Ivermectin, for the interested

[J@son]

View attachment 226088

Anyone who would like a better sense of why these forest plots do not show what Zamezi thinks they show, should read this article...

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19

...publishing on the BMJ website which describes how: "Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 123 studies, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines."

 

[Rewulf]

Interesting link, so Dr. McCullough is still being sued and it's accepted that "For Invermectin to reach the levels in the lung tissue that would stop the virus it would require 100 times the dose that is approved for human beings".

It's accepted by who, the Dr who said it?

Is there a study that proves it?

Is there a study that proves to the contrary?
There are plenty of studies that say ivermectin helps prevent and treat covid, but we need to ignore all those don't we?

 

[Freeforester]

It's accepted by who, the Dr who said it?

Is there a study that proves it?

Is there a study that proves to the contrary?
There are plenty of studies that say ivermectin helps prevent and treat covid, but we need to ignore all those don't we?

They should get out and talk to the Indians, Mexicans etc whom they imply aren’t really ‘benefitting‘ from the normal dosage of ivermectin or the apparent lack of virus in their communities; Dr McCullough has invited his detractors to ‘do their worst’, as he suggests in his talk.

 

[Fair Hill]

It's accepted by who, the Dr who said it?

Is there a study that proves it?

Is there a study that proves to the contrary?
There are plenty of studies that say ivermectin helps prevent and treat covid, but we need to ignore all those don't we?

It's in the link you posted up, don't you even read your own links champ?

It also says "You would have to take a bucket of Invermectin to stop the virus, before it stopped the virus it would stop you".

Deadly dangerous stuff altogether.

 

[Rewulf]

Deadly dangerous stuff altogether

You do talk some absolute rubbish

I posted the link because it tries to explain why and what the legal action is about, the rest of it is some rambling justification of why he's such an ignorant anti vaxxer and should be ignored.

So why don't they just ignore him?
Is he killing people with his ideas?

 

[Rasputin]

But are they DEAD from it Ras,that is the point......you are LESS likely to snuff it from after having the vax than if you go unvaxxed.

No there not dead because they were never in one bit of trouble from dying from it. Interesting how we class 70% effectiveness as acceptable for vaccines but not to open up freedoms and let people get on with their lives unmolested.

 

[mchughcb]

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States

“Findings​

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.”

Right up until recently our politicians have been saying get vaccinated stop the spread. They don't say that now.

 

[308tikka]

It also says "You would have to take a bucket of Invermectin to stop the virus, before it stopped the virus it would stop you".

Deadly dangerous stuff altogether.

Ivermectin:
It was produced for humans initially.
Its been in use for over forty years, in humans.
It has one of the safest profiles of any drug for use in humans.
Its a WHO essential medicine - just for clarification, the WHO isnt a veterinarian agency.

It may or may not work efficiently to prevent or treat CV19, but it sure as hell wont harm the patient in the doses prescribed worldwide. Hippocratic Oath ‘do no harm’.

Perhaps you should consider actual evidence ie read, ask advice, and learn to think for yourself on all the available evidence and not just parrot someone else.

 

[J@son]

The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.

(Click the text/link above to visit the WHO website for more info)

 

[J@son]

It may or may not work efficiently to prevent or treat CV19, but it sure as hell wont harm the patient in the doses prescribed worldwide

In 2021, poison control centers across the U.S. received a three-fold increase in the number of calls for human exposures to ivermectin in January 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline.

More here: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

 

[Freeforester]

In 2021, poison control centers across the U.S. received a three-fold increase in the number of calls for human exposures to ivermectin in January 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline.

More here: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

Quite a non-answer to the specific points made concerning the recommended as opposed to ‘redneck-reckoned’ dosage…


I'm guessing you do know that near 70% of WHO’s budget is from private contributions, amd as such may be allocated to specific projects at the whim of the donors?

https://www.devex.com/news/big-concerns-over-gates-foundation-s-potential-to-become-largest-who-donor-97377

Interesting to see the reach of influence over eg the PRINCIPLE study too, of the patrons of the institution conducting the trial, and how it is devised, dosage rates, days beyond initial diagnosis they are ‘treating’ patients, etc.

Strange how real life, on the ground experiences do not mirror the predicted outcomes you promote. You’re not a modeller, by any chance?

 

[Fair Hill]

Ivermectin:
It was produced for humans initially.
Its been in use for over forty years, in humans.
It has one of the safest profiles of any drug for use in humans.
Its a WHO essential medicine - just for clarification, the WHO isnt a veterinarian agency.

It may or may not work efficiently to prevent or treat CV19, but it sure as hell wont harm the patient in the doses prescribed worldwide. Hippocratic Oath ‘do no harm’.

Perhaps you should consider actual evidence ie read, ask advice, and learn to think for yourself on all the available evidence and not just parrot someone else.

You need to practice what you preach fella.

Invermectin is poisoning people because they are using it (against the most credible medical advice) in much higher dosages than recommended.

People have and are dying from using Invermectin.

It is deadly dangerous.

 

[zambezi]

Invermectin is poisoning people because they are using it in much higher dosages than recommended.

Agreed. (that's twice in one thread!)

That is the point made in the TrialSite News piece.

All the serious cases reported in the AAPCC data were dosage abuses. I.e. unrelated to prescribed dosing by GPs.

Heck, paracetemol and aspirin are lethal if you take more than your doctor advises.

 

[J@son]

Quite a non-answer to the specific points made concerning the recommended as opposed to ‘redneck-reckoned’ dosage

That's exactly the point. There isn't a recommended dose for Ivermectin in respect of the treatment of CV19.

Strange how real life, on the ground experiences do not mirror the predicted outcomes

That's exactly the point. This is precisely the problem with the Observational Trials to which you refer and with which you confuse Randomised Controlled Trials. This is why what you refer to as "real life experiences" demonstrating the effectiveness of Ivermectin in preventing/treating CV19, in fact, do no such thing.

For more information see the article aleady referred to above published on the BMJ site: Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

 

[Rewulf]

Heck, paracetemol and aspirin are lethal if you take more than your doctor advises

And kill far more people than ivermectin.

That's exactly the point. There isn't a recommended dose for Ivermectin in respect of the treatment of CV19

So the Docs who prescribe in India ect, don't follow any guidelines on a recommended dose, and just make it up?

Do you seriously believe all the countries that use it, just continue to keep dishing it out, when there is no discernable benefit?

 

[Freeforester]

Treatment Protocols

Prevention and treatment protocols for COVID, Flu and RSV.

covid19criticalcare.com

As I wrote, real life on the ground experiences (I was referring to the instances in the many countries where they are stamping out the virus by denying it new hosts via the use of ivermectin as a preventative measure) do not match what you are suggesting, ie that it does not have such an effect. Presumably you are suggesting therefore that the administrations of such states and countries simply improve the wellbeing of their populations by placebo? And that it is dangerous, and that they are making a terrible mistake which will doubtless come back to haunt them in years to come? I fear you may be confused with certain aspects of the vaccines, not ivermectin.

To describe ivermectin as ‘deadly dangerous’ leaves rather few superlatives for the likes of aspirin, paracetamol, etc, all of which have poorer safety records than ivermectin. See the study:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic2ZWditbzAhWLEMAKHZUxBmEQFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2F12362927%2F&usg=AOvVaw1WtNR6OTdnieQdZwmslGlq

It has not yet been established what other drugs were present in any of the instances of ‘ivermectin poisoning’ mentioned, quite a number of preparations are now available which combine ivermectin with other anthelmintics, which are not ivermectin. These preparations are to be avoided, and are not recommended in any way, this is clear.

 

[J@son]

So the Docs who prescribe in India ect, don't follow any guidelines on a recommended dose, and just make it up?

Correct. That is exactly what they are doing.

There is no recommended dose for the use of Ivermectin in respect of CV19.

The World Health Organisation, British Medical Journal, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Federal Drug Administration and European Medical Agency are all very clear on this point. As are Ivermectin's manufacturers, Merck. As are both of Nobel Laureates (William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura) who developed the drug.

 

[Fair Hill]

And kill far more people than ivermectin.

So the Docs who prescribe in India ect, don't follow any guidelines on a recommended dose, and just make it up?

Do you seriously believe all the countries that use it, just continue to keep dishing it out, when there is no discernable benefit?

Wake up and smell the coffee like a good lad...

Why HCQ and Ivermectin were removed from India’s Covid-19 treatment protocol

Ivermectin and HCQ were dropped from the clinical guidance after studies found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[zambezi]

Do you seriously believe all the countries that use it, just continue to keep dishing it out, when there is no discernable benefit?

Nothing to see here.

The apparent Ivermectin-rise/Delta-plunge anomaly can probably be explained away, right?

 

[J@son]

aspirin, paracetamol, etc, all of which have poorer safety records than ivermectin. See the study:

Two points:

1) the study you are referring to appears to be a trial involving 68 people. Its results indicate that, of the 51 people who were given an escalating dose of Ivermetic rather than a placebo, none experienced an adverse effect. You appear to be basing your position on the experience of just 51 people? Really? This seems ludicrous.

2) you claim that aspirin and paracetamol have "poorer safety records than Ivermectin". Where is your evidence?