You don’t need to take prophylatic Ivermectin daily. With Vitamin D I would recommend taking it daily but in theory you can also take it at less frequent intervals.
If people can get Ivermectin legitimately and aren’t taking horse pills or ordering it off the dark web, I don’t see an issue there.
I’m not sure whether there’s much of a quality difference between dark web sources and generic out of the pharmacy.
But all of those have to been taken daily, paid for out of pocket, and none of them are vaccines.
It’s a question of how serious you think COVID-19 happens to be and therefore how serious you want to be to do something about it. If you think COVID-19 isn’t serious enough to do something daily about it, that’s a valid position but you should be clear about that being your position.
So how reasonable is this as a public health policy?
As a public health policy you can give Ivermectin to people for free. Given that it’s cheap enough for the Indians to do that, it should be easier in richer Western countries.
If I were in charge of public health policy I would also say that vaccines can be brought to market by showing that they result in antibody creation in humans and disease prevention in animal studies.
There’s also no need for public health policy to be a one-size-fits-all solution.
I’m not sure whether there’s much of a quality difference between dark web sources and generic out of the pharmacy.
They only way I believe anyone should feel safe recommending it would be if they are sure it’s pharmaceutical grade and quality. Otherwise… it could possibly do more harm than good, or do nothing at all.
It’s a question of how serious you think COVID-19 happens to be and therefore how serious you want to be to do something about it. If you think COVID-19 isn’t serious enough to do something daily about it, that’s a valid position but you should be clear about that being your position.
I don’t see how this is relevant. You could believe Covid is a very big deal and not have the money or means to spend ~50 dollars a month on supplements.
This the question is, even if you did, would this protocol be good enough to prevent catching Covid and transmitting it to someone that’s immunocompromised, for example.
As a public health policy you can give Ivermectin to people for free. Given that it’s cheap enough for the Indians to do that, it should be easier in richer Western countries.
I can? I’m not the FDA, Fauci or WHO. How can I make sure 7 billion people have enough Ivermectin to take several days a week for a year or more and ensure compliance?
I know you didn’t literally mean me, but this is a much harder problem than people make it out to be to coordinate giving the whole world until the pandemic ends, and that’s assuming Ivermectin would be effective here.
There’s also no need for public health policy to be a one-size-fits-all solution.
In general, I agree. Just think were overstating the case for how easy giving everyone seven different supplement regularly and ensuring that they do it… so say nothing about how effective they are compared to vaccines.
If I were in charge of public health policy…
None of us are and none of us will be anytime soon, there’s a lot of discussion like this is plausible.
And there’s no real plan. How would be administer 100 of billions of doses of Ivermectin and ensure people are taking them for months or year?
They only way I believe anyone should feel safe recommending it would be if they are sure it’s pharmaceutical grade and quality. Otherwise… it could possibly do more harm than good, or do nothing at all.
The same is true with a generic that you buy at a pharmacy. It can possibly do more harm than good or do nothing at all. Ranbaxy sold generics for which that’s true and even after the FDA was told about that by a whistleblower it took them years to do something about it.
This the question is, even if you did, would this protocol be good enough to prevent catching Covid and transmitting it to someone that’s immunocompromised, for example.
You can ask the same thing with the vaccines. Vaccines do have the disadvantage that it’s easier for viruses to mutate to escape them. High vaccination rates in the UK and Israel didn’t prevent a rising case count but Ivermectin use (alone) coincides with it in India.
I don’t see how this is relevant. You could believe Covid is a very big deal and not have the money or means to spend ~50 dollars a month on supplements.
Price of supplements is a different issue then whether you have to take the supplement daily.
I can? I’m not the FDA, Fauci or WHO. How can I make sure 7 billion people have enough Ivermectin to take several days a week for a year or more and ensure compliance?
You don’t have the power but you also don’t have the power to set public health policy in other regards.
How would be administer 100 of billions of doses of Ivermectin and ensure people are taking them for months or year?
Public health policy is not about ensuring that people do things outside of totalitarian states. It’s about providing people with options and informing them about the value of various actions.
The same is true with a generic that you buy at a pharmacy. It can possibly do more harm than good or do nothing at all. Ranbaxy sold generics for which that’s true and even after the FDA was told about that by a whistleblower it took them years to do something about it.
Absent a studies comparing the quality of drugs from the dark web vs. the quality of drugs pharmacies, my prior is to assume that drugs from pharmacies are typically safer. Although I agree, yes, it’s not perfect. I have recourse if I discover they’re contaminated or don’t contain the medication advertised. Best I could do on the dark web is leave a mean review and hope the dealer doesn’t find a way to retaliate.
You can ask the same thing with the vaccines. Vaccines do have the disadvantage that it’s easier for viruses to mutate to escape them.
Price of supplements is a different issue then whether you have to take the supplement daily.
Price is a factor in compliance. If you can’t afford supplements, you will be less likely to comply.
You don’t have the power but you also don’t have the power to set public health policy in other regards… Public health policy is not about ensuring that people do things outside of totalitarian states. It’s about providing people with options and informing them about the value of various actions.
This is ultimately why I think this is an unproductive and to some degree dangerously misleading discussion (not just you and me, but also the vaccination vs early treatment and treatment protocols).
I don’t take any joy citing the linked author, but I do feel like we’re on a ship and we’re heading towards and iceberg and everyone is like “what about zinc? what about ivermectin?” And, yes, those are all things that deserve more attention and I’m against censoring discussion of them.
Ivermectin may yet prove to be a miracle drug, and I think the evidence there is promising. I don’t see the downsides to people taking zinc or vitamin d3 at reasonable and effective doses. I don’t see any of it as having the potential to turn the ship around.
But right now as of August 16th at ~5:45pm mountain time what we have to turn the ship around that we know works are vaccines. Yes, the side-effects are probably worse than claimed. And, yes, the public health apparatus in the US sucks for a million reasons, one of which is that they talk to us like children when it comes to vaccine safety. But all the evidence I’ve seen is that this is better than the alternative.
Since I haven’t seen other proven solutions for quickly and reliably turning the ship around, comparatively everything else seems like a distraction.
I think we’re all on board with D3. In terms of the risk-benefit analysis. If this is what you’re talking about.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf
I would say that for most other things on the list.
If people can get Ivermectin legitimately and aren’t taking horse pills or ordering it off the dark web, I don’t see an issue there.
*with the standard caveats that particular people may have contraindications, etc.
But all of those have to been taken daily, paid for out of pocket, and none of them are vaccines.
So how reasonable is this as a public health policy?
You don’t need to take prophylatic Ivermectin daily. With Vitamin D I would recommend taking it daily but in theory you can also take it at less frequent intervals.
I’m not sure whether there’s much of a quality difference between dark web sources and generic out of the pharmacy.
It’s a question of how serious you think COVID-19 happens to be and therefore how serious you want to be to do something about it. If you think COVID-19 isn’t serious enough to do something daily about it, that’s a valid position but you should be clear about that being your position.
As a public health policy you can give Ivermectin to people for free. Given that it’s cheap enough for the Indians to do that, it should be easier in richer Western countries.
If I were in charge of public health policy I would also say that vaccines can be brought to market by showing that they result in antibody creation in humans and disease prevention in animal studies.
There’s also no need for public health policy to be a one-size-fits-all solution.
They only way I believe anyone should feel safe recommending it would be if they are sure it’s pharmaceutical grade and quality. Otherwise… it could possibly do more harm than good, or do nothing at all.
I don’t see how this is relevant. You could believe Covid is a very big deal and not have the money or means to spend ~50 dollars a month on supplements.
This the question is, even if you did, would this protocol be good enough to prevent catching Covid and transmitting it to someone that’s immunocompromised, for example.
I can? I’m not the FDA, Fauci or WHO. How can I make sure 7 billion people have enough Ivermectin to take several days a week for a year or more and ensure compliance?
I know you didn’t literally mean me, but this is a much harder problem than people make it out to be to coordinate giving the whole world until the pandemic ends, and that’s assuming Ivermectin would be effective here.
In general, I agree. Just think were overstating the case for how easy giving everyone seven different supplement regularly and ensuring that they do it… so say nothing about how effective they are compared to vaccines.
None of us are and none of us will be anytime soon, there’s a lot of discussion like this is plausible.
And there’s no real plan. How would be administer 100 of billions of doses of Ivermectin and ensure people are taking them for months or year?
The same is true with a generic that you buy at a pharmacy. It can possibly do more harm than good or do nothing at all. Ranbaxy sold generics for which that’s true and even after the FDA was told about that by a whistleblower it took them years to do something about it.
You can ask the same thing with the vaccines. Vaccines do have the disadvantage that it’s easier for viruses to mutate to escape them. High vaccination rates in the UK and Israel didn’t prevent a rising case count but Ivermectin use (alone) coincides with it in India.
Price of supplements is a different issue then whether you have to take the supplement daily.
You don’t have the power but you also don’t have the power to set public health policy in other regards.
Public health policy is not about ensuring that people do things outside of totalitarian states. It’s about providing people with options and informing them about the value of various actions.
Absent a studies comparing the quality of drugs from the dark web vs. the quality of drugs pharmacies, my prior is to assume that drugs from pharmacies are typically safer. Although I agree, yes, it’s not perfect. I have recourse if I discover they’re contaminated or don’t contain the medication advertised. Best I could do on the dark web is leave a mean review and hope the dealer doesn’t find a way to retaliate.
I’ve heard this repeated often, but I haven’t seen evidence of it. How much as measles changed since we began vaccinating people for it? How about polio? How about smallpox? The evidence that I’m aware of also seems to be against this.
Price is a factor in compliance. If you can’t afford supplements, you will be less likely to comply.
This is ultimately why I think this is an unproductive and to some degree dangerously misleading discussion (not just you and me, but also the vaccination vs early treatment and treatment protocols).
I don’t take any joy citing the linked author, but I do feel like we’re on a ship and we’re heading towards and iceberg and everyone is like “what about zinc? what about ivermectin?” And, yes, those are all things that deserve more attention and I’m against censoring discussion of them.
Ivermectin may yet prove to be a miracle drug, and I think the evidence there is promising. I don’t see the downsides to people taking zinc or vitamin d3 at reasonable and effective doses. I don’t see any of it as having the potential to turn the ship around.
But right now as of August 16th at ~5:45pm mountain time what we have to turn the ship around that we know works are vaccines. Yes, the side-effects are probably worse than claimed. And, yes, the public health apparatus in the US sucks for a million reasons, one of which is that they talk to us like children when it comes to vaccine safety. But all the evidence I’ve seen is that this is better than the alternative.
Since I haven’t seen other proven solutions for quickly and reliably turning the ship around, comparatively everything else seems like a distraction.