Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (11775)	8/23/2021 4:02:33 AM
From: robert b furman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26823

Amen to that! Bob

To: Kirk © who wrote (11775)	8/23/2021 7:11:53 AM
From: w0z	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26823

This study had a 100% success rate (nobody died) while the Placebo had the standard just under 2% death rate While encouraging this trial seems flawed. 1. They are only dosing Ivermectin at 6 mg per day which is approximately half what the FLCCC recommends for prophylaxis, and well below what they recommend for early outpatient (positive diagnosis) treatment. The dosage should be based on body weight (200 micrograms per kg of body weight) which works out to around 12 mg for a 120 pound person (my assumption for Bangladeshis). Early outpatient should be 2-3X the prophylaxis treatment. 2. There is NO mention of zinc supplementation (30-40 mg/day). All of the zinc ionophores (e.g. Quercetin, Hydorxychloroquine, and Ivermectin) work to facilitate absorption of zinc into the tissues, so having one without the other seems to miss the point. Zinc is apparently what gives tissues protection from covid. I really don't understand why there are so many flawed trials (this is not the first I've heard of that omitted zinc). Anyway it's encouraging that there were no deaths in spite of the above.

To: Kirk © who wrote (11775)	8/23/2021 4:24:10 PM
From: Logain Ablar	3 Recommendations Recommended By Kirk © Thomas M. Winfastorlose Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26823

Hi Kirk, Its not the MD's its the FDA. They haven't approved it for off label use. The MD's have to worry about the insurers who pay them if it's contrary to the FDA. My opinion of the conflict and one reason why I don't trust the FDA. If there is a viable treatment - the FDA would not be able to issue Emergency Use Authorization. If a vaccine is under EUA then the schools and employers would have difficulty banning / firing students / employees as it would conflict with a federal statute. The FDA now gives full approval based on interim phase III trial results versus waiting for the end of the trial. This gives cover to the employers and schools on their vaccine requirements (at least for the Pfizer shot).