It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AndyMayhew
originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Ivermectin is also a prophylactic.
Rainbows
Jane
It can work as one, yes. In the same way anthrax, arsenic and sulphuric acid, taken in sufficient doses, also prevent Covid.
originally posted by: AndyMayhew
originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Ivermectin is also a prophylactic.
Rainbows
Jane
It can work as one, yes. In the same way anthrax, arsenic and sulphuric acid, taken in sufficient doses, also prevent Covid.
originally posted by: AndyMayhew
originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Ivermectin is also a prophylactic.
Rainbows
Jane
It can work as one, yes. In the same way anthrax, arsenic and sulphuric acid, taken in sufficient doses, also prevent Covid.
originally posted by: AndyMayhew
originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Ivermectin is also a prophylactic.
Rainbows
Jane
It can work as one, yes. In the same way anthrax, arsenic and sulphuric acid, taken in sufficient doses, also prevent Covid.
originally posted by: AndyMayhew
originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Ivermectin is also a prophylactic.
Rainbows
Jane
It can work as one, yes. In the same way anthrax, arsenic and sulphuric acid, taken in sufficient doses, also prevent Covid.
originally posted by: angelchemuel
originally posted by: AndyMayhew
originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Ivermectin is also a prophylactic.
Rainbows
Jane
It can work as one, yes. In the same way anthrax, arsenic and sulphuric acid, taken in sufficient doses, also prevent Covid.
One word.....speechless!
originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
originally posted by: Dalamax
Can we collapse the big pharma bubble now? Or is it too big to fail?
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
People have to first understand the implications of this thread before action can be taken. So far, the mainstream media is completely silent.
The Fundamental Principles of Ethics
Beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice constitute the 4 principles of ethics. The first 2 can be traced back to the time of Hippocrates âto help and do no harm,â while the latter 2 evolved later. Thus, in Percivalâs book on ethics in early 1800s, the importance of keeping the patientâs best interest as a goal is stressed, while autonomy and justice were not discussed. However, with the passage of time, both autonomy and justice gained acceptance as important principles of ethics. In modern times, Beauchamp and Childressâ book on Principles of Biomedical Ethics is a classic for its exposition of these 4 principles [5] and their application, while also discussing alternative approaches.
Beneficence
The principle of beneficence is the obligation of physician to act for the benefit of the patient and supports a number of moral rules to protect and defend the right of others, prevent harm, remove conditions that will cause harm, help persons with disabilities, and rescue persons in danger. It is worth emphasizing that, in distinction to nonmaleficence, the language here is one of positive requirements. The principle calls for not just avoiding harm, but also to benefit patients and to promote their welfare. While physiciansâ beneficence conforms to moral rules, and is altruistic, it is also true that in many instances it can be considered a payback for the debt to society for education (often subsidized by governments), ranks and privileges, and to the patients themselves (learning and research).
Nonmaleficence
Nonmaleficence is the obligation of a physician not to harm the patient. This simply stated principle supports several moral rules â do not kill, do not cause pain or suffering, do not incapacitate, do not cause offense, and do not deprive others of the goods of life. The practical application of nonmaleficence is for the physician to weigh the benefits against burdens of all interventions and treatments, to eschew those that are inappropriately burdensome, and to choose the best course of action for the patient. This is particularly important and pertinent in difficult end-of-life care decisions on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, medically administered nutrition and hydration, and in pain and other symptom control. A physicianâs obligation and intention to relieve the suffering (e.g., refractory pain or dyspnea) of a patient by the use of appropriate drugs including opioids override the foreseen but unintended harmful effects or outcome (doctrine of double effect) [7, 8].
All health care practitioners are constrained by the principles of professionalism in honoring and upholding the interests and well-being of their patients. This embodies the concept of the fiduciary relationship; work performed that always and without exception favors the client and not the professional performing the work.Â
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
There is a definite and real campaign to hype Ivermectin and HQC. They outright lie about their effectiveness.
Japan never officially approved Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. Similarly, as far as I have been able to determine, there were no increases in sales of Ivermectin in Japan, neither human nor veterinary, which one might expect to be obvious if tens of millions of people were taking it. So the claims that it was the reason for a reduction of COVID-19 cases in Japan is just bogus.
Japan is not using ivermectin instead of vaccines to treat Covid-19
Japan Continues to Use Vaccines, Not Ivermectin, to Fight COVID-19
Similarly, the claims about Uttar Pradesh seem to be negated by the fact that a few months later, India removed Ivermectin from its list of medicines for use against COVID-19 because it was proven to be ineffective.
No new COVID-19 cases in Uttar Pradesh, India, due to use of ivermectin
Why HCQ and Ivermectin were removed from Indiaâs Covid-19 treatment protocol
Similarly, those who promote Ivermectin as a magical cure suggest it works both as a prophylactic, and as a treatment. Yet they put down the papers that show that Ivermectin doesn't have much effect against COVID-19 (in several different human clinical trials) by suggesting that the trials were done 'at the wrong time' in the course of the COVID-19 infections, specifically to show ivermectin in a bad light. How does a drug that is supposed to work well in every situation, prove to be ineffective in most situations, and the reason was they didn't test it in exactly the right way.
In each case, different people and groups, are saying it is ineffective. The internet snake oil salesmen, the ones who previously have sold dubious supplements, dodgy 'cures', and bad health advice, are still not the people you can trust for good and truthful health advice.