Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   COVID19 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/covid19/)
-   -   Time to stop politicizing Ivermectin (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/covid19/134915-time-stop-politicizing-ivermectin.html)

Sunvox 09-04-2021 08:36 AM

Time to stop politicizing Ivermectin
 
When the first studies came out, the CDC's opinion was understandable as the evidence was, as they put it, low, but as time has passed a great more evidence is piling up and IF - and I agree it's still IF - but IF Ivermectin is doing what it did in a lab then it is a cheap and quick means of ending the pandemic. What's critical to understand is that this medicine which was so effective at killing stomach parasites was long known to have anti-viral properties as well, and early research in the lab showed it could inhibit SARS CoV-2 viral growth and then that research was followed up by a small study in humans and then numerous meta-analyses all of which were and are considered a low and weak amount of evidence. That was last year and early this year.


Today, we have literally millions of data points coming out of India and Africa in support of that early research as well as more than 1500 scientific papers on PubMed on Ivermectin for COVID, and medical officials in the U.S. refuse to even consider this new evidence as possibly correct. I, for one, am emailing my government representatives to say that we need an unbiased and independent review of this potential therapy because the benefits far outweigh the risks in this instance.


The FDA approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro


The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load: A double-blind, pacebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial


Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A meta-analysis


Additional facts:

1) African nations that hand out Ivermectin to everyone every year as a prophylactic treatment have 134/100k cases and 2/100k COVID deaths but African nations that do NOT handout Ivermectin have 950/100k cases and 29/100k COVID deaths.

2) Medical Officials in Japan are now recommending it as treatment based on the available data. Japanese Medical Officials Recommend Ivermectin

3) In India Uttar Pradesh hands out Ivermectin as prophylactic treatment to family members who do not have COVID but do have other family members with COVID. Kerala stopped giving out Ivermectin and instead is pushing vaccinces only.


https://i.postimg.cc/SN0d5GsJ/India-Ivermectin-c.jpg



Finally just compare India to Israel and Iceland. Obviously Israel and Iceland are not using Ivermectin but have two of the highest rates of vaccination in the world as compared to India with one of the lowest vaccination rates, but near universal use of Ivermectin prophylactically.


https://i.postimg.cc/J7d04TJz/Israel.jpg


https://i.postimg.cc/MGPHMt45/Iceland.jpg

Sunvox 09-04-2021 08:37 AM

and India

https://i.postimg.cc/7hvx0RN3/India-Ivermectin-b.jpg

TiredSoul 09-04-2021 02:09 PM

You (They?) lost all credibility using African and Indian COVID numbers.
Using the radio show of a convicted felon as a source of reliable information really doesn’t work.

skywatch 09-04-2021 02:24 PM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 3290498)
You (They?) lost all credibility using African and Indian COVID numbers.
Using the radio show of a convicted felon as a source of reliable information really doesn’t work.

so those charts and graphs are all made up then?

captive apple 09-04-2021 03:29 PM

India’s spike is 4 months long, while the other two have data for 2 months of a current spike. I’ll give it time.
Watching the parasites leave my body might kill more than covi.
England’s spike is over if you want to compare two competed delta spikes.

Nantonaku 09-04-2021 03:47 PM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 3290498)
You (They?) lost all credibility using African and Indian COVID numbers.
Using the radio show of a convicted felon as a source of reliable information really doesn’t work.

I'd say those numbers are reliable enough to get some big studies going, some smart people somewhere must put some faith in those numbers (and convicted felon's radio shows).

https://www.principletrial.org/news/...rinciple-trial
https://covidout.umn.edu/
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04583969

DropTank 09-04-2021 07:26 PM

"Now that we politicized it and the science makes us look like morons, you shouldn't politicize it."

There, I've translated it for you.

Red Forman 09-04-2021 08:48 PM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 3290498)
You (They?) lost all credibility using African and Indian COVID numbers.
Using the radio show of a convicted felon as a source of reliable information really doesn’t work.

Why are you racist?

ThumbsUp 09-04-2021 09:35 PM

Unfortunately, using third world countries as a barometer in analyzing Heath statistics isn’t very reliable. The same charts in Latin America, where ivermectin is used commonly (and was used for a time to treat COVID), paints a different picture.

In meta-analyses, the studies that came out of Brazil, Chile and others showed no affect of ivermectin on patient outcomes. Although, I didn’t see any on its use as a prophylaxis.

TiredSoul 09-05-2021 12:29 AM

You can make all the assumptions you like but if your data is flawed then the conclusion is flawed.
Let’s just start with one of the more outrageous examples to get a point across:
President declares Tanzania COVID free after because of herbal tea and prayers.

On 29 April, the last day official data was released, there were 509 cases, with 21 deaths in Tanzania. However, Mr Magufuli said last week that only four patients were receiving treatment in the largest city, Dar es Salaam.

Last month, Tanzania's government dismissed a US embassy warning that hospitals in Dar es Salaam were "overwhelmed" and that the chances of contracting the virus was "extremely high".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52966016

There is no such thing as reliable data from any African country. That’s not racist.
They simply don’t have the health care system infrastructure to even remotely being able to take care of a population let alone during a global pandemic.
Using data that is so blatantly inaccurate is akin to falsification.


All but two countries in Europe - Albania and Monaco - have a universal death registration system, and in Asia, just over half, analysis of UN data shows.

But in Africa it is only Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia, Algeria, Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles and Mauritius that have what are called functioning, compulsory and universal civil registration systems - known as CRVS systems - which record deaths.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55674139

Lets say a random county has a population of 1.000.000 and you test 5000 people and 1000 test positive then what do you do?
Celebrate and say only 0.1% has COVID or extrapolate and state 20% of your population has likely been infected and you have a problem on your hands?
Some countries barely have any testing capability so how can you ever assume that data is an accurate representation?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7485446/

Nantonaku 09-05-2021 08:54 AM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 3290657)
You can make all the assumptions you like but if your data is flawed then the conclusion is flawed.
Let’s just start with one of the more outrageous examples to get a point across:
President declares Tanzania COVID free after because of herbal tea and prayers.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52966016

There is no such thing as reliable data from any African country. That’s not racist.
They simply don’t have the health care system infrastructure to even remotely being able to take care of a population let alone during a global pandemic.
Using data that is so blatantly inaccurate is akin to falsification.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55674139

Lets say a random county has a population of 1.000.000 and you test 5000 people and 1000 test positive then what do you do?
Celebrate and say only 0.1% has COVID or extrapolate and state 20% of your population has likely been infected and you have a problem on your hands?
Some countries barely have any testing capability so how can you ever assume that data is an accurate representation?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7485446/

I posted the links above, there are major trials going on supported by real money. The data was good enough to start large 1st world trials.

skywatch 09-06-2021 04:50 AM


Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3290639)
Unfortunately, using third world countries as a barometer in analyzing Heath statistics isn’t very reliable. The same charts in Latin America, where ivermectin is used commonly (and was used for a time to treat COVID), paints a different picture.

In meta-analyses, the studies that came out of Brazil, Chile and others showed no affect of ivermectin on patient outcomes. Although, I didn’t see any on its use as a prophylaxis.

can you post links to those studies?

ThumbsUp 09-06-2021 06:29 AM


Originally Posted by skywatch (Post 3291065)
can you post links to those studies?

They're actually already posted by the OP in some of the references of the meta-analysis. Here’s 2 of the “high quality” studies:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33682640/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2777389

This one isn't from the meta-analysis, but from Argentina:

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-06348-5

My point, though, was using health statistics from countries that lack the basic means to manage this information probably isn't the best point of reference.

TiredSoul 09-06-2021 07:20 AM


Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3291089)

My point, though, was using health statistics from countries that lack the basic means to manage this information probably isn't the best point of reference.

Amen, thank you.

jtbost 09-06-2021 07:21 AM


Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3291089)
They're actually already posted by the OP in some of the references of the meta-analysis. Here’s 2 of the “high quality” studies:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33682640/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2777389

This one isn't from the meta-analysis, but from Argentina:

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-06348-5

My point, though, was using health statistics from countries that lack the basic means to manage this information probably isn't the best point of reference.



NO NO...you don’t understand. He found a study on the internet, therefore it has to be true.

TiredSoul 09-06-2021 07:23 AM

No horses found with COVID so Ivermectin works, evidence is right there:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/das...sars-dashboard

skywatch 09-07-2021 03:02 AM


Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3291089)
They're actually already posted by the OP in some of the references of the meta-analysis. Here’s 2 of the “high quality” studies:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33682640/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2777389

This one isn't from the meta-analysis, but from Argentina:

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-06348-5

My point, though, was using health statistics from countries that lack the basic means to manage this information probably isn't the best point of reference.

Thanks. I had not seen this. I note the dosing schedule used in the second study seems very low (and was called out as a limitation by the studies authors) - much lower than I have observed on the studies which purport to show the drugs effectiveness.

thanks for the intelligent response - much appreciated. I agree that health statistics from countries that lack the basic means to manage this information is a bad idea.

Sunvox 09-07-2021 02:28 PM

It's hard to fake data on deaths and cases now that tests are cheap and ubiquitous so I don't agree that the data from Africa is less important and neither did these researchers who said (and just so everyone understands p<0.001 means there's less than a 1 in 1000 chance the data is NOT correlated):



Our study compared the incidence of COVID-19 among countries with different PCT campaigns and those countries in which PCT is non-existent. It is perhaps obvious that the latter group is by far the largest. It should also not be surprising that this set of samples had a rather large variability (Fig. 1 ). However, in spite of this, the difference between nations that deploy PCT using ivermectin and those that do not use any PCT turned out to be highly significant (adjusted significance P < 0.01). These initial results were obtained on 15 April 2020 and because at that time SARS-CoV-2 was still being detected in new countries on an almost daily basis, we chose to monitor the situation and observe whether this correlation would over time become less significant. We updated our calculations and added additional newly affected countries several times throughout the month of May 2020 and noticed that the observed association between ivermectin MDA and lower COVID-19 incidence actually grew strictly stronger over time. By 5 June 2020, the adjusted significance had improved to P < 0.001, actually reported by IBM SPSS Statistics as 0.000. It has remained at that level since.

And, that was as of last June and since then the correlation has only increased.


https://i.postimg.cc/C5MKZ5mt/correlation.jpg


You can see the correlation fairly clearly yourself on the Johns Hopkins map. The dots in central and especially northern central-Africa are barely visible. All countries where they hand out Ivermectin for free to stop parasitic infections.


https://i.postimg.cc/sf8FG16h/Africa.jpg



and then there are studies from local areas:


Ivermectin and the Odds of Hospitalization

Sharp Reductions in COVID fatalities


and finally numerous lab studies, plus the 31 Observational Controlled Trials, 27 meta-analyses of RCTs, plus the additional more OCTs and RCTs on prevention with Ivermectin: Summary of the Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19

Sunvox 09-07-2021 02:37 PM

And then these are interesting:

bit chute dot com/video/rvccR4Tg6fRS/
bit chute dot com/video/bhjjJfTTzoRg/

You have to link bit to the rest to make it whole. The forum wouldn't let me link b!tch. LOL

Drum 09-07-2021 05:02 PM


Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3291089)
They're actually already posted by the OP in some of the references of the meta-analysis. Here’s 2 of the “high quality” studies:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33682640/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2777389

This one isn't from the meta-analysis, but from Argentina:

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-06348-5

My point, though, was using health statistics from countries that lack the basic means to manage this information probably isn't the best point of reference.

You obviously haven't done much research into the West African Ebola outbreaks then. We rely heavily on their information at the moment.

Not to mention the Central American surveillance of zika and dengue. The south american surveillance of the same.

Once again, cherry picking.

Ivermectin is a very good treatment. Both pre and during. So is monoclonal antibody. Billions of people are treated with Ivermectin and HCQ protocols that have been developed when politics and profit are not entered into the equation. Healing is the common denominator here.


What is a fact though, is the utter failure of the mRNA jabs. But that, for whatever reasons, can't be discussed.

Sunvox 09-07-2021 05:09 PM

Missed the link earlier so here it is:

A COVID-19 prophylaxis?

GucciBoy 09-07-2021 05:39 PM


Originally Posted by Drum (Post 3291757)
You obviously haven't done much research into the West African Ebola outbreaks then. We rely heavily on their information at the moment.

Not to mention the Central American surveillance of zika and dengue. The south american surveillance of the same.

Once again, cherry picking.

Ivermectin is a very good treatment. Both pre and during. So is monoclonal antibody. Billions of people are treated with Ivermectin and HCQ protocols that have been developed when politics and profit are not entered into the equation. Healing is the common denominator here.


What is a fact though, is the utter failure of the mRNA jabs. But that, for whatever reasons, can't be discussed.


Monoclonal antibodies are not FDA approved. They are being used under an EUA. There are no studies on the long-term effects of monoclonal antibodies being introduced into the human body. It is quite irresponsible to tout them as a treatment for COVID when we don’t have any idea what they will do to the body long-term.


See how that sounds? That’s you talking about the vaccine.

AZFlyer 09-07-2021 07:29 PM


Originally Posted by GucciBoy (Post 3291770)
Monoclonal antibodies are not FDA approved. They are being used under an EUA. There are no studies on the long-term effects of monoclonal antibodies being introduced into the human body. It is quite irresponsible to tout them as a treatment for COVID when we don’t have any idea what they will do to the body long-term.


See how that sounds? That’s you talking about the vaccine.

No one is trying to mandate monoclonal antibodies in order to keep your job or go about ordinary daily activities.

ThumbsUp 09-07-2021 09:29 PM


Originally Posted by Drum (Post 3291757)
You obviously haven't done much research into the West African Ebola outbreaks then. We rely heavily on their information at the moment.

Not to mention the Central American surveillance of zika and dengue. The south american surveillance of the same.

Once again, cherry picking.

Ivermectin is a very good treatment. Both pre and during. So is monoclonal antibody. Billions of people are treated with Ivermectin and HCQ protocols that have been developed when politics and profit are not entered into the equation. Healing is the common denominator here.


What is a fact though, is the utter failure of the mRNA jabs. But that, for whatever reasons, can't be discussed.

Next time you spend a year in Chad or Niger, please let me know how reliable you think their governments’ abilities are to manage and report health statistics.

mRNA vaccines seem to be doing pretty well in Israel and basically everywhere else, if you’re concerned about hospitalization, deaths and other such nonsense. Personally, I’d take the 92.8% efficacy against those and 14x lower hospitalization rate.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/po...are-vaccinated

TiredSoul 09-08-2021 09:10 AM

m-RNA is FAA approved.
Will you risk your medical disclosing off label medication use?
Or intend to lie on your next 8500-8?

Red Forman 09-08-2021 09:39 AM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 3291974)
m-RNA is FAA approved.
Will you risk your medical disclosing off label medication use?
Or intend to lie on your next 8500-8?

If a doctor prescribes me a medication, of course I will disclose it.

ThumbsUp 09-08-2021 09:46 AM


Originally Posted by Red Forman (Post 3291992)
If a doctor prescribes me a medication, of course I will disclose it.

Maybe talk to your AME first. AMAS doesn’t have it approved for that purpose. When HCQ was all of the rage for a short time, the FAA issued a grounding memorandum for COVID-purposed use, although it was approved for its intended use after a ground trial.

GeeWizDriver 09-08-2021 11:58 AM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 3291974)
m-RNA is FAA approved.
Will you risk your medical disclosing off label medication use?
Or intend to lie on your next 8500-8?

The way I read the 8500, you only have to disclose the medications you are TAKING while flying. If you grounded yourself while sick, took ANY medication whether OTC or prescription while sick, recovered, discontinued any meds, and then returned to flying, I see no reason why you would have to report it months later.

You only have to retroactively report medical visits. The AME is empowered to inquire as to the nature. I don't retroactively report medications used briefly to treat an acute condition between medicals. Don't have to.

ThumbsUp 09-08-2021 02:52 PM


Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 3292089)
The way I read the 8500, you only have to disclose the medications you are TAKING while flying. If you grounded yourself while sick, took ANY medication whether OTC or prescription while sick, recovered, discontinued any meds, and then returned to flying, I see no reason why you would have to report it months later.

You only have to retroactively report medical visits. The AME is empowered to inquire as to the nature. I don't retroactively report medications used briefly to treat an acute condition between medicals. Don't have to.

Some people are using it a prophylaxis, though, although I think that’s mainly using the Mr. Ed variety here is the US.

GeeWizDriver 09-08-2021 03:19 PM


Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3292171)
Some people are using it a prophylaxis, though, although I think that’s mainly using the Mr. Ed variety here is the US.

If one were taking it as a prophylactic, it would be required to be reported. However, the majority of usage that is showing the most promise is the HUMAN dosage of .4-.6 mg per kg of body weight immediately upon positive test or onset of symptoms for five days or until symptoms abate, whichever occurs first.

A close friend and his wife just had moderate Covid. Not vaxxed. They followed the FLCCC protocol that includes the controversial Nobel-winning medication and they both beat it within a week. Anecdotal to be sure but the positive outcomes seem to outweigh the bad.

ThumbsUp 09-08-2021 04:04 PM


Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 3292182)
If one were taking it as a prophylactic, it would be required to be reported. However, the majority of usage that is showing the most promise is the HUMAN dosage of .4-.6 mg per kg of body weight immediately upon positive test or onset of symptoms for five days or until symptoms abate, whichever occurs first.

A close friend and his wife just had moderate Covid. Not vaxxed. They followed the FLCCC protocol that includes the controversial Nobel-winning medication and they both beat it within a week. Anecdotal to be sure but the positive outcomes seem to outweigh the bad.

Sure can’t hurt. I personally haven’t seen a legitimate study that shows an actual positive correlation to prior or during, but I still take vitamin C too, even though I know that’s mainly BS.

TiredSoul 09-08-2021 06:57 PM

Form 8500 instructions:


For example, any airman who is undergoing continuous treatment with anticoagulants, antiviral agents, anxiolytics, barbiturates, chemotherapeuticum agents, experimental hypoglycemic, investigational, mood-ameliorating, motion sickness, narcotic, sedating antihistaminic, sedative, steroid drugs, or tranquilizers must be deferred certification unless the treatment has previously been cleared by FAA medical authority. In such an instance, the applicant should provide the Examiner with a copy of any FAA correspondence that supports the clearance.
During periods in which the foregoing medications are being used for treatment of acute illnesses, the airman is under obligation to refrain from exercising the privileges of his/her airman medical certificate unless cleared by the FAA.
So you’ve grounded yourself while chugging Mr Ed’s and now you need to be cleared by the FAA even while you’re no longer taking it.
Good luck explaining that.

Nantonaku 09-08-2021 07:08 PM


Originally Posted by TiredSoul (Post 3292259)
Form 8500 instructions:



So you’ve grounded yourself while chugging Mr Ed’s and now you need to be cleared by the FAA even while you’re no longer taking it.
Good luck explaining that.

Wait, I thought it was horse dewormer. Parasites aren't viruses.

GeeWizDriver 09-08-2021 07:15 PM

For example, any airman who is undergoing continuous treatment with anticoagulants, antiviral agents, anxiolytics, barbiturates, chemotherapeuticum agents, experimental hypoglycemic, investigational, mood-ameliorating, motion sickness, narcotic, sedating antihistaminic, sedative, steroid drugs, or tranquilizers must be deferred certification unless the treatment has previously been cleared by FAA medical authority. In such an instance, the applicant should provide the Examiner with a copy of any FAA correspondence that supports the clearance.
During periods in which the foregoing medications are being used for treatment of acute illnesses, the airman is under obligation to refrain from exercising the privileges of his/her airman medical certificate unless cleared by the FAA.



You apparently have a reading comprehension problem.

“Undergoing continuous treatment” As I said, WHILE YOU ARE TAKING A MED you are subject to the limitations.

While you are TAKING a medication “the airman is under obligation to refrain from exercising the priviledges” unless the MEDICATION is cleared by the FAA.

You are under NO OBLIGATION to retroactively report a medication consumed for an acute illness. You are only required to ground yourself DURING the illness and report any visits to a medical professional during the period preceding the medical.

ThumbsUp 09-08-2021 07:43 PM


Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 3292273)
“Undergoing continuous treatment” As I said, WHILE YOU ARE TAKING A MED you are subject to the limitations.

While you are TAKING a medication “the airman is under obligation to refrain from exercising the priviledges” unless the MEDICATION is cleared by the FAA.

You are under NO OBLIGATION to retroactively report a medication consumed for an acute illness. You are only required to ground yourself DURING the illness and report any visits to a medical professional during the period preceding the medical.


Check out the UAL forums. People are taking this before, during and after trips.

GeeWizDriver 09-08-2021 09:33 PM


Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3292290)
Check out the UAL forums. People are taking this before, during and after trips.

In which case, you would have to report it on your medical application as a medication you are taking while exercising the privileges of your certificate and it would have to be on the approved list. But you DO NOT have to retroactively report having taken a therapeutic medication while self-grounded dealing with an acute medical condition. And although the jury is out on the prophylactic benefits of the Nobel-winning, HUMAN-use medication, the evidence is mounting that it is a valuable therapeutic when administered early in the disease process.

The "horse-dewormer" narrative is nothing more than an effort to discredit anyone who recommends it, prescribes it, or takes it, no matter how effective it might actually be. NOTHING can be allowed to detract from the cult of vaccination.

ThumbsUp 09-09-2021 06:42 AM


Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 3292324)
In which case, you would have to report it on your medical application as a medication you are taking while exercising the privileges of your certificate and it would have to be on the approved list. But you DO NOT have to retroactively report having taken a therapeutic medication while self-grounded dealing with an acute medical condition. And although the jury is out on the prophylactic benefits of the Nobel-winning, HUMAN-use medication, the evidence is mounting that it is a valuable therapeutic when administered early in the disease process.

The "horse-dewormer" narrative is nothing more than an effort to discredit anyone who recommends it, prescribes it, or takes it, no matter how effective it might actually be. NOTHING can be allowed to detract from the cult of vaccination.

The horse dewormer narrative isn’t a narrative, it’s real. People are really taking it.

Xtreme87 09-09-2021 08:16 AM


Originally Posted by AvNav23 (Post 3292429)
No whats disappointing is a group of “religious” people not doing what they can to help those that are medically unable or those who are too young to get a vaccine stay safer. While also helping the general public feel better about travel in general so we can continue this recovery. Y’all aren’t conspiracy theorists y’all are just contrarian a**&oles who want to be able to reap the benefits without any of the selflessness or care for your fellow man. Not very religious in any sense, but I’m sure it’s a profoundly held belief and not at all political. 🙄

Newsflash: The vaccine doesn’t stop you from getting the virus, nor does it stop someone from spreading it. Also, a person that has had covid has a better chance of not being a carrier or a spreader. The more you know, comrade.

Thedude86 09-09-2021 08:28 AM


Originally Posted by AvNav23 (Post 3292429)
No whats disappointing is a group of “religious” people not doing what they can to help those that are medically unable or those who are too young to get a vaccine stay safer. While also helping the general public feel better about travel in general so we can continue this recovery. Y’all aren’t conspiracy theorists y’all are just contrarian a**&oles who want to be able to reap the benefits without any of the selflessness or care for your fellow man. Not very religious in any sense, but I’m sure it’s a profoundly held belief and not at all political. 🙄

Yes, how considerate of you to demand people do as you say or they can’t participate in society.

Given that the data from every single highly vaccinated country on earth clearly shows that this vaccine is an inferior covid treatment and per the FDA has worse and a higher number of side effects….

How would you feel if United mandated every employee go to a doctor and get a prescription for Ivermectin?

AvNav23 09-09-2021 08:35 AM


Originally Posted by Thedude86 (Post 3292487)
Yes, how considerate of you to demand people do as you say or they can’t participate in society.

Given that the data from every single highly vaccinated country on earth clearly shows that this vaccine is an inferior covid treatment and per the FDA has worse and a higher number of side effects….

How would you feel if United mandated every employee go to a doctor and get a prescription for Ivermectin?

I’ve seen you peddle this same snake oil on multiple forums but you never include said “data”. Is this “data” what the CIA broadcasts to your fillings or is what the man is your head says when you’re not wearing your tinfoil hat? Go back to your enlightened posts on horse dewormer and all the “data” that only you have seen. I’m sure it’s all a coverup and conspiracy thank god there’s internet sleuths like you to let us all know what’s really going on. 🤫🙄


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:19 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands