Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » BREAKING - Ivermectin listed on NIH website as a covid treatment. Pro-covid cultists
  1. Results 61 to 75 of 75
  2. Page 3 of 3
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3

Thread: BREAKING - Ivermectin listed on NIH website as a covid treatment. Pro-covid cultists

post 1649742633 10-27-2021, 04:34 PM
-
#61
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
From my read of emergency use authorizations, they act as mechanisms to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies. The FDA can allow use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. There are statutory criteria that have to be met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives in the domain of the authorized product or use, which I think means a vaccine can be approved if there are no approved alternative vaccines and a treatment can be approved if there are no approved treatments.

I don't think an available treatment, even if authorized, precludes use or authorization of a vaccine or preventative measure. But I might not be correctly understanding the legalese.
You're missing some points here. Ivermectin was already approved for use. It already passed the needed clinical trials to be used on a massive scale. COVID vaccines were not.

Do you understand that they had to jump through MORE hoops to approve the vaccine than for Ivermectin, but prevented the use of Ivermectin so that they could push the vaccine? Is that not backwards?
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1649742823 10-27-2021, 04:36 PM
-
#62
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By amikaelmorris⏩
fyi you misspelled archipelago in your sig
Thanks for the heads up.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1649743593 10-27-2021, 04:47 PM
-
#63
  1. scoops555
  2. Rep Power: 109080875
  1. scoops555
  2. Rep Power: 109080875
  3. Join Date: Oct 2009
  4. Age: 40
  5. Posts: 2,662
  6. Rep Power: 7946
<3RAINBOW ZUMBA<3
areolaborealis used to be my favorite poster crew

rip in peace pissbag 2021
post 1649744073 10-27-2021, 04:55 PM
-
#64
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
You're missing some points here. Ivermectin was already approved for use. It already passed the needed clinical trials to be used on a massive scale. COVID vaccines were not.

Do you understand that they had to jump through MORE hoops to approve the vaccine than for Ivermectin, but prevented the use of Ivermectin so that they could push the vaccine? Is that not backwards?
I don't think Ivermectin has been approved for use in treatment of SARS-CoV-2. How did they prevent use of an approved treatment? As far as I can tell, approvals are disease or condition specific.

Even if it was approved as a treatment, that approval doesn't block, negate, or preclude authorizing preventative measures like vaccines under an EUA. But, that's just my take on the statutes and I'm not a US lawyer.

Hopefully the Oxford trials will provide some convincing efficacy evidence.
post 1649744523 10-27-2021, 05:01 PM
-
#65
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I don't think Ivermectin has been approved for use in treatment of SARS-CoV-2. How did they prevent use of an approved treatment? As far as I can tell, approvals are disease or condition specific.

Even if it was approved as a treatment, that approval doesn't block, negate, or preclude authorizing preventative measures like vaccines under an EUA. But, that's just my take on the statutes and I'm not a US lawyer.
You're not using any critical thinking skills at all here. You really aren't. I'm assuming that you're "ideologically possessed", which means, your brain cannot deviate from the narrative, and therefore, you cannot reason through anything. You're just copy and pasting and not actually reading and thinking about what is being argued.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1649745293 10-27-2021, 05:15 PM
-
#66
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By TugOfPeace⏩
https://www.fda.gov/media/142749/download

fourth bullet point on page 3
Yep!
post 1649745693 10-27-2021, 05:20 PM
-
#67
  1. BrunotheBoxer
  2. Registered User
  1. BrunotheBoxer
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2009
  4. Location: Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 8,504
  6. Rep Power: 98512
Vaccine remorse is real and it’s spectacular.
post 1649745943 10-27-2021, 05:25 PM
-
#68
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
From what I recall, Ivermectin was not approved for prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 when they issued the EUA - and still isn't due to inconclusive and low quality data.

Hopefully, results of trials will change the NIH's recommendation on use of Ivermectin for treatment of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Maybe the trials are also looking at prevention and we'll see recommendations there as well.
post 1649746733 10-27-2021, 05:37 PM
-
#69
  1. LukeLissen
  2. 📶 🔌🔋 99%
  1. LukeLissen
  2. 📶 🔌🔋 99%
  3. Join Date: Mar 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 27,092
  6. Rep Power: 192151
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
From what I recall, Ivermectin was not approved for prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 when they issued the EUA - and still isn't due to inconclusive and low quality data.

Hopefully, results of trials will change the NIH's recommendation on use of Ivermectin for treatment of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Maybe the trials are also looking at prevention and we'll see recommendations there as well.
Ivermectin works. We already know it works. Nothing Oxford does is going to change that fact.
post 1649746813 10-27-2021, 05:38 PM
-
#70
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 51
  6. Posts: 14,623
  7. Rep Power: 106507
Originally Posted By tunejunkie⏩
They’re gonna be so mad there’s an available treatment
They would use it either way, in secret, and then continue to crap on it.

Does anyone believe that prominent Liberals would avoid taking it if they caught COVID-19? Sure, pleb Liberals might avoid it, but people in power? No way.
Eat in a deficit to lose weight.
Hit your protein and fat minimums to stay healthy and keep your gainz.
Lift heavy and do HIIT to look and feel awesome.
Use the internet to learn why you should do these things and how to do these things.
post 1649746983 10-27-2021, 05:43 PM
-
#71
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By LukeLissen⏩
Ivermectin works. We already know it works. Nothing Oxford does is going to change that fact.
I was just referring to NIH panel recommendations. What the Oxford data may change is the panel's recommendation.
post 1649755803 10-28-2021, 03:45 AM
-
#72
  1. SUPERH0T
  2. Registered User
  1. SUPERH0T
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2018
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 4,663
  6. Rep Power: 18810
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I don't think Ivermectin has been approved for use in treatment of SARS-CoV-2. How did they prevent use of an approved treatment? As far as I can tell, approvals are disease or condition specific.

Even if it was approved as a treatment, that approval doesn't block, negate, or preclude authorizing preventative measures like vaccines under an EUA. But, that's just my take on the statutes and I'm not a US lawyer.

Hopefully the Oxford trials will provide some convincing efficacy evidence.
For the FDA to approve any drug for a disease, someone needs to come along and run trials on it, and those cost millions to billions of dollars. No one is going to do that for an out of patent drug for a disease where they have patent protected, highly profitable alternatives to sell.

FDA approval just means someone has basically paid the FDA off.
SUPERHOT SUPERHOT SUPERHOT SUPERHOT

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

SUPERHOT SUPERHOT SUPERHOT SUPERHOT
post 1649757553 10-28-2021, 05:02 AM
-
#73
  1. FilsGoodMan
  2. Registered User
  1. FilsGoodMan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2017
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 6,656
  6. Rep Power: 21260
Daily reminder that the COVID scam is over, they've made the money and walking away. Next year Influenza will make a magical triumphant return (they'll simply stop testing for COVID and start testing for Influenza again).

Lol @ absolute low IQs retards that believed COVID was a real threat
PUREBLOOD CREW
post 1649758223 10-28-2021, 05:34 AM
-
#74
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
From what I recall, Ivermectin was not approved for prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 when they issued the EUA - and still isn't due to inconclusive and low quality data.

Hopefully, results of trials will change the NIH's recommendation on use of Ivermectin for treatment of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Maybe the trials are also looking at prevention and we'll see recommendations there as well.
Ivermectin has already been through trials, and approved, to be used as an antiviral medication and has been used to treat 18 different viruses already. Maybe not for COVID, but at least it’s been through trails and found to be safe for viral treatment, which is 18 more than the vaccine.

There has been a trial for Covid though, which included 5000 patients, but the FDA lied and said that none has been done and refused to approve it from that study, even though it was a success

Now does this make sense?
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1649759273 10-28-2021, 06:12 AM
-
#75
  1. Evolutionary1
  2. Registered User
  1. Evolutionary1
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 36,489
  6. Rep Power: 115290
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
Ivermectin has already been through trials, and approved, to be used as an antiviral medication and has been used to treat 18 different viruses already. Maybe not for COVID, but at least it’s been through trails and found to be safe for viral treatment, which is 18 more than the vaccine.

There has been a trial for Covid though, which included 5000 patients, but the FDA lied and said that none has been done and refused to approve it from that study, even though it was a success

Now does this make sense?
They can't seem to understand that Greed is more powerful that their trusted " science ".
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts