FDA Commissioner - Misinformation is now our leading cause of death.

[bluehende]

Yes, there should be a disinfectant in your drinking water unless it is tested safe by a lab. At the right ratio chlorine it is safe and effective at killing virus. If you are hiking and drink stream water you should use a disinfectant as in chlorine. If you are drinking tap water in Mexico you should disinfect it with chlorine or iodine. I use both.

Antiseptics like hydrogen peroxide and probably even more so chlorhexidine are used in mouthwashes that claim to kill covid virus.

Yes, the Danish study does reveals that mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality even though they do protect people from fatal covid.

Bill

The danish study said no such thing. Your right wing news media glommed onto one number in a table of 24. Somehow in one age group vaccines are protective for 50 days then all of a sudden cause infections for 30 and then magically become protective again. You are standing on that idiocy....of course you are. Ignore every other piece of data and glom onto the one that is impossible. If you actually read the stuff I post you will see that the author himself along with other data experts explain that. But no you know that 1 number is right and 23 others including 2 from the same cohort are wrong. And of course you ignore the thousands of data points that every country has that say the opposite. You believe a vast conspiracy that hundreds of thousands are in on around the world....all of them to help one company. Stop and think a minute.

I notice you completely ignored the fact that concentration in everything you posted matters. Bleach is fine at very low concentrations but can kill you at high. As well as salt and yes even Ivermectin. To get your great antiviral activity you need to take a ton of it to get to the concentration to get that activity. But ignore again every piece of data but the one that you want to believe. IVERMECTIN DOES NOT CURE COVID. Every real study shows that. Probably because theurapeutic levels are orders of magnitude less than is needed. You ignored that fact twice when I quoted it from YOUR posts. You very good at not only ignoring my posted studies but ignoring your own also as you do not understand what you post.

Ps I would highly recommend you understand this concentration thing in referring to hydrogen peroxide. Again you are posting info that if followed kills.

 

[easyrider]

The danish study said no such thing. Your right wing news media glommed onto one number in a table of 24. Somehow in one age group vaccines are protective for 50 days then all of a sudden cause infections for 30 and then magically become protective again. You are standing on that idiocy....of course you are. Ignore every other piece of data and glom onto the one that is impossible. If you actually read the stuff I post you will see that the author himself along with other data experts explain that. But no you know that 1 number is right and 23 others including 2 from the same cohort are wrong. And of course you ignore the thousands of data points that every country has that say the opposite. You believe a vast conspiracy that hundreds of thousands are in on around the world....all of them to help one company. Stop and think a minute.

I notice you completely ignored the fact that concentration in everything you posted matters. Bleach is fine at very low concentrations but can kill you at high. As well as salt and yes even Ivermectin. To get your great antiviral activity you need to take a ton of it to get to the concentration to get that activity. But ignore again every piece of data but the one that you want to believe. IVERMECTIN DOES NOT CURE COVID. Every real study shows that. Probably because theurapeutic levels are orders of magnitude less than is needed. You ignored that fact twice when I quoted it from YOUR posts. You very good at not only ignoring my posted studies but ignoring your own also as you do not understand what you post.

Ps I would highly recommend you understand this concentration thing in referring to hydrogen peroxide. Again you are posting info that if followed kills.

Yes, the Danish study states this ,“Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19.”

Other studies show that mRNA vaccines are ineffective at preventing a person from catching or transmitting covid. Studies also show that vaccine protection wanes fairly quick meaning vaccinated people do get sick and die.

You seem stumped on dosing. There is a proper dose for anything and exceeding that is usually toxic. I gave the proper dose of chorine and iodine to disinfect water as prescribed by the EPA which is 8 drops per gallon.

The studies of Ivermectin are not using the proper dose as prescribed by the inventor of the drug is what the inventor Dr Omura says. Dr Omura says that Ivermectin is being researched as an anti cancer drug as well as cures for Dengue and Ebola. Doctors in the USA that use Ivermectin have cured covid is a fact that for now isn't reconciled by FDA studies.

No where have I posted any info that if followed kills anyone you joker. Why do you exaggerate so much ? It seems you are trying to discredit through fabricating scenarios that do not exist.

Bill

 

[bluehende]

Yes, the Danish study states this ,“Based on the RCTs with the longest possible follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against fatal COVID-19.”

Other studies show that mRNA vaccines are ineffective at preventing a person from catching or transmitting covid. Studies also show that vaccine protection wanes fairly quick meaning vaccinated people do get sick and die.

You seem stumped on dosing. There is a proper dose for anything and exceeding that is usually toxic. I gave the proper dose of chorine and iodine to disinfect water as prescribed by the EPA which is 8 drops per gallon.

The studies of Ivermectin are not using the proper dose as prescribed by the inventor of the drug is what the inventor Dr Omura says. Dr Omura says that Ivermectin is being researched as an anti cancer drug as well as cures for Dengue and Ebola. Doctors in the USA that use Ivermectin have cured covid is a fact that for now isn't reconciled by FDA studies.
No where have I posted any info that if followed kills anyone you joker. Why do you exaggerate so much ? It seems you are trying to discredit through fabricating scenarios that do not exist.

Bill

Here is the ld50 for ivermectin

There are several toxicological reports of ivermectin in different species. The lethal dose 50 (LD50) reported in mice [19] is 25 mg/kg administered orally, whose human equivalent dose (HED) is 2.02 mg/kg. The LD50 increases up to 30 mg/kg when this compound is administered intraperitoneally in mice (HED 2.43 mg/kg).Feb 1, 2018

Now tell me what dose you need to get to therapeutic concentrations in the body that correspond to your in vitro studies.



Please point to your dosage for hydrogen peroxide, which was what I said...here is a refresher from 2 posts ago

Ps I would highly recommend you understand this concentration thing in referring to hydrogen peroxide

And the rest of your post is sheer antivax nonsense. No study has shown zero inhibition of infection with vaccines. I have posted many times the actual authors comments. I and others have posted fact checks. They have shown that the effectiveness of these vaccines has dropped from the mid 90% range to about 50% for the mRNA vaccines. Other vaccines are less. The ones you promote btw.

 

[bluehende]

To continue to fight the misinformation in the misinformation thread.

No, a study from Denmark didn’t find that COVID-19 vaccines make people more prone to infection; biases in the study likely led to underestimated vaccine effectiveness

Scientific studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccination provides people with a high level of protection against severe illness and death, even in the face of the Omicron variant. Vaccination can also reduce a person’s risk of infection to some extent, although this protection is less effective...

healthfeedback.org

Misrepresents source: The study by researchers in Denmark didn’t conclude that vaccination made people more prone to infection. On the contrary, their results showed that COVID-19 vaccination reduces people’s risk of infection, although the protection wanes over time and that a booster shot helps to reinforce COVID-19 immunity.

Scientific studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccination provides people with a high level of protection against severe illness and death, even in the face of the Omicron variant. Vaccination can also reduce a person’s risk of infection to some extent, although this protection is less effective against the Omicron variant compared to earlier reported variants. However, a booster dose can help to bolster waning immunity.

Health Feedback reached out to the preprint’s authors for comment. The first author, medical statistician and epidemiologist Christian Holm Hansen, refuted the claim, stating that the “Interpretation that our research is evidence of anything but a protective vaccine effect is misrepresentative

“Our study contributes to emerging evidence that BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 primary vaccine protection against Omicron decreases quickly over time with booster vaccination offering a significant increase in protection. In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.“

 

["Roger"]

Adding to the above, if you look at the actual report you will see while overall mortality between the vaccinated and unvaccinated was about equal (31 for the mRNA versus 30 for the placebo), the number of Covid deaths is two for the mRNA group. TWO! (Compared to five for the placebo group.)

What does this mean? Vaccination does not prevent deaths from auto accidents, heart attacks, cancer, etc. Duh!

The fact that there were so few Covid deaths in the study is why the author is unwilling to support the conclusion that Bill keeps citing (and also why Facebook has banned the report as misleading).

 

[bluehende]

 

[easyrider]

Here is the ld50 for ivermectin

There are several toxicological reports of ivermectin in different species. The lethal dose 50 (LD50) reported in mice [19] is 25 mg/kg administered orally, whose human equivalent dose (HED) is 2.02 mg/kg. The LD50 increases up to 30 mg/kg when this compound is administered intraperitoneally in mice (HED 2.43 mg/kg).Feb 1, 2018

Now tell me what dose you need to get to therapeutic concentrations in the body that correspond to your in vitro studies.



Please point to your dosage for hydrogen peroxide, which was what I said...here is a refresher from 2 posts ago




And the rest of your post is sheer antivax nonsense. No study has shown zero inhibition of infection with vaccines. I have posted many times the actual authors comments. I and others have posted fact checks. They have shown that the effectiveness of these vaccines has dropped from the mid 90% range to about 50% for the mRNA vaccines. Other vaccines are less. The ones you promote btw.

You are totally misrepresenting the doses of Ivermectin prescribed by doctors. Doctors who are curing people with covid haven't killed anyone. You did the same for chlorine as a water disinfectant. You have become a source of total mis-information, imo.

Bill

 

[emeryjre]

At least the argument is back to only IVM and dosage levels

 

[bluehende]

You are totally misrepresenting the doses of Ivermectin prescribed by doctors. Doctors who are curing people with covid haven't killed anyone. You did the same for chlorine as a water disinfectant. You have become a source of total mis-information, imo.

Bill

Ignore the question. Therapeutical levels of ivermenctin are orders of magnitude lower than your in vitro "cure". What dose do you need? Misrepresenting what an ld50 is and making up what you think I have said is not proof of anything. I have never said that chlorine does not disinfect water. All I do is point out that you seem to understand dosing and concentration there , but are completely ignorant (I believe on purpose) that those same principles apply to Ivermectin. A drug that you need to increase by 25 fold in vivo from therapeutic concentrations to get to your concentrations invitro assays show is inhibitory. Selective amnesia I guess. Or you can show where ivermectin dosing that can give you inhibition (probably much greater than 25X the approved rate) is on that dose response curve that generated that ld50. But again you will ignore simple science and will again deflect and make up what I am saying.

 

[easyrider]

Ignore the question. Therapeutical levels of ivermenctin are orders of magnitude lower than your in vitro "cure". What dose do you need? Misrepresenting what an ld50 is and making up what you think I have said is not proof of anything. I have never said that chlorine does not disinfect water. All I do is point out that you seem to understand dosing and concentration there , but are completely ignorant (I believe on purpose) that those same principles apply to Ivermectin. A drug that you need to increase by 25 fold in vivo from therapeutic concentrations to get to your concentrations invitro assays show is inhibitory. Selective amnesia I guess. Or you can show where ivermectin dosing that can give you inhibition (probably much greater than 25X the approved rate) is on that dose response curve that generated that ld50. But again you will ignore simple science and will again deflect and make up what I am saying.

What you are saying makes no sense at all. Doctors are not prescribing a toxic dose of Ivermectin and the dose used for covid is nowhere near a toxic level no mater what you think.

Bill

 

[bluehende]

What you are saying makes no sense at all. Doctors are not prescribing a toxic dose of Ivermectin and the dose used for covid is nowhere near a toxic level no mater what you think.

Bill

make up what I am saying

Again simple question

YOUR OLD POST that proves it works had inhibition at levels orders of magnitude greater than the concentration you get in your body at theurapeutic (that means normal dosing). How much Ivermectin do you need to get to that concentration you need for inhibition...you know your proof it works. It is no where near the dose that is authorized. No one anywhere said doctors are prescribing at this rate. You are being obviously obtuse and refusing to answer the simple question. What rate of Ivermectin do dr's prescribe to get that 25x fold concentration in the body you need to get inhibition.

PS even getting the therapeutic dose to that does not guarantee test tube results will work in humans.

Or we could go back to the simple fact. No controlled study showed it worked.....none. You brought up they used the wrong dose....now put up or shut up. What dose do you need?

 

[easyrider]

Again simple question

YOUR OLD POST that proves it works had inhibition at levels orders of magnitude greater than the concentration you get in your body at theurapeutic (that means normal dosing). How much Ivermectin do you need to get to that concentration you need for inhibition...you know your proof it works. It is no where near the dose that is authorized. No one anywhere said doctors are prescribing at this rate. You are being obviously obtuse and refusing to answer the simple question. What rate of Ivermectin do dr's prescribe to get that 25x fold concentration in the body you need to get inhibition.

PS even getting the therapeutic dose to that does not guarantee test tube results will work in humans.

Or we could go back to the simple fact. No controlled study showed it worked.....none. You brought up they used the wrong dose....now put up or shut up. What dose do you need?

You are making stuff up. I did link FLCCC dose for Ivermectin depending on prophylaxis or intervention. I linked it again. My personal prescription based on 180 pounds and calculated by a doctor is 15 mg per day for 5 days for treating covid.

Bill

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...rmation-Evidence-for-Safety-of-Ivermectin.pdf

 

[bluehende]

You are making stuff up. I did link FLCCC dose for Ivermectin depending on prophylaxis or intervention. I linked it again. My personal prescription based on 180 pounds and calculated by a doctor is 15 mg per day for 5 days for treating covid.

Bill

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...rmation-Evidence-for-Safety-of-Ivermectin.pdf

And that gives a metabolic concentration that is 25x below the concentration needed for inhibition. HMMMMMMM You ignore that. YOU posted those concentrations.

Here is an actual study that says 35x. Maybe your bluehende blindness will be cured.

https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.1889

Caly et al.1 reported that ivermectin inhibited severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro for up to 48 hours using ivermectin at 5 μM. The concentration resulting in 50% inhibition (IC50; 2 µM) was > 35× higher than the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) after oral administration of the approved dose of ivermectin when given fasted.

 

[easyrider]

And that gives a metabolic concentration that is 25x below the concentration needed for inhibition. HMMMMMMM You ignore that. YOU posted those concentrations.

Here is an actual study that says 35x. Maybe your bluehende blindness will be cured.

https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.1889

Caly et al.1 reported that ivermectin inhibited severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro for up to 48 hours using ivermectin at 5 μM. The concentration resulting in 50% inhibition (IC50; 2 µM) was > 35× higher than the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) after oral administration of the approved dose of ivermectin when given fasted.

Why are you using invitro doses instead of invivo ? Maybe you don't know the difference. You haven't linked anything to dispute. We are not on the same page it seems. Wait, I found your link. I will spout off later.

Bill

 

[bluehende]

Why are you using invitro doses instead of invivo ? Maybe you don't know the difference. You haven't linked anything to dispute. We are not on the same page it seems. Wait, I found your link. I will spout off later.

Bill

I am using the in vivo concentration. You will never understand science if you do not understand a simple dose response curve. When administered at approved rate the invivo again invivo concentration attained is no wheres near what you need.

 

[easyrider]

The problem with using the in-vitro study is it really doesn't have the physiology of a human. To claim that in-virto results which show the high concentrations of Ivermectin that are needed has the same pharmacokinetics as a living human is wrong. The physiology of a human is complex with many systems working at a molecular level that isn't replicated in-vitro. The Catl study that shows the in-vitro result are using only the amount of Ivermectin required to block the transport of a protein and not other important mechanisms which do not require a high dose. The binding mechanisms of Ivermectin to the spike protein and ace 2 receptors are not revealed in the Catl study.

Other physiological pharaokentic reasons not included in the Catl study are that the human dose stays in the blood for 18 hours and body for 12 days. I'm sure there are studies refuting the Catl study.

In a way, you are looking at this backwards. When you have a result, which is doctors are having successful results at treating patients with Ivermectin, you keep researching. The Catl study does reveal a benefit and action even if it is at a higher does in-vitro. It is something to work off, imo. It doesn't disprove the doctors results.

Bill

 

[bluehende]

The problem with using the in-vitro study is it really doesn't have the physiology of a human. To claim that in-virto results which show the high concentrations of Ivermectin that are needed has the same pharmacokinetics as a living human is wrong. The physiology of a human is complex with many systems working at a molecular level that isn't replicated in-vitro. The Catl study that shows the in-vitro result are using only the amount of Ivermectin required to block the transport of a protein and not other important mechanisms which do not require a high dose. The binding mechanisms of Ivermectin to the spike protein and ace 2 receptors are not revealed in the Catl study.

Other physiological pharaokentic reasons not included in the Catl study are that the human dose stays in the blood for 18 hours and body for 12 days. I'm sure there are studies refuting the Catl study.

In a way, you are looking at this backwards. When you have a result, which is doctors are having successful results at treating patients with Ivermectin, you keep researching. The Catl study does reveal a benefit and action even if it is at a higher does in-vitro. It is something to work off, imo. It doesn't disprove the doctors results.

Bill

You do realize that it was you that posted that in vitro study...right. With the thread name Ivermectin cures covid.

So let me get this straight. All in vivo studies say it does not work and you negate any in vitro studies that show you cannot get anywhere near inhibitory concentrations, but still say it cures covid.....lol.

PS the researching has been completed....it does not work

 

["Roger"]

I think everyone knows that I don't believe that Ivermectin works based upon random controlled trials. When easyrider relies upon the reports of doctors having succcess, given that rct's have shown that 80% of subjects will get better on their own even when given what easyrider says was the wrong dossage, I still don't know how he decides that these doctors were able to distinguish between a person having gotten better on his or her own versus Ivermectin having worked.

That having been said, here is a bit of good news for easyrider.

Fake tweets make false claims about ivermectin

Images of tweets shared on Facebook suggest that those who used the anti-parasitic medication ivermectin for COVID-19 tr

www.politifact.com

I should say, however, the above false reports are a good lesson on why not to trust the social media as a good source for reliable information about Ivermectin.

 

[emeryjre]

If you read the FLCCC website and their self-promoting tweets, emails, texts, you will understand where the info comes from regarding IVM effectiveness.

The FLCCC has plenty of links to dispute any statistical studies that show IVM ineffectiveness.

The FLCCC has plenty of links to "statistical" studies that show IVM is extremely effective against Covid. If you are a doubter of IVM, they have plenty of counterpoints.

I have posted in the past on the FLCCC money generating machine. They are a model of how affiliate marketing works.

Bill is all in on the FLCCC people.

Bill posted a link to his local newspaper once. The paper was advertising IVM as a Covid-19 treatment on the front page.

 

["Roger"]

I'm not sure if this article is behind a firewall or not, but it extensively covers what are considered the most effective preventative measures and treatments for Covid.

What You Should Know About Treating Covid-19

People who get infected with the coronavirus now have a number of drug treatment options. Here’s what public-health and infectious-disease experts say about treatment.

www.wsj.com

 

[emeryjre]

I'm not sure if this article is behind a firewall or not, but it extensively covers what are considered the most effective preventative measures and treatments for Covid.

What You Should Know About Treating Covid-19

People who get infected with the coronavirus now have a number of drug treatment options. Here’s what public-health and infectious-disease experts say about treatment.

www.wsj.com

The link worked fine for me.

 

[MdRef]

 

[easyrider]

Bill is all in on the FLCCC people.

Yes, I am. I trust not for profit doctors that cure people more than I do for profit politicians and bureaucrats that have never cured anyone. Most studies that refute Ivermectin efficacy is affiliated with a pharmaceutical company which is a conflict of interest, imo.

Bill

 

[easyrider]

"I think everyone knows that I don't believe that Ivermectin works based upon random controlled trials. When easyrider relies upon the reports of doctors having succcess, given that rct's have shown that 80% of subjects will get better on their own even when given what easyrider says was the wrong dossage, I still don't know how he decides that these doctors were able to distinguish between a person having gotten better on his or her own versus Ivermectin having worked."

Most people, vaccinated or not, get over covid on their own too. What's your point ? A doctor treating a patient and a patient being treated by a doctor do see a result from medical interventions. Again, what's your point ? Are you saying all medical interventions that do not have a favorable rct are bs ?

Bill

 

[geekette]

Yes, I am. I trust not for profit doctors that cure people more than I do for profit politicians and bureaucrats that have never cured anyone. Most studies that refute Ivermectin efficacy is affiliated with a pharmaceutical company which is a conflict of interest, imo.

Bill

Do you know where the money goes in a nonprofit?