I see people on both sides claiming to know the truth.
Yes.DeplorablePatriot » 20 Nov 2022, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑ Do your homework, Ralphie Boy. It's also an antiviral. Must I show you?
Did you refuse the vaxx?crimsongulf » 20 Nov 2022, 8:08 pm » wrote: ↑ I can surely tell you what works because I got the WuWu twice. The first time was in November 2020, and my Doc did remdesivir. The second time I caught the omicold, he did the monoclonal infusion.
I was over 65, an ex-smoker, and never had any issues other than cold-like symptoms. With the monoclonal, I was playing golf within 36 hours.
The truth is that it has only demonstrated anti viral properties in vitro.DeezerShoove » 20 Nov 2022, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑ I see people on both sides claiming to know the truth.
You have sided heavily on one side. I have not.
I will not fight people about this ****. That's up to the emotionally invested (like you).
Your buddy wielding the term "peer reviewed" as a weapon as well.
...and he defined it for me.
I did do the double Pfizer jab due to travel to Canada. The first time I had it in Nov 2020, it was unavailable.
We have posted DOZENS, you **** goldfish. Here's one from the Journal of Antibiotics.ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑ Show me a peer review that explicitly states that Ivermectin works.
It is known to be safe for the liver, queer.Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑ The truth is that it has only demonstrated anti viral properties in vitro.
Petri doesn't have a liver..liver.you do.
Seven studies showed a lower mortality rate in the ivermectin group than in the control group, six studies found that the ivermectin group had a significantly fewer length of hospitalization than the control group, and eight studies showed better negative RT-PCR responses in the IVM group than in the control group. Our systematic review indicated that ivermectin may be effective for mildly to moderately ill patients.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711
No, you stupid ***. Peer review is a formal process by which people making science claims are - by invitation (which they often solicit, obviously) - allowed to publish their findings for the review (and generally, citation) of their peers, in the publish or perish world of academia. There are varying levels of integrity in the world of peer review - but a goldfish would not profit by having those explicated to it.ScottMon » 20 Nov 2022, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑ Peer review is simply a matter of duplicating the results found elsewhere.
Whatever you say, doctor.Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑ The truth is that it has only demonstrated anti viral properties in vitro.
Petri doesn't have a liver..liver.you do.
Where is this coming from?DeplorablePatriot » 21 Nov 2022, 1:34 am » wrote: ↑ "Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting.-"
Yea...DeezerShoove » 20 Nov 2022, 11:03 pm » wrote: ↑ Whatever you say, doctor.
I can't imagine why professionals would be at odds about this, then.
Did you google "magnets"?
Can you read it?Selaphobia » 21 Nov 2022, 7:51 am » wrote: ↑ "Ivermectin magnetism"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22039402/
Yes Cannon, Scottmoan is just that stupid!Cannonpointer » 20 Nov 2022, 10:38 pm » wrote: ↑ No, you stupid ***. Peer review is a formal process by which people making science claims are - by invitation (which they often solicit, obviously) - allowed to publish their findings for the review (and generally, citation) of their peers, in the publish or perish world of academia. There are varying levels of integrity in the world of peer review - but a goldfish would not profit by having those explicated to it.
