This guy is not a medical doctor btw. Not trying to discredit him or anything, but he's a nurse with a PhD.Lots of litigious patients in the Western world, so doctors have to tread carefully. For example, there's no way vaccine manufacturers would have released the vaccine so soon if they were liable for adverse effects.

Also I've heard this a lot during the pandemic, people blaming doctors for the lack of alternative treatments or forced vaccinations etc. You should know that your doctors have little to no power over these decisions.
The number of docs going into private practice is at an all time low, most end up working for hospitals or hospital owned practices nowadays, which certainly limits independence when it comes to stuff like pandemic response.
We're not even allowed todiscussivermectin for covid treatment at my hospital jfl.

The reason its being used so heavily in India and Latin America is that medical malpractice barely exists in those countries (you're more likely to get beaten up by a patients family than sued lol), and ivermectin is easily attainable.
Not sure if anyone's been to India, but you can literally walk up to a street side pharmacy and buy chit like antibiotics and statins otc no questions asked.

I certainly could prescribe ivermectin if I wanted. While it's not a benign drug, the risks are pretty low and it might actually prove to work against covid, but I don't actively care for covid patients so I haven't really dug into the literature. However, the second that a patient tries to get the script filled they'll likely face pushback from their retail pharmacist, and the prescriber will probably end up getting a call questioning the diagnosis that led to the prescription. I'm sure there are many pharmacists who would gladly fill an ivermectin prescription, but they too can easily be shutdown from higher ups, and not many people are going to independent pharmacies these days.

Intensivists like Dr. Kory would be getting the same pay whether they treated patients with ivermectin or remdesivir, there's no financial benefit forthemto use the more expensive drugs. Your average doc isn't getting much kickback from pharma companies (you can even look it up on the cms website)

We're just cogs in the machine brahs

You are right that there is off-label use. It's supposed to be used sparingly though.

Anyway, here's why the FDA thought it should be banned.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consum...event-covid-19Do you feel there was a conspiracy to suppress ivermectin?

People pushing media campaigns like this seem to universally come with a catch, no longer practicing fired doc, caribbean, nurse pretending to speak as a medical doctor.

Whats the hate with Caribbean medical licenses? Srs


Just seems a bit odd. I would wager you none of you would even be able to tell the difference between where someone was educated medically in most scenarios. Im not from there or anything. Just curious.

I listened to half the podcast. Interesting chit. There is no doubt that pharma only cares about cash and if something cheap is available then nobody profits. Thats not rocket science. Is Ivermectin the answer, dunno i hope so. All i can say is that Ivermectin from a side effect point of view is really low risk.

Ivermectin has been around for 40 years and is one of the safest drugs there is and super cheap in an emergency situation and with clear and very stark practical experience it helps many people .........but No the world has to wait indoors destroying lives for an experimental vaccine


i can see the sense in that

This logic doesn't make sense at all.


Which makes more money:

1) Something that already exists that you can jack the price up due to new research showing it does something (which isn't true but for sake of arguemnt)
2) Gotta start from the ground up, pay overtime, keep labs up and running, money money money money money.........finally get around to a vaccine that works more often than not, then the logistics of keeping it cold enough and knowing it has a less than 90 day shelf life......


I know yall want a grand conspiracy here but really, its a stretch beyond imagination....Pharm companies would make more if there was a drug already available.......there isn't a comparison.

If it is so cheap and effective, you would think someone would have done a controlled randomized double blind trial by now.

You say that with what data to back that beyond generalized statement up?

It's such a silly statement to make I am curious why you'd say that?

He read it on a conservative site where he gets his talking points. I was watching a Fauci interview where he was talking about how these people are so full of chit. He was like you get people with no training in virology talking about Furin cleavage sites. Really? It's kind of a joke. Almost all discussion among lay people is just parroting of talking points.

Like most of you are listening to Brett Weinstein and a few other people over the medical community at large. The real debate between them should occur in the peer reviewed research, with evidence presented. Instead, unscrupulous people like him go to the media and play this game. It no longer matters what the truth is. It just matters who can get enough parrots on his side. It's just like this lab leak thing. Nothing changed. No new evidence. But the narrative has shifted.

Another thing is that it isn't Fauci or only a handful of people. It's the entire medical community for the most part pushing these vaccines. Think of the most prestigious universities you know and look at what their medical faculty have to say.

It seems people would rather believe everything is a huge conspiracy. Just remember the larger the conspiracy, the harder it is to sustain.

I dont know what world youre living in if you dont think profit is the name of the game.

Im not saying Ivermectin is the answer, but the fact remains that pharma loves money.


In your scenario? Why would you jack up the price on some existing drug? Has this happened before?

From an observers eyes, it seems like being the first to something that you can sell worldwide and influence global trends is going to make you money, regardless of how much money it initially takes to invest into it.



Im all for vaccines. Im not for how they are being used to influence our lives. No idea how the idea is essentially ‘ you can travel and get back to normal once planet earth is vaccinated ‘
A) thats impossible
B) i have no idea how we are vaccinating 30 year in developed nations olds when elderly and healthcare workers around the world didnt even get the first dose yet. How can this be justified.

And you mean to tell me its not about profits and cash money?

But we are at the stage where people in the internet get desperate, so im not even surprised at the comments itt and beyond.

But some country like India that gives zero fuks about big pharma would surely run their own double blind clinical trial. Do you think China and India don't have Ivermectin? China themselves pushed out a fairly speedy, cheaper, and more easily stored and distributed but less effective vaccine.

Remdesivir
zinc with ionophores
ivermectin

Plenty of antivirals seem useful with minimal side effects. It seems like they're just looking for the best choice.

dexamethasone and remdesevir were already approved iirc but obv any other drugs that work are welcomed

Not sure if you agreed with me or not. You just stated something and quoted me.

Im not sure if these countries did trials. From that podcast it seems like certain regions of India started administering Ivermectin.

China developed a cheap easy vaccine that is not accepted in the west. Cheap enough to pedal to the continent of Africa probably and rest of Asia.
This just further enforces that people love cash and influence, especially pharma.

Again not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing.

im disagreeing if ur insinuating big pharma suppressed ivermectin and the whole world was in on it

SaNOtize a nitric oxide based nasal spray reduces viral load by 95% in 24 hours, 99% in 72 hours. Simple, well understood mechanism.

Perfect stage 2 trials, and it took 100 days after those were published for regulators to allow the company to merely start recruiting volunteers for stage 3. Again, it's merely nitric oxide.

That much of delaying is a conspiracy.

https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/...linical-trail/


https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...iral-Treatment

See my posts above.

The way this pandemic has panned out gives me enough reason to believe that its money first, lives second.

You could'nt even get one sentence deep without contradicting yourself. Stop feeding your brain parasite.

Tell me how many college courses in biology you have taken. Let's be honest. It isn't a weak argument. You guys probably didn't know anything about viruses, proteins, immunity, etc and still don't beyond what you read on your favorite conservative news website. A lot of the chit I see posted on here is easily addressed in introductory textbooks. You guys are, essentially, parrots.

And sadly, battles that ought to be fought in the arena of science with peer reviewed rigorous research are now fought in the public arena, and "theories" become popularized by whoever has the most parrots. This isn't unique to the right. I see it on the left as well. I've had people push the vaccines really hard on me when I had my first dose. I said I was going to wait until more people got their first dose before I got my 2nd. Apparently that logic didn't fly with this particular liberal girl because she had read something on her favorite democrat news site. She didn't understand immunity or why I thought it was more essential the elderly get their first dose. Because DeSantis rightly concluded the same, she assumed it must be wrong. Because DeSantis must always be wrong because he's Republican, right? It's garbage. People who don't know science should stay out of science.

If Ivermectin works, let someone do a double blind randomized controlled trial and show it. This is how we see if any treatment works.

People who still listen to Joe Rogan in his current form are fuking losers srs. And this comes from someone who used to listen religiously from the time he was still doing them in his house.

Seeing people post Rogan **** on social media is massive cringe. Up there with Jordan Peterson.

Cliffs?

Been prescribed 4 billion times, deaths in the hundreds, *******. Infinitely safer than aspirin.

Your arrogance with no reason to have it is hilarious.

Many of the guests he has are actually not the very top of their respective fields. Some are fringe, and it leads to a misrepresentation of the field.

For example, I once saw Rogan interview Eric Weinstein. Now, while Eric Weinstein certainly has impressive credentials, having studied mathematical physics at Harvard, he really floundered hard at explaining the Hopf fibration. IDK if he was just trying to cater his explanation to the expected IQ level of the audience or if he has been out of school for too long but jfc. Also, his more recent work in mathematical physics was not well received. He is one of those scientists who went to the media and got more parrots rather than win in the arena of science. That being said, he is apparently a very competent investor, which is his current job.

Too often, Rogan interviews fringe people rather than true experts. It gives the public the wrong ideas.

I used to still try to listen when I found the guest interesting, and Joe usually ruins the conversation with some dumbfuk irrelevant comments. Sorry, brah. Your second sentence makes you sound pretty naive, so I'll just let you live in your bubble. Most of the dudes I know who still tune into Joe are gullible manchildren. Just my experience.

You in my User CP:

"You have body dismorphia, which by my estimation will ruin most of your close relationships from your deeply-rooted insecurities."

Thanks for the neg, Jordan P. I hope your day gets better.

Very strong counter argument!

I'm not even sure most are tbh, but I haven't counted. In my own experience in the podcasts I have seen, where he has chosen scientists, most of the time, they are people with fringe views. But I haven't counted it.

Anyway, Rogan giving them a platform doesn't help the situation of misinformation. I don't really have anything against Rogan, in general though. But he is prone to conspiracies and interested in the fringe. It's ok. A lot of people are like that, and it is curiosity. The issue is when people take it very seriously.

I can't believe I ever interacted with you in the first place.

Cringe so hard I'm going to break something.

Ivmmeta.com

I'll also be happy to provide you with a long list of science that says Remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and immunoglobulin therapy is effectively worthless as we have used it.

Eagerly awaiting your explanation why this isn't adequate data but the one or two ****ty, debunked studies that enabled use of far more costly and experimental treatments were appropriate justification for emergency use authorization.