@shavixmir saidBut CNN said Rogan took horse dewormer and that was a lie.
They have said what the lies are:
- ivermectin, for example.
- mass formation psychosis, for example.
And Rogan is only powerful with the retarded community of complot thinking right-wing conspirators.
As for the rest of the planet? They’ve never even heard of him.
Why are you not calling for CNN to be censored? Lies are fine if they are used against Rogan. Double standard.
@metal-brain said"Tell that to the FDA"
https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-fdas-war-against-the-truth-on-ivermectin/
@athousandyoung saidHere’s how the FDA-regulated pharmaceutical industry really works.
"Tell that to the FDA"
The FDA judges all drugs as guilty until proven, to the FDA’s satisfaction, both safe and efficacious. By what process does this happen? The FDA waits for a deep-pocketed sponsor to present a comprehensive package that justifies the approval of a new drug or a new use of an existing drug. For a drug like ivermectin, long since generic, a sponsor may never show up. The reason is not that the drug is ineffective; rather, the reason is that any expenditures used to secure approval for that new use will help other generic manufacturers that haven’t invested a dime. Due to generic drug substitution rules at pharmacies, Merck could spend millions of dollars to get a Covid-19 indication for ivermectin and then effectively get zero return. What company would ever make that investment?
With no sponsor, there is no new FDA-approved indication and, therefore, no official recognition of ivermectin’s value. Was the FDA’s warning against ivermectin based on science? No. It was based on process. Like a typical bureaucrat, the FDA won’t recommend the use of ivermectin because, while it might help patients, such a recommendation would violate its processes. The FDA needs boxes checked off in the right order. If a sponsor never shows up and the boxes aren’t checked off, the FDA’s standard approach is to tell Americans to stay away from the drug because it might be dangerous or ineffective. Sometimes the FDA is too enthusiastic and these warnings are, frankly, alarming. Guilty until proven innocent.
https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-fdas-war-against-the-truth-on-ivermectin/
@metal-brain saidThere have been studies. And it doesn’t work against covid.
That is bull crap. If that was true there would not be ongoing studies to determine the effectiveness of ivermectin. Some studies have already shown ivermectin to be effective.
https://www.cureus.com/articles/[WORD TOO LONG]
You are spreading misinformation. Stop expressing opinions as facts until the ongoing studies have concluded.
They don’t keep studying something because some trailer trash ex-comedian and his MB sidekick are sticking to their idiotic guns inside their rabbit holes.
I’ll tell you what has been proven to work, though. It lowers the spread and seriously keeps you from getting very ill from covid: vaccines.
And that’s what you should be taking.
And if you are hospitalised for Covid (which is still possible, but a very small chance if you’re vaccinated and an even smaller chance if you’re boostered) there’s Paxlovid to lower the chances of needing assisted breathing.
That’s what there is. And every other crack smoked concept you, Rogan, Desantis or trump, 💩 out their mouths is a complete and utter waste of time.
Every pandemic sprouts forth quacks. And social media has given you a platform.
Woe is humanity for having to suffer you.
@metal-brain saidObviously the answer is a “no” until proven otherwise.
Here’s how the FDA-regulated pharmaceutical industry really works.
The FDA judges all drugs as guilty until proven, to the FDA’s satisfaction, both safe and efficacious. By what process does this happen? The FDA waits for a deep-pocketed sponsor to present a comprehensive package that justifies the approval of a new drug or a new use of an existing drug. For a drug lik ...[text shortened]... til proven innocent.
https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-fdas-war-against-the-truth-on-ivermectin/
However, not only the FDA looked into ivermectin, lots of health services and experts all over the planet did, and they all came to the same conclusion: BS!
@shavixmir saidEven government admits A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness.
There have been studies. And it doesn’t work against covid.
They don’t keep studying something because some trailer trash ex-comedian and his MB sidekick are sticking to their idiotic guns inside their rabbit holes.
I’ll tell you what has been proven to work, though. It lowers the spread and seriously keeps you from getting very ill from covid: vaccines.
And that’s ...[text shortened]... forth quacks. And social media has given you a platform.
Woe is humanity for having to suffer you.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
@shavixmir saidWith no sponsor, there is no new FDA-approved indication and, therefore, no official recognition of ivermectin’s value. Was the FDA’s warning against ivermectin based on science? No. It was based on process. Like a typical bureaucrat, the FDA won’t recommend the use of ivermectin because, while it might help patients, such a recommendation would violate its processes.
Obviously the answer is a “no” until proven otherwise.
However, not only the FDA looked into ivermectin, lots of health services and experts all over the planet did, and they all came to the same conclusion: BS!
@metal-brain saidAhhhh… so from which government is this, you’re quoting? Not the site, the study?
Even government admits A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
Do you realise you posted to a single test result from begin 2021?
Did you bother to check out any of the other links provided on that same site?
Like:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
Which measures the reliability of all the tests held on ivermectin they could find?
Did you check out any of the later links with further conclusions?
Let me save you the bother: no you did not.
You’re cherry-picking to suit your rabbit hole.
And you are wrong.
@metal-brain saidObviously if it’s not tested a health body will recommend not using it.
With no sponsor, there is no new FDA-approved indication and, therefore, no official recognition of ivermectin’s value. Was the FDA’s warning against ivermectin based on science? No. It was based on process. Like a typical bureaucrat, the FDA won’t recommend the use of ivermectin because, while it might help patients, such a recommendation would violate its processes.
You can shout: “a carrot up the arse stops aids.”
But the FDA is gonna say: “Not tested, no proof it works. Don’t use a carrot up the arse to cure aids.”
There have been loads of studies into ivermectin. Most of them bogus. And thr world wide consensus is that it doesn’t work against Covid. You own link even tells you this.
@shavixmir saidIt is a government website. The government saw fit to post that study.
Ahhhh… so from which government is this, you’re quoting? Not the site, the study?
Do you realise you posted to a single test result from begin 2021?
Did you bother to check out any of the other links provided on that same site?
Like:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
Which measures the reliability of all the tests held on ivermectin they could find?
Did ...[text shortened]... you the bother: no you did not.
You’re cherry-picking to suit your rabbit hole.
And you are wrong.
Are you going to deny the study exists now?
@shavixmir said"There have been loads of studies into ivermectin. Most of them bogus"
Obviously if it’s not tested a health body will recommend not using it.
You can shout: “a carrot up the arse stops aids.”
But the FDA is gonna say: “Not tested, no proof it works. Don’t use a carrot up the arse to cure aids.”
There have been loads of studies into ivermectin. Most of them bogus. And thr world wide consensus is that it doesn’t work against Covid. You own link even tells you this.
So the studies no longer matter? Then what are you barking about?
@metal-brain saidNo. I don’t deny that study exists.
It is a government website. The government saw fit to post that study.
Are you going to deny the study exists now?
What the hell is wrong with you?
One study doesn’t prove anything.
And there have been a multitude of studies and they did not provide the same results, the control environments were proven wrong, etc. I gave you a link to your own bloody site you linked to which explains all this to you.
I am done with you. I’m back to using the emojis to answer you, because explaining things just doesn’t work.
@shavixmir saidYou said this:
No. I don’t deny that study exists.
What the hell is wrong with you?
One study doesn’t prove anything.
And there have been a multitude of studies and they did not provide the same results, the control environments were proven wrong, etc. I gave you a link to your own bloody site you linked to which explains all this to you.
I am done with you. I’m back to using the emojis to answer you, because explaining things just doesn’t work.
"Most of them bogus"
Apparently most studies doesn’t prove anything to you either. You just destroyed your own argument that studies meant something. Now you cannot prove anything.