The Ivermectin discussion

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Of course if such a treatment were to be accepted, then the 'vaccines' would have to be withdrawn from their 'emergency use' (USA) because it is not permitted to approve emergency use where there is an alternative treatment for a disease.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

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

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.

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

Piollaire wrote: »

Dr. Mobeen Syed gives proposed mechanisms of actions for Ivermectin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZoBAuR4ajs&t=287s

And that video has since then 'been' taken down by Youtube as has drCampbells talk w dr. Pierre Kory. And others discussing IVM.

astrofool wrote: »

Invermectin is contra-indicated with warfarin, it is also indicated for low doses only and not for continued use (i.e. levels that have no effect on SARS-COV2), it is toxic at higher doses.

A study might come out that verifies the safety of long term high dose use, but it doesn't exist today apart from those self medicating.

Companies can produce it, there is no patent.

And why are you comparing it to bleach?

Yes, you are right. Like any medicine, there are a few parameters to consider, all well known and stated in the protocol. If you use it appropriately, with the right dose, at the right time. Nothing new here.
Why am i comparing it to bleach? Because there are people dismissing Ivermectin, putting it in a pile lumped with dangerous stuff one should not take.
(It causes blindness! And so on).
About your comment about studies verifying the safety of long term high dose use needed i consider that a bit of a red herring. From the reported studies it is clear that, when given the appropriate dose at a certain timeframe it is very effective in the large majority of patients. I yet have to find evidence of anyone dying from it or getting seriously ill. What i would say is that there are two stages of Covid19, the viral stage in which the virus multiplies (mostly between 1-12 days) and the early and later pulmanory phase in which cytokine storms and high inflammation occurs. The thing is to try and break the link early. I think there is where most of the magic of Ivermectin occurs before steroids are needed. And even then it seems to work in combi.
So, i am ready and pretty confident Ivermectin will work and the protocol will lead me out of the disease quickly in case i get it.
For those who refuse to believe any of it and/or are afraid because of safety issues, just dont take it.
The proof the pudding is in the eating, right?
People seem to forget how nasty SarsCov2 is.
Given its safety record w over 3 billion doses given ill take my chances w IVM.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Youtube channels who discuss this topic can receive strikes and be suspended. It was the same with the lab leak theory until recently. Not saying Ivermectin is any great shakes but platforms getting involved in this way is a mistake.

It is clear by now Youtube (and other like them) is not a 'platform'. It is a moderated opinion market where bad apples are removed.
What is a bad apple? An opinion that doesnt meet the standards. What are the standards? Its flexible but follows mainstream opinion and general official points of view held in politics. Left of centre.
Highly reactive to anything resembling conspiracy theories or even facts hinting at it, cutting off open discussions of topics it considers dangerous.
It has recently cooperated with other 'platforms' to stop anything that might be called misinformation. What is misinformation? Anything that hints at questioning official policy regarding vaccines, alternative treatments like Ivermectin. Previously targeted at those questioning race theory, immigration and other 'hot' topics considered dangerous.

It is one of the reasons why people like Joe Rogan decided to work w Spotify exclusively. He has carte blanche there. It is the US nr 1 podcast.
Youtube et al are totally entrenched with mainstream politics..

astrofool wrote: »

Its usually a channels way of sneaking in anti-vax content. There seems to be very few people using invermectin until they can get vaccinated, most push it instead of being vaccinated and that's where it descends into a chaos of lies, misinformation and FUD.

and that is exactly the right example of how it works as stated in my post. Thank you for making the process clear.
The question is: who sets the standards for misinformation?
The CDC, FDA, WHO, EMA. Corrupt organisations funded to a great extend by private companies.( That didnt use to be the way. Back in the day they could actually claim independence. Ever since the 1980s under Reagan it has been private companies' growing involvement).
Trickles down to academia and mainstream media and sets the standards.
And here we are.
Did it occur to you that someone might be both pro vax and pro Ivermectin?
And wouldnt you agree that people both have a right to their opinion and their pro or anti vax stance?
Or do you believe people should be stopped expressing it?
What kind of world are we living in?
Not one of respect but of sanction and surpression.
There seem to be a lot of people involved in the Ministry of Truth.
It used to be the right trying to stop opinions from entering the discussion.
It is the left now doing the same thing. Sad but true.

Note: i am fully vaccinated. My wife is still hesitant and i have tried to convince her to take it. I have not been succesful but i DO respect both her opinion and decision.
Astrofool, i like your name..

Ballynally wrote: »

And hey, feel free to call me a lunatic any day..

'sup ya loon?

Ballynally wrote: »

To get back to the horse paste: i can read the ingredients.

I feel like the ingredients list would be more likely to lie to a horse than a person. I'd be much more comfortable with the people version.

Ballynally wrote: »

Time for the EU (and Ireland) to follow suit.

Here's a link to Joe Rogan's podcast w Bret Weinstein and dr.Kory.

Which is why I asked the original question about Irish doctors.
Who is the Irish Pierre Kory?
Who is the Irish Joe Rogan for that matter?
Who are the corresponding characters in the Irish version of this thing?

Has anyone actually raised this with their GP?

astrofool wrote: »

e) It is interesting that the Invermectin thread is now heading down the conspiracy theory route for whatever reason

It's because we're asking questions. That's all it usually takes to get you labelled a pushed down the conspiracy chute.

astrofool wrote: »

h) No one has come back and commented on the bmj paper to show evidence to the contrary, most seem to be ignoring it

The report is sound but the authors leaning is clear right off the bat. The "needs a toxic does" argument gets a mention and together with the lack of clinical trials is rightly identified as a reason the WHO couldn't include it.
The leaning shows up to me when he suggests this "raises questions about the pertinence of conducting clinical studies on ivermectin."
To me, "we can't do anything without clinical trials" does not mean "there's no point in doing trials."

Leaning aside, the general thesis is correct. I'm just not sure how practical it is.

If we were to observe a pub for a night, we could not definitively say that alcohol gets you drunk.
Some studied beer drinkers, some wine. Others studied spirits.
Some subjects had peanuts with their drink, some had dinner beforehand and some were doing coke in the jaxx.
We can't say for sure.

That's why meta analysis protocols were developed with ways of accounting for these types of scenarios.

So, to beat this analogy to death, we have a meta-analysis from the vintners association saying that it's likely true.
We have seasoned and experienced front line barmen attesting to alcohols effectiveness.
We have a very small chance that someone will get alcohol poisoning but from years of experience, most just get a hangover.
We don't know yet if long term use will kill your liver but we know it's safe in the short term.

So, if I'm faced with a terrible party I may not be able to avoid and I'm asked if I want technically unproven beer or a prototype boredom vaccine, I know what my answer is:
"Give me the beer and put me on the mailing list for developments on the vaccine."

Then again, I could just be pedantic and say that "EBM opinion and debate" isn't good enough, I need an RTC.

ligind wrote: »

The folks I know who are now pro ivermectin
- don't agree with lockdowns
- didn't believe the hospitals were under pressure
- think the PCR test a has 90%plus false positive rate
- initially were on the hydroxy chloroquine bandwagon
- think the vaccines are highly dangerous

- don't agree with lockdowns
No issue with lockdowns. In fact, I've been a little taken a back at how quickly people start acting like covid has gone away when restrictions are loosened.

- didn't believe the hospitals were under pressure
Not been keeping track, I'm putting my effort into saying out of them. I have a close friend who works in one and they didn’t get the tsunami they were expecting at the beginning (in the ICU) but we haven't spoken about it since.

- think the PCR test a has 90%plus false positive rate
News to me.

- initially were on the hydroxy chloroquine bandwagon
I completely ignored it. Fell for the "Orange man bad" zeitgeist and let others make up my mind for me.
I should have dealt with that more objectively.

- think the vaccines are highly dangerous
Vaccines have the potential to be dangerous. That's why it's a ten year development processes. We're only 18 months into that process.
I know it's probably fine but only in the same way that I know based on my history, I'm unlikely to crash when I get into the car. I still want a seat belt tho.

Piollaire wrote: »

I'm none of the above but I took Ivermectin until I got vaccinated.

How'd you manage that? How many legs do you have?

DaSilva wrote: »

Not sure you will find a doctor who gets his scientific advice from evolutionary biologist youtubers though, but who knows

Just send them here:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/take-action-and-share-the-infos-with-your-doctor/

A good doctor should be able to tell you whether or not these doctors are bad doctors.
But more importantly, they should be able to tell you why.