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

snnowwy

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.

PhoenixParker

Ivermectin is used here to treat scabies. Normally the cream is used but if it's in a big facility (eg prison, nursinghome), they dose every resident with tablets.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/2/gp/antibiotic-prescribing/conditions-and-treatments/skin-soft-tissue/scabies/

This study looks at a nursing home in France where all the residents were treated with ivermectin for Scabies in early 2020. Shortly afterwards there was a Covid-19 outbreak in the same nursing home. Compared with all the other nursing homes in the region, this one fared much better:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8013623/

Another group then tried ivermectin on a covid outbreak on another nursing home in France.
https://www.clinmedjournals.org/articles/jide/journal-of-infectious-diseases-and-epidemiology-jide-7-202.php?jid=jide#ref12

Too few people for clinical significance but 25 tested +ve. 15 agreed to take IVM. 10 didn't.
1 of the 15 IVM died. 5 of the no IVM died.
Too small for clinical significance (other studies do reach significance) but quite a difference nevertheless.

DaSilva

Piollaire wrote: »

Who listens to youtubers - it's the body of science they present that matters. And where did you pull that off-label nugget from?

What do you mean off-label nugget? Do you know what the term means?

I have to imagine any use of ivermectin for covid-19 in USA or in Ireland would be considered off-label since although it is an approved medicine, it is not approved for the treatment of covid-19.

Disclaimer: I am not recommending or against Ivermectin for covid-19, I have 0 medical qualifications, just clarifying some people here that USA is in a unique position with respect to use of Ivermectin. I think the situation in Ireland is probably pretty similar

Piollaire

snnowwy wrote: »

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

Great post - just call me Mr. Ed:D

snnowwy

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?

Piollaire

DaSilva wrote: »

I think Ivermectin is an authorized medicine in Ireland and doctors can prescribe off-label here. Not sure you will find a doctor who gets his scientific advice from evolutionary biologist youtubers though, but who knows

Who listens to youtubers - it's the body of science they present that matters. And where did you pull that off-label nugget from?

DaSilva

Piollaire wrote: »

What kind of idiot would ask a GP about veterinary products.

I'm sure there are GPs who would prescribe Ivermectin if they were allowed as is the case in the US.

I think Ivermectin is an authorized medicine in Ireland and doctors can prescribe off-label here. Not sure you will find a doctor who gets his scientific advice from evolutionary biologist youtubers though, but who knows

Piollaire

Lumen wrote: »

Have you asked your GP for their medical opinion of your self-prescribed "horse paste"?

If they respond negatively, do you write them off as naive or vested?

What kind of idiot would ask a GP about veterinary products.

I'm sure there are GPs who would prescribe Ivermectin if they were allowed as is the case in the US.

Lumen

Piollaire wrote: »

I also learned about masks and vitamin D on Youtube long long before I heard about them from our health agencies.

Ivermectin could have saved a lot of lives and lot of suffering in this country and elsewhere.

The only "sh*te" I'm hearing is coming from the naive or those who have a personal vested financial interest.

Have you asked your GP for their medical opinion of your self-prescribed "horse paste"?

If they respond negatively, do you write them off as naive or vested?

Ballynally

Piollaire wrote: »

The only thing worse than crazy conspiracy theorists are people devoid of any critical analysis skills.

It is the reason i am no longer posting information on threads like these though i continue to check in once in a while (like now).
Ill leave you here with a few Mencken quotes:

"The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."

"The State doesn't just want you to obey, it wants to make you WANT to obey ".

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable".

"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

The various Mencken quotes never go out of date and it's worthwhile to read them again once in a while.

Good night..and good luck..signing off.

Piollaire

Deleted User wrote: »

Like those who believe any old sh*te they hear on YouTube and self prescribe medication?

I also learned about masks and vitamin D on Youtube long long before I heard about them from our health agencies.

Ivermectin could have saved a lot of lives and lot of suffering in this country and elsewhere.

The only "sh*te" I'm hearing is coming from the naive or those who have a personal vested financial interest.

[Deleted User]

Piollaire wrote: »

The only thing worse than crazy conspiracy theorists are people devoid of any critical analysis skills.

Like those who believe any old sh*te they hear on YouTube and self prescribe medication?

Piollaire

Deleted User wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/forum/576

The only thing worse than crazy conspiracy theorists are people devoid of any critical analysis skills.

[Deleted User]

Piollaire wrote: »

I'm none of the above but I took Ivermectin until I got vaccinated and would take it again if I got sick. I was satisfied with the conclusions of the various meta analyses and its decades long safety record. I ignored information coming from organisations which had a vested financial interest in other medications (Merck) or from other organisations that were under their influence (WHO, EMA)

https://touch.boards.ie/forum/576

Piollaire

ligind wrote: »

I

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

I'm none of the above but I took Ivermectin until I got vaccinated and would take it again if I got sick. I was satisfied with the conclusions of the various meta analyses and its decades long safety record. I ignored information coming from organisations which had a vested financial interest in other medications (Merck) or from other organisations that were under their influence (WHO, EMA)

ligind

I am not going to comment on whether ivermectin works or not , I simply don't know.

I know a few in my circle pushing ivermectin for about 9 months now and none of the stuff they have shared with me would back up the confidence that they and a few here have in it . Evidence is sketchy at best .

There is an element for me of the boy who cried wolf and I have tuned out of it because it's exhausting .

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

astrofool

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The absence of believeable official information and explanations is usually the cause of such theories/hypotheses.

There is a peer reviewed paper from the British Medicial Journal above that you're free to start refuting.

Johnboy1951

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

The absence of believeable official information and explanations is usually the cause of such theories/hypotheses.

astrofool

a) there has been attempts to treat COVID-19, to name but 2 of many, there is regeneron and dexamethasone (off patent also free to produce) with both demonstrably proven to be effective in properly run studies

b) the EMA and CDC have Invermectin as an approved medicine for worming already, is this a corrupt approval as well?

c) natural immunity is not stronger than the vaccinations, natural immunity varies with how sick or how much of a viral load you have and also is shown to be less effective against variants with those previously infected able to also be infected with newer variants, the vaccination immune response is much stronger and more consistent

d) If you want to push conspiracy theories around the CDC, EMA, FDA and WHO, there is a conspiracy theory forum to discuss it, be warned that you will need to provide proof and evidence of what you're saying

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

f) I like my name as well

g) Of course people can be pro-invermectin and pro-covid vaccination, the intersection of the 2 groups seems to be very small though (i.e. a group of Ballynally on this thread)

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

Johnboy1951

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.

It is those who ask questions and make comment on how it looks to them that get censored/cancelled.
Don't question or contradict the official line and you will be allowed say your piece.

That this is apparently acceptable to most is extremely disturbing to me and very sad indeed.

The more information I access the more I am leaning towards strongly questioning THIS vaccination roll out.
I have no answers to my questions unfortunately.

Why has there been no official attempt to TREAT Covid-19?
18 months in and nothing substantial?

Why must EVERYONE be vaccinated?
Natural immunity is far stronger than any vaccination, yet those who recovered from Covid, and those who have natural immunity must be vaccinated. Why?

Why are doctors not treating patients in the early stages of Covid with a myriad of drugs available to them?

Why have they now weaponised the vaccination ...... yes, when we are told what we can not do without this specific vaccination, that is weaponising it.

Abusing me with 'anti vaxer' name calling will not change anything.
I am well vaccinated, thank you, but I am capable of questioning things, and likely will do so until I die.
This is not only my right, but it is something we SHOULD all do.

Ballynally

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..

astrofool

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.

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.

Ballynally

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..

suicide_circus

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.

Ballynally

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.

PhoenixParker

This myth of "only a toxic dose works" is based on a study in a petri dish.

There have been a dozen studies since on post exposure prophylaxis which administered a standard dose of ivermectin and found it reduced the chances of subsequently testing positive for Covid 19 by 80% (+/- about 10% depending on the study).

astrofool

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?

Ballynally

Deleted User wrote: »

This is pure lunatic stuff

I don't mind being called that. There is particular type of 'sane' person who stops thinking after a certain point in time and dismisses every bit of extra data coming his way. You know, the seemingly smart binary person who calls people 'lunatic' because he feels he knows better and looks down on anyone who makes his own decisions, and gets triggered by something he feels is so far out the realm of acceptability that he feels compelled to use a condescending term.

To get back to the horse paste: i can read the ingredients. No toxicity. (Edit:at least in the proper use of IVM according to the FCCC protocol.).
Unlike bleach..
Just need to get the dose right but the FCCC protocol is clear.

To those who keep on going on against the use of Ivermectin because of issues relating to proof there could be just one thing they (or for that matter every healthcare body) might agree on:
although 'safe' is the wrong term to use, toxicity wise it is.
Hardly any side effects.
So, let doctors prescribe Ivermectin if they or the patients want, free of interference.
Furthermore, make it freely available and let companies produce it. Clear it for emergency use, like they did with the vaccines.
YOU dont have to believe in it but let others go ahead.
Some countries have already changed their recommendations.
Time for the EU (and Ireland) to follow suit.

Here's a link to Joe Rogan's podcast w Bret Weinstein and dr.Kory.
No, it's on Spotify, not on Youtube so freely available.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=m4KNLEziSxmtGOYq0d7oaw&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1
And hey, feel free to call me a lunatic any day..

Ballynally

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.

[Deleted User]

Ballynally wrote: »

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.

This is pure lunatic stuff