C19 Topics

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
This is a C19 topic informative thread.
What is your definition of a quack doctor? In your opinion if a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as a early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, are they a quack doctor?
The dictionary.com definition of quack works for me:

"noun. a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan. adjective. being a quack: a quack psychologist who complicates everyone's problems."

If a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as an early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, AND if there is no scientific basis or little scientific basis for doing so, I would call that doctor a quack.

I noticed this in the journal article you shared. "This work was inspired by the prior literature review of Dr Pierre Kory."

I consider Dr. Pierre Kory to be a quack, so I am highly skeptical of this article's conclusions. I'm not dismissing the conclusions out of hand because of the reference to someone I consider a quack. A wise friend of mine once said "I listen to everybody because even an idiot says something intelligent once in a while." But I'm disinclined to accept the conclusions as valid until they are confirmed by more credible sources like the FDA and CDC; or as Turtle might say, until the conclusions are confirmed by the numbers.

I believe the FDA is sponsoring research now on the use of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 preventative and/or treatment. It will be interesting to learn what those findings are. This is a legitimate question and I'm glad to see it being researched by credible organizations.

Quackery dressed up in a journal wrapper is still quackery. Again, I'm not dismissing this article's conclusions out of hand, but it being presented in journal format does not automatically mean it should be believed.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline

View attachment 20893
Thanks for that. I haven't really looked into ivermectin at all, certainly not any studies about it. It appears that it can be more beneficial in reducing deaths than I thought. It's interesting that they state it needs to be used early in the course of treatment, which based on what I know about how ivermectin works makes perfect sense. Ivermectin works to prevent foreign organisms from replicating in the body, so if you wait too long and allow covid to get a replicating foothold, ivermectin won't reduce the virus numbers that have already replicated. But if you start ivermectin soon enough, it keeps the viral load down to a minimum and allows your body to fight it more effectively until the virus burns itself out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
The dictionary.com definition of quack works for me:

"noun. a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan. adjective. being a quack: a quack psychologist who complicates everyone's problems."

If a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as an early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, AND if there is no scientific basis or little scientific basis for doing so, I would call that doctor a quack.

I noticed this in the journal article you shared. "This work was inspired by the prior literature review of Dr Pierre Kory."

I consider Dr. Pierre Kory to be a quack, so I am highly skeptical of this article's conclusions. I'm not dismissing the conclusions out of hand because of the reference to someone I consider a quack. A wise friend of mine once said "I listen to everybody because even an idiot says something intelligent once in a while." But I'm disinclined to accept the conclusions as valid until they are confirmed by more credible sources like the FDA and CDC; or as Turtle might say, until the conclusions are confirmed by the numbers.

I believe the FDA is sponsoring research now on the use of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 preventative and/or treatment. It will be interesting to learn what those findings are. This is a legitimate question and I'm glad to see it being researched by credible organizations.

Quackery dressed up in a journal wrapper is still quackery. Again, I'm not dismissing this article's conclusions out of hand, but it being presented in journal format does not automatically mean it should be believed.
Two doctors: Zev Zelenko and Robert Malone
Both recommend Ivermectin. Zelenko’s recommends hydrixchlorquine and after looking at the data can use Ivermectin as a early regimen also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Two doctors: Zev Zelenko and Robert Malone
Both recommend Ivermectin. Zelenko’s recommends hydrixchlorquine and after looking at the data can use Ivermectin as a early regimen also.
So What? There is always someone recommending something or other. But so what?
 

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
Online
With this virus it was a throw it at the wall and see what sticks kind of thing so don't call doctors quacks.....doctor fauci yes hes a quack and a sell out to his profession for fame and fortune.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
So What? There is always someone recommending something or other. But so what?
It may be so what to you. You already had the virus. Move along then. To others though it may be a good deal or even a big deal that doctors are looking at other supplements they may benefit people who haven’t had the virus. The vaccines, while initially effective wane after time. Vaccinated people are having breakthrough cases. Many like myself were vaccinated back in March. Over 7 months later I don’t really know the level of protection that is left. The boosters have just been approved for my vaccine, but there may currently be a lapse in protection due to potentially reduced or expired efficacy. I recently heard a doctor that was vaccinated 5 months ago and he wanted to check his current levels of antibodies. They were undetectable.
It’s good to have a back up regimen to the vaccine, IMO. Try to cover as many bases as you can sort to speak. If the vaccine doesn’t do the job on the virus for someone, thats ok because they’re protecting themselves with a regimen of zinc, vitamin D, C,querceton if they can’t get the ivermectin or hydroxychlorquine.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
It may be so what to you. You already had the virus. Move along then. To others though it may be a good deal or even a big deal that doctors are looking at other supplements they may benefit people who haven’t had the virus. The vaccines, while initially effective wane after time. Vaccinated people are having breakthrough cases. Many like myself were vaccinated back in March. Over 7 months later I don’t really know the level of protection that is left. The boosters have just been approved for my vaccine, but there may currently be a lapse in protection due to potentially reduced or expired efficacy. I recently heard a doctor that was vaccinated 5 months ago and he wanted to check his current levels of antibodies. They were undetectable.
It’s good to have a back up regimen to the vaccine, IMO. Try to cover as many bases as you can sort to speak. If the vaccine doesn’t do the job on the virus for someone, thats ok because they’re protecting themselves with a regimen of zinc, vitamin D, C,querceton if they can’t get the ivermectin or hydroxychlorquine.
Well, since you put it that way, why use just one backup regimen? Since we're covering as many bases as we can, lets run several regimens. Penicillin is a long-used drug that is not harmful. Maybe we should combine a shot of two of that with a anti-malaria injection (also approved for human use for decades) at the same time, followed by a full week of saturation doses of zinc and vitamin D (available over the counter and not tainted by Big Farma so it has to be good, right?). Some doctors have talked about these things in various combinations as possibly helpful. If some doctors are talking about these things, what can go wrong? Sure, some people are ending up in poison control centers because of what they hear and then do to themselves. But that's OK because they're simply trying to cover all the bases.

BTW, I have it on good authority from a fierce Trump supporter in Wisconsin that farmers, who are known to have common sense, have for generations been using animal medications on themselves for good effect. Knowing that, should we not fund free horse medicine for all humans who want it? What better way is there to fight COIVID-19 than that? What better way is there to show Big Pharma that this is America and we'll not be told what to do?

Or maybe we can let the experts do their jobs, and let the checks and balances established by the academic and scientific communities function as designed, and let the government-established advisory committees and agencies continue to do what they have been doing. Which, by the way includes developing vaccines and treatments that have saved millions of lives, and which can be expected to do more of the same as more is learned and their processes are allowed to work.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Well, since you put it that way, why use just one backup regimen? Since we're covering as many bases as we can, lets run several regimens. Penicillin is a long-used drug that is not harmful. Maybe we should combine a shot of two of that with a anti-malaria injection (also approved for human use for decades) at the same time, followed by a full week of saturation doses of zinc and vitamin D (available over the counter and not tainted by Big Farma so it has to be good, right?). Some doctors have talked about these things in various combinations as possibly helpful. If some doctors are talking about these things, what can go wrong? Sure, some people are ending up in poison control centers because of what they hear and then do to themselves. But that's OK because they're simply trying to cover all the bases.

BTW, I have it on good authority from a fierce Trump supporter in Wisconsin that farmers, who are known to have common sense, have for generations been using animal medications on themselves for good effect. Knowing that, should we not fund free horse medicine for all humans who want it? What better way is there to fight COIVID-19 than that? What better way is there to show Big Pharma that this is America and we'll not be told what to do?

Or maybe we can let the experts do their jobs, and let the checks and balances established by the academic and scientific communities function as designed, and let the government-established advisory committees and agencies continue to do what they have been doing. Which, by the way includes developing vaccines and treatments that have saved millions of lives, and which can be expected to do more of the same as more is learned and their processes are allowed to work.
Better yet, let’s just use barbell gym logic and give vaccination shots once a week to people. No more leaky vaccines.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Penicillin is a long-used drug that is not harmful.
And as with all other antibiotics, has no effect on viruses. Even under the guise of rank sarcasm, that's breathtaking. Even using the 'cover all the bases' metaphor, you don't cover bases with players who have no glove, and no arms and no legs. The bases aren't being covered by the silliness of throwing anything and everything up against the wall to see that sticks, the bases are being covered with some thought and effort behind the potential solutions.
 
Top