Ivermectin, for the interested

[J@son]

“...although people who are fully vaccinated have a lower risk of becoming infected, those infected with the delta variant can carry similar virus levels as unvaccinated people”

I must assume that you read that statement to mean that there is protection against infection from delta, not just protection from serious illness

Err... that is what it means because that is what it says.

A lower risk of “becoming infected” means that there is, as you put it, greater “protection against infection” rather than anything else such as “greater protection from serious illness”. If the authors had meant greater protection from “serious illness” that is what they would have written.

Again, forgive me, but you seem to only be able to see what you want to see even when it is written clearly in very simple terms.

People who have been vaccinated have lower risk of becoming infected with the virus compared to people who have not been vaccinated.

If you want to put it another way people who have not been vaccinated have a higher risk of becoming infected with the virus compared to people who have been vaccinated.

Vaccines reduce the chance of death/serious illness if you become infected. But they also reduce the chances of you becoming infected in the first place. Thus they reduce the chances of transmission because you cannot give a virus to someone if you don’t have it.

I cannot see how to explain this in simpler terms.

 

[zambezi]

Neil Oliver sums the status quo very well.

 

[Dalua]

Was doxycycline rolled out? It seems it was in Uttar Pradesh, though the exact details are eluding me.
A quick search reveals this snippet, no doubt for you at least , it will prove nothing. Uttar Pradesh government says early use of Ivermectin helped to keep positivity, deaths low

Is it a recognised covid treatment? It has a role in the management of complication of covid illness.
Its an antibiotic is it not ? So could theoretically be used to treat the real killer of covid , pneumonia, but this is pointless if there is no drug , or the bodies natural defences, cant fight the virus causing the pneumonia?

What is the 'something completely different'? No idea. Behaviour changes in the population, reliability of data-gathering - anything at all, really: who knows?
So youve no idea, it could be ....something , but its definitely NOT the thing thats been added to the equation, that could have had the effects seen, in lowering cases and deaths?
Which lead me to ask this.

What kind of argument is that?
To which you replied..
One that that doesn't start from the position that ivermectin has proven efficacy in the management of covid, and acknowledges the limitations of observational studies.

So to summarise, the low case/death rates in Uttar Pradesh, after a catastrophic start with hospitals full , oxygen shortages and high mortality, which after ivermectin was rolled out, with state government sanction, went rapidly down, to at this time , very stable levels, had NOTHING to do with ivermectin, because 'studies' say its got NO PROVEN efficacy?

Yet the doctors in Uttar Pradesh, (and elsewhere) who have inadvertently done the largest test to date on ivermectin/covid on MILLIONS of people (Yes I know thats not a 'proper' study) who say its had beneficial effects , saved lives , and bought cases down to manageable levels, are all wrong , and its obviously 'something else'

You talk about the limitations of observational studies, but ignore actual real world cases, where health care was at a minimum, and no other drugs were available.
Ask yourself the uncomfortable question - Why has the western vaccine dependent nations not allowed its universities the valuable experience of proving, either one way or the other, whether ivermectin is any use in fighting covid ?
We are prepared to spend tens of billions on vaccines, yet cant be bothered to spend a few grand on some large scale trials.
It seems to me they dont want those studies done, as they dont want the answer.

Again , follow the money.

That snippet is the one that mentions doxycycline, but I've found no further details of how much of it, for how long, or for which indications.

I think I've had my fill of 'snippets', and a superficially-persuasive prose calculated to play to the gallery of those susceptible to conspiracy-theories, which additionally betrays a combination of inadequate understanding of the subjects in unassailable combination with a total absence of insight into that same inadequacy.

This subject is serious enough to deserve better - even, I'd have thought, on a stalking forum.

 

[palmer_mike]

Neil Oliver sums the status quo very well.

Neil Oliver the eminent virologist? Or the other one who’s a historian

 

[Rewulf]

That snippet is the one that mentions doxycycline, but I've found no further details of how much of it, for how long, or for which indications.

I think I've had my fill of 'snippets', and a superficially-persuasive prose calculated to play to the gallery of those susceptible to conspiracy-theories, which additionally betrays a combination of inadequate understanding of the subjects in unassailable combination with a total absence of insight into that same inadequacy.

This subject is serious enough to deserve better - even, I'd have thought, on a stalking forum.

I see, I asked a few simple questions, for which, it seems you didn't know the answers, so you then paint me as a conspiracy theorist, who doesn't understand what he's talking about?
Did I ask the 'wrong' question?

I asked, if ivermectin wasn't, indeed ISN'T, responsible for bringing cases/deaths down in India, and Uttar Pradesh in particular, then what did?
I got something like, 'Might have been antibiotics that no one's sure got used in any quantity, and has no proven antiviral properties, or err.. Something else, I don't know? But it definitely wasn't ivermectin, because its not been proven in lab conditions, and stress tested'

I challenged this as not being a very good answer, and next thing the toys are flying out the pram.
You seem pretty offended that a mere mortal should question a medical professional, but it seems a pretty straightforward question.

It appears you don't like the IDEA of ivermectin more than anything, but as the deaths and hospitalizations increase, the reliance on the vaccine seems to be on shaky ground, even now governments are looking at buying in antivirals, many of them extremely expensive, and barely out of trials, with emergency licensing a prerequisite.
Beside the drug manufacturers having a bumper pay day, does it not bother you that untested drugs are being released to the public, on a scale without historical precedent?

Is it tin foil hat time to suggest that one antiviral with proven safety, low cost, and already being used to treat covid, is being deliberately ignored?
Here's another question.
How long would it take to conduct a trial of say 5000, half with placebo, to satisfy the guidelines necessary to prove one way or another.
What are the costings, to do say, 10 such trials across the world.?

When Western governments are throwing billions at experimental drug suppliers, a drop in the ocean of this expenditure would likely fund these trials.
So why aren't they doing them?

 

[zambezi]

does it not bother you that untested drugs are being released to the public, on a scale without historical precedent?

Is it tin foil hat time to suggest that one antiviral with proven safety, low cost, and already being used to treat covid, is being deliberately ignored?

+1

How long would it take to conduct a trial of say 5000, half with placebo, to satisfy the guidelines necessary to prove one way or another.
What are the costings, to do say, 10 such trials across the world.?

When Western governments are throwing billions at experimental drug suppliers, a drop in the ocean of this expenditure would likely fund these trials.
So why aren't they doing them?

+1

 

[Fair Hill]

I see, I asked a few simple questions, for which, it seems you didn't know the answers, so you then paint me as a conspiracy theorist, who doesn't understand what he's talking about?
Did I ask the 'wrong' question?

I asked, if ivermectin wasn't, indeed ISN'T, responsible for bringing cases/deaths down in India, and Uttar Pradesh in particular, then what did?
I got something like, 'Might have been antibiotics that no one's sure got used in any quantity, and has no proven antiviral properties, or err.. Something else, I don't know? But it definitely wasn't ivermectin, because its not been proven in lab conditions, and stress tested'

I challenged this as not being a very good answer, and next thing the toys are flying out the pram.
You seem pretty offended that a mere mortal should question a medical professional, but it seems a pretty straightforward question.

It appears you don't like the IDEA of ivermectin more than anything, but as the deaths and hospitalizations increase, the reliance on the vaccine seems to be on shaky ground, even now governments are looking at buying in antivirals, many of them extremely expensive, and barely out of trials, with emergency licensing a prerequisite.
Beside the drug manufacturers having a bumper pay day, does it not bother you that untested drugs are being released to the public, on a scale without historical precedent?

Is it tin foil hat time to suggest that one antiviral with proven safety, low cost, and already being used to treat covid, is being deliberately ignored?
Here's another question.
How long would it take to conduct a trial of say 5000, half with placebo, to satisfy the guidelines necessary to prove one way or another.
What are the costings, to do say, 10 such trials across the world.?

When Western governments are throwing billions at experimental drug suppliers, a drop in the ocean of this expenditure would likely fund these trials.
So why aren't they doing them?

+1

 

[Freeforester]

According to frontline medics actually involved with treating people already with the infection, the combination of ivermectin and doxycycline and or other medicines like colchisine works very well in combatting the infection (see #650 again, below); For prevention of infection, ivermectin without doxycycline seems to be perfectly adequate, and is used en masse in several countries, eg the home packs used in India, Mexico and other countries, some in conjunction with vitamin D, C, etc, per the FLCCC I-MASK+ protocol.

Treatment Protocols

Prevention and treatment protocols for COVID, Flu and RSV.

covid19criticalcare.com

Too bad for those ‘in other countries’ with less enlightened and frankly ineffective approaches by their respective national health services cannot learn by the successful experiences of others with far better outcomes for their peoples. Disclaimer: other armchair experts may disagree; time will tell, and history will judge both approaches.

 

[Freeforester]

Another chance to hear from Dr Hector Carvallo:

 

[Freeforester]

Which two countries in the graph below are not using ivermectin?

 

[palmer_mike]

Which two countries in the graph below are not using ivermectin?

View attachment 228570

CONFIRMED CASES,
Ie case that have been confirmed through testing. The countries at the bottom end of your graph don’t test as much as Israel and the US

 

[Rewulf]

CONFIRMED CASES,
Ie case that have been confirmed through testing. The countries at the bottom end of your graph don’t test as much as Israel and the US

Thats probably because they dont need to, as they dont have high per capita symptomatic numbers, did you consider that ?

 

[palmer_mike]

Thats probably because they dont need to, as they dont have high per capita symptomatic numbers, did you consider that ?

I did consider it, on the other hand

Redirect Notice

 

[palmer_mike]

Uncorroborated statistics are not always what they appear to be

 

[Rewulf]

I did consider it, on the other hand

Redirect Notice

An African leader corrupt ? Well i wouldnt have believed it if I hadnt seen it with me own two eyes !

Uncorroborated statistics are not always what they appear to be

Sometimes they are though, deaths are the true gauge of whats really happening.
Plenty of stats here for you https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

It shows pretty clearly that the richer countries, with high vax rates, better healthcare, and a populace with higher life expectancy, fare generally worse than those fly blown 3 rd world countries. that sometimes use cattle wormer as medicine, despite it being deadly dangerous
But a man will be along shortly and tell us thats all lies, and far more have died than they are saying.
A bastion of medical knowledge , and a far better source of the real world covid stats , the err, Economist , has decided China has lost 'up to' 1.7 million souls , not 4600 ?
How theyve arrived at this figure is , well , anyones guess , but mostly theirs.
They also say that its not 5 million worldwide deaths , but 'somewhere' between 10 and 20 million , but then whats 10 million deaths here or there ?
Its an uncanny level of accuracy theyve got there , albeit they have far greater knowledge of world covid deaths than say , governments , the WHO ect ect.....

Uncorroborated stats ? They fly around like birds on the wind.

 

[User00040]

 

[zambezi]

Uncorroborated stats ? They fly around like birds on the wind.

Surely you meant to say bats?

 

[Rewulf]

Surely you meant to say bats?

Opportunity missed

 

[Rewulf]

 

[johndeere]

No one is saying that information has been deliberately suppressed for years while millions of people have died!