COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

https://www.drugs.com/ivermectin.html

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...py/ivermectin/

https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...linical-trials

Is it really as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

https://www.azfamily.com/news/iverme...414868f84.html

Quote:

---

Animal drugs are highly concentrated for large animals and can be highly toxic in humans. Some of the symptoms associated with ivermectin toxicity include rash, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, neurologic disorders, and potentially severe hepatitis requiring hospitalization."

---

Why would you risk catching hepatitis when you can get the vaccine and have maybe a sore arm and a headache?

Its weird the experimental treatments people will trust that are in some cases just as new or newer than the vaccine. 5 billion shots but let's take a something that rids animals of worms in their ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

Still not seeing it… unless you mean where they excluded all but 4 countries due to incomplete data.

Even then this paper is dealing with low birth weight being the main cause of infant mortality. It speaks nothing, that I can see, of any ranking with the US.

Beyond that, and another argument completely, is trying to rank a homogenous society with a non/homogeneous society in healthcare is difficult due to the complexity and diversity of illness and cultures.

But I’m willing to concede that the US ranks worse in infant mortality if you can show me where they excluded Scandinavian countries propensity to not report it the same way we do.

---

Ok, here’s another study that even more explicitly talks about cross country comparisons:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/

Also not that the study points out the largest discrepancy in infant mortality rates in the US occurs between 1 month and 12 months, so even if Scandinavian countries count less than 30 day infant deaths differently, a comparison after that time shows we still have drastically higher infant mortality even excluding within 30 days.

Here’s another chart that has data for neonatal deaths (defined as number of deaths of infants less than 28 days) in which Nordic countries deaths are included and still lower than the US:

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/CO_1..._mortality.pdf


Hopefully you’re now willing to concede the blindingly obvious. I mean, do you seriously not think we have bad infant mortality rates?


Also as an aside, in my research just now I could not find anything that corroborates that Scandinavian countries don’t count infant deaths before the 30 days, in everything I’ve seen that is considered neonatal.

Do you have a source for them not counting infant deaths less than 30 days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

https://www.azfamily.com/news/iverme...414868f84.html



Why would you risk catching hepatitis when you can get the vaccine and have maybe a sore arm and a headache?

Its weird the experimental treatments people will trust that are in some cases just as new or newer than the vaccine. 5 billion shots but let's take a something that rids animals of worms in their ****.

---

I gave you Drugs.com. Cdc.gov and The Who.org


And you came back with Azfamily.com?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

Is it really as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be?

---

That’s what we’re asking about the vaccine.

List what your think what people should do in order of best plan to worst

Take vaccine and not invermectin
Take vaccine and invermectin
Take invermectin but not vaccine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

That’s what we’re asking about the vaccine.

List what your think what people should do in order of best plan to worst

Take vaccine and not invermectin
Take vaccine and invermectin
Take invermectin but not vaccine

---

I would list it in the same exact order you displayed it.


But I would then say… it’s your choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Ok, here’s another study that even more explicitly talks about cross country comparisons:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/

Also not that the study points out the largest discrepancy in infant mortality rates in the US occurs between 1 month and 12 months, so even if Scandinavian countries count less than 30 day infant deaths differently, a comparison after that time shows we still have drastically higher infant mortality even excluding within 30 days.

Here’s another chart that has data for neonatal deaths (defined as number of deaths of infants less than 28 days) in which Nordic countries deaths are included and still lower than the US:

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/CO_1..._mortality.pdf


Hopefully you’re now willing to concede the blindingly obvious. I mean, do you seriously not think we have bad infant mortality rates?


Also as an aside, in my research just now I could not find anything that corroborates that Scandinavian countries don’t count infant deaths before the 30 days, in everything I’ve seen that is considered neonatal.

Do you have a source for them not counting infant deaths less than 30 days?

---

I already said I would be willing to concede if I was wrong. I’m not wanting to go through the data you just provided so I will trust you did and concede.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

I gave you Drugs.com. Cdc.gov and The Who.org


And you came back with Azfamily.com?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/10302...misinformation

Is NPR better? It says exactly the same words by the same doctor lol.

And you didn't answer my questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/10302...misinformation

Is NPR better? It says exactly the same words by the same doctor lol.

And you didn't answer my questions.

---

Lol no it’s not. It’s a leftist radio program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol risk catching hepatitis? Do you think it’s talking about Hep C or something? Lol

Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. You don’t “catch” it. There are many types and Hep A,B,C,D and E are transmissible but that’s not what the article it stating.

And you risk it because the CdC and Who are both studying the efficacy of a relatively (certainly more is know about ivermectin than any Covid vaccine) inert medicine and it’s effect on Covid -19

It’s literally like saying would you take vitamin d if you thought it might help?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

Lol no it’s not. It’s a leftist radio program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Jeez man, just look at the quote from Dr. Paul Byers (the state of Mississippi top epidemiologist) in the article. Is he putting his political position first or his Hippocratic responsibilities when he said ingesting the drug can lead to a rash, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, neurologic disorders and potentially severe hepatitis requiring hospitalization.

Again still avoiding the question btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

Lol risk catching hepatitis? Do you think it’s talking about Hep C or something? Lol

Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver. You don’t “catch” it. There are many types and Hep A,B,C,D and E are transmissible but that’s not what the article it stating.

And you risk it because the CdC and Who are both studying the efficacy of a relatively (certainly more is know about ivermectin than any Covid vaccine) inert medicine and it’s effect on Covid -19

It’s literally like saying would you take vitamin d if you thought it might help?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I know what hepatitis is and the drug can lead to acute hepatitis.

It has already.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16682062/

Hence the warnings. Whatever the case is, this is a dumb argument. Why would you risk any of those things using something made to rid animals of worms in their **** when you can just get the vaccine? The lengths people will ****ing go. Amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

Jeez man, just look at the quote from Dr. Paul Byers (the state of Mississippi top epidemiologist) in the article. Is he putting his political position first or his Hippocratic responsibilities when he said ingesting the drug can lead to a rash, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, neurologic disorders and potentially severe hepatitis requiring hospitalization.

Again still avoiding the question btw.

---

I must be missing the question because I thought I did answer it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

I know what hepatitis is and the drug can lead to acute hepatitis.

It has already.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16682062/

Hence the warnings. Whatever the case is, this is a dumb argument. Why would you risk any of those things using something made to rid animals of worms in their **** when you can just get the vaccine? The lengths people will ****ing go. Amazing.

---

I don’t know… but the CDC and WHO are researching it.

Edit: and be honest… you didn’t really know what hepatitis was.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

I don’t know… but the CDC and WHO are researching it.

Edit: and be honest… you didn’t really know what hepatitis was.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Great, let me know when they approve it for humans.

As to the bolded, I really do though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

https://www.drugs.com/ivermectin.html

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...py/ivermectin/

https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...linical-trials

Is it really as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I believe that about 3/4 of the calls into Mississippi calls to local department of health were related to whether they should take it or not.