Unfortunately, they did not follow the FLLC protocol, which is give it within 5 days of getting symptoms, take Ivermectin and zinc, for 5 days. So Ivermectin was doomed to failure by the structure of the study.
If you say that, can you explain the results of the largest ever ivermectin study in Brazil, which gave ivermectin at a dose of just 30 mg once every two weeks, which is a very low dose, showed a major positive result, with 0.8% COVID deaths in ivermectin group, versus 2.6% deaths in non-ivermectin users?
The FLCCC protocol calls for 0.2 mg per Kg body weight twice a week. That is 15mg twice a week for 150 to 170 pound person.
The study you cited gave ivermectin at a dose of 30 mg once a week, which is essentially following the prevention protocol and it very demonstrably worked.
While you are on the website, take some time and look around at the information they provide, you might learn something.
To clarify one point, the study I said was designed to fail, dealt with treating the Covid infection. They did not follow the FLCCC protocol for treatment and the study failed.
The study you pointed out was designed to use Ivermectin as a preventive. They followed the protocol, and the study succeeded.
The FLCCC protocol calls for 0.2 mg per Kg body weight twice a week. That is 15mg twice a week for 150 to 170 pound person.
The study you cited gave ivermectin at a dose of 30 mg once a week, which is essentially following the prevention protocol and it very demonstrably worked.
While you are on the website, take some time and look around at the information they provide, you might learn something.
The Brazilian ivermectin study in Minas Gerais you referred to, which failed to show ivermectin benefits, gave patients about 30 mg for 3 days in a row at the early stage of COVID. So this negative study actually gave 3 times more ivermectin than the positive study.
So I don't see anything amiss with the negative Minas Gerais study, it used three times the dose of the positive Itajaí study.
The FLCCC Alliance website is unethical: nowhere on their site do they promote the use of COVID vaccines, which are by far the most effective intervention to prevent death. Advising people to take their unproven supplement and drugs instead of the proven COVID vaccines is unprincipled. I have no problem with a website like the FLCCC Alliance suggesting other treatments that may or may not be helpful, like ivermectin. But for them to ignore the most important intervention, the COVID vaccines, is wrong.
Regarding the FLCCC, I see they are now advising HCQ as the best medicine for early treatment. (I concur!)
If the FLCCC were a website about the best modes of transport, they would focus on walking, running and bicycles, but they would neglect to mention about the car!
The Brazilian ivermectin study in Minas Gerais you referred to, which failed to show ivermectin benefits, gave patients about 30 mg for 3 days in a row at the early stage of COVID. So this negative study actually gave 3 times more ivermectin than the positive study.
So I don't see anything amiss with the negative Minas Gerais study, it used three times the dose of the positive Itajaí study.
The FLCCC Alliance website is unethical: nowhere on their site do they promote the use of COVID vaccines, which are by far the most effective intervention to prevent death. Advising people to take their unproven supplement and drugs instead of the proven COVID vaccines is unprincipled. I have no problem with a website like the FLCCC Alliance suggesting other treatments that may or may not be helpful, like ivermectin. But for them to ignore the most important intervention, the COVID vaccines, is wrong.
Where to start, I don't have enough time today, but will give it a try.
1. I never brought up a study. In early April, I commented on a study posted by another poster, that was for treatment and was set up to fail because they did not follow the correct protocol.
2. You replied many weeks later and mentioned a second study - https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/35070575/ - which was to use ivermectin preventively, which succeeded. I pointed out that they followed the FLCCC protocol for prevention, which worked.
3. Here is my original post on the treatment study:
"This study has been brought up before, and is flawed.
Unfortunately, they did not follow the FLLC protocol, which is give it within 5 days of getting symptoms, take Ivermectin and zinc, for 5 days. So Ivermectin was doomed to failure by the structure of the study.
They gave the medication late, they did not give the medication with zinc, and they only gave the medication for 3 days, not 5.
So, set up to fail."
Here is what the study said they did:
" Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo."
4. You try to bundle all this up to say the study to prevent death and hospitalization, which succeeded, somehow relates to the failed study and try to conclude in an odd way that the study that was successful did not follow the FLCC protocol because the second study used. "three times the dose of the positive Itajaí study."
This statement makes no sense, as there is no comparison between the 2 studies.
One study, that you brought up was to prevent serious illness, followed the FLCCC protocol. - Study succeeded.
The older study you brought to this discussion was to treat active covid and they did not follow the protocol. - Study failed.
4. You make the statement that the FLCCC is unethical, even though the study that you brought forward, and that followed FLCCC protocols was a success.
5. You then state " Advising people to take their unproven supplement and drugs instead of the proven COVID vaccines is unprincipled"
As far as I know, they have no unproven supplement or drugs. The implication in your statement is that they have a monetary motive. They sell nothing but knick knacks and clothing items to support the website. The supplements are generally known to be helpful to the immune system, and they do not sell them. The drugs, ivermectin and hydroxychoriquin are well known and used throughout the world. And according to the study you brought up to me, Ivermectin works. They do not sell them.
As far as the vaccines go, they do not advise against their use. They do inform about the risks of the vaccine, which are significant to the small percentage of people that suffer adverse events. And they offer protocols to deal with adverse events from the vaccine, and Long Covid.
This is far more principled than anything offered by WHO, the CDC, or mainstream US medical community.
We can go 'round in circles about IVM, HCQ, & other outpatient therapeutics endlessly; but one thing I would hope we all could agree on is that total nihilism regarding outpatient therapeutics is a bit cold & heartless.
Dr Peter McCullough touched on this in one of his interviews. Imagine for a moment living alone in your mid to late 70s with a couple of comorbidities; pulling a positive test, and having your doctor shake his head and close the door on you.
No, there is nothing... Don't come in. No, we're not going to try one of those drugs everyone is talking about. I could get in trouble just for prescribing it, and the pharmacy probably would refuse to fill it anyway. No, don't bother trying to prevent clots with aspirin, or fool around with vitamins and/or minerals. These haven't been proven in multi-million dollar RCTs!
Tell your family to stay away, and make sure you are completely alone. Watch for worsening symptoms... Difficulty breathing or lips turning blue, and call 911 when these happen.
--------------
Even in oncology, when a patient comes in with metastatic cancer, you don't chuckle and tell them: "dude, you're toast. Nothin's going to save you now". You explain to them the seriousness of their situation, and then tell them about "a few things we can try", adding "we won't know how well they will work till we try them, but some respond remarkably well, and remissions are always possible".
Medicine (particularly American medicine) has been selling hope, often in the face of futility for over a century. The ethics of this practice are debatable, but its been the standard of care, and patients have come to expect this. Bad timing to shift to brutal honesty in the heat of a pandemic.
Personally, if I was the above mentioned geriatric patient, I can't help but think I would appreciate even a placebo to help take the edge of the despair of my situation. I chose the Zelenko protocol when I got Omicron. Did it help? I haven't a clue! But I came through my corona-adventure with flying colors and optimism, rather than fear, trepidation and hopelessness. Doctors should have the right to prescribe, and patients the right to try repurposed drugs in desperate situations when time is of the essence. To opine otherwise is a bit cruel & cold-hearted.
Pointless & time-wasting I know. Still, hope the Medical Industrial Complex doesn't give you the cold shoulder when your own health crisis arises.
We can go 'round in circles about IVM, HCQ, & other outpatient therapeutics endlessly; but one thing I would hope we all could agree on is that total nihilism regarding outpatient therapeutics is a bit cold & heartless.
Dr Peter McCullough touched on this in one of his interviews. Imagine for a moment living alone in your mid to late 70s with a couple of comorbidities; pulling a positive test, and having your doctor shake his head and close the door on you.
No, there is nothing... Don't come in. No, we're not going to try one of those drugs everyone is talking about. I could get in trouble just for prescribing it, and the pharmacy probably would refuse to fill it anyway. No, don't bother trying to prevent clots with aspirin, or fool around with vitamins and/or minerals. These haven't been proven in multi-million dollar RCTs!
Tell your family to stay away, and make sure you are completely alone. Watch for worsening symptoms... Difficulty breathing or lips turning blue, and call 911 when these happen.
--------------
Even in oncology, when a patient comes in with metastatic cancer, you don't chuckle and tell them: "dude, you're toast. Nothin's going to save you now". You explain to them the seriousness of their situation, and then tell them about "a few things we can try", adding "we won't know how well they will work till we try them, but some respond remarkably well, and remissions are always possible".
Medicine (particularly American medicine) has been selling hope, often in the face of futility for over a century. The ethics of this practice are debatable, but its been the standard of care, and patients have come to expect this. Bad timing to shift to brutal honesty in the heat of a pandemic.
Personally, if I was the above mentioned geriatric patient, I can't help but think I would appreciate even a placebo to help take the edge of the despair of my situation. I chose the Zelenko protocol when I got Omicron. Did it help? I haven't a clue! But I came through my corona-adventure with flying colors and optimism, rather than fear, trepidation and hopelessness. Doctors should have the right to prescribe, and patients the right to try repurposed drugs in desperate situations when time is of the essence. To opine otherwise is a bit cruel & cold-hearted.
Pointless & time-wasting I know. Still, hope the Medical Industrial Complex doesn't give you the cold shoulder when your own health crisis arises.
I agree. The complete abdication of the "treatment function" by the US medical community, is a disgrace. The doctors that try to help are threatened, fired and/or called liars and quacks, usually by people who are later discredited with no consequences.
Regarding these discussions about Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and vaccines, it seems a few individuals have lost sight of the purpose of these forums.
They are places for participants to discuss their life experiments with life extension. Often people are taking strange things like c60 fullerenes, and describing their experience. Others join in, and discuss their reasons for taking them, or not taking them.
Since the politicization of Covid 19 and its treatments. and mandated vaccines, it is difficult if not impossible to have a discussion about any of it.
Large-scale trial using 600 mcg/kg of ivermectin across 6 days finds no benefit for COVID.
“Overall, most people improved their symptoms whether they took ivermectin or not,” (from the link)
Did not see, but betting this "study" was open to adults of all ages (18+). If this is the case, I would not be surprised at all to see "most people improving" whether they took IVM or not.
Dr Zelenko has repeatedly stated RISK STRATIFICATION is imperative if you wish to see statistically significant benefit with C-19 trials. With 90+% of patients 18 & over getting better whether they take anything or not, a study that does not risk stratify would need to involve millions of patients to see measurable benefit in the 10% of those where hospitalization & death are a real risk.
Don't know if recrutement was going on during the transition from Delta to Omicron, but if it was, this would be yet another confounding factor. Probably only around 3-5% of patients at high risk if you were going to stratify them during Omicron.
Will this make headlines as the "final nail in the coffin" for IVM? Probably not. The pandemic is all but over for most of the population.
As for people 'publicly berated, harassed, and threatened over any talk about using Ivermectin to treat COVID.' If your promoting something without evidence that it works while trashing a product with evidence it does work in the midst of a pandemic (say, in America), that was killing thousands of people every day and if your job was based in medical science well maybe you dont deserve that job and maybe you dont deserve to be looked up to as a source of credible and reliable information. I dont know of anyone who would have been berated if they promoted that a decent quality research into ivermectin would be beneficial to get some answers. Perhaps they were berated because they said ivermectin was the answer (just lacked the proper research step)
Ivermectin was being promoted based only on anecdotes and non blinded, non randomised research methods. Not to mention deeply flawed, conflicted and sometimes fraudulent ones. And because it was being touted as a preventative and a cure. And because numpties were taking ivermectin intended for animals and not humans (animal products may contain ingredients not fit for human consumption). Yeah, probably a good idea not to spruik it as if its the panacea to covid
Anyway it turns out Ivermectin was another thing to add to the debunked list all along anyway
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424. opens in new tab.)
From an actual proper scientific study. Not anecdotal, not corrupted. Not biased. Not fraudulent. But a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.
An analysis of 26 major trials of ivermectin for covid-19 found that over one third had “serious errors or signs of potential fraud.”7 One prominent meta-analysis that suggested a large survival benefit from the drug was retracted.6 The authors did a re-analysis and found that the effect of ivermectin on survival that they had shown in their retracted study “was dependent on the inclusion of studies with a high risk of bias or potential medical fraud.”8 The editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics published an expression of concern about another high profile meta-analysis, noting suspicious data in several of the included studies and concluding that “exclusion of the suspicious data appears to invalidate the findings regarding ivermectin’s potential to decrease the mortality of covid-19 infection.”9
Ethics scandals
Two recent ethics scandals have cast a further shadow over ivermectin research. First, a report of an experimental study in Mexico City that gave almost 200 000 ivermectin based medical kits to residents with covid-19 was retracted from the preprint server SocArXiv.10 The report was retracted, says SocArXiv’s director, because the experiment was conducted “without proper consent or appropriate ethical protections.”11 Second, in an experiment in a jail in Arkansas, USA, four incarcerated men developed severe side effects after a physician gave them high dose ivermectin as a supposed covid-19 treatment without their knowledge.10 The four men are suing the jail.
Lack of consent was not the only ethical violation in these two scandals. The research participants were exposed to a risk of drug side effects without knowing they had been given ivermectin. In Mexico, the failure to give information to the participants infringed on a human right established in Mexico’s constitution: the right to access information.12 The Arkansas case raises additional concerns as it involved incarcerated people, who risk coercion and exploitation when they are enrolled in clinical research.
It is also arguably unethical and a waste of resources to conduct drug research in an emergency that is of such low quality that no conclusions can be drawn about the drug’s efficacy. That is the situation we find ourselves in today—it is still unclear whether ivermectin is safe or has any benefit in the treatment or prevention of covid-19.13 The flawed and potentially fraudulent research represents a huge missed opportunity to answer an important research question.
Well we finally did get the data this year in the TOGETHER trial and it showed that ivermectin is not effective. I believe the best defense is vaccination. Failing that, do whatever you can to put your body in prime condition. Eat healthy, be at a good weight, ensure your levels of vitamin D3 and K2 are at optimum, (these are usually sub par in Western countries), mitigate the risk by wearing a mask if in poorly ventilated places or around lots of people you dont know when infection and transmission is high etc. The year is 2022. Follow the data that goes by the days standards. Not from centuries ago when anecdotal evidence was good enough.
If I have not included enough 'references', here is a systematic review on ivermectin. A study of studies. Once again, concludes no significant effect to taking ivermectin and it should be limited to clinical trials (as you can see, researchers were not berated for discussing ivermectin - they wanted it studied).
Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.
Ivermectin is also not without side effects or risk. Do you really want to be taking a medication every day until this pandemic is over? Is that any better for your body? I would think not. And even people that took ivermectin religiously for months, died after contracting covid anyway
Ivermectin when taken as directed for the conditions it was intended for is fine, safe and should be done with supervision from your doctor. No issue there
Being touted as a cure or preventative for covid when there was no good quality study proving the claim was stupid. It was also communicated among those touting it that you didn't/shouldn't take the vaccine as you could just take this.
Even Merck who makes the product came out calling against its use to treat covid
Covid still has a high survival rate. If you contract covid, take ivermectin will you credit the ivermectin? I'd say that chance had more to do with it.
Ivermectin is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an oral treatment for intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis and as a topical treatment for pediculosis and rosacea. It is also used as a treatment for parasites in pets and livestock. Ivermectin may decrease severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro,1,2but randomized, controlled trials have shown no clinical benefit in the prevention or treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).3Veterinary use of ivermectin has increased, and the number of prescriptions for use by humans in the United States is 24 times as high as the number before the pandemic. Moreover, the number of such prescriptions in August 2021 was 4 times as high as the number in July 2021.3,4
The Oregon Poison Center is a telephone consultative center staffed by specialty-trained nurses, pharmacists, and physicians who provide treatment advice for the public and comprehensive treatment consultation for health care workers caring for patients in Oregon, Alaska, and Guam. The center has recently received an increasing number of calls regarding ivermectin exposure related to Covid-19. The rate of calls regarding ivermectin had been 0.25 calls per month in 2020 and had increased to 0.86 calls per month from January through July 2021; in August 2021, the center received 21 calls. Monthly total call volumes for all poison exposures were stable throughout 2020 and 2021.
Of the 21 persons who called in August, 11 were men, and most were older than 60 years of age (median age, 64; range, 20 to 81). Approximately half (11 persons) were reported to have used ivermectin to prevent Covid-19, and the remaining persons had been using the drug to treat Covid-19 symptoms. Three persons had received prescriptions from physicians or veterinarians, and 17 had purchased veterinary formulations; the source of ivermectin for the remaining person was not confirmed. Symptoms had developed in most persons within 2 hours after a large, single, first-time dose. In 6 persons, symptoms had developed gradually after several days to weeks of repeated doses taken every other day or twice weekly. One person had also been taking vitamin D to treat or prevent Covid-19. Reported doses ingested by the persons who had been using veterinary products ranged from 6.8 mg to 125 mg of 1.87% paste and 20 to 50 mg of the 1% solution. The dose of the human-use tablets was 21 mg per dose twice weekly for prevention.
Six of the 21 persons were hospitalized for toxic effects from ivermectin use; all 6 reported preventive use, including the 3 who had obtained the drug by prescription. Four received care in an intensive care unit, and none died. Symptoms were gastrointestinal distress in 4 persons, confusion in 3, ataxia and weakness in 2, hypotension in 2, and seizures in 1. Of the persons who were not admitted to a hospital, most had gastrointestinal distress, dizziness, confusion, vision symptoms, or rash.
These cases illustrate the potential toxic effects of ivermectin, including severe episodes of confusion, ataxia, seizures, and hypotension, and the increasing frequency of inappropriate use. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19,3 and improper use, as well as the possible occurrence of medication interactions,5 may result in serious side effects requiring hospitalization.
Self medicating on it to treat a disease is stupid. It is even more stupid to take ivermectin intended for animal use and some clearly did.
You are looking for answers? Well we recently have the answers regarding ivermectin and its use for treating or preventing covid has been debunked. For that disease, ivermectin is worthless. Use it to treat what it was intended for. That is what it won a nobel prize for.
Two recent ethics scandals have cast a further shadow over ivermectin research. First, a report of an experimental study in Mexico City that gave almost 200 000 ivermectin based medical kits to residents with covid-19 was retracted from the preprint server SocArXiv.10 The report was retracted, says SocArXiv’s director, because the experiment was conducted “without proper consent or appropriate ethical protections.”11 Second, in an experiment in a jail in Arkansas, USA, four incarcerated men developed severe side effects after a physician gave them high dose ivermectin as a supposed covid-19 treatment without their knowledge.10 The four men are suing the jail.
Just had to point out the logical non-sequiturs here. The fact that people were not properly informed is unethical, but is not relevant to this discussion. People receiving high dosages and getting side-effects is also irrelevant to the conversation. What matters is whether or not there is any useful data - was there a benefit when Ivermectin was used.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, some of the studies investigating Ivermectin did not reach statistical significance, but if you drill down into the data, there was a benefit to Ivermectin use on almost every metric, but the effect was small.
The together trial was a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study. There is no better quality research model we have. It showed no benefit
"Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19."
The vaccine on the other hand shows real benefit in thousands of studies and data in terms of hospital admission/death prevention. These are just, facts. Maybe you dont agree with them, but facts dont care and they dont lie
The study with lack of ethics - ethics violations was not the only issue. There were concerns of fraud and conflict of interest. Regardless, we should not be condoning such unscrupulous behaviour when it comes to medical research. All of the issues the paper had pretty much made the results and trustworthiness, worthless.
People were taking high dosages and even products designed for animals believing ivermectin was a preventative. Thanks to the rhetoric of jumping to a conclusion without doing the research. This is not the way we should be moving.
Hypothesis -> research -> data -> conclusion. NOT Hypothesis -> conclusion
Up near the top of this page, I posted: DarkHorse had some interesting perspectives on the together IVM trial. Trial abnormalities, political pressure, will we ever get the full story?
A proper trial must be properly risk stratified, with prompt initiation of treatment if you wish to generate a strong signal of benefit. Seniors only, with one or more co-morbidities. Early initiation of treatment, within 3-5 days (like they did with Paxlovid).
I also point out FLCCC recognizes HCQ + Zinc as the preferred therapeutic for omicron. Here's a properly risk stratified study of HCQ with early/outpatient initiation of therapy; peer reviewed & published:
The AAPS lawsuit against the FDA is moving forward. The FDA misled the public in egregious ways in regards to ivermectin. They called it "horse de-wormer" when they knew full well it was approved for human use for decades for which the inventor won a Nobel prize.
They interfered with the doctor patient relationship, which is not the purview of the FDA. People at the FDA need to be fired and investigated in addition to being sued.
Dr John had a video today talking about IVM. At the end of the show (14:20), he states he keeps some IVM in his house "just in case he gets onchocerciasis or scabies". Says he got his stash from India.
He then opens the box to show the blister packs inside, & low and behold, around half a dozen of the blisters have been popped, & the pills dispensed & gone.
Looks like poor old John has been having quite a lot of trouble with tropical parasites up there in his UK home!
It is an interesting story. I am not under any impression that Ivermectin is a "miracle cure", but there seems to be a lot of beneficial clinical outcomes. Many of the RCT studies showed positive effects that did not reach statistical significance. Still there is a signal of positive outcomes.
What is strange is the blinding rage that was leveled against anyone suggesting the use of Ivermectin during the height of the COVID situation. Ivermectin is a very safe and beneficial drug that had been used for decades - the use of which might have positive off-label effects, even if the COVID benefits are not as substantial as originally hoped for.
The FDA is now trying to backtrack on their vitriolic anti-Ivermectin stance from the last couple of years - saying that their stance against Ivermectin was "only a suggestion". Recall that many states started to forbid any Ivermectin use after the FDA's "recommendation". Recall that doctors were threatened to lose their jobs because of the FDA's "recommendation". They knew what was happening - even if they now say they barely had nothing to do with the situation - a position which, of course, the normal media fact-checkers are running cover with. People at the FDA need to be fired and investigated.
I still cannot fathom why there was so much vitriol and rage leveraged against the use Ivermectin. It is very safe and a Nobel-prize winning medication that had been used for decades. It has multiple benefits outside of COVID. By blocking the legitimate discussion of Ivermectin, the COVID rage mob probably caused a lot of unnecessary death and distress over the last couple of years.
I still cannot fathom why there was so much vitriol and rage leveraged against the use Ivermectin
Surely that is obvious: ivermectin was weaponised and taken up by the anti-vaccine movement. These antivax activists claimed ivermectin was great alternative to COVID vaccination (which is not really true).
So ivermectin got embroiled in the war that the anti-vaccine activists had declared on science, a war they thought was a good idea to start right in the middle of the pandemic.
Even if you take the most optimistic of ivermectin studies, its abilities to reduce death were only around 2 or 3 fold. Useful, but that cannot compare to the 20-fold reduction in death that the COVID vaccines afford. Of course, other ivermectin studies showed little or no effect. And there were some fraudulent studies too. So the truth regarding ivermectin's efficacy is somewhere in between the most optimistic and the worst study results.
Had ivermectin been presented as a possible treatment option in a neutral manner, it would not have been caught up in the antivax war. But antivaxers are not interested in people's health or lives; they only want to attack vaccines, they make lots of money this way; and they weaponised ivermectin for that purpose.
It's incredible how much damage the antivaxers have caused during the pandemic. They likely killed hundreds of thousands with their messaging, and then they tried to weaponise ivermectin in their war against science, dragging a potential useful innocent drug into an ugly and highly political antivax war.
I will take the evidence from Doctors treating covid victims, that report it works. As opposed to people like you that claim it does not work, with no information to back it up.
The people, like you, that have prevented early treatment with Ivermectin, and Hydroxy, will one day pay a price, for the lives lost for no early treatment.
You, and others like you have caused thousands of needless deaths by preventing early deaths, by preventing people's access to these proven drugs.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Advice? Stop your trolling, and hope people forget who you are.
Edited by joesixpack, 30 December 2022 - 08:16 AM.
I will take the evidence from Doctors treating covid victims, that report it works. As opposed to people like you that claim it does not work, with no information to back it up.
The people, like you, that have prevented early treatment with Ivermectin, and Hydroxy, will one day pay a price, for the lives lost for no early treatment.
You, and others like you have caused thousands of needless deaths by preventing early deaths, by preventing people's access to these proven drugs.
As I have pointed out before, during the pandemic, hundreds of drugs, supplements and other treatments were touted as potential COVID treatments.
Do you really expect a hospital to pump COVID patients full of hundreds of pills, in the hope that one of those pills might work, and in the hope that none of them will make the patient worse?
Some trials showed that hydroxychloroquine made COVID patients worse. Given that outcome, how ethical is it to ply patients with HCQ if it might make them die more quickly? This is quite a toxic drug; it actually starts to cause retinal damage after many years of use.
That's what happens if you abandon evidence in medicine. You don't know where you are, and you may harm patients.
I've also pointed out before that treatments like ivermectin might have received a warmer reception if they had not been exploited by antivaxers for political purposes. The message was not that ivermectin might be helpful, the message was that you should take ivermectin instead of the vaccine. That embroiled ivermectin in a political war, and hampered scientific discourse.
So not only are the antivaxers responsible for killing hundreds of thousands by promoting fear of vaccines, they are also responsible for impeding the scientific discourse on ivermectin. But of course, nobody calls for prosecution of Mercola or Kennedy on this forum. Which shows the bias here.
As I have pointed out before, during the pandemic, hundreds of drugs, supplements and other treatments were touted as potential COVID treatments.
This is the association fallacy. You say since some have touted some alternative treatments that don't work, all alternative treatments don't work.
Do you really expect a hospital to pump COVID patients full of hundreds of pills, in the hope that one of those pills might work, and in the hope that none of them will make the patient worse?
This is the strawman fallacy. You accuse your opponents of things they never said to weaken their argument so you can knock it down.
Some trials showed that hydroxychloroquine made COVID patients worse. Given that outcome, how ethical is it to ply patients with HCQ if it might make them die more quickly? This is quite a toxic drug; it actually starts to cause retinal damage after many years of use.
That's what happens if you abandon evidence in medicine. You don't know where you are, and you may harm patients.
The evidence that Ivermectin works is absolutely overwhelming: https://c19ivm.org/ . You should be ashamed of yourself for advocating against it. Remdesivir turned out to be an extremely toxic drug with no history of safe use, yet it was approved immediately.
I've also pointed out before that treatments like ivermectin might have received a warmer reception if they had not been exploited by antivaxers for political purposes. The message was not that ivermectin might be helpful, the message was that you should take ivermectin instead of the vaccine. That embroiled ivermectin in a political war, and hampered scientific discourse.
For political purposes? What kind of political purposes, like saving lives and not having a complete disaster in VAERS when it comes to vaccine side effects. People who were way more interested in earning political points with the medical authorities were the ones who were obsessed with politicizing the drugs.
Edited by abelard lindsay, 31 December 2022 - 02:32 AM.
Surely that is obvious: ivermectin was weaponised and taken up by the anti-vaccine movement. These antivax activists claimed ivermectin was great alternative to COVID vaccination (which is not really true).
So ivermectin got embroiled in the war that the anti-vaccine activists had declared on science, a war they thought was a good idea to start right in the middle of the pandemic.
Even if you take the most optimistic of ivermectin studies, its abilities to reduce death were only around 2 or 3 fold. Useful, but that cannot compare to the 20-fold reduction in death that the COVID vaccines afford. Of course, other ivermectin studies showed little or no effect. And there were some fraudulent studies too. So the truth regarding ivermectin's efficacy is somewhere in between the most optimistic and the worst study results.
Had ivermectin been presented as a possible treatment option in a neutral manner, it would not have been caught up in the antivax war. But antivaxers are not interested in people's health or lives; they only want to attack vaccines, they make lots of money this way; and they weaponised ivermectin for that purpose.
It's incredible how much damage the antivaxers have caused during the pandemic. They likely killed hundreds of thousands with their messaging, and then they tried to weaponise ivermectin in their war against science, dragging a potential useful innocent drug into an ugly and highly political antivax war.
This is the association fallacy. You say since some have touted some alternative treatments that don't work, all alternative treatments don't work.
Are you not falling for the bandwagon fallacy — where something is believed merely because a significant percentage of the population believe it?
At the beginning of the pandemic, there was no evidence for any treatments. As time went on, some caught the public imagination, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and many people put blind faith in the efficacy of these treatments, even though evidence was very thin at the early stages, and there were conflicting studies, with some studies reporting negative results, others positive. In the case of ivermectin, there were even fraudulent studies, showing a positive result, but where the data had been cooked.
The people with paranoia on this forum of course said the studies which found negative results were "designed to fail", claiming that big pharma manipulated the studies to make them fail.
And there was this bandwagon of the general public who believed that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were miracle COVID treatments which were being ignored or suppressed by the authorities or big pharma.
Yet systematic reviews and meta analyses have conflicting results for efficacy of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. But don't just take my word for it, Google it yourself.
The evidence that Ivermectin works is absolutely overwhelming: https://c19ivm.org/ . You should be ashamed of yourself for advocating against it. Remdesivir turned out to be an extremely toxic drug with no history of safe use, yet it was approved immediately.
More of the bandwagon fallacy. You find a website saying ivermectin works, so you believe it without question. But the actual studies are equivocal. There is one theory that ivermectin only works in 3rd world countries, where there is a high prevalence of Strongyloides infections. During COVID, especially when corticosteroids are used, Strongyloides can flair up, and that may be the cause of death. But ivermectin is an effective treatment for Strongyloides.
I am not against people taking ivermectin if they have COVID. It is a cheap and safe drug, and if you want to take it, fine. But it may not necessarily offer any benefit.
For political purposes? What kind of political purposes, like saving lives and not having a complete disaster in VAERS when it comes to vaccine side effects. People who were way more interested in earning political points with the medical authorities were the ones who were obsessed with politicizing the drugs.
Antivaxers are not interested in saving lives, their only interest is promoting the antivax credo. It's like a religion to them. Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved in the US alone if everyone got vaccinated. The antivax messaging killed them.
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
