you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks.

First link:

22 June 2021 Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues.

Second link:

Clinical trials now underway should determine whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for SARS-Cov2 infection.

Third link:

could be considered potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 replication.

Fourth link:

could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency

This:

Ivermectin treatment for Covid is now supported by 113 studies

Is misleading. It's very interesting, however, because these studies indicate that trials are underway or can begin. Ivermectin is NOT currently supported for treatment. If in due course it will be an alternative treatment, all the better. And those who claim that the current vaccines are unhealthy should be no less circumspect about Ivermectin as a treatment, especially because it's not currently approved for use against COVID19.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    How many FDA approved drugs have later caused problems.

    A good question - because many in the FDA are closely linked to Big Pharma, as this has been a trend since especially the Reagan era. Before Reagan, this conflict of interest was illegal. Since Reagan, Big Pharma has also helped write FDA-related bills.

    But regarding 'approval', there are international groups working on vaccine trials &c. Are they all in bed together? Not all of them.