Ivermectin, for the interested

[J@son]

No one is forcing anyone to do anything they dont want to here, its a discussion , have we really moved into some kind of quasi fascist mindset where some things cannot be uttered without thought police intervention ?

...so why are you complaining about being trolled by Fair Hill?

Why dont you and your husband just stick to the laughing emoji,

You seem happy enough to play the man, not the ball, when it suits you. But then cry foul when someone uses an emoji you don't like.

If you really want an adult debate, maybe you should raise your own game. Otherwise this does seem pretty pointless.

 

[Rewulf]

...so why are you complaining about being trolled by Fair Hill?

TBF Fair Hill does nothing but troll on most threads , hes probably blocked by more people than you can imagine , he brings nothing to the debate , but inane comments, based on his somewhat wobbly opinion.
In short, hes not interested in debate, but having a little dig here and there to convince himself of being the better , wittier man.

As far as complaining about him ? If he bothered me , Id block him, but I find him entertaining, in a court jester/fool kind of way.

You seem happy enough to play the man, not the ball, when it suits you. But then cry foul when someone uses an emoji you don't like.

If you really want an adult debate, maybe you should raise your own game. Otherwise this does seem pretty pointless.

As above , not crying foul, and Ive been known to use the laugh emoji myself on occasion.
But when someone doesnt like your answer, or cant summon the wit to answer it with any kind of counter, it becomes a little tedious.

WE are having an adult debate, about ivermectin , but at the end of the day , if you feel like youre wasting your time with those who will not come round to your way of thinking....
Im sure you know the answer to that, but, can you leave it ?
You must be gaining something from it?
Even if its the (smug ?) knowledge that you are definitely right, and we are definitely wrong ?

 

[Fair Hill]

...so why are you complaining about being trolled by Fair Hill?


You seem happy enough to play the man, not the ball, when it suits you. But then cry foul when someone uses an emoji you don't like.

If you really want an adult debate, maybe you should raise your own game. Otherwise this does seem pretty pointless.

Rewulf likes to use a distraction method in an attempt at point scoring, these little victories are all in his own little mind of course.

He answers questions directed at other posters as if they were asked of him, avoids answering questions directed at him, posts links which contradict the point he is trying so desperately to make and then resorts to juvenile insults obviously looking for a similar reaction to them when pulled on his ill informed confrontational manner.

He craves recognition, be it positive or negative he doesn't care once some stranger on the internet is acknowledging his online existence. His usual MO is to wade into a discussion impersonating an authoritative individual but it never ends well, shur God love him, he tries.

 

[Rewulf]

He answers questions directed at other posters as if they were asked of him, avoids answering questions directed at him, posts links which contradict the point he is trying so desperately to make and then resorts to juvenile insults obviously looking for a similar reaction to them when pulled on his ill informed confrontational manner.

He craves recognition, be it positive or negative he doesn't care once some stranger on the internet is acknowledging his online existence. His usual MO is to wade into a discussion impersonating an authoritative individual but it never ends well, shur God love him, he tries.

Excellent description , know yourself

 

[kes]

Just a waste of time, air and attention.
Since (in your own words) "its not available in tablet form in this country" its rather a battle of wills and not a debate but then - you would know best.

 

[Rewulf]

Just a waste of time, air and attention.
Since (in your own words) "its not available in tablet form in this country" its rather a battle of wills and not a debate but then - you would know best.

Then why are you still here ?

 

[Fair Hill]

Maybe they should ask Professor Thomas Borody, eh?

This Prof. Thomas Borody?.......

Doctor who advocated Covid-19 therapy including ivermectin applied for patent on same unproven treatment

Exclusive: Australian professor Thomas Borody’s failure to widely declare that he could potentially profit from treatment he is promoting raises ethical concerns

www.theguardian.com

 

[plonker]

I am all for robust healthy debate. But it is starting to feel as though I am arguing against the willfully blind.

Freeforester, Zambezi et al - it is clear that I am not going to change your minds on this issue. The only reason I have kept going for as long as I have is that I think it is important not to give you the floor on this important issue.

Perhaps you are reading this thread from the wrong perspective.
It shouldnt be about changing someones mind but more about listening to everyone and accepting their thought process.
Im fully jabbed but i dont trust big pharma, its not in their interest to have cheap drugs available off patent and its in their interest to have the whole world taking their drug, every year for the rest of our lives.

 

[Freeforester]

If the membership decide, and the interest is there, it can continue for another 32.
Why is it certain people feel so threatened by a discussion on a drug that isnt even freely available in (human) tablet form in this country, that they feel they need to call for the thread to be shut down ?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything they dont want to here, its a discussion , have we really moved into some kind of quasi fascist mindset where some things cannot be uttered without thought police intervention ?
There have been cries of 'dangerous' misinformation, and 'costing lives' Yet no one has died here, and no one who didnt before will be going out and raiding the stables for a pouch of lick.

The thread is entitled appropriately , if youre not interested, move on, and let those who are, debate.

It’s Jason and the argue-nuts, for sure. You have your interpretations of world events, that’s fine. Time and geography are already beginning to reveal and will continue to demonstrate which of the two paths trodden will lead out of the morass. One thing is certain, at the rates being charged and paid by governments for the waning, breakthrough vaccines, it could indeed be styled ‘the quest for the golden ’fleece’.

Has anyone yet explained why an already only partially effective jab, with waning efficacy at best is going to help defeat a breakthrough variant, or is the 3rd ‘booster’ jab somehow different, better even than the ineffective 1st and 2nd? As before, I’d venture that route will only end in the evolution of variants even better able to escape the ‘vaccine’s ’benefits’. In several countries already, 50% of those requiring treatment at medical facilities are double vaccinated - at what point do you consider it might be wise to concede that the strategy is in fact more harmful than helpful, looking down the road? Or do we have to make the same mistakes as have been made before, trying to elicit a different response, akin to some form of lunacy?

Whilst the West awaits the ‘effective’ jab, the rest of the world is already, demonstrably quietly foraging ahead (so quietly, the BBC apparently don’t see or report it!), in spite of the esoteric arguments either way, or do you doubt this also?

Smear away all you like, Borody won’t mind, and I’m sure the vaccine makers and other pharmaceutical interests making the superbucks will cheer you on in your efforts, after all - ’Useful Idiots’ are always in demand.

 

[Freeforester]

A little on the multi stranded approach taken on the front line in India, a country where they seem to be doing rather better at beating down the virus than here:

 

[Freeforester]

And back on topic again:

 

[mchughcb]

This Prof. Thomas Borody?.......

Doctor who advocated Covid-19 therapy including ivermectin applied for patent on same unproven treatment

Exclusive: Australian professor Thomas Borody’s failure to widely declare that he could potentially profit from treatment he is promoting raises ethical concerns

www.theguardian.com

If the guy thinks he's come up with something novel of course he can try and patent it. Do you think the vaccines are patented as well? FFS Pfizer made more profit in 6 months than Rio Tinto did last financial year with record iron ore prices.

 

[J@son]

If the guy thinks he's come up with something novel of course he can try and patent it. Do you think the vaccines are patented as well?

This comment seems to wilfully miss the point that is made by the article. To quote directly from the article this point can be summarised as follows:

Assoc Prof Wendy Lipworth, from the University of Sydney’s Health Ethics centre, said: “There’s nothing wrong with applying for a patent.

“But declaring that patent, when you are becoming a public figure for promoting a treatment, is the bare minimum of your ethical obligations …

“As a medical professional, there is an obligation to appraise the evidence subjectively and give advice without bias. I think that’s where the tension is.

“There’s nothing wrong even with having a conflict of interest. What really is the issue is how it is managed, and the most important issue is not declaring it.”

She added: “Part of due diligence at the very least should be to have a declaration at the bottom about conflicts of interests to do with that treatment. To not do that is blatantly unethical.”

Mchughcb: your post fails to address the issue actually put to you. You are missing the point, not arguing against it.

Plonker: you urge me to listen respectfully to the points put by other people. That is very much what I have been trying to do. And I have been trying to do this without the sort of preconceptions and prejudice that your own fears about Big Pharma suggest you hold as you approach this issue.

The article quoted also offers a convenient summary of the issue at the heart of this thread as I see it. Again to quote directly:

There are serious concerns about many studies by other researcherspublished to date that claim to show ivermectin is an effective Covid-19 treatment either alone or in combination with other drugs. Many of the studies have been criticised for serious flaws in their design and recruitment of patients, and have been shown to be unreliable. There are no strong studies with large numbers of patients published in peer-reviewed medical journals that show ivermectin alone or in combination with other drugs is an effective preventative against or treatment for Covid-19, though these trials are under way. Most studies to date have been too small to be clinically significant, or poorly designed.

This position is in line with the stated position of the BMJ, FDA, EMA, NICE, WHO and, as far as I can see, every other widely recognised medical authority... including, as it happens, the official position of the Indian Gvt. This is the issue I am asking others to address. And I am asking people to address it in terms that reference authoritative medical sources that are generally recognised as such - rather than widely discredited Observational Studies and people posting from their bedrooms who are only recognised as experts by those who already agree with them.

 

[Freeforester]

An interesting look into a recent (Harvard) study concerning the ‘relationship’ between largely vaccinated countries and rates of infection therein, giving also comparative rates in lower-rate vaccinated countries:

 

[Rewulf]

Mchughcb: your post fails to address the issue actually put to you. You are missing the point, not arguing against it.

Not directly answering for Mchughcb, but I was going to put this point to you anyway.

Surely the 'point' is whether or not this patented 'miracle' treatment actually works ?
As you have painstakingly pointed out , consensus says ivermectin does jack to covid, I would imagine aspirin isnt going to do much either, and antibiotics, might help with the pneumonia ?
So some kind of patented mix of these 3 items, isnt really going to pay for his new mansion is it ?

'Its not ethical'
His reputation is in tatters anyway for the fact hes touting ivermectin as a covid treatment , going against the grain of most current medical consensus, so omitting a disclaimer that he has a vested interest is the least of his worries.
Again , ethics aside, theyve given him more airtime than he would have had, and drawn attention to a treatment that they say doesnt work anyway, where is the logic in that ?

This position is in line with the stated position of the BMJ, FDA, EMA, NICE, WHO and, as far as I can see, every other widely recognised medical authority... including, as it happens, the official position of the Indian Gvt. This is the issue I am asking others to address. And I am asking people to address it in terms that reference authoritative medical sources that are generally recognised as such - rather than widely discredited Observational Studies and people posting from their bedrooms who are only recognised as experts by those who already agree with them.

If you care to watch the Dr Campbell video NIH and ivermectin above , the FDA are listing ivermectin as a covid treatment , with dosage guidelines, why would they do this if was 'dangerous' and 'doesnt work'

John Campbell is a much respected immunologist , he has no bias toward ivermectin or the vaccines, he cites all his sources, and knows how to analyse the data correctly, his objectivity and knowledge cannot be argued with. As he states , he just wants as many weapons in the arsenal as possible to fight covid.
Divisiveness on this helps nobody, and there doesnt have to be 2 camps on the matter, he believes the vaccines are a powerful tool, though their effectiveness is questionable, the new (expensive) antivirals also , should be used where appropriate, and ... because of the witnessed real world trials in India and Africa et al , ivermectin should not be ignored.

There has been ample time for definitive, controlled trials on ivermectin to be rolled out, completed and peer reviewed, many universities have offered their services, and been ignored.
I found it strange how some have come to the conclusion it offers little or no benefit, without any real conviction.
Where any trial that shows beneficial results gets rubbished, often due to the fact that a similar trial had accuracy issues (Im referring t the fabled 26 trials where a 3rd of them were found to be 'fraudulent' , yet these trials , referred to in a twitter group, then quoted by the BBC , cannot be found in any search) Dr Campbell goes into this in some detail in one of his vids, from his bedroom

 

[plonker]

@Jason Page
My " fears" about big pharma led me to be double vaccinated and unless anything changes will be in the que next year for my top up
But i will still listen to everything and make my own mind up and take most things with a pinch of salt!

 

[J@son]

the FDA are listing ivermectin as a covid treatment , with dosage guidelines,

I don't believe you are right about this. I watched the video you are referring to last night. I think you have mistaken what Dr Campbell actually said. Either way, the current advice from the FDA appears to be quite clear on this point. The following is quoted verabatim from the FDA website:

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

• The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
• Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.
• Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
• If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.
• Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.

Do come back to me if you think I am misrepresenting or misinterpreting the FDA's current position on this - as this should be reasonably easy to establish. And if the FDA's position has changed I would be very interested in finding out more.

 

[J@son]

My " fears" about big pharma led me to be double vaccinated and unless anything changes will be in the que next year for my top up
But i will still listen to everything and make my own mind up and take most things with a pinch of salt!

So, Plonker, if I understand you correctly you are saying:

1) you feel anxious about Big Pharma but went ahead and had both jabs anyway and you would do the same again;
2) you listen to everything, ignore most of what you hear and come to your own decision.

That's fair enough. Not sure why you felt the need to tell me this but thanks for sharing!

 

[Rewulf]

My apologies its not the FDA , its the US NIH , confused myself

Do come back to me if you think I am misrepresenting or misinterpreting the FDA's current position on this - and this should be reasonably easy to establish. And if the FDA's position has changed I would be very interested in finding out more.

 

[Rewulf]

So, Plonker, if I understand you correctly you are saying:

1) you feel anxious about Big Pharma but went ahead and had both jabs anyway and you would do the same again;
2) you listen to everything, ignore most of what you hear and come to your own decision.

That's fair enough. Not sure why you felt the need to tell me this but thanks for sharing!

Im broadly similar, except.

1) Dont trust big pharma, but had both jabs anyway, but would NOT do so again/wish I hadnt in hindsight.
2) I listen to everything, but come to my own decision, that doesnt mean you ignore most of it, it means you make the decision you feel is the right one for YOU, like most humans have done for thousands of years ?

If someone told you to buy shares in a company 'because it will definitely make you rich' even if you had the most respect for that person imaginable , would you just do it without doing some research first ?
I know thats a broad brush, but as humans , we are cautious.
Because genetics , and experience, has taught us to be.