This is the kind of snake oil that makes DeSantis as unfit as Trump to be President

[AU9377 6,120]

I suppose we should just adopt the unfounded opinion of anyone that over 90% of actual doctors and research scientists disagree with?

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/desantis-administration-advises-covid-booster-people-65/story?id=103168939

[TexasTiger 14,527]

26 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I suppose we should just adopt the unfounded opinion of anyone that over 90% of actual doctors and research scientists disagree with?

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/desantis-administration-advises-covid-booster-people-65/story?id=103168939

He’s so pathetic.

[CoffeeTiger 5,970]

DeSantis and his quack of a Surgeon General( who's already been caught altering research data) is going to cost Floridians their lives all because of petty politics and DeSantis's Presidential campaign. 

I'm almost surprised they didn't recommend that nobody get the vaccine regardless of age or condition. 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I suppose we should just adopt the unfounded opinion of anyone that over 90% of actual doctors and research scientists disagree with?

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/desantis-administration-advises-covid-booster-people-65/story?id=103168939

Just for clarity, you've taken the latest booster?

[AUFAN78 4,162]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Just for clarity, you've taken the latest booster?

Same question for Tex and Coffee. 

[AU9377 6,120]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Just for clarity, you've taken the latest booster?

When I get my flu shot over the next month, I will get the updated Covid vaccine as well.  Now that I am 50, I may also get the Shingles vaccine.  There is nothing sinister about it. 

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

7 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

When I get my flu shot over the next month, I will get the updated Covid vaccine as well.  Now that I am 50, I may also get the Shingles vaccine.  There is nothing sinister about it. 

I’m 73 and I haven’t had a flu vaccine in over 40 years.  I had the two initial Covid shots due to the fear mongering of Fauci and Biden, but I have not had any booster and won’t get this one.  I got diagnosed with an enlarged left ventricle during a knee replacement surgery in 2022 along with a pulmonary embolism.  The enlarged left ventricle was corrected by medication and now I am on blood thinners.  There is no *evidence* that the Covid vaccine was the reason for the clout and enlarged ventricle, but I will not be forced by some polititian to take something that I feel is up to me to decide.

DeSantis has it right, Joe not so much.

[AU9377 6,120]

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m 73 and I haven’t had a flu vaccine in over 40 years.  I had the two initial Covid shots due to the fear mongering of Fauci and Biden, but I have not had any booster and won’t get this one.  I got diagnosed with an enlarged left ventricle during a knee replacement surgery in 2022 along with a pulmonary embolism.  The enlarged left ventricle was corrected by medication and now I am on blood thinners.  There is no *evidence* that the Covid vaccine was the reason for the clout and enlarged ventricle, but I will not be forced by some polititian to take something that I feel is up to me to decide.

DeSantis has it right, Joe not so much.

Nobody is suggesting you be forced to get a vaccine.  There is a large gap between that place and not recommending the vaccine for the general public with no medically sound basis for that decision.

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Nobody is suggesting you be forced to get a vaccine.  There is a large gap between that place and not recommending the vaccine for the general public with no medically sound basis for that decision.

Come on man, Biden had a vaccine mandate that basically said get the vaccine or don’t work and you won’t be hired by company with over 100 employees.  If the CDC says they recommend something it is taken (or has been) as the gospel by the general public.  Not recommending is more of the *its your body* approach.

 

[arein0 1,110]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

  Not recommending is more of the *its your body* approach.

No it's not? The "it's your body" approach would have been recommending doing your own research, recommending talking to your doctor.

Not recommending something is in the same category as recommending something as you are stating your opinion in an attempt to influence someone else.

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

2 minutes ago, arein0 said:

No it's not? The "it's your body" approach would have been recommending doing your own research, recommending talking to your doctor.

Not recommending something is in the same category as recommending something as you are stating your opinion in an attempt to influence someone else.

You mean as opposed to mandatory?  Recommending is akin to mandatory in years past.  The pressure was to take the jab.  Flu, shingles, pneumonia, what have you.  There was pressure from doctors to get the jab without due diligence.  Times are changing now that the COVID vaccine was thrust upon the population without proper vetting.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

When I get my flu shot over the next month, I will get the updated Covid vaccine as well.  Now that I am 50, I may also get the Shingles vaccine.  There is nothing sinister about it. 

I certainly did not suggest anything sinister, yet here you are once again implying as much. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,970]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

over the next month, I will get the updated Covid vaccine as well.  Now that I am 50, I may also get the Shingles vaccine.  There is nothing sinister about it. 

Everyone I've heard who has had shingles has said it was agonizing. It can also be dangerous/deadly if it occurs in a bad place like your face. 

I was born right before the chickenpox vaccine became common so I ended up getting chicken pox and I'll be sure to get the shingles vaccine as soon as i become eligible for it. 

[auburnatl1 6,304]

This is another individual vs best for society rights debate. Same as guns. 

I do think people forget the sheer panic and lack of understand going on in 2020.  Hell trump was frantically pushing bleach and quickly took the jab. It’s easy now to question the policies and restrictions that were going on then. 

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

6 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Hell trump was frantically pushing bleach

Come on man.

7 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

It’s easy now to question the policies and restrictions that were going on then.

It was just as easy back then, except anything that wasn’t Fauci approved was censored as we now find out.  The Great Barrington Declaration, Ivermectin and don’t forget the origins of Covid.

[AU9377 6,120]

30 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Everyone I've heard who has had shingles has said it was agonizing. It can also be dangerous/deadly if it occurs in a bad place like your face. 

I was born right before the chickenpox vaccine became common so I ended up getting chicken pox and I'll be sure to get the shingles vaccine as soon as i become eligible for it. 

I never got the chicken pox as a child.  I got it when I was 28.  It wasn't really bad, but I have seen shingles in my grandfather and uncle.  That is not something I want to go thru.

[CoffeeTiger 5,970]

43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Come on man.

It was just as easy back then, except anything that wasn’t Fauci approved was censored as we now find out.  The Great Barrington Declaration, Ivermectin and don’t forget the origins of Covid.

None of that was censored. 

The Great Barrington Declaration wasn't taken seriously because it wasn't based on any research or scientific fact and was mainly just a theory that several researches had that if actually practiced would have been very, very deadly if it didn't work out the way writers hypothesized it would. The level of support it had was also highly questionable as absolutely anyone was easily able to go on the website, click a box saying they were a scientist and then "sign" the declaration. 

Not taken seriously does not = being censored. 

 

Ivermectin also wasn't censored. A few doctors and researches, particularly in third world countries have claimed it was effective, but largely every major study has found ivermectin to have little to no curative properties in people with COVID.  To this day nobody can definitively prove that it's actually effective at fighting Covid. Mainly just scattered reports of people who claim they took it and that it made them better, but studies haven't shown it to have much impact. 

Again, something not being taken seriously doesn't mean it's being censored. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

35 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

None of that was censored. 

The Great Barrington Declaration wasn't taken seriously because it wasn't based on any research of scientific fact and was mainly just a theory. The level of support it had was also highly questionable as absolutely anyone was easily able to go on the website, click a box saying they were a scientist and then "sign" the declaration. 

Not taken seriously does not = being censored. 

 

Ivermectin also wasn't censored. A few doctors and researches, particularly in third world countries have claimed it was effective, but largely every major study has found ivermectin to have little to no curative properties in people with COVID.  To this day nobody can definitively prove that it's actually effective at fighting Covid. Mainly just scattered reports of people who claim they took it and that it made them better, but studies haven't shown it to have much impact. 

Again, something not being taken seriously doesn't mean it's being censored. 

Keep up:

The panel of judges, all GOP nominees, say that the administration's efforts to flag what it considered to be false and harmful content about COVID, the 2020 election and other topics that violated the social media companies' policies likely amount to a violation of the First Amendment. The court found that Biden Administration officials coerced and threatened the social media companies to take down content.

"The officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government," a three-judge panel wrote. "The harms that radiate from such conduct extend far beyond just the Plaintiffs; it impacts every social-media user."

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1197971952/biden-administration-fifth-circuit-ruling-social-media-injunction

Specifically:

This week, emails released through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Institute for Economic Research revealed what I see as worrisome communication between Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and others within the National Institutes of Health in the fall of 2020. At issue was the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter written in October 2020 and eventually signed by thousands of scientists.

It argues that Covid-19 policy should focus on protecting the elderly and vulnerable, and largely re-open society and school for others.

At the time, Americans would have benefited from a broad debate among scientists about the available policy options for controlling the Covid-19 pandemic, and perhaps a bit of compromise. The emails tell us why that isn’t what we got.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-needed-covid-19-dialogue-between-scientists-francis-collins-moved-to-shut-it-down/

Ivermectin: in 2021

HELENA, Mont. — One Montana hospital went into lockdown and called police after a woman threatened violence because a relative was denied her request to be treated with ivermectin.

Officials of another Montana hospital accused public officials of threatening and harassing their health care workers for refusing to treat a politically connected Covid-19 patient with the antiparasitic drug or hydroxychloroquine, another drug unauthorized by the Food and Drug Administration to treat Covid.

And in neighboring Idaho, a medical resident said police had to be called to a hospital after a Covid patient’s relative verbally abused her and threatened physical violence because she would not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, “drugs that are not beneficial in the treatment of Covid-19,” she wrote.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

In 2023:

A remark in court by a lawyer for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizing that doctors have the authority to prescribe ivermectin “off-label” to treat COVID-19 does not mean that the agency approved the drug for that use, as claimed online.

FDA regulates the testing and sale of drugs and devices, approving them to be marketed for specific conditions or “indications” specified on the label, but the agency does not control how doctors use a drug once it is on the market, health and legal experts said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fda-ivermectin-covid/fact-check-ivermectin-still-not-fda-approved-to-treat-covid-idUSL1N3AB1PS

In 2021 doctors couldn’t prescribe Ivermectin for COVID and the pharmacy wouldn’t fill it if it was and in 2023 you can use Ivermectin off label to treat COVID.  Amazing.

People were kicked off of social media for mentioning these subject, hence the censorship from the White House.  I guess you just got caught up in the hype of what you thought was right

[CoffeeTiger 5,970]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Keep up:

The panel of judges, all GOP nominees, say that the administration's efforts to flag what it considered to be false and harmful content about COVID, the 2020 election and other topics that violated the social media companies' policies likely amount to a violation of the First Amendment. The court found that Biden Administration officials coerced and threatened the social media companies to take down content.

"The officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government," a three-judge panel wrote. "The harms that radiate from such conduct extend far beyond just the Plaintiffs; it impacts every social-media user."

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1197971952/biden-administration-fifth-circuit-ruling-social-media-injunction

Specifically:

This week, emails released through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Institute for Economic Research revealed what I see as worrisome communication between Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and others within the National Institutes of Health in the fall of 2020. At issue was the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter written in October 2020 and eventually signed by thousands of scientists.

It argues that Covid-19 policy should focus on protecting the elderly and vulnerable, and largely re-open society and school for others.

At the time, Americans would have benefited from a broad debate among scientists about the available policy options for controlling the Covid-19 pandemic, and perhaps a bit of compromise. The emails tell us why that isn’t what we got.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-needed-covid-19-dialogue-between-scientists-francis-collins-moved-to-shut-it-down/

 

 

There were very widespread and active debates among scientists about lockdowns and the best way to deal with the pandemic. How was this "Heavily censored" Great Barrington Declaration so widely known about and signed by thousands of "scientists" if it was being censored from social media and news by the government? The government obviously didn't do a very good job of the censoring. 

It seems like everyone knew about the GBD and knew what it proposed but didn't believe it was adequate or correct? Again the Declaration was only a theory and was funded and put out by a right wing, libertarian economic think tank, not by a scientific organization or community. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Ivermectin: in 2021

HELENA, Mont. — One Montana hospital went into lockdown and called police after a woman threatened violence because a relative was denied her request to be treated with ivermectin.

Officials of another Montana hospital accused public officials of threatening and harassing their health care workers for refusing to treat a politically connected Covid-19 patient with the antiparasitic drug or hydroxychloroquine, another drug unauthorized by the Food and Drug Administration to treat Covid.

And in neighboring Idaho, a medical resident said police had to be called to a hospital after a Covid patient’s relative verbally abused her and threatened physical violence because she would not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, “drugs that are not beneficial in the treatment of Covid-19,” she wrote.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

In 2023:

A remark in court by a lawyer for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizing that doctors have the authority to prescribe ivermectin “off-label” to treat COVID-19 does not mean that the agency approved the drug for that use, as claimed online.

FDA regulates the testing and sale of drugs and devices, approving them to be marketed for specific conditions or “indications” specified on the label, but the agency does not control how doctors use a drug once it is on the market, health and legal experts said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fda-ivermectin-covid/fact-check-ivermectin-still-not-fda-approved-to-treat-covid-idUSL1N3AB1PS

 

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

In 2021 doctors couldn’t prescribe Ivermectin for COVID and the pharmacy wouldn’t fill it if it was and in 2023 you can use Ivermectin off label to treat COVID.  Amazing.

People were kicked off of social media for mentioning these subject, hence the censorship from the White House.  I guess you just got caught up in the hype of what you thought was right

 In neither of the articles you posted or stories you quoted say that Doctors were ever prevented from prescribing ivermectin for Covid in 2021. They were discouraged from doing so by the FDA and CDC, just as they are today.

The stories you quoted are from people whos medical providers rejected their request to be prescribed ivermectin. It doesn't say the Doctors didn't have the ability or discretion to, it says they declined their patients demand to be given a certain medicine. When you are in the hospital or a medical care situation you can let your doctor know what you think and what you desire, but you can't force your doctor to prescribe you any specific medication. 

The situation around Ivermectin is the same in 2023 as it was in 2021. A majority of doctors, healthcare professionals, and researchers don't believe that Ivermective is effective in treating Covid, and wont prescribe it for such, but a small minority will and have been despite widespread evidence that it doesn't work.

Edited September 14, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[icanthearyou 4,468]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

but I will not be forced by some polititian to take something that I feel is up to me to decide

They are coming.  They are coming to take your gun and,,, force the booster upon you.  You have been duly warned.

 

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 I had the two initial Covid shots due to the fear mongering of Fauci and Biden, but I have not had any booster and won’t get this one.

Coward or, just stupid.  How could you believe anything they say?  How easily the simpletons are manipulated.

 

Oh yeah, you misspelled politician.

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

3 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It seems like everyone knew about the GBD and knew what it proposed but didn't believe it was adequate or correct?

It is what Sweden used and they had the lowest death rates in Europe.  But when Fauci speaks, people listen.

 

5 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 In neither of the articles you posted or stories you quoted say that Doctors were ever prevented from prescribing ivermectin for Covid in 2021. They were discouraged from doing so by the FDA and CDC, just as they are today.

In 2021 the hospital would not fill any prescription for Ivermectin for off brand use such a COVID

In 2023 the FDA said it can’t prevent a doctor from prescribing Ivermectin for off brand use.  Seems like a big difference to me.  I’m not surprised you can’t see it.

In Washington state there is this:

The Washington Medical Commission has fined a Yakima physician and restricted his medical license after determining he failed to meet the state’s standard of care by improperly prescribing ivermectin to patients as a treatment for COVID-19 and spreading misinformation.

The commission placed Wilkinson’s license to practice as a physician on probation for five years and fined him $15,000. 

During that time, Wilkinson will not be allowed to prescribe ivermectin for non-FDA-approved purposes. He will have to undergo a clinical competency assessment within six months.

https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/wa-medical-commission-fines-yakima-physician-who-prescribed-ivermectin-to-covid-19-patients/article_d4b2522a-4139-11ee-b734-7f6ec01deffb.html

It seems like restricting you medical license is somewhat serious, don’t you think?

Also there is this:

Three doctors who prescribed ivermectin for Covid-19 patients have valid claims that the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority with a campaign warning people not to take the drug, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled Friday, reinstating the trio’s lawsuit against the agency.

Drs. Robert Apter and Mary Talley Bowden say between them they have treated or consulted more than 9,000 Covid patients and they each have a patient survival rate of more than 99%, despite regularly prescribing them ivermectin off-label to treat the respiratory illness.

But the doctors say pharmacies stopped filling their prescriptions for the drug — which the FDA approved in 1996 for human use to treat parasitic diseases caused by round worms and black flies — after the FDA launched a public relations campaign in spring 2021 sounding the alarm that people were being hospitalized after self-medicating with large doses of the drug intended for deworming livestock that they had purchased over the counter.

https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-sides-with-ivermectin-prescribing-doctors-in-their-quarrel-with-the-fda/

Looks like a concerted effort by the government to censor and/or limit the use of Ivermectin.

27 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

you can't force your doctor to prescribe you any specific medication. 

No, you can’t, but you can ask for it. Patients get it or go to another doctor, 2nd opinion and all that.

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

27 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

They are coming.  They are coming to take your gun and,,, force the booster upon you.  You have been duly warned.

 

Coward or, just stupid.  How could you believe anything they say?  How easily the simpletons are manipulated.

 

Oh yeah, you misspelled politician.

 

 

 

Good, I won again.  You have nothing to add

Edited September 14, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[CoffeeTiger 5,970]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

In 2021 the hospital would not fill any prescription for Ivermectin for off brand use such a COVID

In 2023 the FDA said it can’t prevent a doctor from prescribing Ivermectin for off brand use.  Seems like a big difference to me.  I’m not surprised you can’t see it.

I'm not "seeing it" because what you're claiming isn't 'there' to see. 

I can guarantee you that today in 2023 a majority of hospitals and doctors would still refuse to give you ivermectin for covid. Nothing at all has changed. The CDC/FDA never told doctors or hospitals that they couldn't or weren't allowed to give ivermectin to covid patients. They advised against it just as they do today. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

In Washington state there is this:

The Washington Medical Commission has fined a Yakima physician and restricted his medical license after determining he failed to meet the state’s standard of care by improperly prescribing ivermectin to patients as a treatment for COVID-19 and spreading misinformation.

The commission placed Wilkinson’s license to practice as a physician on probation for five years and fined him $15,000. 

During that time, Wilkinson will not be allowed to prescribe ivermectin for non-FDA-approved purposes. He will have to undergo a clinical competency assessment within six months.

https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/wa-medical-commission-fines-yakima-physician-who-prescribed-ivermectin-to-covid-19-patients/article_d4b2522a-4139-11ee-b734-7f6ec01deffb.html

It seems like restricting you medical license is somewhat serious, don’t you think?

 

What hand did the Federal government have in this situation? Looks pretty clear that this is a state medical board decision and was made because apparently this doctor wasn't following proper protocol in  how he prescribed medications and treatments. Was this the only doctor in the State of Washington that had prescribed Ivermectin? Were many other doctors in Washington being punished for this?

A State medical board using recommendations from the FDA doesn't mean the FDA is forcing their hand. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Looks like a concerted effort by the government to censor and/or limit the use of Ivermectin.

 

I mean...yeah? Because it's not been shown to be effective for and is not approved for the use of curing or treating Covid. Of Course the government is going to try and discourage the use of a medication that isn't proven to be effective for a certain illness. 

 

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, you can’t, but you can ask for it. Patients get it or go to another doctor, 2nd opinion and all that.

Right....and just because a doctor refuses to prescribe it for covid doesn't mean they are doing so because the government told them not it.

 

You're arguing that because most Doctors wont prescribe ivermectin for covid, that MUST mean the government is preventing or banning them from doing so, when the reality is that a majority of Doctors don't prescribe it because they don't believe it's effective for treating covid. 

Using you're logic ivermectin should be being prescribed vastly more often now in 2023 after the FDA said it cant stop doctors from prescribing it. Is there any evidence that ivermectin is being prescribed or used for covid treatments in US hospitals and clinics now vs what was happening in 2021? 

[homersapien 12,326]

It's amazing to see how one's political bias distorts their perception of the facts (truth). 

[I_M4_AU 9,060]

13 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The CDC/FDA never told doctors or hospitals that they couldn't or weren't allowed to give ivermectin to covid patients. They advised against it just as they do today. 

Then why did the pharmacy not fill the prescription of the patients with valid prescriptions if they had them, referring to the 2nd case I brought up.  Some doctors will prescribe off label drugs from personal experience and these doctors were prevented from doing that.  You know what other drug is used off label?  Puberty blockers for gender affirming care.  The FDA doesn’t have an issue with that.  The CDC has stated promoting a drug to induce male breastfeeding that is not even sold in the US and banded by the FDA, yet *doctors* will prescribe those without consequence.

https://www.marshall.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-marshall-slams-cdcs-advice-encouraging-biological-men-to-chestfeed-infants/

This seems to be very inconsistent doesn’t it?  I guess it depends upon the governmental institution giving the advise.

29 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

What hand did the Federal government have in this situation? Looks pretty clear that this is a state medical board decision and was made because apparently this doctor wasn't following proper protocol in  how he prescribed medications and treatments. Was this the only doctor in the State of Washington that had prescribed Ivermectin? Were many other doctors in Washington being punished for this?

A State medical board using recommendations from the FDA doesn't mean the FDA is forcing their hand. 

Seek a volunteer and make an example of him/her.  It’s the governments way, punish one, educate hundreds.

 

34 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You're arguing that because most Doctors wont prescribe ivermectin for covid, that MUST mean the government is preventing or banning them from doing so, when the reality is that a majority of Doctors don't prescribe it because they don't believe it's effective for treating covid. 

I’m actually saying the government is restricting the doctors from using all available resources to fight COVID that way they want.  Obviously not all doctors, but some.  That started with the FDA.  Ivermectin is not a dangerous drug.