nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Ivermectin discussion

wadacrack

This appears to have gone under the radar but Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19 in studies. Very promising.

Video by John Campbell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWQtT7dHGE

Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Ballynally

drunkmonkey wrote: »

hmmm you need to look at the guidelines for early intervention issued on the 22nd of April in India, those products you mention are all recommend now due to updated guidance. The WHO had put India under pressure to stop using them and now says they should only be used as part of a clinical trial. India has went out on its own and ignored them after discontinuing Ivermectin in early November and restating it's use in April.

Yes, people are finally waking up.
All you need to do is focus on those areas in which Ivermectin has been introduced and watch the graph to see the numbers go down rapidly.
Even within countries comparing states (like in India*) which is even a better indication.
Places like Mexico which has adapted Ivermectin early on.
I mean, at this stage there is actually no need to prove Ivermectin anymore.Just go compare. Investigate.
But no, it is almost as if everybody has copied and pasted the same false mantras over and over. A danger to the vaccine rollout.

But, the tides are turning. At least on the anti viral medicine front.
No, not Ivermectin.
Biden pushed 3 billion towards Pharma to get going. They will.
But Ivermectin! Nah, we are not going to look at it.

*look at India:
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

astrofool

Invermectin is out of patent, any company can create a generic and supply it if they want to.

Dexamethasone is similarly cheap and well tested, yet is being used, if invermectin worked, there's no reason not to use it, no one stopping a study being done properly, getting results and getting it approved.

No study, even favorable, shows invermectin being anywhere near as effective as vaccines.

Invermectin isn't an anti-viral, it's an anti-parasite medicine that has some anti-viral properties at relatively higher doses.

There's a good paper here in the British Medical Journal that goes into detail on the studies and the problems with those studies:
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

Ballynally

snnowwy wrote: »

Anyone know of any Irish doctors who have commented on this?

All if not most european doctors will not prescribe an non authorised drug.
In the EU the use of Ivermectin for SarsCov2 is contra indicated.
You will have to get it from a vet and/or go online.
. I myself got some Noromectin oral paste for horses from Hyperdrug Pharmaceuticals.

Anybody commenting, posting negatively about Ivermectin is simply not well informed, refusing to investigate the data, virtue signalling, making simplistic, biased statements and/ or take swallow official channels' propaganda whole sale.
It is such a danger to official health bodies that there is a concentrated effort to silence anything to do w Ivermectin and includes newspapers, Youtube, Facebook, TV and many others channels.
Why?
Two main reasons: 1: a cheap, generic, effective and safe medicine without heavy duty side effects, 4 billion doses administered.
2: the chance that it might slow the vaccine rollout because it works.
Both reasons are enough for Pharma to go against it.
No money to be made and possible loss of income from vaccines.
If you by now do not see the revolving door between regulating bodies and pharma you need to be educated. Go and read 'bad pharma' by Ben Goldacre.
You might not believe me. I accept that. You might think i am misleading you.
Even that is ok. Dismiss me if you like. You might come to different conclusions. Accepted.
There is one overwhelming piece of evidence i can present and you can investigate.
The Biden administration has created a 3 billion investment funds for pharmaceutical companies to search for a , wait for it, ANTI VIRAL medicine for Covid19. So, that is big money towards a new, unknown but patented drug yet to be developed. Money upfront paid f by US citizens.
Instead of investigating old, generic treatments like Ivermectin for its efficacy.
Fun fact, Merck is already ahead of the curve with a new, Ivermectin like medicine with a combined molecule structure. 'Improved' no doubt and for a 'proper' price, patented.
And the company which put out Ivermectin in the 1970s?
You guessed it, Merck. New label, tweaked formula w slightly different molecular structure. Ready to conquer the world.
3 billion $ wasted.
I rest my case.

[Deleted User]

snnowwy wrote: »

Anyone know of any Irish doctors who have commented on this?

No. The fear of ruination is real.

snnowwy

Anyone know of any Irish doctors who have commented on this?

Johnboy1951

Wolf359f wrote: »

89 patients... Why do they be using such a tiny sample size?
Pfizer has approved for full FDA approval and you know what they say, prevention is better than a cure.

I'm sure Ivermectin would also have to be approved for use to treat covid. Can't just use smarties in dozens of trials, just to get the right outcome in one and then sell smarties as a cure etc...

So you studied the report and that is your comment?

There are none so blind as those that will not see!

Wolf359f

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1

Full study text
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1.full.pdf

and finally a video which helps us understand the content and the implications of the study results ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV2H6_0i4f0

Of course if such a treatment were to be accepted, then the 'vaccines' would have to be withdrawn from their 'emergency use' (USA) because it is not permitted to approve emergency use where there is an alternative treatment for a disease.

That would surely upset a number of pharma companies and their associates.

89 patients... Why do they be using such a tiny sample size?
Pfizer has approved for full FDA approval and you know what they say, prevention is better than a cure.

I'm sure Ivermectin would also have to be approved for use to treat covid. Can't just use smarties in dozens of trials, just to get the right outcome in one and then sell smarties as a cure etc...

Johnboy1951

Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1

Full study text
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1.full.pdf

In conclusion, our study strongly supports the notion that ivermectin has anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity.

and finally a video which helps us understand the content and the implications of the study results ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV2H6_0i4f0

Of course if such a treatment were to be accepted, then the 'vaccines' would have to be withdrawn from their 'emergency use' (USA) because it is not permitted to approve emergency use where there is an alternative treatment for a disease.

That would surely upset a number of pharma companies and their associates.

is_that_so

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Dr. John is getting insistent also - asking for official comment on Ivermectin .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJSUKDng_Ww

Dr John is a dead, very cool, musician! This is a YouTube pundit who seems to imagine we should listen to them because they have a title. If tests show it may be a worthwhile addition vis a vis other tools we'll hear about it. TBH there is so much other research and development happening that is probably unlikely to be the case.

Piollaire

I'm about to get vaccinated and am now going to stop taking Ivermectin as a prophylaxis which I had to acquire illegitimately.

Johnboy1951

Dr. John is getting insistent also - asking for official comment on Ivermectin .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJSUKDng_Ww

speckle

All of the above post is a bit out of date ..that website have posted a newer link with a fuller account of the events at the journal.

Moot point anyhow it has now been peer reviewed and passed a second time and now is published

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

People might want to look at Goa on top of Uttar Pradesh and their use of ivermectin and a drop in cases and the Indian Bar association are taking a case against the WHO regarding disinformation and suppression of Ivermectin...

https://trialsitenews.com/indian-bar-association-serves-legal-notice-upon-dr-soumya-swaminathan-the-chief-scientist-who/

Does anyone know how the trial of Ivermectin is getting on in the two Irish hospitals..surely it has started by now? If I remember correctly it is only for serious patients not mild or for use as a prophylactic.. rooting for it and anyone on it as we do need treatments asap as vaxs dont work for absolutely for everyone or the minority with previous adverse reactions etc. People always seem to forget these groups.

Anyhow if interested in following to see what happens one way or the other...probably will have news of the results first here..

https://mobile.twitter.com/Covid19Critical

Smee_Again

Jack_K wrote: »

A list of the physicians involved are here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/the-flccc-physicians/
With info on their backgrounds here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/flccc-alliance-contributions-to-the-field-of-medicine/

They were set up during early Covid.

And they're not having much luck pushing their mininformation, which is good.

The editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology have taken down an article about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. The paper, which was written by members of an organization called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), had been provisionally accepted and posted in abstract form by the journal in January, but was ultimately rejected this Monday (March 1). The editors determined that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies.

During review of the article in what the journal refers to as “the provisional acceptance phase,” Fenter says in the statement, members of Frontiers’s research integrity team identified “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.”

The statement continues: “Further, the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment which is inappropriate for a review article and against our editorial policies. In our view, this paper does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”

The part in bold (mine) is interesting because these doctors have argued its unethical to give placebos to patients, so basically we just have to take their word that it works.

That's not really how it works.

Also Kory resigned from one position because he was calling for patients to be treated with steroids and again didn't have the data to back the efficacy of this treatment, seems to be a regular occurrence with him.

LINK

[Deleted User]

Smee_Again wrote: »

When was the Critical Care Alliance set up and who is involved in it?

A list of the physicians involved are here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/the-flccc-physicians/
With info on their backgrounds here https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/flccc-alliance-contributions-to-the-field-of-medicine/

They were set up during early Covid.

Smee_Again

Jack_K wrote: »

Great podcast here with Dr Pierre Kory from the Critical Care Alliance on the benefits of Ivermectin in relation to Covid - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k

Plenty more info here on Ivermectin as a tool to end Covid - https://covid19criticalcare.com/

When was the Critical Care Alliance set up and who is involved in it?

speckle

India

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19o5NpfLxYw

[Deleted User]

Great podcast here with Dr Pierre Kory from the Critical Care Alliance on the benefits of Ivermectin in relation to Covid - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k

Plenty more info here on Ivermectin as a tool to end Covid - https://covid19criticalcare.com/

xhomelezz

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Bajaj Healthcare soars on launching Ivermectin tablets for COVID-19 treatment
By Capital Market | Last Updated at May 06 2021 13:16 IST

Bajaj Healthcare (BHL) jumped 6.32% to Rs 624 after the company announced the launch of an anti-parasitic Ivermectin tablets, under the brand name Ivejaj, now widely used in control & treatment for COVID-19.

BHL has received approval from India's drug regulator, to manufacture and market "Ivejaj" the oral Ivermectin approved medication in India for the treatment of COVID-19 from 6 May 2021.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/bajaj-healthcare-soars-on-launching-ivermectin-tablets-for-covid-19-treatment-121050600564_1.html

Still not a word, if it works or not.. But for sure you can enjoy worm free life.

drunkmonkey

Bajaj Healthcare soars on launching Ivermectin tablets for COVID-19 treatment
By Capital Market | Last Updated at May 06 2021 13:16 IST

Bajaj Healthcare (BHL) jumped 6.32% to Rs 624 after the company announced the launch of an anti-parasitic Ivermectin tablets, under the brand name Ivejaj, now widely used in control & treatment for COVID-19.

BHL has received approval from India's drug regulator, to manufacture and market "Ivejaj" the oral Ivermectin approved medication in India for the treatment of COVID-19 from 6 May 2021.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/bajaj-healthcare-soars-on-launching-ivermectin-tablets-for-covid-19-treatment-121050600564_1.html

Lumen

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If you have links to such studies which 'debunk' those claims, I would appreciate your posting them.

That's not how medical science works, obviously

LuckyLloyd

The burden of proof doesn’t fall on the other side.

And “proof” of safety and efficacy isn’t the random small sample hospital level studies cited above.

Johnboy1951

hmmm wrote: »

From what I can see Ivermectin was initially promoted by the same accounts who promoted Hydroxychloroquine back in the day. If I remember rightly the intention of the Hydroxy promoters, who were mostly tied to conservative interests in the US who wanted to downplay the pandemic, was to give the public the idea that there was a cure and therefore the pandemic could be ignored.

Once that was throughly debunked, they've moved on to Ivermectin as the miracle cure, and even better this time they can claim that the "cure" is not available because it is being actively suppressed by governments/big pharma/insertwhoeveryoulikehere.

All these things get amplified by Russian & Chinese misinformation bots who like to see arguments started in Western countries, and they'll happily play both sides in order to try and play up internal conflict. The snowball effect means that this gets picked up by ordinary people, and for whatever reason (hearing it from trusted friends, conspiratorial thoughts being triggered, a need to feel they are better informed) they then get on board the train and feel they need to spread the word.

If you look at a history of disinformation you'll see very quickly that this was effectively a weapon, and it emerged out of Cold War attempts to overthrow governments on both sides of the iron curtain. The same people who would have been involved in this have refined their tactics, and the use of social media has amplified their ability to use these weapons.

There was no -cure- claimed, but definitely an efficacious treatment claim.

BTW I would point out that I have not seen a proper independent double blind study of treatment, as recommended by those who use such treatments, which debunks those treatments, for hydroxycloroquine or Ivermectin.
Yes there are reports of the results of using those in very weird ways (super high dosage etc) but none using the full treatments which are claimed to be efficacious.

If you have links to such studies which 'debunk' those claims, I would appreciate your posting them.

drunkmonkey

hmmm you need to look at the guidelines for early intervention issued on the 22nd of April in India, those products you mention are all recommend now due to updated guidance. The WHO had put India under pressure to stop using them and now says they should only be used as part of a clinical trial. India has went out on its own and ignored them after discontinuing Ivermectin in early November and restating it's use in April.

hmmm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What are people exposed to online that makes them come on here spamming this stuff for posts at a time? Ivermectin is for treatment of parasites in animals and two very specific worms in humans. The FDA are very clearly warning it is not to be used by humans as a cure for Covid 19 as no safety trials have been performed to establish tolerable dosing regimes, never mind clinical trials to determine efficacy against the disease.

And yet we have people coming in saying it is a hidden treatment “approved by the WHO”. What are people reading / listening to?

From what I can see Ivermectin was initially promoted by the same accounts who promoted Hydroxychloroquine back in the day. If I remember rightly the intention of the Hydroxy promoters, who were mostly tied to conservative interests in the US who wanted to downplay the pandemic, was to give the public the idea that there was a cure and therefore the pandemic could be ignored.

Once that was throughly debunked, they've moved on to Ivermectin as the miracle cure, and even better this time they can claim that the "cure" is not available because it is being actively suppressed by governments/big pharma/insertwhoeveryoulikehere.

All these things get amplified by Russian & Chinese misinformation bots who like to see arguments started in Western countries, and they'll happily play both sides in order to try and play up internal conflict. The snowball effect means that this gets picked up by ordinary people, and for whatever reason (hearing it from trusted friends, conspiratorial thoughts being triggered, a need to feel they are better informed) they then get on board the train and feel they need to spread the word.

If you look at a history of disinformation you'll see very quickly that this was effectively a weapon, and it emerged out of Cold War attempts to overthrow governments on both sides of the iron curtain. The same people who would have been involved in this have refined their tactics, and the use of social media has amplified their ability to use these weapons.

Wolf359f

harrylittle wrote: »

And who is going run those trails...certainly not big pharma ..the last thing they want is a cheap effect drug .. far more money to be made in vaccines

Not all big pharma companies are involved in vaccines.
There's still a market for an effective and proven treatment. Pandemic is far from over. Maybe big pharma know there's **** all evidence it works, so why would they waste their money.

The Continental Op

plodder wrote: »

We already have highly effective 'prophylaxis' with one or two doses of vaccines. What are people suggesting here? That everyone takes small doses of this unproven medication for the rest of their lives? That would be insane.

It is well proven just not enough proof of its effects for Covid.

PhoenixParker

That if someone is a contact of a covid case they're given one dose or a short course of ivermectin asap. This is likely to reduce their chance of testing positive as a result.

There are still nearly 3 million adults in this country who have yet to get a vaccine and 400 or so cases a day.
Aside from that there are billions around the world who are months if not years away from a vaccine.

plodder

We already have highly effective 'prophylaxis' with one or two doses of vaccines. What are people suggesting here? That everyone takes small doses of this unproven medication for the rest of their lives? That would be insane.

harrylittle

myfreespirit wrote: »

+1 to this.
Unless and until properly run and peer-reviewed clinical trials are conducted to demonstrate efficacy of Ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19, then everything else is simply ignorant uninformed opinion.

And who is going run those trails...certainly not big pharma ..the last thing they want is a cheap effect drug .. far more money to be made in vaccines

PhoenixParker

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Ivermectin&cond=Covid19&recrs=e&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt=&Search=Apply

Read the trials for yourselves. Suggest focusing on the results when it's used as a prophylactic as those are the most convincing.

This provides a run down of the trials & their results:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Ivermectin is widely used as a prophylactic for non covid reasons. Billions of doses worldwide have been administered with minimal medical supervision. It's a safe drug and while we aren't familiar with it in the West it's used on a scale not dissimilar to paracetamol or aspirin.

For prophylactic treatment we're talking about administering it to healthy adults.
There may be no gold standard copper fastened & gold plated studies to say it works but there are dozens of half decent ones that strongly suggest it does.

It's cheap, available, safe and probably works. Where is the downside?