The Ivermectin discussion
Comments
-
I would agree with you if PureIsle was just repeating the same thing with the same evidence from his point of view. But this does not seem to be the case. From what I can see PureIsle is his newer posts has brought new evidence from his point of view. So if he is to be responded to the new evidence should be addressed rather then just dismissing him.
0 -
You will have go help me find this "new Evidence" then as I am not seeing it. As I said already in my post - you can just look at his most recent link for starters. What "new evidence" is in that link? Or the post accompanying this link?
I can find none in either.
In the latter I find a comment about people who claimed it "never happened" or people who claimed ivermectin was not in the information packs. But I am struggling to find anyone who has been denying either of these things? Have you found any/many? Point me to them. So it would see the post itself is commenting on things that have happened little - if at all. Not a good start.
In the former all I can find nothing new either. It is once again just discussing the "pack" and what was in it. We have had the contents of the pack listed numerous times on this thread.
If you can find anything in the post or the link that has not been discussed and dealt with numerous times before - you will find me ready and willing to discuss and deal with it. I can see nothing. But I am not perfect. I can miss things. So by all means help me out here.
2 -
It appears the New Hampshire legislature is trying to level the playing field for access to Ivermectin.
New Hampshire House Bill 1022 proposes to allow pharmacists to dispense the drug ivermectin by means of a standing order, in an apparent attempt to allow doctors to prescribe this medicine without fear of retaliation from various entities.
The board of pharmacy shall not deny, revoke, suspend, or otherwise take disciplinary action against
a physician, an advanced practice registered nurse or pharmacist who is involved in dispensing Ivermectin under the provisions of the act.
0 -
Now that both the House and Senate have passed HB 2280, per the new legislative process in Kansas the bill goes before the state’s governor, Laura Kelly ...
Senate Passes Medical Freedom Bill Allowing Ivermectin Use in Kansas
https://trialsitenews.com/senate-passes-medical-freedom-bill-allowing-ivermectin-use-in-kansas/
0 -
Advertisement
-
It is disappointing that doctors are allowed prescribe snake oil. The whole Ivermectin discussion is an unfortunate example of how dangerous medical misinformation can be. Based on all serious studies Ivermectin is at best a placebo when it comes to Covid treatment and for all practical purposes is at best useless. If people opt for this drug instead of something that actually works like vaccines or other proven treatments they are putting their lives in danger.
The decision by the Kanas state government is meaningless when it comes to how effective the drug actually is. If this is the best evidence Ivermectin advocates have for its effectiveness its admission that there is no scientific evidence to back up Ivermectin when it comes to Covid treatment. It's no different to when the Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy for promoting the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The Catholic Churchs decision didn't change scientific fact.
3 -
It is disappointing that doctors are allowed prescribe snake oil.
I find it very odd that you would think
'It is disappointing that doctors are allowed prescribe off-label medicines.'
Very odd indeed.
Contrary to what you posted, at best many lives would be saved by taking Ivermectin if it is effective and at worst the recipients would be worm free if it has no effect on a SARS-2 infection or Covid illness.
As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.
Also they introduce a risk for those who receive the injections, producing lots of side effects, some of which are serious and can lead to death.
The idea that doctors should be prevented from making their best effort for their patients is abhorrent to me. Of course this is most likely due to me believing that is what those doctors were trained for.
But maybe I am wrong and politicians are the ones who should make those medical decisions.
1 -
You haven't posted a single credible study that shows Ivermectin works when it comes to Covid not one. And given that science is built on people trying to prove each other wrong any effective treatment will have multiple studies demonstrating a treatment is effective. Calling Ivermectin snake oil when it comes to Covid treatment is calling it exactly what it is, it is as effective when it comes to Covid treatment as snake oil.
Vaccines work when it comes to Covid. A perfect example is Hong Kong who's health system is currently being overwhelmed by Covid. Their biggest issue is that a significant number of older individuals (for Covid the older you are the higher risk you have of severe complications) remain unvaccinated. And alot of those that are vaccinated opted for the China made vaccine which is less effective than the Pfzier vaccine which is also available there. Now take Ireland which has a vaccination rate of over 90% when it comes to Covid and we have no restrictions. While we have high cases only a fraction of those cases require hospital treatment and even less require ICU treatment. You can swap out Ireland for other countries with high vaccination levels you will see the same effect. To say that vaccines don't work you have to ignore all the clinical trials and real world examples over the last year plus at this stage.
And your reply demonstrates the exact issue with snake oil proponents like yourself. You are promoting a drug that does not work for Covid treatment while telling people that vaccines don't work. This is absolute rubbish putting things very mildly.
Ivermectin doesn't work when it comes to Covid. It's unfortunate for the people of Kansas that their politicians have fallen for this crazy conspiracy theory.
Post edited by PeadarCo on3 -
Just to add when it comes to approving what exact medicines doctors should be allowed prescribe politicians should have no direct involvement. Most politicians have no medical training and even fewer have the training and experience required to actually make an educated decision. The case of Kansas is a perfect example of what happens when politicians try to micro manage drug approval. Snake oil gets approved for treatment for conditions where they don't work. If people get treated with a useless drug, some of those people will die as by the time it's realised the treatment is useless it will be too late to put them on an effective drug. This goes for all treatments. It also allows scam artists to get scams approved by fooling people who have no real medical and pharmaceutical education.
1 -
You are promoting a drug that does not work for Covid treatment while telling people that vaccines don't work.
You really do like to twist things to your own viewpoint - suit yourself.
I never said vaccines do not work ...... but if you think I did maybe you will quote where I said that? No? Cannot find it?
As for promoting Ivermectin .... not done that either ....... but in case I am mistaken maybe you will quote me telling others they should take this medicine in place of vaccines? No? Cannot find that either?
As I have posted previously, this is an Ivermectin thread and I post information I find in which I think others might have an interest.
I will continue to do so despite your long winded posts, so waste your time all you like.
Post edited by PureIsle on0 -
Advertisement
-
You said in your post that vaccines are not an effective health measure. That basically saying don't get a vaccine. You said they don't prevent death from Covid. Thats saying vaccines don't work. That's flat out rubbish. They are the reason there is no need for restrictions despite the current wave of infection. Again compare Hong Kong to Ireland for a real world example of how good vaccines are.
You are promoting a conspiracy theory and spreading misinformation. If you are not promoting Ivermectin what is the purpose of your posts in a Covid forum. Invecterim is useless when it comes to Covid treatment and it's of no interest to anyone looking to treat Covid.
Your posts about Ivermectin are classic science denial. Pretend to be neutral. Cast doubt on vaccines, post "information" about some conspiracy theory. Yes you haven't outright said you should take Ivermectin instead of vaccines but you've done pretty much everything else. I think your message is obvious. For a classic example in another area take flat earthers. A lot of them will not say the earth is flat outright but will point out issues they believe the globe model has. When these issues are explained they will ignore the evidence presented and just change their problems and the whole process just repeats infinitely. Your posts follow the same pattern of standard science denial.
If you really thought vaccines were effective you wouldn't have said the opposite and you wouldn't be posting information about a drug that when it comes to Covid treatment at least is as effective as snake oil.
Also I realise you find my posts long winded but understand they are not aimed at yourself. They are aimed at people who may not be familiar with the tactics of science deniers and how they spread misinformation.
The problem with science denial and medicine is that people die when the listen to science deniers(in the case of Ivermectin at least I think/hope so) and scammers (ie people who actually sell treatments that don't work)
3 -
You said in your post that vaccines are not an effective health measure. That basically saying don't get a vaccine. You said they don't prevent death from Covid. Thats saying vaccines don't work. That's flat out rubbish.
Yet again putting your own interpretation on what was posted. You really should read and try to understand.
If you are not promoting Ivermectin what is the purpose of your posts in a Covid forum.
This is an IVERMECTIN thread. Failure to read and understand yet again?
For those still interested in this subject here is a very short video which should be of interest
0 -
I'd advise you to read your own posts before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. See a copy of you quote about vaccines
"they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid"
Thats all rubbish. Again compare countries with high vaccination rates with low vaccination. Ie Ireland V Hong Kong at the moment. Don't get upset when you called out. Everyone reading this thread can read your posts.
Also so what conspiracy theorists and or science denialists are still interested in Ivermectin, so what? There is no scientific evidence to suggest Ivermectin is effective against Covid. At this stage there is no meaningful discussion about Ivermectin when it comes to Covid treatment. And unless there is some dramatic new evidence Ivermectin when it comes to Covid treatment is only of interest to Conspiracy theorists and people who reject actual proven Covid treatments and preventative measures.
2 -
But, but... he's just linked a video from Gbeebies. That's all the proof you need!
1 -
"they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid"
Thats all rubbish.
Tell that to all the vaccinated people in hospital with Covid and to the families of the vaccinated who died from Covid.
They are as likely to believe you as I am.
For those who might have forgotten what I wrote, I quote it here
As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.
Disagree all you wish, your attitude will not change the facts.
0 -
So you are saying practically the entire scientific community that vaccines don't work? Please understand the effectiveness of vaccines is verified by basically every major health organisation going. Again for a real world example compare Ireland and Hong Kong. Look at hospitaltions rares between vaccinated an unvaccinated groups, especially in high risk groups. There is plenty of evidence that unvaccinated people are overrepresented in hospital wards when it comes to dealing with Covid. I can keep going and start posting links if you want. What's your evidence that practically the entire scientific community and nearly every major health authority is wrong? And I mean evidence not a link to some random conspiracy theorist.
Based on what we know, Ivermectin is about as effective as tap water when it comes to Covid treatment. But this is the thing about the whole Ivermectin discussion is a nice camouflage for various types of anti vaxxers, Covid and science denialists in general. Pick a drug that has an actual proven medical use(not Covid related) and construct a conspiracy around it.
You mention people dying even though they got the vaccine remember vaccines are not 100% effective especially where people have preexisting conditions. 100% effectiveness was never promised. Please understand the misinformation you and other people are spreading about Ivermectin will and has caused needless deaths. That's the unfortunate thing about conspiracy theories and scams that relate to medicine. They are not cost free. Vulnerable people listen to them and die as result.
1 -
You mention people dying even though they got the vaccine remember vaccines are not 100% effective ...
How effective are the vaccines against death from Covid (edit)?
How effective are they against development of Covid?
How effective are they against infection?
How effective are they against shredding of the virus?
What can you refer to, to support your claim of a percentage effectiveness?
Let us see what percentages you quote and what supporting evidence you have for your claims.
You do realise that what you just posted is in agreement with what I posted?
No? You fail to realise even that?
Read what I wrote yet again ...... and pay particular attention to what I wrote and not what you would like me to have written so that you might have some basis for attacking it.
You really do need to bring some comprehension to reading what is written.
Here it is again, so you do not have to go look back
As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.
Post edited by PureIsle on0 -
This is dangerous nonsense, utterly without merit or foundation. Anyone pushing the use of Ivermectin instead of vaccines is not doing so on the basis of scientific evidence, which is what you are now attempting to use this thread to do.
Anyone claiming vaccines do not prevent death has left the platform called science, and entered the territory called conspiracy theory. It was already skirting that territory already with some of the fake news posted about Ivermectin but now it has gone full blown.
The thread has been hijacked and turned into a anti vaccine platform.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
1 -
Anyone claiming vaccines do not prevent death has left the platform called science, and entered the territory called conspiracy theory.
Yet another one who does not wish to recognise facts.
On what basis do you claim that the vaccines prevent death from Covid?
How do you explain the death from Covid of those who were vaccinated?
The thread has been hijacked and turned into a anti vaccine platform.
Yes indeed and you have contributed to that. I suggest you take the matter up with the poster who introduced vaccines into this thread.
0 -
Here's what a quick Google search turned up. 5 different links from a variety of sources. There is lots lots more stuff I could get. And realise no evidence has being supplied to back up Ivermectin effectiveness against Covid. Or at least any evidence that stood up to any remote scrutiny.
The issue with promoting snake oil is that vulnerable people believe it and die as a result of not following effective treatments and other effective preventative measures. And in the context of Covid treatment and prevention Ivermectin is snake oil based on current data.
1 -
Advertisement
-
What are those supposed to show me?
Where are the peer reviewed independent studies? Surely you expect the same types of studies for these as you do for your "snake oil"?
Referring to your links ...
Where are the data for effectiveness ? Links:
1st ...... just some claims by WHO and they do not even show the data on which they base those claims. No Data.
2nd .... A news story with unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness. No Data.
3rd ....... This does not disagree with what I have posted. There is no claim that the jabs prevent anything .... is that peer reviewed ? I could see no reference.
Conclusions: The COVID-19 vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2-related diseases in real-world settings.
What about declarations by authors of any connection to 'interested' parties? Maybe I missed those but if so I expect you can point them out to me.
4th ...... Irish times repeating press releases from pharma companies. No Data.
5th ....... yet another pharma claim from April 2021 before any real world data of substance was available, with all the historic baggage the those pharma companies bring with them.
Nowhere in any of those are there claims (not even by the pharma companies) that the products prevent infection, illness or death.
Look at some real world data from the past year and see that yes there are among the vaccinated
- deaths
- severe illness
- infections ...... it appears from the UK numbers recently that the vaccinated are getting infected as a much higher rate than the unvaccinated. So not only do the vaccines not prevent infection but it is a cause of concern that the vax might be causing positive test results (infection).
That is all a far cry from these injections preventing anything.
We also had the situation in Waterford where there was nearly 100% vax rate producing huge numbers of infections.
You might call that prevention of infection, but I most definitely do not.
Try to think about it logically ..... if these vaccines prevented infections then that is all that would be needed to stop this thing in its tracks, once a sizeable proportion of the population was vaccinated.
It must be obvious, even to you, that this is not the case.
0 -
They show you vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness and death from Covid. The fact that this has be explained to you in March 2022 is crazy. Understand prevent does not mean eliminate. It was never promised that if you got the vaccine you would never get Covid or potentially die from Covid. When the vaccine was Pfizer vaccine was approved it was on the basis of it being 95% effective against serious illness and death which has been borne out by time. If you actually read the links I sent you will see that. Here's another link that shows effective the vaccine is.
Have I linked peer reviewed honestly I don't know, I just did a quick Google search. But what's the point going through the effort if you cannot understand the simplified version. You aren't going to be able to understand a scientific journal. And also you will just change the goal posts or do as you have done here and just ignore the evidence. It's been your tactic the whole way through with Ivermectin. Can I ask you what proof do you need to understand that vaccines work?
You have constructed a strawman. You say vaccines don't work because people get Covid. If that's your standard for the vaccine working then no medical treatment is effective because practically no medical treatment is 100% effective. However your standard is not the standard used by the medical profession and by health authorities world wide.
And to bring it back to Ivermectin, Ivermectin is as beneficial as tap water in relation to Covid ie useless. You hold vaccines to a ludicrously high standard while promoting Ivermectin even though you know its snake oil in relation to Covid.
1 -
Oh look.
The ivermectin conspiracy guy now thinks vaccines are a sham.
I did NOT see that coming.
1 -
You can be sure if Ivermectin had the volumes of real scientific data backing its effectiveness that Pfizer vaccine had... and the only vaccine was rejected by FDA but backed by rogue doctors in grainy overlong youtube videos... they would be defending the vaccine.
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
1 -
There you go again ..... making up things you claim I said that I never did.
As you apparently are incapable of understanding what is written I see no purpose in writing much further for you to misinterpret,
You say vaccines don't work because people get Covid.
No I did not. That is your, I believe now deliberate, misinterpretation of what I wrote.
I challenge you to quote me in context.
Also for your education you should look up the meaning of "prevent".
But I suspect it is pointless as you seem incapable of understanding English.
If that is because English is not your first language then you should say so.
Otherwise read and comprehend before making silly mistakes due to not understanding simple English words.
0 -
Ah the three musketeers are here together.
Welcome guys/gals.
I hope you are all well.
😀
As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.
0 -
A well designed trial published in the world's most respected journal concludes... ivermectin doesn't work. Literally no better than placebo.
There's no more debate.
1 -
The fact that you feel the need to insult me just sums up your lack of evidence. We all read what you post. Don't get upset about being called out posting anti vax nonsense. It's obvious that you don't think vaccines work. You say that yourself This is a direct quote "
"they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials."
Anyone can read the post where you say this.
But I'm afraid that quote is all rubbish. Your point about clinical trials indicates you actually don't understand those results in the first place and or have already dismissed them. The clinical trials for Pfizer vaccine said it was 95% effective against serious illness and death. No mention about people not getting Covid, spreading it etc just serious illness and death. And at the end of the day the main purpose of restrictions has always been to prevent the health service being overloaded.
For a real world indication of the importance of Covid vaccines I'd advise you to look at Hong Kong and the damage done to its unvaccinated population and compare that to Ireland and any other country with high levels of vaccination.
For ultimate context you mention vaccines being ineffective while posting in a thread about a drug that doesn't work when it comes to Covid treatment. Ivermectin doesn't work if it did the company who makes the drug would get it approved for Covid treatment.
I appreciate you find my posts long winded but understand they are addressed not to you but to anyone reading who is on the fence and not familiar with the tactics of science deniers. Anyone who thinks Covid vaccines don't work and puts their hope in a random conspiracy theory won't change their opinion because of my posts.
0 -
I was very surprised to note that the trial started with a single dose and later switched to a 3 dose regime.
Very odd.
Then it was apparently cut short?
But what concerned me most along with the short duration of medicating was the late start ...... maybe 8 days after symptoms appear.
It has been well written up that the dosing with ivermectin should start immediately symptoms appear or asap after. Of course it would be better again to take it as a prophylaxis.
There are more 'concerns' in the article I linked.
Maybe some of them have been addressed with the last release of the document as linked.
EDIT: I forgot to add this link giving details of the trial protocol
0 -
Advertisement
-
We have many conflicting peer reviewed papers when it comes to Ivermectin in relation to covid. I don't know enough about research and drug trials to understand which are true. Such conflicting papers over something so important is very concerning.
What I do notice is that the mainstream media only report on the papers that show Ivermectin as having no value in relation to covid.
The paper you linked to was published yesterday in the New England Journal (I don’t think it is peer reviewed yet) shows Ivermectin as not working. This is been widely reported in the mainstream media already. For example - https://www.theage.com.au/national/major-study-confirms-ivermectin-useless-against-covid-19-20220330-p5a9bp.html
I’d expect many more reports on this paper in the mainstream media in the coming days.
But this peer reviewed paper published on the 15th January that shows Ivermectin as working against covid got no mainstream media reports that I am aware of - https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
Such conflicting papers to me is very confusing. And just to add to the confusion here is an article picking holes in the Together Trial that was used for the paper you linked to that’s published in the New England Journal since yesterday.
https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/what-went-wrong-with-the-together?s=r
Personally I remain open minded to Ivermectin but in no way have the expertise or knowledge to make a judgement. Either way this episode has made me trust the mainstream media less.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
