The Ivermectin Train Cannot Stop

This is true…but is also a truism: it’s like saying the future can’t change the past.

In the sense that (for the time being) it requires faith in the absence of evidence, it is absolutely religious.

I don’t know what you’re saying requires faith, but wanting to have access to a drug doesn’t require faith, it requires at minimum some modicum of hope. Weighing risk against reward does not require religious faith. That’s really reaching.

And there is not an “absence of evidence” either. There’s a whole spectrum in between the simplistic black-and-white understanding of absent evidence and 100% conclusive evidence. Again, it’s a matter of choosing whether to take the risk, which is very low with this drug.

1 Like

This is precisely the sweet spot for snail oil vendors. They can peddle that stuff all day long.

Actually it is quite black and white scientifically. P value <0.05 and 95% confidence intervals define statistical significance, applied to a trial design that is capable of providing proof of causation. Anything less is…well…less.

Every time you make a deflection like this, you are tacitly admitting your previous claim was unfounded. In this case, your assertion that it “requires” faith has been summarily abandoned for this new approach–that this cheap, patent-free drug is an obvious grift. And as with the previous faulty claim you have just thrown into the rubbish bin upon the slightest pushback, it appears to be yet more projection.

If these “snail oil” salesmen want to keep up with the snake oil industry, they would do well to infiltrate the mainstream media to relentlessly push their products and guilt and shame anyone who doesn’t use them. They should also buy off the policy makers to ensure their use of snail oil is necessarily required of people who want to keep jobs or go to certain places. They should definitely position themselves above the law to ensure they will have zero accountability for any harm their snail oil may cause (although in the case of Ivermectin this wouldn’t be as big a concern as it would with something that had a habit of, say, causing cardiac arrest in perfectly healthy young athletes around the world).

The first oral blood thinners for children have just been FDA approved this year. That certainly is serendipitous timing what with the recent rise in heart problems affecting the young and healthy. Previously, a child would need to go and get injected for this, but now they’ll be able to pop these patented drugs like candy to ward off the effects of these patented vaccines on the young heart. Cha-motherfucking-CHING!

Here’s a picture of a bus that was parked way outside it’s region of transit in a busy area.

Given everything I have just mentioned above, is it wholly unreasonable to wonder if it’s a part of some covert “normalization” campaign like those of a certain political bent are always talking about doing? Those masked nurses posing in front of Vaccine Christ, would you put money on or against them being mostly left wing? Normalizing the abnormal is something progressives openly talk about. But of course if it were normal it wouldn’t need to be normalized.

5 Likes

OK, consider it falsified:

VAERS is set up to capture potential adverse events caused by vaccines. It is the best tool we have to find what may be previously unrecognized and extraordinarily rare adverse events that may eventually be linked.

VAERS cannot and does not determine whether a vaccine caused something. The CDC states this clearly in their disclaimer: “A report to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event, only that the adverse event occurred some time after vaccination.” The disclaimer continues, “The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental or unverifiable.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, “Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination…regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE.” AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we’ve vaccinated over 223 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of Nov. 2, people have reported to VAERS 14,506 deaths that occurred sometime after COVID-19 vaccination. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. Additional CDC vaccine safety monitoring systems such as the National Healthcare Safety Network, Vaccine Safety Datalink, Clinical Immununization Safety Assessment Project and FDA’s vaccine safety reporting systems are then used to provide more rigorous scientific investigation of potential adverse events. The true number of deaths currently attributed to COVID-19 vaccines in detailed scientific investigation is quite small.

VAERS is like the Wikipedia of data reporting. Anyone can report anything. Many reports are helpful. Some reports are nonsense – to prove the point, one anesthesiologist successfully submitted a VAERS report several years ago that the flu vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. More recently, a false report of a 2-year-old dying from a COVID-19 vaccine was removed from VAERS because the CDC says it was “completely made up.”

Over 223 million people in the United States have been vaccinated. We have lots of real-world evidence – in addition to clinical trial data – to indicate these vaccines are safe, and that adverse reactions to them are rare.

True. If you ever do that you’ll discover that the vaccines’ benefits outweigh their potential harms for the vast majority of people while there’s no good evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID.

1 Like

For all of our back and forth duelling (or unilateral post mud-slinging cleanup, as it were), I truly hope you take what I’m about to say seriously, because I know that the spread of misinformation is a concern of yours. But you have just spread misinformation in this thread.

I won’t hold out hope that what I’m about to demonstrate will resonate with you because I do recognize that your professed concern for misinformation was qualified and contingent on who spreads it, and how it might influence others. I’ll just ask blunty: if it is people unlike me spreading misinformation that leads people toward your preferred outcome, is it less of a concern for you? I have to ask, would that kind of misinformation even register as a concern for you in any capacity whatsoever? If so then you should edit out that link in your last comment.

Here’s what it claims:

It says if someone gets struck by lightning then a report to VAERS is “required” and “must” be submitted. But this is demonstrably not the case. The link to the FDA VAERS reporting guidelines refers to a specific list of adverse events which must be reported. These are particular effects that are known or suspected of each vaccine in question, or listed by the manufacturer in their side-effects disclaimers.

I understand that you want to throw mud at VAERS, lots of people getting paid also share this goal. But this link of yours is spreading misinformation, which you’re purportedly concerned about. It also says this:

What this doesn’t tell us is that the Incredible Hulk report has since been removed (along with the other various third eye and third arm reports from other people also proving a point).

It does tell us that the completely made up infant death was removed, so they do verify and vet the information even when it’s not outlandish claims which belong in the realm of Science Fiction. If someone is submitting false info, then it should be removed. And it is. How it works is that reports are submitted and immediately added to the database. The verification process then eliminates any fraudulent reports. It is done after the fact. No idea why, probably just easier than having a buffer of reports that will still need to be added to the database after verification. Maybe it’s for immediacy sake and any strange spikes can be timely investigated? Again, I don’t know, but it’s absolute hokum to claim that car accidents “must” be reported to VAERS. What must be reported are the known effects so that we may get an idea of how common these known effects really are.

So we have one example (the 2-year old death) of a fraudulent claim. Which has since been removed from the database. It is one of many thousands of VAERS reports that were removed this year. All evidence shows they do run a tight ship, albeit with the most recent reports existing in a temporarily unverified buffer zone.

The people tracking Covid deaths OTOH appear not to be so discerning, but I’m sure no one wants to see me go over all that again, nor am I interested in repeating myself.

This mud you’ve lazily thrown at VAERS in no way falsifies my claim about the COVID-19 vaccines being the least safe of vaccines. VAERS applies evenly to ALL vaccines (unlike the 30-fold spike in reported post-vaccine deaths for 2021, which you’ve shown get deleted if fraudulent) so this has merely been an interesting but unrelated tangent.

4 Likes
3 Likes

In a non-corrupt version of the universe, having identified a “novel coronavirus” rapidly spreading through human populations in late 2019, the WHO and/or national CDC’s would’ve solicited from the medical community every potentially safe and effective already-approved, off-patent medications that might show promise for COVID. Then run top-quality RCT’s on all of them, and report out the results weeks later. Everyone one of them that showed a reduction in severity better than the placebo get emergency approval by every food and drug regulator on the planet, and then it’s up to doctors to decide what to do next. All of these drugs, IVM, HCQ+Zinc, Flovoxamine, etc., would all have long ago been approved and ceased to be controversial in any way. Millions of lives would’ve likely been saved over the past 22 months.

In the universe we live in, all generic drugs have been repressed, populations have been locked down for months on end, pending the distribution of patented vaccines, the efficacy of which barely exceeds that of the generic drugs, the short-term side effects are worse, and the long-term side effects are unknown. Now, finally, nearly two years in, we’ll get some patented treatments as well, again, with efficacy modestly exceeding generics, and with long-term side effects unknown.

Can someone write about this data please?

9 Likes

It’s very difficult to take you seriously, but I promise to try. :wink:

I’m opposed to the spreading of dangerous misinformation, full stop, regardless of who’s responsible.

You’re extremely fond of the “throwing mud” metaphor! Fortunately for my argument, the article I excerpted does nothing of the sort; it explains that the adverse events reported to VAERS have not been vetted or verified. As the CDC explains,

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

To reiterate, since you seem to keep missing this point:

VAERS reports and data are often used in mis- and disinformation narratives to falsely assert or suggest that deaths, injuries or illnesses were caused by Covid-19 vaccines. However, as explained by the CDC and FDA, reports of adverse events following immunization with US-licensed vaccines can be made by anyone and may include incomplete, inaccurate, unverified or coincidental information. A CDC spokesperson told First Draft in a July 22 email: “It is a passive detection system designed to quickly detect rare and unusual adverse events and alert CDC experts to potential safety concerns. VAERS is not designed to determine whether a vaccine causes an adverse event.” On their own, these reports cannot be used to determine whether a vaccine caused or contributed to an illness or death, nor can they be used to reach conclusions about the “existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.”

VAERS can be useful in identifying potential problems with vaccines but rigorous studies are necessary to determine actual risks. Hundreds of studies have been incorporated into meta analyses like these:

All have found that the benefits of vaccination vastly outweigh the potential risks for the vast majority of people. Q.E.D.

You’ll be happy to learn that we live in just such a universe.

Every statement claim you’ve made here is demonstrably false.

  • Generic drugs have not been repressed - they’ve been thoroughly studied, and doctors are free to prescribe them off-label.
  • Lock downs have long since ended in the vast majority of places.
  • Vaccines are far more effective at preventing COVID than any generic that’s been tested.
  • The benefits of vaccination have been proven to outweigh the side effects for the vast majority of people (see above).
  • It’s true that we don’t know what long-term effects the vaccines might have, but we can make extremely good predictions based on our understanding of how they work in the human body. The long-term effects of COVID infection are clearly worse:

I’ve provided links to a dozen or so studies that support my claims. Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary assertion?

I’ll conclude with a self-portrait:

image

(Lest you get the wrong impression, the mud is a metaphor for science-based evidence.)

1 Like

Who decides what’s dangerous misinformation? What’s your stance on people spreading dangerous information?

I’m opposed to the spread of misinformation full stop, no caveats or qualifiers whatsoever.

Yes we all know you can search for your foregone conclusions and post the resulting articles faster than I can actually read them and show you what’s wrong with them as I’ve already done upthread. “You’ve bested my article. Impressive, but try dealing with 12 at once!”

…no.

I picked one of your links to read, the one which on the face of things seemed most interesting to me and that unlike the others addressed a question I’d never seen addressed before (about how we can rest assured about the silly concerns regarding possible long term effects). The link I picked to read based on what might actually be a learning experience to me was this one:

How can we know the COVID-19 vaccine won’t have long-term side effects?

And to my dismay the old “because polio vaccines” is right there in the opening argument. The differences between the two are so copious that the CDC had to change what actually constitutes a vaccine. Anyone still using this “but polio vaccines” line…

I mean look at this:

Yeah we’ve never seen a lot of things, wexnermedical. We’ve never seen people use an mRNA vaccine that causes their body to emulate the virus’ traits. We’ve never seen a vaccine created within 48 hours after the genome of the virus was allegedly mapped. And we’ve never seen this many mysterious heart attacks in healthy people happen all of a sudden.

Do you vet these yourself before posting your gish gallops?

…I think there’s been some misunderstanding anyhow. You’re telling me about the vaccine being more effective than Ivermectin but I’ve never argued otherwise and in fact I believe that is more likely true than not. That is to say I think we agree on that much.

What I’m saying, that you have yet to falsify, is that the COVID-19 vaccines are less safe than the polio vaccine and any other vaccine in history which wexnermedical could possibly point to. You called this misinformation but you have yet to produce an example of a less safe vaccine. Instead you switched to the easier sell of it being more effective than Ivermectin.

Any flaws in the VAERS reporting system would apply to all vaccines, not just covid-19 vaccines. So neither unrelated events nor the sudden spike in 2021 is likely to be attributable to flaws in the reporting system itself, which hasn’t changed.

Your self portrait shows signs of having been splattered with science-based evidence but there are no signs of him having deployed any himself. The bag is still full.

4 Likes
  1. If you think generics haven’t been repressed, you’re just living in some strange bubble. Have you ever heard of “horse dewormer”?

  2. Most lockdowns ended only with the rollout of the vaccines.

  3. Generics aren’t generally designed as prophylactics. The question is whether avoiding COVID + building organic immunity + early treatment with generics is better than vaccines. Anecdotally (Rogan, Rodgers, etc.) it often is.

  4. I don’t question that the benefits of vaccines outweigh risks for most people. I do think everyone should have a right to do that analysis for themselves.

  5. We don’t know whether the long-term effects of COVID will be worse than the vaccines, but we can bet that the not getting vaccinated or getting COVID will outperform both.

  6. Uttar Pradesh rolled out IVM, and has had COVID cases in single digits ever since. Extrapolating that around the world, millions of lives could’ve been saved.

2 Likes

Huh? “Faith”…“hope”…“belief”…all variations of the same thing. Claims not supported by fact or evidence. The difference is the scheister doing the peddling, be it some greasy tele-evangelist, or some cheesy snake oil vendor. One and the same to me, dude.

Per usual, no idea what you’re whining about now. Shouldn’t you spend your time doing some gainful stuff, like getting some actual proof of efficacy for ivermectin?

Wonder all you want. Just don’t confuse that “wonder” with evidence or proof, and we are good.

Based on your penchant for conspiracies, you should really stay away from all pharmaceuticals. Maybe go to your trusty shaman or healer instead. That oughta do ya.

These were looked at in rigorous fashion in the Together Trial. Fluvoxamine was effective; ivermectin was not. And IIRC, HCQ was not either.

Your link was more or less a rehash of the FLCCC stuff…and that hasn’t moved the needle yet because, among other things, I haven’t seen any of them published with peer review. THe Together Trial (some arms at least) HAS been published after peer review. I’m not sure why you would put your faith in the FLCCC types, when better data is out there. If you are an IVM fan, then that’s not great news for you so far, but that’s not to say that some use case cannot be found for it after rigorous and proper testing. Which is why I keep saying what are y’alls waiting for?

Also, note that fluvoxamine is generic…in case you were considering hopping on the conspiracy train with that other guy.

In that case, you should stop spreading it.

So you stopped reading because you happened upon an anti-vax talking point? You know what they say: You can lead an anti-vaxer to evidence, but you can’t make them read it. It’s rather telling that your “best” argument against me is that I’ve provided too much evidence.

Now I haven’t provided enough evidence? You need to get your story straight!

Sorry to break it to you, but you’re the Gish in this debate: you’re rejecting a well-established scientific consensus for ideological reasons. Your weapons of choice are well-worn creationist techniques: cherry-picking, misrepresentation of evidence, conspiratorial thinking, etc.

Your argument relies on the VAERS data, which do not establish what you claim. As the studies I cited (the ones you blithely ignored) demonstrate, the actual risks of the vaccines are quite low. Even if the vaccines were as dangerous as you claim – they’re not, this is a hypothetical – they would still be safer than contracting COVID.

I have. Ivermectin has been mocked, but it’s still available. Moreover, hundreds of pre-existing medications (many of which are available in generic form) have been evaluated for efficacy against COVID, contrary to the claim made in your original post.

Even if this was true – it’s not the case in the state where I live, where what could be described as a “lock-down” (restaurants closed for in-person dining) only lasted a few months and personal movement was never significantly restricted – the point stands that lock-downs have ended.

Scientifically, it’s not.

I agree – I oppose a government mandate that applies to all citizens. (That kind of mandate might be justified for a more virulent and deadly disease.) I do not, however, object to employers, places of business, transport services and entertainment venues implementing mask mandates. As @S.Cheung is fond of saying, choices have consequences.

We can and do.

Nope. This entire article is worth reading, but I’ll highlight the conclusion:

The claim that Uttar Pradesh is now COVID-19 free due to the use of ivermectin is inaccurate and unsupported by scientific evidence. Uttar Pradesh isn’t entirely free of COVID-19, and comparisons with other states are challenging due to differences in testing capacity. Furthermore, many factors other than ivermectin use could have influenced the course of the second COVID-19 wave in Uttar Pradesh, including restrictions and immunity from previous infection and vaccination.

In addition, the quality of evidence supporting ivermectin use in COVID-19 patients is very low. For this reason, public health authorities don’t recommend the use of ivermectin for preventing or treating COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. Given all these uncertainties, we can’t determine whether ivermectin played any role at all in the decline of COVID-19 cases in Uttar Pradesh.

1 Like

IVM is not available. I literally had a prescription, took it to the pharmacy, and they wouldn’t fill it, and there was no other alternative offered. Coercing people get a vaccine via “consequences” is barely better than straight mandating them. If the vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission, then there’s no basis for any of it. There are lots of better ways to reduce spread that don’t involve violating personal autonomy that haven’t been pursued, the WHO and the CDC both have continuously and right to this day downplayed airborne transmission: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions.

Let people freely choose what they want to do, and then persuade them of the benefits of vaccination.

3 Likes

You have yet to show where I’ve done this. The best you can say is that I’ve given evidence that is less than 100% conclusive of my claim. The same is true for the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. If you think anything is ever 100% conclusive, you’re mistaken. Settled science is a myth. It’s a contradiction in terms.

No, because of the the stuff I wrote that you omitted when quoting me. “Because polio vaccines,” is a pro-vax talking point, btw. A flawed one, for reasons I’ve already explained.

Depends on what you mean by establish. If you’re looking for 100% proof, then I along with Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin are sol, it seems.

If you say so. That may not seem like a lot to you, but there are others who are strong armed and silenced into the alleged consensus with threats to their livelihoods. This is but the tip.of the iceberg. As I said before, there are moles everywhere. Did you read that Havel essay I linked to earlier? When conformity is coerced and enforced, matters of consensus are not what they seem.

This isn’t incompatible with my claim.

This isn’t incompatible with my claim either.

Your slain strawmen notwithstanding, my claim about the safety of the vaccine relative to other vaccines remains uncontested, your nitpicking about VAERS cancels itself out when considering those issues apply to all the vaccines and thus do not disproportionately effect the VAERS data on covid vaccines.

I’ve looked at the history of other vaccines and if any were unsafe, they were pulled after dozens of deaths, so there’d simply be no way of knowing, if those were never recalled, whether they’d rival these covid-19 in terms of danger to the public. My position is that these covid ones should have been pulled as well since they have clearly resulted in more than a handful of dozen deaths.

When comparing these new vaccines to the Swine Flu vaccine that was recalled in 1979 for example, it’s impossible to tell which would do more harm to humanity if given in equal measure to equal groups of people. But, practically speaking, it should be obvious that adverse effects from a vaccine that is still being given after a certain point poses more of a danger than one that was stopped being given at that point. The failure to recall these vaccines as we have always done in the past accounts for part of that spike.

The covid vaccines being coerced into people’s arms are, in practicality, less safe than vaccines that got halted and disposed of. This would be true even if those latter ones were just pure cyanide.

You have yet to show me spreading any misinformation whatsoever.

3 Likes

But your response to it parrots an anti-vax talking point.

Again with the conspiracies!

This has not, in fact, been established. And even if it had, those deaths (while tragic) would pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of deaths the vaccines have prevented. Your argument falls apart even if I grant its extremely dubious premises.

But they do.

But there aren’t. Non-pharmaceutical interventions like lock-downs and mask mandates impinge on individual liberties as well.

People can, in fact, freely choose to not get vaccinated. Among other consequences, they’re far more likely to contract and die from COVID.

That’s exactly what scientists, public health professionals, health care providers, etc. have been trying to do since the vaccines became available. Their job is made more difficult by the misinformation that’s spread by people like @gamma247. On the other hand, by paying $5 a month to support Quillette he’s also helping to combat misinformation – so maybe it’s a wash.

I’m going to exit the conversation here since we’ve made the same points several times already.

1 Like

Which is that a polio vaccine is a completely different thing to an mRNA vaccine for a plethora of legitimate reasons, yes. You cut off my actual “anti vax talking point” when you responded about me making a talking point. Why, if not because it was a completely valid point and again you are merely throwing mud?

(Edit: allow me to indulge in one of Cheung’s patented all-caps lols at the realization that you are calling the legitimate debunking of an illegitimate talking point a “talking point.” …LOL!)

This has also not been established. In any case you mean the number of deaths would have paled. But some people, esp those who understand that they must die at some point, factor in the circumstances and the meaning of their own death rather than where their statistic will lie in some categorical quantity. The real issue here is whether to coerce others with limited freedoms and threats of unemployment. I’ve never once argued that the vaccine is less safe overall than the virus. I could go either way on that, pending more data. But little by little the data that is revealed makes me glad I waited. The risks of the disease are also low, and so those who would risk it to wait for more substantive data should be encouraged, esp since it now seems the naturally immune spread this far less than the vaccinated.

Looks like the unvaxxed just may be the real heroes risking their own health to stop the spread of this virus. But I’ll wait for more data before jumping to that conclusion. It’s always a good idea with so many unknowns like this.

4 Likes

You’re still looking for freedom of choice AND freedom from consequences, much like many of the others. There are issues with this. First off, as I’ve said often, adults should learn (or should have learned) to balance both. Second, in this case, your choices have consequences for other people who are not you. If you make dumb choices that only affect you, I’m all for that, and wouldn’t and couldn’t give a damn; I’m much less keen on the poor choices you make that affect me.

I do empathize with this, to a point. It is amusing you were able to find a medical doctor to actual write this, but even some docs are kooks, and as the other guy suggests, I have no doubt some are out there. But I’m not too concerned about there being too many of them.

If you wanted to go to a nutraceutical store and buy up “rhubarb root extract” (I have no idea if that’s even a thing…I just made up something whose silliness matches nutraceuticals in general) with the belief that it is safe and cures you of whatever ails you, power to you, no one would care, and the company would happily take your $. First answering the question of “does rhubarb root extract actually have the purported benefits the scheisters claim” is unimportant, cuz suckers are people too, and the overwhelming majority know better. IVM is different precisely because there is at least some biologic plausibility, and it is conceivable that it might actually work in certain specific use cases, which makes it important to rigorously explore those possibilities in a manner that “rhubarb root extract” cannot hope to attain. This is why doing the proper science on IVM before acquiring fanboy enthusiasm for it is important on a population level.

Would this not be a good example of a good idea that just begs for abuse? If reports are collected but not scrutinized then surely what we have is a situation ripe for exploitation, no? One would think that to calm the waters what would be uppermost would be carefully reviewed reports.

Talking to my niece over the weekend, I learn that her husband, a strikingly intelligent young man, is 60:40 on team Invermectin. He is not some sort of lunatic but he is half convinced at least that there has been suppression of data and that more than a few lies are being told. As for me I remain 80:20 behind the establishment orthodoxy on the issue. I really don’t know why a medical system that’s being bankrupted by the costs of covid wouldn’t jump at the chance to have a quick, cheap, generic solution to the problem if one was available. I’m told that all the world’s doctors and researchers and epidemiologists are either in bed with Phizer or are too stupid to resist their propaganda. Not that one can be faulted for not trusting Phizer, but have they really hoodwinked or bought off the whole world’s medical establishment? It reminds me of the Trumpard claim that Sleepy Joe managed to buy off the entire American judicial and electoral system. Nope, I don’t believe it, nor do I believe that the whole world wouldn’t be chug-a-lugging invermectin if the stuff actually worked. Hey what ever happened to the cult built around that other medicine that was all the rage a little while ago? Hydroxy … something.

2 Likes