SpiritDragon

My wife and I were prescribed ivermectin last month.  By a doctor, not a veterinarian.

What about rat poison? Should people take rat poison?
Warfarin

Ivermectin has been prescribed to humans for decades.  

It doesn't.  All your articles state "not approved and higher concentrations".   All that means is "we don't approve it and you need to be aware of your dosage".

Here's some for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
 
 
It makes a rational person wonder why they rushed a vaccine through to approval and yet they are ignoring clinical trials and reports of success with ivermectin.
 

I welcome an explanation of how pointing out similarities for the purpose of learning from history is insulting to prior victims. Instead of simply doubling down into a four-year-old-fit going back and forth between yes it does, no it doesn't, who can yell louder as your continued assertion that it's just so absurd comes across as, I truly welcome some actual dialogue to help me see how what you claim is so.

Gavin Debecker has an interesting book called the gift of fear that is all about recognizing pre-incident indicators that have been recognized by reverse engineering the tell tale signs that were found to occur prior to sexual assaults. By teaching people about these indicators so they can avoid being victims of sexual assault, I can't begin to fathom how that is conflated to saying that the previous victims' experiences don't matter or the suffering wasn't real. It would seem a greater travesty to recognize tactics used by criminals and not bother to point them out keeping a higher proportion of new victims always available because no one could bother to learn from history and share the help.

Now perhaps there is some inflammatory rhetoric you've experienced elsewhere in regards to this that you are bringing to this discussion, but I feel I've been nothing but respectful in pointing out commonalities of indicators (in this case used by government to make a section of the population into "deplorables", which is a requisite step for the actions taken against the Jews in the middle of the twentieth century to occur). I have not said the Jews didn't suffer. I have not called anyone a Nazi or Vazi. I have not said that the unvaccinated today have suffered in an equivalent manner to Holocaust victims. I have simply pointed out that there are similarities that warrant recognition as they are strikingly similar tactics being used by world leaders to demonize the unvaccinated right now as were used by the Nazis to make the Jews lose standing in German society *prior* to the atrocities perpetrated upon the Jewish people and others selected by those in power as undesirable members of society.

If you can show me the blind spot in my reasoning, I'm open to learning.

You're entitled to seeing it that way, but to me this is akin to taking the position that when a gunman walks onto a campus with loaded weapons we can't draw parallels from previous shootings until after people have become victims and are shot down. It makes more sense to me to recognize troubling indicators and take steps to prevent history from repeating itself as opposed to claiming there is no way a comparison should be made until an equal or greater cataclysm has taken place.

It isn't at all suggesting that the holocaust victims didn't suffer immensely, nor diminish their stories. It is simply a comparison of how people were manipulated into going along with atrocities in relatively recent history to how similar tactics are being used now. Is it entitled whining to point out to a friend that her partner is using manipulative tactics that suggest he's an abuser and she should get out of the relationship before things get worse? Does it minimize other victims of abusive partners? No. It simply points out key indicators worth knowing to avoid that cycle being repeated if the warning is heeded.

I don't see what you're seeing, but I'm happy to let it go. It's not my preference to make comparisons to Nazis, but as it was already done by others, I felt to simply point out that the comparison was not necessarily the same default Nazi calling as is so common as there are actually similar tactics in play and not just someone being butt hurt and thinking up a term to make an opposing party sound like the bad guy. Thanks for trying to help me understand. The closest I can come to seeing what I think you see is in the potential to reopen wounds among those with lived experience, but I don't suspect we have any of those in this discussion or who would see it. While I see some of the articles make the same assertions you have, they fail to expound any reasoning aside form saying so beyond the aforementioned lived experience piece.

Either way, no further discussion of the matter will be useful for anyone, so let's end it amicably. Thanks again.

I welcome an explanation of how pointing out similarities for the purpose of learning from history is insulting to prior victims. Instead of simply doubling down into a four-year-old-fit going back and forth between yes it does, no it doesn't, who can yell louder as your continued assertion that it's just so absurd comes across as, I truly welcome some actual dialogue to help me see how what you claim is so.

Gavin Debecker has an interesting book called the gift of fear that is all about recognizing pre-incident indicators that have been recognized by reverse engineering the tell tale signs that were found to occur prior to sexual assaults. By teaching people about these indicators so they can avoid being victims of sexual assault, I can't begin to fathom how that is conflated to saying that the previous victims' experiences don't matter or the suffering wasn't real. It would seem a greater travesty to recognize tactics used by criminals and not bother to point them out keeping a higher proportion of new victims always available because no one could bother to learn from history and share the help.

Now perhaps there is some inflammatory rhetoric you've experienced elsewhere in regards to this that you are bringing to this discussion, but I feel I've been nothing but respectful in pointing out commonalities of indicators (in this case used by government to make a section of the population into "deplorables", which is a requisite step for the actions taken against the Jews in the middle of the twentieth century to occur). I have not said the Jews didn't suffer. I have not called anyone a Nazi or Vazi. I have not said that the unvaccinated today have suffered in an equivalent manner to Holocaust victims. I have simply pointed out that there are similarities that warrant recognition as they are strikingly similar tactics being used by world leaders to demonize the unvaccinated right now as were used by the Nazis to make the Jews lose standing in German society *prior* to the atrocities perpetrated upon the Jewish people and others selected by those in power as undesirable members of society.

If you can show me the blind spot in my reasoning, I'm open to learning.

I don't see what you're seeing, but I'm happy to let it go. It's not my preference to make comparisons to Nazis, but as it was already done by others, I felt to simply point out that the comparison was not necessarily the same default Nazi calling as is so common as there are actually similar tactics in play and not just someone being butt hurt and thinking up a term to make an opposing party sound like the bad guy. Thanks for trying to help me understand. The closest I can come to seeing what I think you see is in the potential to reopen wounds among those with lived experience, but I don't suspect we have any of those in this discussion or who would see it. While I see some of the articles make the same assertions you have, they fail to expound any reasoning aside form saying so beyond the aforementioned lived experience piece.

Either way, no further discussion of the matter will be useful for anyone, so let's end it amicably. Thanks again.

https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/pennsylvania-governor-tom-wolf-shutdown-coronavirus-covid-pandemic-20200520.html%3foutputType=amp
 
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/jul/17/spin-control-think-twice-before-making-that-nazi-c/
 
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article250529684.html
 

You're entitled to seeing it that way, but to me this is akin to taking the position that when a gunman walks onto a campus with loaded weapons we can't draw parallels from previous shootings until after people have become victims and are shot down. It makes more sense to me to recognize troubling indicators and take steps to prevent history from repeating itself as opposed to claiming there is no way a comparison should be made until an equal or greater cataclysm has taken place.

It isn't at all suggesting that the holocaust victims didn't suffer immensely, nor diminish their stories. It is simply a comparison of how people were manipulated into going along with atrocities in relatively recent history to how similar tactics are being used now. Is it entitled whining to point out to a friend that her partner is using manipulative tactics that suggest he's an abuser and she should get out of the relationship before things get worse? Does it minimize other victims of abusive partners? No. It simply points out key indicators worth knowing to avoid that cycle being repeated if the warning is heeded.

Lots of good thoughts; the one I've cited above is perhaps the only one to which I might have anything salient/potentially useful to add in response
I think a better analogy would be:  Do you bomb Hitler's army, knowing that a nuclear Stalin will be overthrowing free governments throughout eastern Europe in the next three years??  How hard do you push the Imperial Japanese Army, knowing that Mao Tse-Tung is lying in wait to slaughter a hundred million Chinese?  As Americans, it's easy for us to tut-tut about the necessity of annihilating Hitler and Imperial Japan; because we didn't have to really deal with what came afterwards--not in the same way others did.  If we'd grown up in East Germany or Taiwan, we might see things differently.  
I fear that our confidence in our ability to keep "winning" short-term battle after short-term battle, rather than implementing and building up systems that will (if not always letting right prevail, at least) maintain our own liberty, keep a lid on open warfare, and withstand the test of time; is the primary difference between ourselves and our American ancestors.  

How about, "Don't allow flagrantly foolish and antisocial measures such as allowing anyone and everyone to sue for damages from an entity that does a morally bad thing"?
The SC majority's unsigned opinion seems legally solid, if a bit unusual. Sotomayor Sotomenor is a blithering idiot, as usual. I'm just stunned that such a woman sits on our nation's highest court. But the fact remains that if such a law were passed to allow indiscriminate collection of damages by any party, involved or not, against the provider of an action you don't like, 100% of those who support the action and a large fraction of those who do not support it would oppose the legislation.
Maybe you're anti-marijuana legalization; I certainly am. So then, does it make sense that some private, uninvolved individual in Alabama should be able to sue and collect damages from a pot dispensary in Colorado? If California passes anti-firearm legislation, are you okay if someone from New York sues a gun shop in Chula Vista?
That element of the Texas law, at least, is nonsense. It's mob mentality, ganging up on those who engage in something you don't like.
I doubt you hate abortion much more than I do. I believe we as a nation are guilty of the murder of our unborn. I believe God will sweep many of us off the face of this land to hide our filth from his face. But a law like this looks to me like an assertion of the tyranny of the mob. I am absolutely sure that I, my family, and my coreligionists will be on the short end of the mob stick sooner or later, most probably sooner.
That's how it looks to me. I invite corrections of my facts or logic.

Once again....murder...... of babies....... millions of them.
I expect you're not trying to say this, and I'll leave you to clarify, but... "don't use that method to stop them from murdering babies because then maybe it'll be used to take away our guns" doesn't quite work for me.
On the rape and incest thing -- I'm just not sure how I feel or think about that. If they count as babies then they count as babies. Why should rape or incest justify the murder of an innocent little baby? You were raped? Oh...well...okay then. Go ahead and slit that baby's throat then and put it in that trash bin over there.
On the other hand I am not, actually (despite how I may seem on many matters) unsympathetic to the idea that if I could carry a baby and was raped by some scumbag that then I'd have to go through carrying that baby...that would be exceedingly physiologically difficult. I understand that. Which is why I say I don't know how to feel. From a straight up logic only point of view...what does justify slitting that baby's throat and putting it in the trash bin? I'm not unsympathetic...but I'm also not unsympathetic to the baby getting its throat slit. So....

I understand your sentiment, and I also find some Nazi comparisons distasteful for the same reason.
But I believe the greater disrespect to the victims would be to allow similar government policies and movements to occur again without calling them out and opposing such actions. That's where I am coming from on this.

The problem I have with this is that, according to the science, individuals with natural immunity are less likely to spread COVID-19 and the variants than those that have been "vaccinated".    I do agree that you have every right to discriminate against those that threaten you and others safety - but you do not have to right to discriminate against someone just because of a prejudice you have against them because that you think (prejudge without knowledge) is a threat.
In addition my problem is that COVID-19 is no threat to 90% of the population any more than many other communicable diseases and anyone that is concerned that they are among the 10% at risk have no problem what-so-ever in getting the "vaccine".  So my question is - why can't free people make this decision for themselves?
 
The Traveler

I just saw this article, a bit long but worth the read IMHO.

https://trialsitenews.com/get-sicker-anatomy-of-a-failed-policy/
“All governments lie” was the mantra of investigative reporting legend I.F. Stone. As a journalist, I have exposed some serious lies in my career. But my reporting on the management of COVID-19 has transformed my view of government, and my profession, in a way that 25 years of investigative reporting did not.
It was a lie when the FDA trotted out a six-month-old web post recently, warning of “serious harm,” “seizures, coma and even death” from ivermectin. The March post was spurred, it said, by “multiple” reports of people harmed by an animal formulation. In response to my question – how many is “multiple”? – the agency told me four, with some “lost to follow-up.” This is how governments obfuscate, confuse and, yes, lie when discussing a drug that the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology said in 2016 “continues to provide a high margin of safety for a growing number of indications.”
FDA-sanctioned remdesivir, meanwhile, was associated with more than 500 deaths in its first year of use. Ivermectin was linked to 20 deaths in 19 years of WHO VigiAccess record-keeping. You won’t find that on the FDA web site.
In the same vein, on Aug. 26, the CDC reported a “three-fold increase…from the pre-pandemic baseline” in ivermectin calls to poison control centers. I asked the CDC press office four times: How many calls were received, and what was the baseline?
It finally answered, gave no figures, and referred me to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. I’m waiting."
 

It is the recent data sets from the US and around the world that have changed almost all of these narratives, and yes we probably won't change each other's minds but the recent changes in CDC guidance on masks for vaccinated individuals was entirely prompted by the new data which does support my statements above.
1. The issue is pretty settled at this point. Satellite data and hospital reports do not support the Chinese narrative that it started in the wet markets. It started in the lab, but without further cooperation and data from the Chinese, which is intentionally being withheld or has already been destroyed, we will only be 99% sure.
2. That was believed but was recently shown to be false. Vaccinated individuals carry just as large  viral load as unvaccinated. We are all walking Petri dishes. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/08/evidence-mounts-that-people-with-breakthrough-infections-can-spread-delta-easily
3. This is also supported by the above study, and by data from Israel and other highly vaccinated countries (which should have reached herd immunity if it was possible). Vaccinated individuals are just as likely to be infected with the Delta variant as the unvaccinated. And because of the higher numbers of vaccinated people, the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected by an asymptomatic vaccinated person than an unvaccinated person.
4. It was believed that was the case, but real world wisdom came through again when the data came back.  https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital  Getting Covid confers far better protection than the vaccine, but the data also shows that together is better than just Covid. 
5. Herd immunity is now a pipe-dream now that we know the vaccinated carry just as much viral load and are easily infected with Delta.
6. The reasoning here relied on the assumption that vaccinated people would not be walking petri dishes, but the unvaccinated would be transmission vectors. Now that we know we are all transmission vectors for Delta, there is no expected reduction in mutation rates. Prior to Covid, the conventional virology wisdom was that you never vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic because it forces the virus to mutate faster. That was tossed aside, but many virologists spoke up to recommend against it.
7. We agree on that. Vaccination reduces symptoms of infection, but not the viral load.
Hope that helps.

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here.

First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship.
Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills.
Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here.

First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship.
Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills.
Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here.

First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship.
Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills.
Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here.

First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship.
Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills.
Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here.

First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship.
Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills.
Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here.

First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship.
Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills.
Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

The difference between the two... is a little thing called Due Process.   Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  This annoying little rule of law some times means that murders walk free.   But if you or anyone that thinks they have a solid legal proof of a individual guilty of Homicide by COVID.. you or they should absolutely run with it though the legal system.