and often intellectually lazy).

And you don’t even need Ivermectin to fight covid. Mouthwash with cetylpyridinium chloride and a nasal rinse or spray with Povidone-Iodine if done 2-3x/day is a guarantee that you won’t get seriously ill from covid at all, and almost definitely will not contract it in the first place either.