The Ironic Contrarian

LOL... there's no money in ivermectin for Big Pharma... Nice try!

Wow, did I pull the crazy out of the woodwork with this one. Aspirin has been FDA approved for a long time but that doesn't mean it'll cure a cancer.

The Vaccine works. You likely think it keeps you impervious to infection, which it doesn't, as that is not how vaccines typically work. It allows your body to recognize and suppress the pathogen before it can overwhelm the body, this mitigating the impact of the illness as well as reducing the amount of time one may spread it.

Masks do work. Different types to varying degrees. It is about lowering the risk, not just for you, but those around you. In addition, the more opportunities you give to be a petri dish for cultivating variants the blame you deserve. Dang, I'd hate to see what sacrifices you'd make if this were a WWII-style war effort.

btw- you started your little diatribe using an ad hominem attack: "Wow, did I pull the crazy out of the woodwork with this one.", which is typically the tool of someone who really doesn't have a full grasp of the subject matter. Everything you said came to you from the liberal MSM, or thereabouts.

You said the vaccine works. It works in the manner that the changed narrative now prescribes. You failed to mention that natural immunity also works, and according to the one of the authorities liberals like to worship, the CDC, natural immunity is 6x superior to vaccine induced immunity. I am not sure if I buy their assessment of such an intangible data point, but you're the one that should be impressed, not me.

I wonder if you have been enlightened to the fact that Pfizer is now changing their 4Q financial forecasts to allow for the negative information concerning adverse vaccine reactions that is about to break. Y'all act like masks and vaccines can only result in a zero to positive end result, ignoring the negative impact that is building daily.

"the more opportunities you give to be a petri dish for cultivating variants the blame you deserve"

It's amusing that you would say this, given that masks, when worn all day and then some, are precisely that- Petri dishes. It apparently would surprise you to know that there are a lot more germs, bacteria, and viruses out there that can make you sick that are not Covid.

What is also amusing is that you are already behind the programming and the narrative- Fauxci and others are already pivoting away from this mask superstition and the lies in order to soften non-thinkers (like yourself) in preparation for the Mid-Terms.

The only rational thing you said here is not rational for the reasons you think. Masks do work to varying degrees- the majority of the masks being worn by the public,however, which would include cloth masks and the ever ubiquitous blue/white surgical masks, do not work at preventing the spread of infectious disease. This would be why the N95, K95, and full-on hazmat suits were invented. They created a simple narrative, "wear a mask to slow the spread", and that sounds logical enough for sheeple to buy it. Never mind the fact that you really can never quantify a reduction in the speed of the spread of anything like this. What we do see with certainty is that serious lockdown states like NY & CA faired no better than those like FL that backed off a long time ago.

Countries around the world are backing away from this, as are liberal politicians in the US, who are panicked at the impending Red Wave headed their way in November.

I know what you said sounds logical to you, but the facts do not support it. And that gaslighting false equivalency between Aspirin and cancer? Who said that Aspirin could cure cancer?

Just because your TV didn't tell you that there are many, many solid examples of doctors successfully using Ivermectin to cure Covid patients, does not mean they are not out there. You are cool with taking experimental vaccines, but for some odd reason terrified of experimenting with the use of Ivermectin for Covid.

1. I am allowed to make an observation regarding crazy, it's a meme board, and I don't take anything you have to say that seriously.

2. I understand, you're in the special "know" group and clearly have command on how to interpret data.

3. I enjoy your buzzwords and sophomoric approach to debate hinging your arguments on, "he's being a bit sarcastic and hurt my feelings" draped in basic debate terminology.

I actually work, so sorry, I didn't really read what you had to say thoroughly as it's the same old crazy... I mean "alternate facts" as always.

I'm not sure that choosing a drug that actually works vs an experimental vaccine that does not, or a drug that is just as likely to kill you as not (remdesivir), and one that is considerably less expensive, is supporting Big Rx.

Based on your other memes, you take the same approach that Christian Science took when its founders selected the name they would go by. Christian Science is neither Christian, nor scientific. Liberals have no true association with actual, honest science, and are dead-set against that sCarY FrEeDoM nonsense.

Unless you meant your moniker to be ironic?

"actually works" is a bit of a stretch. Mostly Ivermectin is only used to treat parasitic infections but there have been some trial results that reflected potential viral treatments. Which is why there are ongoing clinical trials for Ivermectin. It is likely that Ivermectin will fall into the same category as HCQ. They can be used to treat SOME Covid patients but are not able to prevent infection.

https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid-19-coronavirus-3535912/#:~:text=Ivermectin%20is%20not%20FDA%20approved,number%20of%20other%20conditions.

Both the mRNA and Ivermectin are still "experimental". Only the former has been FDA approved, however, to prevent Covid.

Another word for "anecdotal" information is "data", and there is plenty of data that has been out there for the last two years of doctors successfully treating Covid infected patients with both Ivermectin and HCQ. And Ivermectin is hardly experimental, given that it has been in use for some time now. It has long been available in non-horsey form for humans, as it has been used for human maladies before Covid-19 was a thing. HCQ has largely been touted as a prophylactic, so by preventing this relatively harmless drug from being used, liberals have likely caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands, if not millions around the world.

How is it OK to use experimental vaccines, but not a drug that has literally been used billions of times over the last number of decades? And how is it acceptable to force people to take experimental vaccines, while preventing the use of Ivermectin, and labeling it as "experimental" FORTY SEVEN YEARS after its invention?

What you are passing as research and intellectual dialogue is nothing more than the approved State narrative (i.e. The Democrat Party Narrative, The Liberal Narrative). I can honestly tell you that it is an interesting, yet bizarre, phenomenon to watch. I sense you should know better, yet it seems as if you are setting aside your sense because you have swallowed this narrative. Calling Ivermectin "experimental" just because the approved "science" is finally taking a look at it is not convincing.

For over 2 years now, many of us have been pointing out that masks do not work, and could never work as intended, nor as implemented by the masses. Now, the "science" is changing when it comes to mask mandates, coincidentally as America approaches its 2022 midterm elections.

No, "actually works" is not a stretch, as this statement is not dependent on any bought and paid for research team to determine its efficacy - we have a myriad of successful outcomes, and if the MSM had an ounce of integrity, and any real sense of humanity, this would be widely known by now.

Just because you didn't see it on the TV "news" does not mean it doesn't exist.

"What you are passing as research and intellectual dialogue is nothing more than the approved State narrative." "Calling Ivermectin "experimental" just because the approved "science" is finally taking a look at it is not convincing."

Opinion. Irrelevant.

"For over 2 years now, many of us have been pointing out that masks do not work, and could never work as intended, nor as implemented by the masses."

You're partially correct. The "science" or rather the research reports concerning masks and mask mandates have concluded much of the same as your confirmation bias. The problem is that these reports only conclude three important things. 1. Expecting the public to follow directions is flawed. (See: Democratic Politicians failing to adhere to their own mandates) 2. Types of masks have varying degree of protection. (Not all masks are created equal. 3. Where you wear your masks out in public matters. Grocery store vs. Restaurant. Or Rather, a place where you may never have to to take your mask off versus a place where you may have to remove your mask to perform a function. Nothing has changed about this. The only thing we've learned is that public use of masks while outdoors is largely inconsequential. We learned that last year during the pandemic.

"Now, the "science" is changing when it comes to mask mandates, coincidentally as America approaches its 2022 midterm elections."

The CDC is still recommending mask use for some situations.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fvaccines%2Fkeythingstoknow.html

What has changed is local governments willingness to lift the mandate. Many places are achieving an acceptable level of vaccinated and with Covid cases down in these areas, mask mandates are lifting. The 2022 midterms are inconsequential. If cases go up or a new variant emerges that shows vaccines to be ineffective, those mandates may return regardless of political strategy or outcome.

"No, "actually works" is not a stretch, as this statement is not dependent on any bought and paid for research team to determine its efficacy"

You'll be hard to find any research that isn't paid for in some way. So, your opinion of their determination seems irrelevant. As is your anecdotal opinion that HCQ and Ivermectin are effective.

All of a sudden off label use is no longer valid...

There is a difference between off label use and self-medicating without a doctor’s recommendation or guidance.

Funny how pharmacies are not honoring doctors' prescriptions... even though it is approved for off-label use...

HCQ isn't approved for any use other than Lupis and some cases where inflammation requires it's use.

Ivermectin has not seen that same scrutiny because it is primarily used to treat ringworms and parasites.

The difference is there was a concern among the medical community that those who needed HCQ would not be able to get it for legitimate use. Lupis/inflammation.

That concern is not as high for people who've been exposed to ringworm or parasites as they're rare. The CDC has recommended that if you ARE going to take Ivermectin, that you take a human dosage.

IF Ivermectin turns out to be an effective treatment for those who have Covid, the FDA may restrict it's access to only those with a prescription for similar reasons. I find that extremely unlikely they'll do that, however. Not because Ivermectin isn't effective but rather there are a better range of treatments.

Ivermectin not being restricted could be construed as proof that the FDA's so-called "overreach" to restrict HCQ is not as far and wide as has been claimed.

Sorry, that's a lie... Ivermectin is fully approved for Covid use in Japan. They include it in the covid treatment kits to the public in India...Even over 200 Congress members and their staff have used it for Covid treatment... And now people testing positive are being offered placement in university studies using Ivermectin... So Ivermectin is only being restricted for the regular public in the US... You ca even get it in Mexico!

"Ivermectin is fully approved for Covid use in Japan. They include it in the covid treatment kits to the public in India....Even over 200 Congress members and their staff have used it for Covid treatment."

Except, I've said: They [Ivermectin and HCQ] can be used to treat SOME Covid patients but are not able to prevent infection [from Covid].

"And now people testing positive are being offered placement in university studies using Ivermectin"

Except, I've said: "Mostly Ivermectin is only used to treat parasitic infections but there have been some trial results that reflected potential viral treatments. Which is why there are ongoing clinical trials for Ivermectin."

"So Ivermectin is only being restricted for the regular public in the US"

Yes, it has been restricted to those who need it due to concerns that people are abusing it's use. The difference between US and the countries you've included is that a significant portion of their populations are not scrambling to get it despite the fact that it's not been approved for use to treat covid outside of clinical trials or prescriptions by doctors.

So you don't know what therapeutics is... got it...

I fail to see how you arrived at that conclusion given the facts I’ve presented.

Anecdotal evidence is simply information passed between people that has not been verified as fact. Just because there are a handful of people who have said they've been treated with Ivermectin or HCQ and seen results, or have treated themselves; does not mean their information is conclusive data.

It is a fact that HCQ and Ivermectin is not preventable treatments for viral infection. They are treatments when you're at a certain stage of Covid. Usually when hospitalization is necessary and you're not responding to the usual treatments.

It is also a fact that the mRNA vaccines are working. While they are not preventative in carrying or transmitting the virus, the data has shown that the virus has less of an impact on individuals being hospitalized or dying. At this time, 90% of hospitalization and death remain the unvaccinated. And the biggest population who've suffered most under the relatively mild Omicron variant have been the unvaccinated.

I'll now attempt to answer some of your questions.

"How is it OK to use experimental vaccines, but not a drug that has literally been used billions of times over the last number of decades?"

Because there has been conclusive (repeatable) evidence to support the preventative nature of the vaccine than the treatments of Ivermectin and HCQ.

"And how is it acceptable to force people to take experimental vaccines"

It isn't. Not unless those people will have to work within the public or patients who may be exposed to this. The vaccine mandate /should/ only be applied to public and medical workers. Not private workers. This much I agree.

"how is it acceptable] ...preventing the use of Ivermectin, and labeling it as "experimental" FORTY SEVEN YEARS after its invention?"

Because that was not what it was designed to do nor was it ever intended for that use. Again, HCQ is not preventable treatment of Covid. Meaning, if you took HCQ before infected, it will not keep you from being infected. But if you had Covid and were hospitalized, HCQ may still not be helpful to your particular case. If you had Covid and had severe inflammation, THAT is when they may treat you with HCQ or, if I'm understand correctly, Ivermectin. Ivermectin at the very least does have some data to support it's antiviral properties. However, the jury is still out on it. You may be right about it, but you may also be wrong.