DDT Must Have Been Considered Safe In The Beginning?

[Kathyp]

Yes, I put my faith in someone who has spent their whole carrier studying things I don't understand.  And has gained recognition for that study

and he was wrong and/or lied about everything.  Good choice.

[Michael Bush]

>and he was wrong and/or lied about everything

For half a century...

[Acebird]

Yes, I put my faith in someone who has spent their whole carrier studying things I don't understand.  And has gained recognition for that study

and he was wrong and/or lied about everything.  Good choice.

coming from a medical genius with no credibility.

[iddee]

No, Ace, it came from a lady who's husband is the administrator of a large hospital, so I think her sources are fairly accurate.
And that is a small hint of his overall experience.

Kathy, if that is revealing too much private info, delete it. I wasn't sure I should be posting it.

[Kathyp]

Kathy, if that is revealing too much private info, delete it. I wasn't sure I should be posting it.

not quite accurate, but he's retired now so   

And it doesn't matter who I am or who I am married to.  It is not my credibility that is in question.  Fauci has been caught in so many lies about the lab, the money, what he knew and didn't know AND he lied to Congress more than once.  That alone is a crime and people have gone to jail for it.

It is Fauci who has no credibility.  Ace you put your faith in Fauci and if you did a little honest research you would come to the same conclusion of even leftist publications which is that what we did was wrong and based on wrong info, most of that from Fauci.  I think he knew it was all wrong and lied because he knew where it came from and was trying to cover his backside.  It's almost worse if with all his "experience" he just got it all wrong. 
  You trusted him, but there were many, many, others who gave us accurate info, or tried to.  Many of those had credentials more impressive than Fauci and actual real world experience.

People like you chose to believe him and not give info from any other source any consideration and you chose wrong.  We all paid for it.

[animal]

Ace, google Fauci and Aids .. he's a long-time swamp creature.
A drug related to Aids treatment just came to mind because of this ... thalidomide.
If you want to trust "Science" to yield firm answers on what is safe when it comes to drugs, consider that thalidomide was pronounced safe and effective for morning sickness and other discomforts of pregnancy. This pronouncement was very much scientific in it's day.
The results were pretty bad for many kids carried by those pregnant women. ... So bad, that the FDA severely reworked the approval process for drugs ... making it much harder and more costly to get a drug approved, partly because of additional testing requirements. When it came to Covid, many of the modern scientific requirements for testing were suspended because of the perceived need for expedience. You might say, they rolled back time on those scientific requirements, or you might even say they ignored modern science-based requirements for rigorous testing.
Science is a particular process, or methodology. Science does not yield great truths which cannot be questioned; that's the purview of a cult. It yields workable solutions for problems at hand.

15th said things quite well in her post that mentioned gravity. Something to consider concerning gravity also bears mentioning. Under Newtonian Physics, gravity is a force created as a consequence of mass. Under Relativistic Physics, gravity is not a force, but a consequence of space-time curvature. These two ways of defining gravity conflict with each other, so both cannot be "true". However, both can be considered correct within their respective descriptions of "physics". Both Newtonian and Relativistic views of physics are scientifically accepted as valid ways of explaining the actions of things ... yet objectively, both cannot be true. Both work to do different jobs in science, so we use them because they are useful. Several times, Einstein said, "I am not a priest."  As usual with his statements, this has many implications; one of which was a warning to not take the results of science as dispensational truth.

[iddee]

It was from memory, so details may be a little off.

I was replying to Ace's fantasy crystal ball that told him this ""coming from a medical genius with no credibility.""

[Kathyp]

When it came to Covid, many of the modern scientific requirements for testing were suspended because of the perceived need for expedience.

And the flip side to that is that both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have very strong anti-viral properties.  They are also cheap and available with very few side effects.  None of that can be said about the very expensive drugs that have been put on the market for COVID.   They were logical drugs to turn to, and the FDA just came out and said that doctors can prescribe Ivermectin for covid.  They always could, but some wannabe doctors posing as pharmacists refused to fill the prescriptions. 

[animal]

but hydroxychloroquine is racist and there's no pour-on version of  ivermectin for humans 

[Michael Bush]

>coming from a medical genius with no credibility.

I assumed that was referring to Fauci.

[William Bagwell]

and the FDA just came out and said that doctors can prescribe Ivermectin for covid.

News to me! Searched and it seems they are in damage control, denying that was what they meant...

Oh, with Hydroxychloroquine do not forget the zinc. Either one alone is pretty much useless, and they spent a lot of money to prove that. Leaving out the part about how the two together are effective

[Michael Bush]

It appears that what Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and quercetin do is they facilitate transport of zinc into the cells.  Without the zinc, they really don't work and without some catalyst like them the zinc doesn't really work very well.

[William Bagwell]

It appears that what Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and quercetin do is they facilitate transport of zinc into the cells.  Without the zinc, they really don't work and without some catalyst like them the zinc doesn't really work very well.

Have seen hints this is also true with Ivermectin, but not seen anything definitive like with Hydroxychloroquine. Was also much easier to research in the early days of covid before the censorship started. Psst, Quinine is about as good and available with out a prescription.

[Kathyp]

It appears that what Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and quercetin do is they facilitate transport of zinc into the cells.  Without the zinc, they really don't work and without some catalyst like them the zinc doesn't really work very well.

It appears that what Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and quercetin do is they facilitate transport of zinc into the cells.  Without the zinc, they really don't work and without some catalyst like them the zinc doesn't really work very well

.

All are reported to have anti-viral properties by themselves.  The weakest evidence is probably for zinc alone.  The reason we know so much about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is that when used for the labeled diseases, it was observed that they also had strong anti-viral properties. 
The combination of either of them with Zinc potentially strengthens the anti-viral action.

The press and the "experts" did everyone a great disservice by misrepresenting those drug actions and in many cases blocking their use.

[Ben Framed]

It appears that what Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and quercetin do is they facilitate transport of zinc into the cells.  Without the zinc, they really don't work and without some catalyst like them the zinc doesn't really work very well.

As was explained to me by a scientist friend who has spent his life in research, Hydroxychloroquine along with zinc is the trick as you described. Hydroxychloroquine opens the door to cells (receptors) which then allows zinc to enter and do its thing.. We did not discuss ivermectin at the time....