There can be some variability between locations (for example if everyone is vaccinated then everyone in critical condition due covid will have had the vaccine and if no one is vaccinated the opposit would be true)

So let's assume for a second the media is biased and they picked that doctor just because his hospital had the "worst" stats. saying it is BS does not tell any of us how much research your family and friends in the trenches have actually done or that I can easily verify how much BS it is.

when did we discover immortality? and why was I not told about it? For instance since the dawn of time people have been dying from cancer, yes we have developed some treatments but people still continue dying from cancer in large numbers. Sometimes we get lucky and we find a treatment that is 100% effective, other times we don't and people still continue dying.

You find tailoring a vaccine in such a short time that helps astonishing but you expect to magically find a cure that makes everyone that catches it better in no time.

So I actually read your links.

All you’ve got is “Joe Rogan?  Epoch Times?”

Why not read/listen?  The podcast is three hours long.  A lot of data you could take and compare with your sources and we could actually have a conversation.  Don’t you see how thin your arguments are?  I’m trying to engage you with data and you can only diss the source.

You can lead a liberal to truth but you can’t make him think.

Anthony, I must not have been clear.  I think my point was, why watch people die if treatments actually might work? Why not give a Covid positive patient inexpensive drugs when there is a great chance it could save his life?

iI know you can argue and call these successful treatments “anecdotal”, but if your choice was some drugs with a possibility of healing you vs. see if you need a ventilator… this part I just can’t wrap my head around.

There seems to be a slight disconnect. The current COVID vaccines are being slammed because we don't have a long history of proven effectiveness and safety, yet anyone who does not instantly accept the effectiveness claim of the Ivermectin proponents is immediately slammed.

There are some new treatments for COVID infections waiting in the wings. Will these be slammed because they don't have a long, proven safety record or will these be immediately accepted because they will offer the anti crowd a magic cure if they get sick, without having to bend their anti stand? I hope that there is some quality research about exploring potential interactions between the new magic cures and folk cures, such as Ivermectin, because individuals who have tried both will present to hospitals.

Your comment is fair. I would only balance it a bit by noting the current vaccines are pushed pretty forcefully while the other treatments are dissed pretty mercilessly.

What if both were available equally?  That seems like a balanced offering.  We’d find out quickly what works and what doesn’t, do you think?  Hard to tell now.

^^This^^ one-hundred times.

Although I would argue that the disconnect is not slight.

And we all know who's doin' the slammin'

It is not about "anecdotal" a lot of doctors have tried a lot of different stuff to try and help (that is why you heard of those two) but medicine is not easy, some people will naturally get better even if they get to the hospital and ICU. When doctors heard of those treatments they tried them but they noticed being on those drugs did not improve survival chances and gave up on them.

In the US, insurance, hospitals, doctors are a for profit business. Now I am not here to debate our different medical systems and I doubt it is true but maybe one can try and make the case they don't want to use cheap, readily available drugs because it hurts all their margins and they don't care about people surviving. But even if that was true how do you explain the rest of the world. Doctors are paid well here but they are public servants with a salary.

What do we say often in the CI lounge? "hire a pro". If the pro tells me take this crocodile medicine and it has a good chance to save a life, I will take it, but if he tells me don't take X, I am not ready to pretend that I know better. Maybe the difference is in our culture. Here we are near the border, when I watch US channels it is full of advertisements that end with "ask your doctor about them" and a slew of microscopic letters and someone running through a bunch of possible side effects as if they don't matter or exist, you will never see such advertisements here because drug companies aren't allowed to try and get people to buy into their snake oil.

For me the biggest issue is not what some are ready to believe, but the fact that Ivermectin is easily available to farmers to treat their horses. Yes there is the "human version" but the DIY "I read the internet" person takes something that is not dosed for humans that can lead to real medical problems.

You touched on something quite fascinating. On US television, as you noted, when a drug is advertised, the advertisement always ends with a listing of side effects. Required by law.  A multitude of possible side effects!

But when advertising the vaccine, there is NONE of that. Just go for it, it is safe.

You would freely admit that EVERY drug has side affects. So why no disclaimers or warnings?

Unprecedented.

Thoughts?

I don't know why I bother to give you my thoughts, but I will ask you to please give us a link to any television advertisements for any of the three major COVID-19 vaccines available in the USA. I sure haven't seen any. Anyone else on here seen any ads?

On my iPad there’s a popup on the bottom of this page.

CDC statement about Pfizer vaccine. Moderna, J&J.

Since I don’t watch TV, I cannot say anything about TV vaccine advertising by producers, if any. My point is that it’s not hard to find the information, if interested.

David, you started this thread in another attempt to shame people however your story turned out to be a fabricated lie.  You fell for it from your "news sources" hook, line and sinker.
Yet here you are, continuing an attempt to belittle other people for the sources they prefer to get their news from.

So, what I hear you saying is that you went to Arizona on Saturday to attend the Trump rally. I'm being told from your "news sources" that the Trump that spoke there was really an imposter:

[Link: news.yahoo.com]

[Link: vice.com]

[Link: newsweek.com]

[Link: independent.co.uk]

You are Breaking Stupid

Well, I call BS.

Anyone here can go to the start of this thread - my Post #1 and read what I said. Then, a couple of posts later, you claim that what I said was false and "all" of the news sources had to print a retraction (you never made it clear what I said that they had to retract).

You were immediately called out on your post by buzz (in Post #5) where you were asked for some sort of proof, like a link to a source, to back up what you were saying. It took you about 65 posts (#71) before you responded - with a link to a story about calls to poison control (!)

Please, tell us again, what parts of my first post were fabricated lies?