Ivermectin, for the interested

[TomDeer]

Yes - absolutely.

Although I am not sure that this is the WHO's position. As I understand it, the WHO recommends that Ivermectin only be used in relation to CV19 within clinical trials - and that's not the same thing as calling for more clinical trials.

My view, as I believe I have stated all along, is that we should look for, and follow, the consensus among widely-respect medical authorities on this issue.

It would be ridiculous of me to assert that I know more about Ivermectin/Covid than the World Health Organisation. It seems to beggar belief that this even needs to be stated.

However, it is equally ridiculous of others on this forum to assert that they know better than the WHO (or BMJ, FDA, NIH, NICE, EMA... etc etc) just because the advice from these organisations doesn't line up with their personal beliefs on this issue.

Yet this is precisely what they have been doing - condeming the consensus among mainstream medical authorities in preference to the advice of people none of us had ever heard of who are preaching (usually from their bedrooms) to uncritical converts and nutty conspiracy theorists.

I do not consider that I know better than the bodies you reference but I do know they are not omniscient.

It is also the case that the mainstream consensus in any aspect of life has its limitations. Whilst the mainstream consensus can be a safe place to be professionally, innovation does not always flow smoothly from it. In saying that, I also accept the corollary that innovators may produce a lot of duds and may never hit the jackpot and do need to be subject to careful scrutiny, particularly where human life is concerned.

Some of those speaking out against the mainstream consensus do appear to have serious professional reputations and credentials. I also accept that some of those speaking against the mainstream consensus might possibly be politely described as less than credible.

Dismissing as nutters those who have serious professional credentials who are questioning the mainstream consensus would seem to be as counter-productive as dismissing Ivermectin as horse dewormer. Similarly, dismissing all those within the mainstream consensus as shills in the pay of big pharma would be equally lacking in credibility.

For my part, I shall remain agnostic.

 

[J@son]

It might be more accurate to describe this as a paper published on an NIH site, rather than an NIH policy statement.

Indeed, it might be more accurate to say this.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say this. Because it would be inaccurate to say: "Treatments other than vaccine must be pursued. That is the opinion of the NIH" as is not the case.

Once again, I think this is an example of people seeing what they want to see; of muddling facts with beliefs and misinterpreting information based on what they want it to say or believe it should say while overlooking what it actually says.

 

[J@son]

Dismissing as nutters those who have serious professional credentials who are questioning the mainstream consensus would seem to be as counter-productive as dismissing Ivermectin as horse dewormer. Similarly, dismissing all those within the mainstream consensus as shills in the pay of big pharma would be equally lacking in credibility.

I take your point and agree that this sounds completely reasonable. I accept that innovation is most likely to come from the edges not the centre. As I hope I have made clear, I am open to the idea that Ivermectin might have a role to play in the fight against CV19. But this role is - as yet - unproven and, as such, unrecognised by all (and it really is all) of the world's mainstream medical authorities.

So the challenge to the innovators is to innovate - to provide the evidence from credible RCTs that will demonstrate Ivermectin's efficacy rather than endlessly re-hash repeadedly discredited data from flawed and faked trials. Doing this isn't innovative and but does make them look like nutters.

 

[mchughcb]

I accept the premise of this thread was to look at alternatives to vaccines being pushed by big pharma and governments. Even vaccines here people jumped onto Astrazeneca until there started to be issues with clotting and people then started jumping on Pfizer. I am still completely open to the idea as there is generally no silver bullet when it comes to health. This is includes losing weight.

However only within a couple of posts the peanut gallery jumps in. Not to debate any of the papers or studies that support or not the use of alternatives, but just because they can.

No he's not, he's convinced of it and he wants to convince you.

He read it on the internet.

 

[Freeforester]

I accept the premise of this thread was to look at alternatives to vaccines being pushed by big pharma and governments. Even vaccines here people jumped onto Astrazeneca until there started to be issues with clotting and people then started jumping on Pfizer. I am still completely open to the idea as there is generally no silver bullet when it comes to health. This is includes losing weight.

However only within a couple of posts the peanut gallery jumps in. Not to debate any of the papers or studies that support or not the use of alternatives, but just because they can.

He’s just lonely.

There’s very encouraging news, and it’s Australian, Chuck:

 

[Dalua]

Was doxycycline rolled out? It seems it was in Uttar Pradesh, though the exact details are eluding me.
Is it a recognised covid treatment? It has a role in the management of complication of covid illness.

What is the 'something completely different'? No idea. Behaviour changes in the population, reliability of data-gathering - anything at all, really: who knows?
What kind of argument is that? 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.

 

[J@son]

the premise of this thread was to look at alternatives to vaccines being pushed by big pharma and governments

If that is the case, alongside Ivermectin, you may also wish to consider some of these alternatives to vaccination:

1. Serious illness;
2. Long-term debilitating illness;
3. Death.

This is likely to be more productive than taking a cheap shot at Fair Hill for having the temerity to disagree with you. That just makes you look rude and helps no-one understand your position.

No vaccine is perfect. There are limits to the effectiveness of almost all medications. And all medications come with the risk of side effects. But there is an overwhelming body of evidence that the vaccine programme is providing an effective treatment against CV19 which significantly reduces the chances of 1, 2 and 3 with an acceptable low risk of side effects,

Anyone who wishes to propose an alternative to vaccination should be willing and able to evidence the claims they make. They should invite scrutiny - rather than cry foul every time their views are challenged or problems with their evidence exposed. Why? Because, in case you have not noticed, people lives depend on this.

 

[J@son]

Can I just add... this isn’t simply about personal choice. This is also about personal responsibility.

I am 52 the chances of me surviving Covid if I haven’t had the vaccination are reasonably good. It is a risk I can imagine others might be prepared to run - assuming there was a good reason for running it such as a statistically significant risk of complications arising from the vaccine in 52-year-old men... which there isn’t.

But this isn’t just about the individual. All of us have a responsibility towards others in society - particularly those are at much greater risk from the virus than ourselves.

Our government, like those of other countries around the world, if offering the vaccine at no cost to those who want it or, at least, are prepared to have it, No-one here has been compelled to submit to a vaccination against their will.

We are running a risk by having a jab. But the risk is small and the benefits are huge.

We run a risk every time we step outside. We run a risk every time will pull a trigger. One would hope that people on this forum would be rather good at evaluating risk.

Proposing an alternative to the vaccine doesn’t necessary make you an anti-vax conspiracy theorist. But you should look carefully at the company you keep.

 

[zambezi]

All of us have a responsibility towards others in society - particularly those are at much greater risk from the virus than ourselves.

This statement utterly ignores the fact that infected persons who are vaccinated carry the virus is same titers as unvaccinated.

That is science. [University of Oxford, U.S. CDC] Not opinion.

So how, exactly, does my being vaccinated protect others?

The most cogent arguments in this area suggest we actually increase risk for others because: (1) vaccinated can carry virus asymptomatically to the vulnerable and (2) mass vaccination can drive viral strain selection. e.g. Delta

Like Shabz, I have had covid. And it was not pretty. But like Shabz, I affirm the right of every individual to decide to vaccinate or not. For reasons of science above, and for reasons of personal freedom.

Plan B?

Not wrong at all, I've even provided actual numbers from the official website (as a line on a graph without them is pointless), you need to quit while your behind Edit: your actual post includes a graph which points out that the testing is up 79,513 (1.2%) on the previous week but you've chosen...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

 

[J@son]

the fact that infected persons who are vaccinated carry the virus is same titers as unvaccinated.

It's not entirely clear what you mean. And you haven't posted a link to the article to which you refer. But to answer your question...

So how, exactly does my being vaccinated protect others?

You will agree that if you don't get Covid, you can't spread Covid to someone else. This is self evident.

This study...

Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021

...reports (with a confidence interval of 95%) that unvaccinated people are more than twice (odds ratio = 2.34) as likely to become re-infected with CV19 than vaccinated people.

It was also published on the CDC site... and so presumably you regard it as "science" too. I've posted the link so that you can scrutinise it.

But there is a bigger, and much simpler, point here. I readily accept that vaccinated people can catch the virus and transmit it to others. Indeed the current spike in cases across the UK and other places makes this self-evident.

Numerically, in the UK, it may be the case that vaccinated people are more likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people because there are more vaccinated people in the UK than unvaccinated people in the UK. This is not science. This is maths.

However, as an individual you are more likely to spread the virus if you are unvaccinated because you are more likely to catch the virus. To argue otherwise is to argue that the vaccine offers no protection against infection. That isn't "science". That is stupid. And no-one is suggesting this - least of all the CDC.

Benefits of Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine

Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines

 

[zambezi]

I readily accept that vaccinated people can catch the virus and transmit it to others. Indeed the current spike in cases across the UK and other places makes this self-evident.

Agreed.

Self-evidently, lockdowns are not a viable/scalable transmission breaker and sustained lockdowns cause other deaths and economic devastation.

Initially vaccines reduced serious illness and thus NHS clogging. Certainly reducing serious illness is important both from a corporate or personal standpoint. Depending on personal factors, a vaccine might be an appropriate mechanism to achieve that.

Now the data suggests that vaccines may have had a hand in the accelerated selection and proliferation of the delta strain.

But...as you admit, the vaccines have not prevented transmission.

Which takes us back to the OP.

What stategy might we employ to break viral transmission?

Answer: whatever treatment or approach breaks viral carriage in each host.

And that is the impasse at which we now stand: Like many, I find the data for ivermectin's capability to do that utterly compelling. You do not.

you are more likely to spread the virus if you are unvaccinated because you are more likely to catch the virus

Moot at best. What we know is that those with proven natural immunity slough the virus and cease to carry or spread it.

 

[Rewulf]

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.

 

[Fair Hill]

I accept the premise of this thread was to look at alternatives to vaccines being pushed by big pharma and governments. Even vaccines here people jumped onto Astrazeneca until there started to be issues with clotting and people then started jumping on Pfizer. I am still completely open to the idea as there is generally no silver bullet when it comes to health. This is includes losing weight.

However only within a couple of posts the peanut gallery jumps in. Not to debate any of the papers or studies that support or not the use of alternatives, but just because they can.

mchugh I know you are under considerable stress but why in the name of God does everyone of your posts have to include a quote of one of my posts?

It's really starting to look like you have developed an unhealthy obsession with me, the latest effort from you this morning is quoting a post I made 9 months ago which as usual was not directed at you, get a grip on yourself boy will ya.

Just to explain to you so you are under no illusions, the post you quoted was made before any debate was had and was a reaction to the signature of the OP which claimed, and is still there for all to read "Ivermectin, the effective treatment for Covid which avoids clots".

Why don't you go out for a nice walk for yourself, get some fresh air, listen to the birds singing, have a nice coffee somewhere and do some people watching, maybe even have a nice meal out for yourself, just treat yourself nice and you might feel better?

If none of that appeals to you, you might want to consider sticking your hand up your hole and pulling yourself together.

 

[J@son]

@zambezi: I am not sure I understand your post. So could you...

1) ...provide a link to the study you mentioned in your previous post so we can all read it for ourselves?

in response to my point that you are more likely to spread the virus if you are unvaccinated because you are more likely to catch the virus:

2) ...provide some evidence to support your view that this might not be true?

You appear to be saying vaccinated people are just as likely to catch the virus as people who are unvaccinated. If you are going to assert this, it would be really interesting to see some evidence.

 

[zambezi]

1) ...provide a link to the study you mentioned in your previous post so we can all read it for ourselves?

I will guess at this question's meaning.

Are you asking how imperfect vaccination [failure to kill pathogen in host] can aggravate virulence? If yes:

Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens - PMC

Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you are asking whether "fact checkers" agree with Nobel prizewinner Luc Montagnier that the science tested above is relevant to the current crop of covid vaccines then the answer is no.

in response to my point that you are more likely to spread the virus if you are unvaccinated because you are more likely to catch the virus:

2) ...provide some evidence to support your view that this might not be true?

First up, I did not state you are more likely to catch the virus. Those are your words.

I reiterated that which Oxford University and U.S. CDC data affirms: persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, whether vaccinated or not, are demonstrated to carry same [delta variant] viral titers:

Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, including COVID-19 ...

This report describes COVID-19 outbreaks associated with ...

www.cdc.gov

 

[J@son]

I am sorry. I don't mean to be obtuse but I am struggling to see the point you are making.

I think I have found the research you are referring to on the BMJ site:

Covid-19: Fully vaccinated people can carry as much delta virus as unvaccinated people, data indicate

To quote directly from this article:

Adults who have been fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 can carry the same viral load of the delta variant as those who are unvaccinated, a preliminary analysis of UK data suggests.

The latest results from the UK’s national covid-19 infection survey show that having two vaccine doses remains the most effective way to ensure protection against delta. But, 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, the data show. The authors said the implications for transmission were not yet clear but suggested that the potential for fully vaccinated individuals to transmit the virus to others would make achieving herd immunity more of a challenge.

So there are two findings here:

1. "people who are fully vaccinated have a lower risk of becoming infected";
2. people who are infected (regardless of whether vaccinated or unvaccinated) "can carry similar virus levels".

Which brings me back to my original point:

as an individual you are more likely to spread the virus if you are unvaccinated because you are more likely to catch the virus. To argue otherwise is to argue that the vaccine offers no protection against infection. That isn't "science". That is stupid. And no-one is suggesting this - least of all the CDC.

These findings support the point I am making.

What point are you trying to make? I am sorry but I don't see how your posts respond to the point made by mine.

 

[zambezi]

You said..

as an individual you are more likely to spread the virus if you are unvaccinated because you are more likely to catch the virus.

...to which I responded that data showed that an infected person, whether vaccinated or not, carry same levels of virus. This is a point you agreed...

2. people who are infected (regardless of whether vaccinated or unvaccinated) "can carry similar virus levels".

...and added a BMJ quote:

But, 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, the data show. The authors said the implications for transmission were not yet clear but suggested that the potential for fully vaccinated individuals to transmit the virus to others would make achieving herd immunity more of a challenge.

...which sounds like everyone since covid infections are soaring and delta is the variant making up 100% of discovered infections:

COVID-19 Genomic Surveillance – Wellcome Sanger Institute

The Wellcome Sanger Institute's COVID–19 Genomic Surveillance Initiative, part of the COVID–19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium

covid19.sanger.ac.uk

Summary

• the variant of SARS-Cov-2 circulating the UK is delta
• probability of encountering a SARS-CoV-2 infected person is statistically at a year high
• both vaccinated and unvaccinated people take on and carry delta [so references to protection from previous strains is irrelevant]

To reiterate the interpretation on the paper on the NIH page quoted previously:

 

[J@son]

The problem with your argument is that you appear to be focusing on point 2 while ignoring the implications of point 1 completely,

The research you are referring to indicates that the viral load carried by someone who has become infected with the virus can be equivalent among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. That’s my point two. Although we don’t yet know this to be true, I agree completely that this is what this piece of research indicates.

However, the same piece of research observes that vaccinated people are much less likely to become infected with CV19 in the first place. That’s my point one.

You cannot transmit a virus unless you become infected with it. That goes without saying.

So vaccination may not reduce your viral load once you are infected - compared to someone who is also infected but unvaccinated. (Point 2)

But being vaccinated will reduce your chance of becoming infected in the first place. As a result, being vaccinated will reduce the chances of you being able to pass the virus on to anyone else - compared to someone who has not been vaccinated. (Point 1)

This is why when you say something like:

I affirm the right of every individual to decide to vaccinate or not. For reasons of science above, and for reasons of personal freedom.

...I think you are focusing too much on the rights and personal liberties of the individual and neglecting the individual’s responsibility towards others in society. There are no rights without responsibilities. Individuals who place their own rights and freedoms above their responsibilities towards others tend to end up without a society around them to protect these rights and liberties.

This is why I think those who are unvaccinated (through choice) are not only being reckless with their own health (which is, of course, their right); they are also jeopardising other people’s health. I certainly don’t think they should be forced to be vaccinated but I think we should acknowledge that they are putting the most vulnerable members of our society at risk because of the sanctity of their personal beliefs.

 

[J@son]

So how, exactly, does my being vaccinated protect others?

By significantly reducing the chances of you becoming infected with the virus.

You cannot pass on a virus that has not infected you.

 

[zambezi]

You cannot pass on a virus that has not infected you.

But, 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 fully concede that many vaccinated people avoid serious illness following delta infection.

But I understand the sentence above from the BMJ to mean: vaccination results in a lower rate of infection...unless it is the delta variant.



Because you persist on this point, I must assume that you read that statement to mean that there is protection against infection from delta, not just protection from serious illness. [this is critical: delta is the dominant variant in most vaccinated populations]

Whereas a summary sentence like the BMJ phrase above might be ambiguous in its meaning, the U.S. CDC data regarding delta "breakthrough" in the vaccinated is not: