Well unfortunately waiting for double blind studies in North America where they are actively trying to kill us, aren't going to happen.
I do know however, that horses are super expensive and causing a death from an animal of that cost would not be tolerated, so I feel safer taking the vet version than the human version.
Well unfortunately waiting for double blind studies in North America where they are actively trying to kill us, aren't going to happen.
No, no, don't misunderstand me: we agree. For sure. I'm saying we (a lot of folks on Poal) have quite harsh requirements for vaccines. So why not the same rigor for off-label of other drugs? We don't have to lose our intelligent minds just because it becomes a meme to hate or love a certain thing, right? Sad that we have to do our own research, yes, but it's as close as possible.
I do know however, that horses are super expensive and causing a death from an animal of that cost would not be tolerated, so I feel safer taking the vet version than the human version.
While this seems like great logic, it's just not relevant. Horses are an entirely different species than humans. By a long shot. What kills a horse may not kill you and vice versa. What makes a horse sick may not make you sick and vice versa.
Awful lot of may and might. I'm not going to feed my dog chocolate, but what can a horse eat that I can't? The ingredient list for the horse paste is quite small.
Awful lot of may and might.
And you don't seem to care but you do care when the may or might applies to vaccines. Why the double standard? It's like all logic and rigor goes on the window when we talk about Ivermectin and HCQ.
but what can a horse eat that I can't?
Did you seriously just ask what ungulates can eat that humans cannot?
(post is archived)