They really don't think things through. It's so blaringly obvious, but they got their head in the sand.

These are the same idiots who don’t realize that the same “big pharma” boogeyman they fear is behind the vaccine…..is also behind the antibody treatment they think is great.

You do realize that Ivermectin got a Nobel Prize for treatment for parasites in humans, right? For parasites that include viruses, like malaria, right? I get that it's not FDA approved for a particular kind of coronavirus species, but it blocks parasites in the same way, many times more efficiently in some parasites than others.

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bugbitten/2020/01/28/ivermectin-inhibiting-transmission-of-the-malaria-parasite-beyond-insecticidal-activity/

Malaria is a parasite, not a virus, two very different species classifications. Like birds are different from bats.

Wow. I'm sorry. I guess I got malaria and West Nile mixed up. But have you read about how it's probably effective in some way in preventing serious covid cases? I'm not saying that you're stupid, I just want to know if you have read it and think it has any benefit for use in society today to prevent covid (for people who for some reason don't take the vaccine). Sars is one of coronaviruses closest relatives. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

Clicking your link, I examined the doi (which is basically the social security number of an article) and the link brought me to this:
doi: 10.1038/s41429-021-00430-5 [Epub ahead of print]
"RETRACTED ARTICLE: The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article

The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the methodology and the conclusions of this review article. Postpublication review confirmed that while the review article appropriately describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin, the cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as Supplementary Information."

This means "After this was published, we looked again and found it to be a flawed study."

You see, I'm not a Doctor. I don't have a PhD in immunology, virology, or pathology.

I'm not going to pretend that by reading an article, I am going to know more than someone who took 4 years of pre-med, 4 years of med school, and 2 years of residency, plus whatever tenure they have.

I did take Anatomy and Physiology in training for a Medical Assistant. I do understand how the immune system works. I do understand how viruses work. On the rudimentary level.

I've seen articles become retracted before, and based on my experience, you're right that it doesn't show clear clinical evidence. What I'm trying to push across is that You're interpretation of what retracted means doesn't mean that it found no evidence of it linking it to Ivermectin. I've literally seen articles like this one be silenced by government agencies (like some hydroxychloroquine studies and that one about the Wuhan IO Virology defector who showed evidence of the genetically modified origins of covid) because they came to conclusions that weren't aligned with Dr. Fauci's previous statements. Just because it doesn't show signs of a miracle cure doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into more in depth. The thing is, when the government agencies retract certain studies (for sake of dangers to the public (like people assuming that certain drugs will work when they aren't proven to do so)), they research it in such a slothful manner, that I feel they're personally not looking onto it more, as to not upset the people whose reputations would be tarnished because of the controversy and the politics behind it, if the drug were proven to actually work. --> Btw I'm not using long sentences because I'm angry, the topic is just really nuanced to me, and the line of logic I'm trying to push forward is complicated.

Since your reply is so nuanced, I'll reply in-line with ">>"

I've seen articles become retracted before, and based on my experience, you're right that it doesn't show clear clinical evidence. >> And you can stop there, unless you can find any other article that supports or shows the use of ivermectin being useful.

What I'm trying to push across is that You're >> Your*

interpretation of what retracted means doesn't mean that it found no evidence of it linking it to Ivermectin. >> It means a possible number of things:
1) that given the study, the results were too random. Too many variables to be considered a viable study.
2) They were unable to reproduce the results (Which is the critical part in what science is)

I've literally seen articles like this one >>Which articles?

be silenced by government agencies>> Which agencies?

(like some hydroxychloroquine studies >> *facepalm* that was literally killing people in an exponential rate compared to the COVID vaccine.
and that one about the Wuhan IO Virology defector who showed evidence of the genetically modified origins of covid) >> That's because it was peer reviewed, and deemed to be completely fallacious. In that, there was no trace or evidence of genetic modification, just mutation.

because they came to conclusions that weren't aligned with Dr. Fauci's previous statements. >> Being that he's got an impressive array of credentials that required an extreme amount of hard work to earn them, I think he's qualified to make those assessments.

Just because it doesn't show signs of a miracle cure doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into more in depth. >> As the right said, the cure can't be worse than the virus. Ivermectin, assuming the study you cited, actually works, requires far more intensive treatment than the vaccine does.
It requires a tailored regime of ivermectin, administered over a couple weeks. This chokes up resources that we're already short on: doctors. (more)

The thing is, when the government agencies>> Which agencies?
retract certain studies (for sake of dangers to the public (like people assuming that certain drugs will work when they aren't proven to do so)), they research it in such a slothful manner, that I feel they're personally not looking onto it more, >> On what grounds do you make that assessment? Why do you feel that they aren't doing the work? Do you know what goes into such investigatory work?

as to not upset the people whose reputations would be tarnished because of the controversy and the politics behind it, if the drug were proven to actually work. --> Btw I'm not using long sentences because I'm angry, the topic is just really nuanced to me, and the line of logic I'm trying to push forward is complicated. >> Admittedly, trying to follow it was difficult. Yet, knowing the process of how this works, isn't. You should inquire at your local university to a masters/phd professor what goes into doing a successful study. The best people to ask are psychology professors as their studies are the most scrutinized more than any other. Ask them what goes into making a study. Then bring this information to them and ask about it.

1.) NIH, CDC, or the Chinese state medical agency
2.) For all those controversial drugs, I haven't seen a single study trying to study how those drugs might be useful in those controversial applications; I've just seen constant speeches to the public about how we shouldn't use them. For every topic, if it is admitted to be right by one of the agencies (like Wuhan *gain of function* lab leak theory), it's done so years after it's been revealed that the agencies themselves already had detailed knowledge of it, which knowledge the public could've formulated into an obvious conclusion if they themselves had the information beforehand.
3.) Professors research the scientific topics, not the public health agencies themselves. What I'm trying to say is that there's some corruption going on in the government. The professors would probably just say that I should trust the CDC/NIH, (because they as professors submit their studies to those agencies) which I and many many others currently do not. Even if they did, they'd probably not say anything different considering how many people are losing their jobs these days for wrongthink. Though, I will, make an effort to talk to a professor about this article... You make some good points.

Alright, look.

You're dismissing professors out of hand. You're presuming to know as much as them, yet they have the PhD.

I know for a fact, a psychology professor would tell you what is required for a study.

I gave you some pointers and you're trying to create messes where there are none. So, assuming they will just refer to the CDC or whatever government agency, and you don't trust that government agency, what does a solid study look like to you? Try to organize your thoughts and your structure on this one so I can carefully guide you through the process. There's a reason that we use the form for study that we do.

Just because one person says "I FOUND SOMETHING!" Doesn't make what they found viable.

If "the professors research the scientific topics" (that's kind of a really watered-down version of what they do) and not the public health agencies themselves, why would they refer you to the government agencies to trust them, and not their own credibility which has their signature on their work? Did you know that you need to participate in studies to get your Master's in Psychology? did you know you have to do your own study that provides to the community to get your PhD?

Here's what goes into making a study: https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/hwp/files/bg_psychology.pdf

You typically need over 1,000 subjects (minimum) to conduct a study (in psychology.) Your study will need to be able to be conducted by others reading your paper without the need to consult you.
It's really sad that the word "study" is being through around so liberally (not the political term) as it nullifies and reduces the value or weight in the word. A study is a long and arduous process. Now, you get people on facebook saying "A study showed..." When it's just a video of one person doing something, taken on someone's phone camera.

I really get the strong implication that you're a conspiracy theorist. You're talking about corruption in the government, but failed to specify what, and have shown no evidence to support the claim. You speak loosely about professors and government agencies. Professors, their job is to teach you HOW to do a study. That's literally what they do. (Some of them anyway.) Then you put straw in the horses mouth and expect them to chew it? Come on, man. You're not doing real good for credibility here. You seem like someone who wants to learn, so I'm trying to be patient. You just have to put your foot through the door.

I took a break from Imgflip for a few days to clear my mind, and then I remembered that I came across a few bitchute videos a while back that can help me convey to you what I've seen. The first is about Dr. Fauci, and the second is about the vaccine.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fpaXWVFTOjTA/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/uJkvgWqTfmfz/

Do you have any alternative sources that show the same information other than a far right wing conspiracy theory website? Wikipedia would be more acceptable than this.

Did you watch it? These are on there because they were blacklisted from Youtube. Please watch the *content*. I found these very interesting, as the person who told the story (from the first video) is actually telling stories about Dr. Fauci. And worked for the CDC/NIH. Also, if you disprove of your idealogical opponents, it's probably best to disprove the actual content. Plus, Wikipedia censors things it doesn't like on political candidates pages by "Extended-protecting" them.