- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: T/F? No “Approved” Covid Treatments Is/Was Needed for Emergency Approval of Vaccines?
Posted on 6/11/21 at 10:54 am to sgallo3
Posted on 6/11/21 at 10:54 am to sgallo3
All y’all talking about HCQ are focusing on the wrong treatment. The real story should be Ivermectin.
Short answer is, the OP is correct; EUAs can not be issued if there is a viable treatment already available on the market. There is both strong underlying theory and enormous and anecdotal evidence that Ivermectin may be a viable treatment for Covid. However, the NIH refuses to fund the wide-scale study needed for it to be used as a covid treatment and/or covid prophylactic. We are also seeing safety concerns around the drug skyrocket, despite having a squeaky clean safety record for decades and being approved as an over the counter medication in a large number of countries around the globe.
The speculation is that this blackballing and attack campaign is because finding it to be a suitable treatment will mean that the vaccines will need to go through the full approval process (which will take years) rather than being approved on an emergency use basis as is currently the case.
Short answer is, the OP is correct; EUAs can not be issued if there is a viable treatment already available on the market. There is both strong underlying theory and enormous and anecdotal evidence that Ivermectin may be a viable treatment for Covid. However, the NIH refuses to fund the wide-scale study needed for it to be used as a covid treatment and/or covid prophylactic. We are also seeing safety concerns around the drug skyrocket, despite having a squeaky clean safety record for decades and being approved as an over the counter medication in a large number of countries around the globe.
The speculation is that this blackballing and attack campaign is because finding it to be a suitable treatment will mean that the vaccines will need to go through the full approval process (which will take years) rather than being approved on an emergency use basis as is currently the case.
1
Posted on 6/11/21 at 11:05 am to STEVED00
quote:The antibody cocktail actually appears to work
Are there other treatments that are effective?
There was one other that showed some promise a little bit, i think it was Ivermectin (sp?)
Anyway, I dont fricking know why or how, I just get the updates and chart the data.
Posted on 6/11/21 at 11:18 am to funnystuff
quote:
However, the NIH refuses to fund the wide-scale study needed for it to be used as a covid treatment and/or covid prophylactic.
And why is that? Fauci is head of that, correct? Also does NIH have a financial stake in the vaccine?
Posted on 6/11/21 at 8:40 pm to STEVED00
No, the director of the NIH is Francis Collins.
And the idea would be, at least in theory, even if Ivermectin could prove to be a suitable treatment and/or prophylactic on the margin, it may not be sufficiently powerful to completely overpower the disease. So if you wanted to reach heard immunity as quickly as possible, a vaccine may very well be the best way to get there.
Which means that there are very likely good intentions behind the effort to diminish the value of Ivermectin. But they are still good intentions applied towards nefarious means, which is an actual disinformation campaign meant to keep people in the dark on Ivermectin’s efficacy and reliant upon a miracle vaccine to save society. It would be far better if we could both facilitate quicker authorization of new medications/vaccines without requiring emergency use authorizations, and also tell the truth about the efficacy of currently existing medications.
But that would mean reigning in the power and scope of the FDA, which as we all know by this point, is unlikely to ever happen. The vested interests are too strong.
And the idea would be, at least in theory, even if Ivermectin could prove to be a suitable treatment and/or prophylactic on the margin, it may not be sufficiently powerful to completely overpower the disease. So if you wanted to reach heard immunity as quickly as possible, a vaccine may very well be the best way to get there.
Which means that there are very likely good intentions behind the effort to diminish the value of Ivermectin. But they are still good intentions applied towards nefarious means, which is an actual disinformation campaign meant to keep people in the dark on Ivermectin’s efficacy and reliant upon a miracle vaccine to save society. It would be far better if we could both facilitate quicker authorization of new medications/vaccines without requiring emergency use authorizations, and also tell the truth about the efficacy of currently existing medications.
But that would mean reigning in the power and scope of the FDA, which as we all know by this point, is unlikely to ever happen. The vested interests are too strong.
Posted on 6/11/21 at 9:04 pm to STEVED00
people who post threads related to covid like it hasn’t been discussed ad nauseam, thoughts?
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News