HaHaHaHaHa!!!!BOMBSHELL: Ivermectin Is Now OK To Treat COVID! – Says The FDA - How about that "horse paste"?

submitted by rundown9 from (youtube.com)

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And following that, poison center calls were exaggerated by the media like this:

"Between January and August 2020, poison control received 23 calls about ivermectin. In that same time period this year, the state poison control network has received 159 calls about ivermectin – a 591% increase.

Of the 159 calls made in 2021, 64 of them were made in the month of August, according to a health advisory released by Texas’ health department Thursday warning of the dangers of using ivermectin improperly." (USA Today)

  • No effort to cross check that 591% figure with overall usage rate increases, which were quite possibly far greater than 591%.

  • No mention that those poison center calls were quite possibly due to messing up dosage with the animal version, which can also contain additives that humans don't take well to that aren't found in the human form - all of which could have been avoided if they hadn't tried to clamp down on the basic pills that had been available prior to 2020 no problem.

A couple(?) highly suspect "studies" also popped up around this time.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

...the animal version, which can also contain additives that humans don't take well to that aren't found in the human form...

I asked about that when this story first broke, and got crickets.

IF the "animal version" had something in it that was good for horses, but bad for humans, they could have just said so, and avoided a lot of the controversy. But they did not. "Ivermectin itself is fine for humans under proper dosage," they could have said, "but our formulation also contains [X], which is not. If you are human, do not take our formulation." But they did not ever say that, AFAIK.

All that was said was "This says 'for horses' on the label, not 'for humans'."

I had checked on a similar human/non-human drug, and the amoxicillin for fish turned out to be the same exact pills as the amoxicillin for humans. The main difference was that one was only available from a pharmacy with a prescription, in a bottle of 30 pills, and the other could be picked up at the pet shop for a bottle of 100. Same exact pills. But the latter says "for fish" on the label, not "for humans."

Extra point... "which can also contain additives" is at least one step away from "which does also contain additives."

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't remember where I read about the paste containing other potentially undesirable additives. I'll try to look for it.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

...containing other potentially undesirable additives. I'll try to look for it.

It might, and it might not, have additives that are not good for humans to ingest.
But again, if it does.... why the hell didn't they just say so? And why didn't everyone else repeat that theoretical "say so"?

Why would you have to hunt down that info instead of it being Point One of "Why Not To Take This Stuff" in every discussion about taking this stuff this whole time?

Side note: Apparently Skittles (the candy) contain "potentially undesirable additives."