Focuspuller wrote:
Lest we forget:

BIRX, TRUMP’S COVID COORDINATOR, HAS TOLD CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE ASKED HER TO WATER DOWN GUIDANCE TO STATES.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/23 … d-guidance

How many deaths the result of Orange Fuckface's staggeringl malevolent incompetence? In any other civilized country, this walking shitstain would be behind bars.

It amazes me- no, disgusts me that here in June 2022--- after layer upon layer of Trump's  criminal incompetence has been exposed---- after countless REPUBLICAN members of his administration and his White House Staff have TESTIFIED UNDER OATH about his complete disregard for the Constitution, for the laws of the land --- hell, for simple common decency----that folks like the drooling idiots of the Texas Republican party and millions like them are STILL falling for his con game.

It sickens me that it is BIG news that he fell out of the LEAD in ONE TINY STATE (New Hampshire where DeSantis leads for 2024 nomination)--- but remains favored in the rest of the country for the 2024 nomination.

Why would ANYBODY want to return a criminal thug who wants to be KING to office?

rfordphotos wrote:

It amazes me- no, disgusts me that here in June 2022--- after layer upon layer of Trump's  criminal incompetence has been exposed---- after countless REPUBLICAN members of his administration and his White House Staff have TESTIFIED UNDER OATH about his complete disregard for the Constitution, for the laws of the land --- hell, for simple common decency----that folks like the drooling idiots of the Texas Republican party and millions like them are STILL falling for his con game.

It sickens me that it is BIG news that he fell out of the LEAD in ONE TINY STATE (New Hampshire where DeSantis leads for 2024 nomination)--- but remains favored in the rest of the country for the 2024 nomination.

Why would ANYBODY want to return a criminal thug who wants to be KING to office?

I have been a close follower of politics in this county since the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. I lived through Watergate. I have never felt pessimistic about America's ability to self-correct and bend towards "a more perfect Union."

Until now.

DCurtis wrote:
it really is hopeless - maybe we should all give up - give up on this pathetic existence.

or - we can choose to live as heroes.

we survived Nagasaki and Hiroshima,

we survived Dresden and Auschwitz,

we survived the invasion by Europe and the Aztec Empire,

etc.

we survive.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  Are you somehow trying to suggest that people that DON'T get vaccinated are "living as heroes"?   Huh?   Is that because they're UNNECESSARILY risking death to themselves, their loved ones and everyone else they encounter?

Out of curiosity, I decided to check what IS known about the unvaccinated.  The largest study I could find is the famous (but probably now out of date) Kaiser Family Foundation's detailed analysis.

So while it does identify the unvaccinated as generally less educated (half as likely to get a college degree, etc) and that they are generally on the lower end of the income scale, try as I might I just can't find anything to suggest that they are "heroes".


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … 901b4042cc

LightDreams wrote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  Are you somehow trying to suggest that people that DON'T get vaccinated are "living as heroes"?   Huh?   Is that because they're UNNECESSARILY risking death to themselves, their loved ones and everyone else they encounter?

Out of curiosity, I decided to check what IS known about the unvaccinated.  The largest study I could find is the famous (but probably now out of date) Kaiser Family Foundation's detailed analysis.

So while it does identify the unvaccinated as generally less educated (half as likely to get a college degree, etc) and that they are generally on the lower end of the income scale, try as I might I just can't find anything to suggest that they are "heroes".


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … 901b4042cc

Unvaccinated, as is most of my family and friends, myself been to several countries already, around thousands of people, everyone around me is fine, except my vaccinated father who died of "the sads" after a booster that I warned him not to take.  Take that to mean what you want, I'm already over all this.  I don't wear masks, I don't isolate, I've done literally none of it.  I can't believe people are still playing this game.

Globefunseekers wrote:
Unvaccinated, as is most of my family and friends, myself been to several countries already, around thousands of people, everyone around me is fine, except my vaccinated father who died of "the sads" after a booster that I warned him not to take.  Take that to mean what you want, I'm already over all this.  I don't wear masks, I don't isolate, I've done literally none of it.

I can't believe people are still playing this game.

I know what you mean.

Most people can't believe that even now, after all we've been through and all of the evidence, that there are still people left who are in such complete and total denial that anything actually happened.  Let alone the sheer scale of it.  Even when it's right under their own noses.

As hard as it is to believe, and despite all of the odds, some of those people actually do still exist out there...

Globefunseekers wrote:
Unvaccinated, as is most of my family and friends, myself been to several countries already, around thousands of people, everyone around me is fine, except my vaccinated father who died of "the sads" after a booster that I warned him not to take.  Take that to mean what you want, I'm already over all this.  I don't wear masks, I don't isolate, I've done literally none of it.  I can't believe people are still playing this game.

Because like all self-centered ultra-libertarians only their own (if true) personal experience matters and is enough to infer global generalizations. For them.

LightDreams wrote:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  Are you somehow trying to suggest that people that DON'T get vaccinated are "living as heroes"?   Huh?   Is that because they're UNNECESSARILY risking death to themselves, their loved ones and everyone else they encounter?

Out of curiosity, I decided to check what IS known about the unvaccinated.  The largest study I could find is the famous (but probably now out of date) Kaiser Family Foundation's detailed analysis.

So while it does identify the unvaccinated as generally less educated (half as likely to get a college degree, etc) and that they are generally on the lower end of the income scale, try as I might I just can't find anything to suggest that they are "heroes".


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … 901b4042cc

what I am suggesting is that humanity, in the past, lived as heroes. historically, we were heroes. we survived the Black Plague. we survived the Napoleonic Wars, we survived the Khmer Rouge.

are you suggesting the omicron variant is comparable to Auschwitz?

you must have the courage to understand that not everyone is like you.

for your own mental health - accept that what other people are doing, they are doing what they believe is best for them. just as you are doing what is best for you. you are not special - you don't have special knowledge or intelligence. we are basically the same.

DCurtis wrote:
are you suggesting the omicron variant is comparable to Auschwitz?

...

for your own mental health - accept that what other people are doing, they are doing what they believe is best for them. just as you are doing what is best for you. you are not special - you don't have special knowledge or intelligence. we are basically the same.

I made NO statement or comment in any way regarding Auschwitz, or Nazi Germany, or anything like that.  So don't try and suggest any such thing.

COVID has killed 6.39 MILLION people.  Whether you personally believe that or not.  And, while we don't know what the next wave(s) will bring, especially this winter, we certainly hope that the worst is far behind us.

As far as accepting that people can do whatever they think is best for them, that only applies IF they are NOT endangering everyone else, without THEIR permission.  That's the very foundation of civilized society.   A set of basic rules so that everyone / society as a whole, is stronger for it.

Also I have NOT claimed to have any "special knowledge or intelligence".   But I do claim the worldwide scientific and medical experts DO when it comes to areas that they are the experts in.  I do not try and claim that the worldwide experts are all wrong and that I'm the one that is right.

We certainly are not "the same", as you put it.  I am not a science denier.  And I realize that sometimes my actions may have serious impact on those around me, so I have to take that into account.

Personally, I happen to think those are pretty big differences, but that's just me.

DCurtis wrote:
you must have the courage to understand that not everyone is like you.

for your own mental health - accept that what other people are doing, they are doing what they believe is best for them. just as you are doing what is best for you. you are not special - you don't have special knowledge or intelligence. we are basically the same.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19958944
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19962140

"you must have the courage to understand that not everyone is like you. "
"accept that what other people are doing, they are doing what they believe is best for them."
"you are not special - you don't have special knowledge or intelligence"

Good Advice.  You should consider it.

Your similitudes are absurd.  The two sets of examples that you made regarding wars, human cruelty and pestilence, indicate that we survive as a species.  None of your examples were world wide events, including WW2, so they are weak examples.  Though, it is nice of you to dismiss all of the individuals who died as irrelevant. "We" didn't survive the khmer rouge because we were not threatened by it.  "We" didn't survive the Napoleonic Wars because we weren't threatened by them, but our nation was benefited by them.  We are not heroes for surviving something that wasn't a threat.  We are certainly not heroes for ignoring a threat and permitting others to be harmed because of our insolence in a refusal to use measures that prevent the spread of a disease.

I suppose when Republican states pass measures banning mask or vaccine mandates, or mocking others as "woke" for wearing a mask or accepting a vaccine, they are accepting that what other people are doing, they are doing what they believe is best for them?

BTW, the bubonic plague can be cured.  It isn't 1350 any more.  The medical science that you reject regarding Covid-19, is more advanced now then when they developed treatments for plague.   There is no vaccine for bubonic plague, but a person can reduce the possibility of catching it by socially isolating one's self from the animals that are infected with it and the insects that spread it.  Protective clothing also helps in certain situations.  Sound familiar?

You should be aware that our survival as a species is in no way assured forever, and science deniers and self serving leaders will be instrumental in eliminating us as a species- and all of the species we take with us into extinction.

You have been consistent in your calls for letting people be who they are (unless they are trans) and do what they want, all of time, no matter what.  But selfishness is not a heroic trait.  SELFLESSNESS is a heroic trait. 

"According to researchers, empathy, and compassion for others are key variables that contribute to heroic behavior.  People who rush in to help others in the face of danger and adversity do so because they genuinely care about the safety and well-being of other people.

"People who engage in acts of heroism have concern and care for the people around them and they are able to feel what those in need of help are feeling."

"Researchers suggest that heroes aren't just compassionate and caring; they have a knack for being able to see things from the perspective of others. They can "walk a mile in another man's shoes," so to speak."
https://www.verywellmind.com/characteri … of-heroism

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
BTW, the bubonic plague can be cured.  It isn't 1350 any more.  The medical science that you reject regarding Covid-19, is more advanced now then when they developed treatments for plague.   There is no vaccine for bubonic plague, but a person can reduce the possibility of catching it by socially isolating one's self from the animals that are infected with it and the insects that spread it.  Protective clothing also helps in certain situations.  Sound familiar?

Ugh....   I was given a plague vaccine before Nam.  For what?  Duped again.  Another reason not to trust the U.S. Army.

rxz wrote:
Ugh....   I was given a plague vaccine before Nam.  For what?  Duped again.  Another reason not to trust the U.S. Army.

. Sorry to have created more mistrust. 

I didn't look for information about past vaccines.  Maybe they had something at the time? 

I doubt you could have refused it, anyway.

There were fewer antibiotic treatments for bubonic at that time.  Unless they used things other than what is on the current list.  Which is possible.  Penicillin does not have the broad success it once had.   Of the four drugs on the list on the source I used, the first was developed in 43, the second around 57, the third was 1960 (approved 62) and the last was in 1980 (approved sometime after).

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19958944
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19962140

"you must have the courage to understand that not everyone is like you. "
"accept that what other people are doing, they are doing what they believe is best for them."
"you are not special - you don't have special knowledge or intelligence"

Good Advice.  You should consider it.

Your similitudes are absurd.  The two sets of examples that you made regarding wars, human cruelty and pestilence, indicate that we survive as a species.  None of your examples were world wide events, including WW2, so they are weak examples.  Though, it is nice of you to dismiss all of the individuals who died as irrelevant. "We" didn't survive the khmer rouge because we were not threatened by it.  "We" didn't survive the Napoleonic Wars because we weren't threatened by them, but our nation was benefited by them.  We are not heroes for surviving something that wasn't a threat.  We are certainly not heroes for ignoring a threat and permitting others to be harmed because of our insolence in a refusal to use measures that prevent the spread of a disease.

I suppose when Republican states pass measures banning mask or vaccine mandates, or mocking others as "woke" for wearing a mask or accepting a vaccine, they are accepting that what other people are doing, they are doing what they believe is best for them?

BTW, the bubonic plague can be cured.  It isn't 1350 any more.  The medical science that you reject regarding Covid-19, is more advanced now then when they developed treatments for plague.   There is no vaccine for bubonic plague, but a person can reduce the possibility of catching it by socially isolating one's self from the animals that are infected with it and the insects that spread it.  Protective clothing also helps in certain situations.  Sound familiar?

You should be aware that our survival as a species is in no way assured forever, and science deniers and self serving leaders will be instrumental in eliminating us as a species- and all of the species we take with us into extinction.

You have been consistent in your calls for letting people be who they are (unless they are trans) and do what they want, all of time, no matter what.  But selfishness is not a heroic trait.  SELFLESSNESS is a heroic trait. 

"According to researchers, empathy, and compassion for others are key variables that contribute to heroic behavior.  People who rush in to help others in the face of danger and adversity do so because they genuinely care about the safety and well-being of other people.

"People who engage in acts of heroism have concern and care for the people around them and they are able to feel what those in need of help are feeling."

"Researchers suggest that heroes aren't just compassionate and caring; they have a knack for being able to see things from the perspective of others. They can "walk a mile in another man's shoes," so to speak."
https://www.verywellmind.com/characteri … of-heroism

getting the mRNA injection does not prevent you from getting or giving the virus. it does not prevent you from getting sick fom the virus, or even dying fom the virus. I am rejecting 'medical science'? these are facts. there is no evidence that wearing masks prevent the spread of this virus.

I totally reject your notions of what is a hero. heroes do what they do for the greater good - which includes themselves.

as a species - we did survive the things I mentioned.

when did I ever say a trans can't be trans? as a photographer - have you ever worked with a trans person? as a photographer - what have you done to promote trans identity? check out my work 18+ https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 0#40584860

DCurtis wrote:
getting the mRNA injection does not prevent you from getting or giving the virus. it does not prevent you from getting sick fom the virus, or even dying fom the virus. I am rejecting 'medical science'? these are facts. there is no evidence that wearing masks prevent the spread of this virus.

You've just summed up every conspiracy claim and outright lie that there is out there regarding COVID-19.  A complete and total rejection of medical science and all of the evidence.

DCurtis wrote:
getting the mRNA injection does not prevent you from getting or giving the virus. it does not prevent you from getting sick fom the virus, or even dying fom the virus. I am rejecting 'medical science'? these are facts. there is no evidence that wearing masks prevent the spread of this virus.

THANK YOU! 👏

That is the best, most concise and clear expression of utter dumb-headed ignorance and inverted logic I have yet to see on a forum. Mind-boggling, actually, that a sentient being would willingly and publicly present such utter crap.

CONGRATULATIONS!

Apparently the ban on Covid misinformation has expired here.

DCurtis wrote:
I totally reject your notions of what is a hero. heroes do what they do for the greater good - which includes themselves.

More nonsense. Heroes are celebrated PRECISELY because their acts are in the service of others - REGARDLESS of their own interest or safety. Saving YOURSELF is not a heroic act.

DCurtis wrote:
getting the mRNA injection does not prevent you from getting or giving the virus. it does not prevent you from getting sick fom the virus, or even dying fom the virus. I am rejecting 'medical science'? these are facts. there is no evidence that wearing masks prevent the spread of this virus.

Then it should be easy for you to supply peer reviewed, scientific data to support your contentions.  You can, I admit, find instances where the vaccine did not do each of the things you use to dismiss it, but you are still rejecting medical science and science in a broader scale.  You are rejecting the overwhelmingly positive successes that mRNA vaccine accomplished in reducing people contracting the virus; in reducing the viral load and duration a person who did get a post vaccine infection, lessening how much and for how long they could spread the virus; and in reducing the death rates.  By conjuring up the idea (which was fed to you) that the requirements for a vaccine to be effective means it must be effective absolutely, is a rejection of science.   Medical science does not have that requirement.  You do.  It is an absurd and as self-serving attitude.

As for masks not "preventing" the spread of "this" virus, are you indicating that they are effective in "preventing" the spread of other viruses?  Could you explain why they reduce the spread of other viruses but not "this" virus?  Once again, if you are requiring that the mask "prevent" the spread of the virus as an absolute,100%, in order to concur that masks "prevent" the spread, then you are right, but science does not demand that standard.  Therefore, you would again be rejecting science.   

At the height of the pandemic, I saw numerous rightists in the stores and public places that had the mask over their mouth but not their nose.  Under such circumstances, even a rightists should be honest enough to admit that an improperly worn mask has much less chance of succeeding than a properly worn mask.  It is amazing that we need to apply user instructions to something as simple as a mask. 

The FACT that you exclaim that those statements are statements of FACT, proves that you have not researched your claims.

DCurtis wrote:
I totally reject your notions of what is a hero. heroes do what they do for the greater good - which includes themselves.

I don't particularly care if you reject my notion of what a hero is, but rejecting what society's notion of a hero is, and making up your own definition of a hero, is self-serving. 

Please refer back to the post you quoted and note that I presented quotes from other people and provided citations as to what the criteria are for 'heroes.'  Where is your background information?

People that refuse vaccines aren't refusing them to protect other people, they are refusing them to protect themselves, or their children- who are an extension of theirselves.  That is selfish, particularly so because they are putting other people at risk when there are real medical reasons for some people to not take the vaccine.  Furthermore, those that reject the vaccine are among the reservoirs for reinfection and the incubation of additional strains.

There is nothing heroic or honorable about your reckoning of what is heroic.  It is selfishness you are acclaiming.

DCurtis wrote:
as a species - we did survive the things I mentioned.

No, we did not survive those things as a species.  Some people survived those events.  Some didn't, but not one of the events you listed threatened our survival as a species.  Your comments are a logical fallacy.  Your argument is akin to saying we survived the dinosaurs, or the Martian invasion.  Even the last ice age, which did have planetary wide impacts, didn't threaten the human population with extinction.  Humans in the proximity of the ice sheets not only survived the harsh environment, they thrived.  Meanwhile, many latitudes were amply suitable for humans. 

DCurtis wrote:
when did I ever say a trans can't be trans? as a photographer - have you ever worked with a trans person? as a photographer - what have you done to promote trans identity? check out my work 18+ https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 0#40584860

First off, dude, I am not a photographer.  Second, I am not subject to your arbitrary whims where you define what is an appropriate response or proactive effort.   Your self-serving definitions, as in other applications, are without merit. 

Unlike you, I have not indicated that a trans person should be addressed in a matter of disrespect with the terms  "DWEEB, DWEERK and DWORK." 

As an artist, or whatever I am per your irrelevant definition of convenience about my qualifications, regarding the moniker of artist, I don't have to present people in the light of your choosing.  I present people as people.  Not as their race.  Not as their gender.  If I have worked with any type of person, what obligation do I have to USE that person, and hold that person up as an example, to prove my virtue to you?  I am not worried about what you think of me. 

On the other hand. perhaps I have worked with someone that has transitioned and I did not, would not, could not know it. That is fine, because it is not important to me.  Only the PERSON is important. 

I do not dismiss or demean the humanity of a transperson.  What I have done, is engaged in a discussion here.  A discussion that you demanded that I secede from.  Offering opinions and references in a forum with the minor importance as this stage, may seem small, and it may be small, neither of us know how many people were impacted. 

Working with someone does not prove you do not have animosity against a group in which they are included.  Your comment is like a racist guy dismissing his racism by saying, "I have friends that are black people."  That, "is like saying there is no such thing as sexism because we all have a close friend or family member who is a woman."(1)  You could go back and look at your comment.  I addressed it when you posted it and you did not refute my rebuttal to you then.  One would have to wonder if you used your "preferred pronouns" regarding trans people when you were working with the person you hold up as proof that the bias and disrespect you displayed earlier was untrue.  Your "preferred pronouns are DWEEB, DWEERK and DWORK" for trans people.  I am sure your photo subject appreciated the level of respect you afforded, if you did not display your bias to the subject personally.

I did click your link to see how you extol trans people, but got a 404 error.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not … ck_friends

Edit:
It is the subsequent morning and the 404 error is gone.  I saw the photo.  I see a person, not a trans person.  Perhaps you could explain how that photo promotes trans identity?

Focuspuller wrote:
Apparently the ban on Covid misinformation has expired here.

Functionally, the ban was no more relative than a myth.

JohnSnape wrote:
...

For John,  just in case you're honestly interested in understanding the problem with your South Africa example.

It's incredibly easy to get the wrong message from a set of statistics.  In this case your South Africa comparison.  Let me give you an example:

Two years ago, I could have said that "donating to Donald Trump is more likely to kill you".  Statistically, the numbers would show that it was actually correct.  But that still doesn't mean it's true!

Trump supporters at the time were FAR less likely to get the first COVID vaccine which was so incredibly effective with the first version of COVID-19.  So, statistically, they were far more likely to die from COVID-19.  So donating to Trump was NOT the cause (of a higher death rate), it was just a statistical "correlation" at that time.

In South Africa, there are all sorts of factors, compared to the U.S., which may provide the explanation.  Also, there was an early LAB TEST, where Invermectin (in petri dishes) helped fight COVID-19 (again, in petri dishes).  The problem was that the equivalent dose required to get the same results in the human body (to match the amount required for the successful lab tests), would KILL human beings.  But nevertheless, that lab test is what started the Invermectin claims.

So how do scientists find out how Invermectin actually works at fighting COVID-19 in humans?

Well you get a LARGE "blind" test group of people that are in the early stages of COVID-19.  You give half of the subjects a "fake" (placebo) drug, something like a harmless sugar pill.  And you give the other half Invermectin.   It's critical that no one involved in the study knows which is which, including the patient's Doctor.

Then you collect a variety of related results.

- Number of patients hospitalized within 28 days due to a worsening case of COVID-19?  Those that got Invermectin had about the same rate as those given the fake "placebo" treatment.

- Did those getting Invermectin "clear their bodies sooner" of the COVID-19 virus or experience a faster reduction of symptoms?  Again, no.  The rate was about the same as those getting fake "placebo" pills.

To be clear, in humans, Invermectin turned out to be as effective against COVID-19 as a sugar pill (with a "placebo effect").

Whatever might be happening in South Africa, it's NOT related to Invermectin.  Just like donating to Trump had no "causal effect" that, in any way, ever actually increased anyone's odds of dying!

---

As a senior researcher at John Hopkins put it, "Any time there's been a rigorous study with ivermectin, there is no benefit shown".   

"The people who advocate for ivermectin always have some objection, or because they're not able to be rationally engaged with on this.”

A real risk of the focus on ivermectin use for COVID is that it diverts attention from more effective treatments.

"There are GOOD ANTIVIRALS out there like Paxlovid and molnupiravir, and even fluvoxamine," Adalja said. "However, they get much less attention than ivermectin."

JohnSnape wrote:
It looks like a lot of people on here argue just to argue.

If you don't like what I posted, just move on.

In many cases, that would be sound advice. But in this particular case, (the pandemic) it has been repeatedly shown that people DIED because of the misinformation and outright lies published about Covid 19 preventative methods- vaccines, masks , social distancing etc.

If you can provide legitimate science based data that shows Ivermectin had preventative or curative effects- please do so--- other wise I (and most folks interested in facts) will rely on the MANY peer reviewed science based studies that have shown Ivermectin is worthless fighting Covid 19.

JohnSnape wrote:
It looks like a lot of people on here argue just to argue.

If you don't like what I posted, just move on.

I call Bullsh*t.  You have detailed scientific facts that (from your reaction) you REALLY don't want to have to confront.

It sounds like you just want to post a conclusion that's completely false and  that, according to the experts, is major COVID DISINFORMATION, and then "close your eyes, plug your ears, while chanting LA, LA, LA..." and walk away.

And somehow suggest that it's everyone ELSE'S problem, not yours...    Remarkable!

JohnSnape wrote:
It looks like a lot of people on here argue just to argue.

If you don't like what I posted, just move on.

The thread is on page 139.  40 posts per page.  Did you read it?

I do not disagree with you about some people coming here just to argue.  From my perspective, the people on the right side of the political spectrum do come to this thread, and another, just to argue.  Well, argue is too good of a word.  Troll is more appropriate.  An argument can be an attack based in anger.  It is also a logical exchange of ideas.  Points and counter points.  An argument can be a debate.  What is wrong with a debate?

There is nothing wrong with you posting your opinion, devoid of a scientific basis, as it was.  However, why do you think you get to do that in a vacuum?  If you have a foundation for your opinion regarding ivermectin, then you should be willing to support your statement.

Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are for the treatment of parasites.  Covid-19 is a virus.  "Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea."(4)   Covid-19 is not a worm.  It is not a parasite.  If you condone the use of ivermectin for covid-19, you ought to be informed enough to tell people why, otherwise you are promoting a substance that is capable of injuring people when you have no evidence as to why it should be used.

I looked up the mortality rates of Covid-19 per country.(1)  Peru had by far the highest rate.  In Africa, some countries were as low as 0.1%, including Burundi, but in Africa, the rate was not consistently low.  Malawi and Gambia were 3%.  Sudan was 7.9%. 

All of these African countries which I referenced, have significant malaria problems.(2)  Is there a correlation?  Sudan's malaria death rate is above 15. Burundi's is almost 48 and Malawi's is above 45.  The assumption would then be that Sudan had a higher death rate from covid because there are fewer people being treated for malaria.  Burundi has a lower death rate from covid-19 because more people are being treated for malaria.  That doesn't explain Malawi, though.  Of course, I only took a cursory look.  I did not look at each country in Africa for the correlation between malaria and covid death rates.  You are welcome to provide a comprehensive list. 

The problem is that if there was a real correlation between low covid-19 death rates and the treatment of malaria with Ivermectin, then a well designed study would show the correlation and it would be replicable.  There has certainly been plenty of politically motivated people to provide a study of the effectiveness of Ivermectin against covid-19, so why hasn't one surfaced?  Studies have shown a lack of a correlation, however.

There are many factors that could influence the reported rates of death for Covid-19.  Certainly other countries, like Singapore have reported a death rate of 0.1%, but what Singapore did to combat Covid-19 was significant.  A friend of mine had to travel to Singapore during the height of a surge.  She was locked in a hotel room for 14 days.  On day 12, she got word that the quarantine was extended to 21 days.  If the population that is most vulnerable to Covid-19 is protected from infection, could that result in a lower death rate regardless of the drugs that are in the people's system?  If a population is decimated by other disease, such as malaria, is the population that is most vulnerable to Covid-19 already significantly smaller?  Therefore, fewer vulnerable people would result is a lower death rate from covid-19, would it not?

I also looked at death rates per region for Covid-19.(3)  Africa's rates are certainly lower than North America, South America and Europe, but they are very consistent with Asia. (The chart separates China.) According to the malaria mortality chart,(2) Asia does not have a significant malaria problem.  Therefore, Ivermectin should not be a factor.  Could you explain why Asia is consistent and only slightly higher than Africa?

From The BMJ regarding unethical studies of Ivermectin
"During disease outbreaks, it can be tempting to sacrifice the scientific rigour of research in favour of speed, given the urgency to develop new treatments. After the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in west Africa, however, a report on the ethics of research from the US National Academy of Medicine stated clearly that “research during an epidemic is still subject to the same core scientific and ethical requirements that govern all research on human subjects.”1 Early in the covid-19 pandemic ethicists warned researchers against “pandemic research exceptionalism”—lowering ethical standards because of the urgency of the crisis.2 Despite these warnings, there have been many examples of researchers treating covid-19 as exactly that: an exception to the rigorous standards to which we should hold medical research.3 There is no better example of such exceptionalism than the research into ivermectin for covid-19.

Ivermectin is used to treat a range of parasitic diseases, including onchocerciasis and helminthiases. On the basis of in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2,4 the drug was tested as a possible treatment and prevention for covid-19. Initial randomised trials and systematic reviews suggested large benefits from the drug, including reduced hospital admissions and improved survival rates.56 It turns out that many of the results were—literally—too good to be true.7

An analysis of 26 major trials of ivermectin for covid-19 found that over one third had “serious errors or signs of potential fraud.” (5)

From JAMA February 18, 2022
Question  Does adding ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, to the standard of care reduce the risk of severe disease in patients with COVID-19 and comorbidities?

Findings  In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.

Meaning  The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
Results  Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19. (6)

From a retracted paper
"On July 6, 2021, Open Forum Infectious Diseases published the article “Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection” by Hill, et al. Subsequently, we and the authors learned that one of the largest studies on which this analysis was based was withdrawn due to fraudulent data; additional problems have emerged regarding other studies included in the original paper. An editorial Expression of Concern was first published under this record as the authors revised their analysis for resubmission." (7)

There is ample evidence that ivermectin is ineffective and potentially harmful.  What gives you the right to live under a rock, ignore the scientific evidence, and promote invalid treatments which can harm our friends and colleagues?  We can't stop you from living in a scientific waste land, but if you do not like being contradicted, then you will find these forums to be an inappropriate place to participate. 

(1) https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
(2) https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cau … y-country/
(3) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dail … ths-region
(4) https://www.google.com/search?q=ivermec … nt=gws-wiz
(5) https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o917
(6) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain … le/2789362
(7) https://www.google.com/search?q=studies … p;ie=UTF-8

JohnSnape wrote:
It looks like a lot of people on here argue just to argue.

If you don't like what I posted, just move on.

OR, you could look up the definition of FORUM