Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38.  @politics4816  it’s because non-specialist physicians don’t want to go out on a limb until a treatment is examined by an expert like Dr. Lawrie, who has the competence (not to mention the authority) to tie together the bits and bobs of data coming in from ad hoc clinical “studies”. Studies in quotes, because more often than not, they’re being done in desperate circumstances with varying amounts of scientific rigor. Look at where the studies are being done, and you’ll see the worst pandemic hotspots, overwhelmed hospitals, and shortages of things like oxygen. Keep in mind that while this has been going on, there’s probably ten or more other treatments also being extolled by quacks. If you’re wondering why it’s taken so long, it’s because it’s taken a certain amount of time for the signal of ivermectin to rise above the noise of quackery and pseudoscience. Let’s be clear about what Dr. Lawrie is saying. She’s saying it’s 1) Probably safe, and 2) Probably effective. Highly probable, if you like. She is saying that this meets the level she requires for “pandemic license” to prescribe ivermectin. In addition to this, she mentions the hypothetical mechanisms by which ivermectin is effective, and supplies the data that seems to back up the hypotheses. The overall message is that while more study is necessary to understand exactly what is going on, there is enough data to proceed widely with treatment, even in non-desperate situations. I was very skeptical about ivermectin, but Dr. Lawrie and her work is removing doubt. I’ll be overjoyed if my skepticism is proven wrong. I do not think I was wrong to be skeptical, however, given the amount of ignorance and disinformation surrounding the promotion of ivermectin (a lot of noise, little signal).
    3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3