What is your explanation then for the numerous people that have taken it and either had very mild, short lived symptoms or those that had worse symptoms and then immediately after taking it had a very significant turnaround? I'm not stating that it has 100% efficacy, but it appears to have some. Did everyone that took it just get lucky? I'd also add, what are the negative repercussions to taking it, as prescribed by a doctor?
I gots the Covid.
- Thread starter rclouse79
- Start date
Actual_Cryptid
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2021
- Messages
- 200
It does not appear to have any efficacy.
"I took it and then i got better" is not evidence. It can be a starting point, but the next step is to repeat that with a bunch of people, controlling for other factors. That's what the clinical trial process is. I'd be happy to explain to the best of my ability why a double-blind study is necessary if you're interested, although other outlets probably can do a better job.
The other side of the coin is data reporting. It's not enough to just count the number of people who said their symptoms got better after taking it. We have to look at how many people didn't have any change after taking it, what the timeline was (were they already mostly through the rough patch, what symptoms were they and how did they change), did people get worse, etc. And we're in luck. There have beendozens of studies and when they get through the peer-review process (not the un-reviewed preprints) the positive effect disappears at best and sometimes even a negative impact emerges. That's why we have the peer review process, to spot things like a study that didn't properly blind patients, or a poor statistical model giving false results, or a major unattended datapoint (like in one preprint, ignoring that the majority of the ivermectin recievers were younger, healthier, and wealthier than the control group in the study, meaning already at a higher likelihood of recovering).
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19 - PMC
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
You can scroll to the plain language summary, which explains what this meta-analysis reviewed and the results. The "We don't know if" statement is used when there is no observable effect, because you can't prove definitively that there's no impact. But, after reviewing 14 completed studies and 18 in-progress studies, the researchers found no evidence of any positive impact when ivermectin was administered.
So once we see that, it's time to ask the tiger-proof rock question from the Simpsons clip I linked above. If ivermectin, an antiparasitic, was going to help people recover from COVID-19, what is the mechanism that would be involved? Why would it work the way it's claimed that ti works?
"People said it made them feel better" is an unquantifiable statement, and it applies to every fad and quack sold from fortune telling to reiki to accupuncture to homeopathy to "biohacking" or whatever the tech nerds are doing in silicon valley now. If your evidence for ivermectin is the same as the evidence for "stick needles in their skin to adjust their chi" then it's not good evidence.
The negative impact of taking ivermectin as prescribed by a doctor is tricky. See, a good doctor isn't going to prescribe it for COVID, so I can't really go look at the clinical evaluation or prescription. But, we know there's the cost. To go to the front line grifters you'll be out two bills easy befire buying the stuff. Second, we can look at the side effects listed by the Mayo Clinic.
Ivermectin (oral route)
www.mayoclinic.org
Rashes, fever, joint and muscle pain, not bad so far. Rapid heartbeat, that's an issue if you're already at risk for a cardiac event like 47% of Americans. Diarrhea, not great, worse if you're already ill with a fever and burning through fluids faster. Less common, loss of appetite, tremors, and sleepiness. All not a great time. Now that's only for the dose recommended to treat eye parasites. Higher doses can cause cardiac events, hypotaxia, dizziness and falling, seizures, even coma or death. Again, that's just for the human-grade stuff used to treat parasites.
Last edited:
And here's where I've got a major problem. I'm not, and many, many like me are not "anti-vax".
I refuse to accept the MRNA injections are worthy of being understood as vaccines.
Do they offer protection against COVID? Sure, to some degree. But the MRNA "vaccines" suck as an immunization....they neither prevent you from getting nor from transmitting COVID. They are far too leaky to be designated as vaccines.
Honesty matters. Language matters, accuracy matters. There's value to the MRNA injections....they may be worth taking (or not), but they aren't vaccines.
I may get some version of a MRNA COVID injection at some point. My 76 yr old mother got it, and I'm glad she did. However my level of trust in our medical authorities is nearly non-existent. The medical establishment and media have earned intense skepticism.
cod007
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2017
- Messages
- 259
That is why they snuck in quietly the new meaning of ‘vaccine’ recently.
Actual_Cryptid
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2021
- Messages
- 200
What vaccine offers 100% protection from the disease?
By what metric are they too risky to be considered vaccines? What other vaccines are you comparing against, what are the risks you're citing?
What is your background in studying vaccine efficacy and safety?
What does "leaky" mean in this context?
- Banned
- #66
Invermectin worked for Rogan...I'm convinced.
Are you really trying to defend merck? Even if it's not IVM itself repackaged, do you deny big pharma tried their best to shit-can IVM treatments so they could develop a new patented treatment to sell for an enormous profit?
- Banned
- #67
Red herring...nobody said a vaccine was 100% effective, ever. But it seems the C-19 vaccine is absolutely failing to prevent spread or transmission of the virus hundreds of thousands of cases (even the OP was vax'd)...good luck finding an actual number, because only 1/2 of the states track that data...gee, I wonder why? A breakthrough case doesn't inspure confidence, so why report it.
While you do provide data, its very hard to accept it when considering the sources, sorry for no longer being interested in "following the science". At least until it becomes transparent. For almost 50 years it has been prescribed safely, to the extent that it received a Nobel Prize, granted to treat other ailments. I do agree that it is not the end all be all, but it does seem to do something for some people. I apologize for not reading through every comment in this thread and if you've already answered the following questions: are you a supporter of vaccinating all (excluding those the vaccine is not recommended for), what are the long term side effects of the vaccine, how do you defend the request to withhold the approval documents until the year 2076, how many boosters are going to be necessary, what are the actual statistics regarding adverse reactions to the vaccine, what is the efficacy of natural immunity, should we trust the pharmaceutical companies based on the violations of the law and subsequent monies paid in penalties or to settle?It does not appear to have any efficacy.
"I took it and then i got better" is not evidence. It can be a starting point, but the next step is to repeat that with a bunch of people, controlling for other factors. That's what the clinical trial process is. I'd be happy to explain to the best of my ability why a double-blind study is necessary if you're interested, although other outlets probably can do a better job.
The other side of the coin is data reporting. It's not enough to just count the number of people who said their symptoms got better after taking it. We have to look at how many people didn't have any change after taking it, what the timeline was (were they already mostly through the rough patch, what symptoms were they and how did they change), did people get worse, etc. And we're in luck. There have beendozens of studies and when they get through the peer-review process (not the un-reviewed preprints) the positive effect disappears at best and sometimes even a negative impact emerges. That's why we have the peer review process, to spot things like a study that didn't properly blind patients, or a poor statistical model giving false results, or a major unattended datapoint (like in one preprint, ignoring that the majority of the ivermectin recievers were younger, healthier, and wealthier than the control group in the study, meaning already at a higher likelihood of recovering).
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19 - PMC
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory ...
You can scroll to the plain language summary, which explains what this meta-analysis reviewed and the results. The "We don't know if" statement is used when there is no observable effect, because you can't prove definitively that there's no impact. But, after reviewing 14 completed studies and 18 in-progress studies, the researchers found no evidence of any positive impact when ivermectin was administered.
So once we see that, it's time to ask the tiger-proof rock question from the Simpsons clip I linked above. If ivermectin, an antiparasitic, was going to help people recover from COVID-19, what is the mechanism that would be involved? Why would it work the way it's claimed that ti works?
"People said it made them feel better" is an unquantifiable statement, and it applies to every fad and quack sold from fortune telling to reiki to accupuncture to homeopathy to "biohacking" or whatever the tech nerds are doing in silicon valley now. If your evidence for ivermectin is the same as the evidence for "stick needles in their skin to adjust their chi" then it's not good evidence.
The negative impact of taking ivermectin as prescribed by a doctor is tricky. See, a good doctor isn't going to prescribe it for COVID, so I can't really go look at the clinical evaluation or prescription. But, we know there's the cost. To go to the front line grifters you'll be out two bills easy befire buying the stuff. Second, we can look at the side effects listed by the Mayo Clinic.
Ivermectin (oral route)
Rashes, fever, joint and muscle pain, not bad so far. Rapid heartbeat, that's an issue if you're already at risk for a cardiac event like 47% of Americans. Diarrhea, not great, worse if you're already ill with a fever and burning through fluids faster. Less common, loss of appetite, tremors, and sleepiness. All not a great time. Now that's only for the dose recommended to treat eye parasites. Higher doses can cause cardiac events, hypotaxia, dizziness and falling, seizures, even coma or death. Again, that's just for the human-grade stuff used to treat parasites.
The monoclonal antibody treatments appear to be very effective if given in the first few days. I encourage everyone to know ahead of time how to get the treatment; even if you dont need a treatment, someone you know may. Do not wait until you (or your parents/grandparents) are very sick.
Here in AK, there is a screening/rationing process through the Department of Health and Human Services and people should call them ASAP after acquiring the rona.
Here in AK, there is a screening/rationing process through the Department of Health and Human Services and people should call them ASAP after acquiring the rona.
isItFallYet
WKR
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,104
What's your background in pharmaceuticals/infectious diseases? How are you the self proclaimed expert? Where did you receive your PHD from? What's your definition of a good doctor? And why do you care so much about others' feelings on vaccines?
- Banned
- #71
Newtosavage
WKR
Typical response. No answers to reasonable and pertinent questions. Just more deflection.
- Banned
- #72
How so, I think if you're going to pretend to be the self-proclaimed authority on a subject, some credentials should be displayed.
Actual_Cryptid
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2021
- Messages
- 200
Pointing out that you repeated two false statements about a drug is not "defending Merck. It's not ivermectin repackaged, full stop. If you want to claim big pharma repressed effective treatments, put up some evidence specific to that. So far you're0 for 2.
The irony of using the phrase "red herring" after accusing me of defending Merck is not lost on me. Now if you'd like to read past the first sentence, you'll find a series of follow-up questions, because I'm interested to know what criteria are used to assess whether it's a "true" vaccine. OF course, the J&J is available, and is not an MRNA vaccine. Less effective, but still better than nothing.
What sources and what makes them unreliable? What sources are you using to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin as an antiviral?
Ivermectin did not recieve a nobel prize. I'm not being nitpicky either, it wasn't involved. See, now I know who you're listening to, or at least I know that Alex Jones repeats their narratives or vice versa. What you're confused about is the 2015 nobel prize awarded jointly two two research teams. One half of the team was awarded for developing avermectin (a slightly different drug) and the other half for artemesin. However, you'll note neither drug is an antiviral, both are cited as *antiparasitic* drugs. Avermectin replaced ivermectin in treating the parasite that causes river blindness, artemisin as an anti-malarial drug.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was divided, one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites" and the other half to Tu Youyou "for her discoveries concerning a novel...
www.nobelprize.org
So again, this is like saying we should use aspirin to treat COVID because it's been used for centuries. A successful antiparasitic drug does not mean it's a successful antiviral drug.
If you do literally any search engine search, you'll see that the FOIA request thing has already been answered. At the time the initial request was filed, the concern was over protecting Pfizer-Biontech proprietary data. Guess what, you also can't FOIA the plans for the new Boeing stealth jet. According to the article I'm reading right now, the FDA is releasing 500pages per month as they go through them all because it's a lot of data, and there's a follow-up hearing in December. Why, do you have more information on the topic?
I think everybody should be talking to their doctor and getting whatever vaccines they can. That's how we beat polio, that's why measles was mostly eradicated in the US, etc. I'm not a doctor though, I'm an accountant.
Boosters will probably continue to be necessary. I'm not a doctor. I imagine COVID is going to join the annual flu, because it keeps mutating (largely through the unvaccinated population) rather than burning out. Maybe it'll eventually just join the annual flu shot. Not my area of expertise. We could have done without a booster if we'd done it right the first time though.
Actual stats on harm are available from the FDA and the CDC. I'm not going to just repost what anyone can find themselves, that's a lot of needless typing. If you have a point, make it, and provide evidence.
Natural immunity was already covered. Best recommendations are still to get vaccinated even if you've already ahd it though, as both is stronger. If you haven't had it, seeking natural immunity means getting the disease to avoid getting the disease, which is up there with giving yourself smallpox to gain immunity to smallpox.
We don't have to trust pharmaceutical companies. There are layers of review from researchers and scientists within the government, in competing companies, in private research labs, and nonprofit labs. There are also watchdog groups. That''s how we identify the violations of law. That's how we know that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don't prevent or treat COVID. But if you distrust big pharma you better make sure you don't go to the hospital or a doctor if you get sick, as every treatment including Regeneron and Ivermectin are manufactured by Big Pharma. For comparison, I've had three doses of Pfizer-Biontech, which cost the government less than $60 to give me (total). A single dose of Regeneron monoclonal antibodies would cost $2100, not includingany other medication administered to hospitalized patients. If there was a big pharma plot to make us sick, then it would probably look more like Ron DeSantis' efforts to oppose vaccination and get everyone out and unmasked as quickly as possible, and providing Regneron to everyone. Don't look too closely at his ties to Regeneron though.
TL
R I did my own research. I've included my references, I've repeatedly stated that I'm not a doctor. I'm waiting for literally anyone else to do the same though. So far I seem to be the only one able to provide evidence for what I'm talking about.- Banned
- #74
Wrong again...I provided zero false statements, try not to get your posters mixed up (like you've done with "facts"). You sound like the typical shill for big pharma. Deflecting, never providing actual facts yourself and refusing to admit your opinions are just that. Do you honestly believe this is not solely about money for big pharma/big gov't? Jesus dude, I feel sorry for you. Never said it was a fact, but it's certainly my opinion that this is 100% about money, not safety. But, what is undeniable is that your so called "vaccine" is anything but. What type of vaccine neither prevents contraction nor transmission of the virus it's meant to prevent? And nothing says ineffective like requiring boosters the same year you got your vax.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #75
Newtosavage
WKR
Actual, you're wasting your time but I suspect you know that.
The folks you're arguing with would never, ever admit to something like this -
The folks you're arguing with would never, ever admit to something like this -
- Banned
- #76
How about the data from VAERS that shows the C-19 vaccine is more deadly in its first year than any vaccine in use since 1990, in total.TL
Totally safe though, right?
And here I was thinking you were a doctor...lol.Pointing out that you repeated two false statements about a drug is not "defending Merck. It's not ivermectin repackaged, full stop. If you want to claim big pharma repressed effective treatments, put up some evidence specific to that. So far you're0 for 2.
The irony of using the phrase "red herring" after accusing me of defending Merck is not lost on me. Now if you'd like to read past the first sentence, you'll find a series of follow-up questions, because I'm interested to know what criteria are used to assess whether it's a "true" vaccine. OF course, the J&J is available, and is not an MRNA vaccine. Less effective, but still better than nothing.
What sources and what makes them unreliable? What sources are you using to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin as an antiviral?
Ivermectin did not recieve a nobel prize. I'm not being nitpicky either, it wasn't involved. See, now I know who you're listening to, or at least I know that Alex Jones repeats their narratives or vice versa. What you're confused about is the 2015 nobel prize awarded jointly two two research teams. One half of the team was awarded for developing avermectin (a slightly different drug) and the other half for artemesin. However, you'll note neither drug is an antiviral, both are cited as *antiparasitic* drugs. Avermectin replaced ivermectin in treating the parasite that causes river blindness, artemisin as an anti-malarial drug.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was divided, one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites" and the other half to Tu Youyou "for her discoveries concerning a novel...
So again, this is like saying we should use aspirin to treat COVID because it's been used for centuries. A successful antiparasitic drug does not mean it's a successful antiviral drug.
If you do literally any search engine search, you'll see that the FOIA request thing has already been answered. At the time the initial request was filed, the concern was over protecting Pfizer-Biontech proprietary data. Guess what, you also can't FOIA the plans for the new Boeing stealth jet. According to the article I'm reading right now, the FDA is releasing 500pages per month as they go through them all because it's a lot of data, and there's a follow-up hearing in December. Why, do you have more information on the topic?
I think everybody should be talking to their doctor and getting whatever vaccines they can. That's how we beat polio, that's why measles was mostly eradicated in the US, etc. I'm not a doctor though, I'm an accountant.
Boosters will probably continue to be necessary. I'm not a doctor. I imagine COVID is going to join the annual flu, because it keeps mutating (largely through the unvaccinated population) rather than burning out. Maybe it'll eventually just join the annual flu shot. Not my area of expertise. We could have done without a booster if we'd done it right the first time though.
Actual stats on harm are available from the FDA and the CDC. I'm not going to just repost what anyone can find themselves, that's a lot of needless typing. If you have a point, make it, and provide evidence.
Natural immunity was already covered. Best recommendations are still to get vaccinated even if you've already ahd it though, as both is stronger. If you haven't had it, seeking natural immunity means getting the disease to avoid getting the disease, which is up there with giving yourself smallpox to gain immunity to smallpox.
We don't have to trust pharmaceutical companies. There are layers of review from researchers and scientists within the government, in competing companies, in private research labs, and nonprofit labs. There are also watchdog groups. That''s how we identify the violations of law. That's how we know that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don't prevent or treat COVID. But if you distrust big pharma you better make sure you don't go to the hospital or a doctor if you get sick, as every treatment including Regeneron and Ivermectin are manufactured by Big Pharma. For comparison, I've had three doses of Pfizer-Biontech, which cost the government less than $60 to give me (total). A single dose of Regeneron monoclonal antibodies would cost $2100, not includingany other medication administered to hospitalized patients. If there was a big pharma plot to make us sick, then it would probably look more like Ron DeSantis' efforts to oppose vaccination and get everyone out and unmasked as quickly as possible, and providing Regneron to everyone. Don't look too closely at his ties to Regeneron though.
TL
Has the literature been changed? please note the date as taken from the bottom of the site you provided:
The layers of review you cite, again are laughable. The "studies" are funded by the pharma companies who are seeking approval. I'll note they are not completely self funded, but significantly. Comparing Pfizer and Boeing, heavily pressured human injections vs. military defense is weak. Please try again. 500 pages a month is not true, its 500 pages a year. I have not claimed that big pharma has intentionally harmed the public, although their previous convictions would state otherwise. I stated that public health is not their focus, profits are. Pfizer alone stands to PROFIT more than $90 BILLION, please cite your source for 3 jabs for $60. I have never been opposed to big pharma, admittedly because we have never been as affected as we are right now. The FDA and the CDC can't decide if we should wear masks or not wear masks, hard pass on religious commitment to government without full transparency. Additionally, Fauci changed the language on the NIH website to not have to admit to funding "gain of function" research, please try to defend that. I cannot help but notice your lack of a response to some of my questions, specifically the long term side effects. I am not an anti-vaxxer, myself, my wife, and my 3 children are all fully vaccinated less the COVID booster. I find Alex Jones entertaining at best, but given enough time he's been right on more things than you know much less admit.
Actual_Cryptid
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2021
- Messages
- 200
Noting that you didn't mention any numbers or provide any evidence to this outlandish claim, lets learn about VAERS for a moment. Here's the disclaimer from the CDC's VAERS site:
"VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind."
VAERS exists specifically to prevent a coverup of injuries, however as part of its mandated reporting, *anything* that happens gets related. I mean anything. If I go to my doctor a week after getting the flu shot and say "yeah after that flu shot I had 72 hours of diarrhea. Could have been the entire box of Dulcolax I ate though" after prolonged groan he's going to write that down and submit it to VAERS. Crazy right? But if you look at the VAERS reports instead of just listening to a grifter tell you about them, you can quickly confirm this.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Request
So using that, after having to agree again that I've read the disclaimer that these reports are not verified and are not intended to prove or attribute a cause, i searched for all deaths involving the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine nationwide, any number of doses. I get 4481 results.I then narrowed that down and found that there are reports that someone got the covid vaccine and then died of a gunshot wounda week later.Got the vaccien, died in a car accident. Again, this is not new. In fact it's been reported on repeatedly.
Fact check: Reports of adverse effects in US database aren’t confirmed to be linked to vaccination
A video is being shared on social media that sees a presenter examining data from a US system that collects reports of adverse health events that follow the administration of a vaccine.
www.reuters.com
People are intentionally misusing VAERS, a CDC-maintained surveillance tool, to pretend like every death in there is caused by the vaccine.
So now it's your turn to post some data and some sources instead of just repeating infowars nonsense.
What do you think you see on that page that contradicts what I said?
If you're calling for more government funding of drug research, I'm all about it. Hell, let's just publicly fund all of it instead of making medicine and drug research a for-profit endeavor. We can also repeal the supplements act and force health supplements to undergo the same safety and efficacy standards as real medicine! That said, if you're alleging the controls and reviews are insufficient, show me some evidence.
Pfizer, U.S. strike 100 million COVID-19 vaccine deal with 70 million due by June
The U.S. government will pay Pfizer Inc nearly $2 billion for 100 million additional doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to bolster its supply as the country grapples with a nationwide spike in infections.
www.reuters.com
$19.50 per shot, $2 billion deal, inked under Trump in 2020.
Mask recommendations were "don't" because early on people were buying the N95s that were in high demand in hospitals, and trying to avoid having people hoard masks that healthcare workers needed. Remember the hoarding? Then after the research supported decreased spread when using cloth masks, the recommendation was added. Following the science. Remember the recommendation was not "don't wear a mask" in the beginning either. It was "stay home, please don't buy all the N95s. Again, public record.
Show me evidence regarding the gain of function NIH language changes.
If you want me to answer all your questions, first start using paragraphs instead of vomiting up a giant block of text. you should have learned how to make readable text in gradeschool. Second, start providing evidence or citations instead of merely throwing everything at the wall tos ee what sticks. Thirdly, to show me you're operating in good faith, if I answer a question do me a favor and acknowledge it. If I'm wrong, rebut it. If I'm right, acknowledge it. When you jsut drop a point that's been responded to it gives the impression that you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall.
As far as long term side effects, I'll issue you a challenge. First, you have the same access to the internet I do. List for me the long-term health effects of covid, and of the vaccine, CDC or FDA will suffice. Secondly, name one vaccine which had a long-term health effect that was not initially observed within 8 weeks of the dose.
Alex Jones has been wrong about more things than I've ever been right about, from claiming there was an NWO takeover on NYE 2000 (reporting government trucks on the streets) to jade helm to the ebola scare to Obama taking my guns to FEMA death camps to claiming COVID was a Chinese bioweapon that would devastate humanity by the end of 2020 oh wait now it's just a flu oh wait now it's dangerous but only his supplements can save us oh wait now it's a flu again. he doesn't get points for being "right" when he also says the exact opposite 2 different times on the same show.
- Banned
- #80
It's on the VAERS website itself...do you own homework.
I dont even read your replies, just think it's funny you actually waste this much time thinking you're going to somehow change someone's mind or "win" you internet aeguement gold star for the day. Your first mistake was assuming I actually cared about your opinion.
Similar threads
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
Triple Big Buck Year with James Yates
-
Vortex Defender CCW Red Dot Review
-
TT#44 Steve Evans Journey with Custom Rifles
-
Born Outdoor Badger Bed Review
-
The Intersection of Hunting Big Mule Deer & Big Whitetail
-
YETI LoadOut GoBox Review
-
Big Bucks, Bigger Secrets: Antelope Island Unguided
-
Iron Will Wide Single Bevel Broadhead Review
-
TT#43 Travis Hobbs Alaskan Brown Bear Hunt
-
YETI Tundra 210 Cooler Review