Ivermectin, for the interested

[J@son]

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

Thanks for clarifying. However, the NIH is not "listing ivermectin as a covid treatment , with dosage guidelines" as you suggest - or as you report that Dr Campbell is suggesting.

The current advice from the NIH is as follows - and I quote:

There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

Click on the link to see the full advice. This has been the NIH guidelines since February 2021 and their stated position has not changed.

In the video you are referring to, Dr Campbell makes the point that Panel, which determines the NIH position on this issue, has not come out against the use of Ivermectin. This is true - as the statement quoted above makes abundantly clear. But to suggest that, as a result, the NIH have approved Ivermectin as a treatment for CV19 is - equally clearly - to misread it.

The NIH is not listing Ivermectin as a treatment for CV19 and is not listing guidelines as to doseage. The NIH's position is clear on these points and this has been its stated position since February.

I think your confusion on this point provides a telling example of how fairly straightfoward information is being misinterpreted and how this misinterpreted information is readily shared and spread.

 

[Rewulf]

Thanks for clarifying. However, the NIH is not "listing ivermectin as a covid treatment , with dosage guidelines" as you suggest - or as you report that Dr Campbell is suggesting.

OK , have you actually watched the video ?

If you have , then Dr Campbell states that its EITHER being suggested as a treatment , OR under evaluation, its not clear on the site either or.
It also states quite clearly recommended dosage , on the site, if you care to navigate the actual site.

But if you cant be bothered , the relevant part in the video starts at 30 seconds.

 

[J@son]

I understand that you think I am misinterpreting what Dr Campbell says on the video. However, I don't think you are right in asserting the NIH is listing Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid or issuing doseage guidelines for treating CV19.

I hope you will accept my previous assurance that I have watched the video carefully.

Dr Campbell states that its EITHER being suggested as a treatment , OR under evaluation

I agree with you Dr Campbell does indeed state that the reference to Ivermectin indicates that either Ivermectin is listed as a treatment for covid or that it is being evaluated as a treament for covid.

We know - and the link I have posted previously is very clear on this point - that Ivermectin in not listed as a treatment by the NIH.

There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

We also know that Ivermectin has been and is being evaluated as a treatment for covid. The validity of many of these studies has been widely criticised on various grounds by all sorts of people. But no-one is saying that they are not happening!

The NIH recognises that Ivermectin is being evaluated as a treatment for covid. But to say this is not the same thing as saying the NIH is suggesting Ivermectin as a possible treatment for covid - and the NIH (along with the FDA and numerous other medial authorities) is very clear on this point.

I wonder if Dr Campbell has deliberately blurred what would otherwise be an obvious and very clear distinction. It seems to me that he has deliberately created some confusion on this point. Have another look at the video and I think you will see what I mean.

It also states quite clearly recommended dosage , on the site, if you care to navigate the actual site.

Could you post a link to the page on the NIH site that gives doseage guidelines for Ivermectin in relation to the treatment of CV19? I haven't been able to find it and I believe, again, that you may have confused this with something else.

 

[Rewulf]

I understand that you think I am misinterpreting what Dr Campbell says on the video. However, I don't think you are right in asserting the NIH is listing Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid or issuing doseage guidelines for treating CV19.

Then why is dosage listed on the NIH site ?

We know - and the link I have posted above is very clear on this point - that Ivermectin in not listed as a treatment by the NIH.


We also know that Ivermectin has been and is being evaluated as a treatment for covid. The validity of many of these studies has been widely criticised on various grounds by all sorts of people. But no-one is saying that they are not happening!

Of course they are happening , but they are largely ignored because they arent being done by the 'right' people, and are not arriving at the 'right' conclusion.
Heres a paper that shows a study from Mexico city , with a large test base https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/r93g4 I can guarantee it wont get peer reviewed, as it reaches the 'wrong' conclusion, and its not been done 'properly' much like the ignored Indian data.

I wonder if Dr Campbell has deliberately blurred what would otherwise be an obvious and very clear distinction. It seems to me that he has deliberately created some confusion on this point. Have another look at the video and I think you will see what I mean.

Now why would he do that ?
You 'wonder' if he has DELIBERATELY blurred it , thats like saying , 'I dont like what hes saying, so Im going to call him a liar'
He takes great pains to explain his thinking, he also stresses that ivermectin is possibly another tool in the box that COULD help in fighting covid, what more do you want ?

At least weve got away from the ramblings of people who claim it to be a 'deadly dangerous' worming drug for animal use only, even as you point out , the NIH says they can not recommend ivermectin either FOR or AGAINST its use .

Can you post a link to the page which gives doseage guidelines for Ivermectin is relation to the treatment of CV19? I haven't been able to find it and I believe, again, that you may have confused this with something else.

The page is clearly visible in the video Table: Characteristics of Potential Antiviral Agents | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, he posted the video yesterday , and was looking at it live, do some research, and try and open your mind up to the possibility that you may be wrong about this.
As I have a feeling that the tide is turning , due to an overwhelming body of evidence, that ivermectin may help in combatting the disease.
Because lets face it , the infection rates are rising, hospital admissions are rising, and deaths are rising, and the vaccines are not creating the promised herd immunity, even with 80% vaxxed populace.
Also talk of a flu pandemic and a new variant, Merry Xmas.

 

[zambezi]

At least weve got away from the ramblings of people who claim it to be a 'deadly dangerous' worming drug for animal use only, even as you point out , the NIH says they can not recommend ivermectin either FOR or AGAINST its use .

Progress. Finally. After 34 pages.

 

[Freeforester]

For what it’s worth, my take on it is that NIH are neither for nor against ivermectin, they show in the video dose rates that are typically administered, but again, in a neutral manner, neither advocating nor cautioning against their use. I attach a couple screenshots from the relevant part of the video where the dose rates are published on the site, but agree that this does not amount to any endorsement nor warning, though it may be a bit confusing that they are indexed by NIH as they are, (ie as covid19 treatment guidelines, see red highlighted area):

 

[Fair Hill]

Deadly dangerous.....

'A serious issue': New Mexico health officials suspect two people dead from ivermectin poisoning

New Mexico acting State Health Secretary said \

www.usatoday.com

 

[Freeforester]

Because lets face it , the infection rates are rising, hospital admissions are rising, and deaths are rising, and the vaccines are not creating the promised herd immunity, even with 80% vaxxed populace.

This is exactly what Dr Martenson is highlighting in his examining the Harvard Study cited in thread post #654. Btw, we both took our 1.87% W/W ivermectin this morning after breakfast, and are both now not long back from 35 miles in the saddle around the autumn countryside. To be clear, I’m not contacting you from beyond the grave, nor via a ouija board.

 

[J@son]

Table: Characteristics of Potential Antiviral Agents | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines,

Thanks for coming back to me with this link. I don't accept that this link shows what you think it shows.

It is clearly written in black and white for everyone to see:

The dose most commonly used in clinical trials is IVM 0.2–0.6 mg/kg PO given as a single dose or as a once-daily dose for up to 5 days.

The NIH is is simply recording the doseage most commonly used in the trials on which it is reporting.

This is an observation not a recommendation. It is an important distinction you appear unable (or unwilling) to grasp.

You appear to think the NIH is saying: "if you want to treat CV19 with Ivermectin this is the dose to give your patients". But that is not the case.

Rather the NIH is saying: "the dose of Ivermetic currently given in most experimental trials is between X amount and Y amount."

These are two completely different points which you have, again, confused and muddled. I am sorry but you are simply wrong about this. You may not be able to see this but I think everyone else can.

 

[J@son]

For what it’s worth, my take on it is that NIH are neither for nor against ivermectin, they show in the video dose rates that are typically administered, but again, in a neutral manner, neither advocating nor cautioning against their use. I attach a couple screenshots from the relevant part of the video where the dose rates are published on the site, but agree that this does not amount to any endorsement nor warning, though it may be a bit confusing that they are indexed by NIH as they are, though (ie as covid19 treatment guidelines, see red highlighted area):

I don't get a chance to say this very often FF so I am going to jump at the chance to say it now: I completely agree with you!

 

[Rewulf]

You appear to think the NIH is saying: "if you want to treat CV19 with Ivermectin this is the dose to give your patients". But that is not the case.

Can you point out to me where I said that, I said there was a recommended dose on the NIH web site, I didnt say it was a dose THEY recommend.

These are two completely different points which you have, again, confused and muddled. I am sorry but you are simply wrong about this. You may not be able to see this but I think everyone else can.

I havent got confused and muddled, you have tried (once again) to decry any positive comments on ivermectin use for covid , why ?
Does the NIH website say , dont take ivermectin , its for f$^%£$% horses ? No.
Does it list a dosage, yes , why would it do that if it didnt want anyone to take it ?
Why does it even list it as a potential antiviral, along with Nitazoxanide, a similar anti parasitical (but one still in licence) if they 'definitely dont work' ?
If its 'deadly dangerous' why dont they ban US doctors from prescribing it ?

Youve mounted a very high horse on this Jason (pun intended) and you need to be more objective, pointing out to me how my thought processes are flawed because I dont agree with you, shows that its YOU that has a problem , something along the lines of a superiority complex.
Several pages ago , you said it was 'like talking to the wilfully blind, but we cant have the floor'

Really , what are you trying to achieve? Because you truly are wasting your time here.

 

[J@son]

First you state that you didn't claim the dose was recommended by the NIH:

I said there was a recommended dose on the NIH web site, I didnt say it was a dose THEY recommend.

Then you state that the NIH want people to take the described doseage:

Does the NIH website say , dont take ivermectin , its for f$^%£$% horses ? No.
Does it list a dosage, yes , why would it do that if it didnt want anyone to take it ?

Just to be clear - which is it?

I am genuinely interested in understanding what you are trying to say here.

However, I think you are a great example of someone whose ideas don't stand up to very much scrutany. I can see that this is something you care about. But you are being the opposite of persuasive about it.

And the fact that you are sounding so shrill and defensive suggests to me that maybe you realise this too.

 

[J@son]

we both took our 1.87% W/W ivermectin this morning after breakfast, and are both now not long back from 35 miles in the saddle around the autumn countryside.

FF - when you say "in the saddle...."

(please don't take this the wrong way - this is genuinely meant as a joke!)

 

[Rewulf]

Just to be clear - which is it?

I am genuinely interested in understanding what you are trying to say here

You're being pedantic again , and drifting away from the topic , in your quest to make it sound like Ivermectin , and any one who supports its use for covid, are a couple of sandwiches short.
It clearly says , and Campbell points it out , at length , that the NIH ,FDA, and CDC, do not SUPPORT the use of ivermectin in fighting covid....
So why would I decide that they have said something different?
You have decided that I've misinterpreted the video, and the NIH website, despite it clearly not being the case.

The problem is , you have decided I'm wrong before even seeing the evidence.
I pointed out , although I didn't need to , as Campbell had (Even though you dismissed him also , as misinterpreting the NIH page) that the consensus may be changing on ivermectin use as an antiviral.

You do concede that it does have some antiviral properties don't you?
The page mentions 3 antivirals , none recommended for covid use, yet there they are.

However, I think you are a great example of someone whose ideas don't stand up to very much scrutany. I can see that this is something you care about. But you are being the opposite of persuasive about it

What makes you think I'm trying to persuade anyone?
I don't take the stuff myself , so why would I advocate others to do so?
As I've said several times , I'm interested , and this thread is for those who are interested.
You seem to be here to try play psychoanalyst , and put us all right.

And the fact that you are sounding so shrill and defensive suggests to me that maybe you realise this too

Shrill and defensive? I'm not the one going to great lengths to tell everyone how wrong they are, for what ?
I don't care if you change your perspective TBH , I think you're one of those people who could fall out with himself in an empty field , and still win.
Move on man , and let people exercise the right to do what they want with their own bodies.

 

[J@son]

The problem is , you have decided I'm wrong before even seeing the evidence.

I don’t agree. I think I have demonstrated that you are wrong based on the contradictions in your own thinking.

First you state that you didn't claim the dose was recommended by the NIH:


Then you state that the NIH want people to take the described doseage:


Just to be clear - which is it?

I am pretty sure you didn’t answer this question. I am not sure you can.

 

[Rewulf]

don’t agree. I think I have demonstrated that you are wrong based on the contradictions in your own thinking.

I see, you know how I think, cool.

I am pretty sure you didn’t answer this question. I am not sure you can.

I actually did.
I never said that the NIH WANTED people to take it, I stated it WASN'T recommended by them.
But they PUBLISHED a dosage, if pointing this out means you think I'm saying that the NIH want people to take ivermectin, then fill your boots.

 

[J@son]

I never said that the NIH WANTED people to take it

why would it do that if it didnt WANT anyone to take it ?

Read your own posts. The caps in the second quote are mine. The confusion is all yours.

 

[Rewulf]

I think you know the different contexts in which I made both statements, you're just being pedantic, again.

You've had a good go at trying to ridicule myself and others now, but it's water off a ducks back. You've changed nobodies opinion.

Try and find another tree to bark up, it's boring now.

 

[Fair Hill]

I think you know the different contexts in which I made both statements, you're just being pedantic, again.

You've had a good go at trying to ridicule myself and others now, but it's water off a ducks back. You've changed nobodies opinion.

Try and find another tree to bark up, it's boring now.

And by jove you have succeeded!

I told you earlier today to just stop but please, do carry on, it's most amusing.

 

[Rewulf]

And by jove you have succeeded!

I told you earlier today to just stop but please, do carry on, it's most amusing.

Do you actually have any input to this thread?
As in, any comment besides poorly constructed snipes, emojis?
You sir, are a troll, and not even a good one.