Ivermectin, for the interested

[zambezi]

nobody's listening

Wrong.

I am glad Steve is doing the legwork.

I have shared Dr Campbell's synopsis of Dr Lawries work [#168] with my MP and have asked for an official answer as to why the government are not engaging with that data.

And I have posed a similar question on 10 Downing Street's FB page.

Ivermectin looks promising. A failure to even evaluate needs to be challenged by the electorate.

 

[Freeforester]

Steve, nobody's listening

Cheers

Bruce

I get you Bruce, it’s not the story right now, and indeed not up until now, here in the UK, officially anyway, no argument. Doesn’t make it uninteresting for the interested, all the same. But presently: ‘cui buono’? And for how long, if you think the answer to that Q is ’the general public’?

Try to foresee the arrival of the next ’variant’, be it the ‘Cardiff, Renfrew, or Burnley’ one, much less the German, Italian, or Chinese one - the one where the vaccine/s is/are deemed by some other transitory politician, somewhere - anywhere - to be ”quasi-innefective”, only for that to be a bit nearer the mark next time than M. Macaroon was this time round, or even come Covid-20; ivermectin is still anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, anticoagulatory , safe, cheap, and effective at all stages, everywhere else where deployed according to FLCCC guidelines. At 2US cents a dose at WHO levels, it’s easy to understand why it’s being ignored, especially when there’s still good money being made, and the next generation is being both robbed by inflationary pressures and enslaved in a debt cycle not of their making. Cui Buono?

I’d personally prefer not to have a new jab every year for the foreseeable, where I can see what is to my mind a better alternative. But it’s a free country, for the time being, at least, so be happy that those who prefer to roll up a sleeve do so, and don’t concern yourself too much about the alternatives, whether viable, ’unorthodox’ or not. You’ve gotta hand it to them - the proponents - they’re trying their best to show reason, against formidable, if irrational opposition to the proposal. As you correctly point out, it’s just the small matter of ’nobody’ listening.
Hell, even opinion polls will show that to be true, albeit not necessarily starting from an informed point of view.

Just glad I’m neither a potential shedder nor candidate, jabbed or not. Sleeping well on that.

 

[Freeforester]

Another one, before the 'embargo' gets going :

Top Yale Doctor/Researcher: ‘Ivermectin works,’ including for long-haul COVID

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

trialsitenews.com

 

[Freeforester]

A little reading for those requiring more results can be found here:

https://ivmmeta.com/#top

 

[mealiejimmy]

Seems like it's going to court in South Africa

Ivermectin: South African medics using unproven worm drug to treat Covid-19

Some South African medics are going to court to seek permission to prescribe Ivermectin to Covid patients.

www.bbc.co.uk

Cheers

Bruce

 

[mchughcb]

A little reading for those requiring more results can be found here:

https://ivmmeta.com/#top

Very comprehensive. Not going to argue against the conclusions

 

[Freeforester]

Very comprehensive. Not going to argue against the conclusions

MHRA apparently 'seeking more evidence'

 

[Freeforester]

From Japan, an interesting overview of research into and trial results of use of ivermectin:

 

[Freeforester]

And one for my personal stalker, lifted straight off the internet (if the cap fits....)



Happy Easter to all, be it bright or blizzard like!

 

[Dalua]

(if the cap fits....)

...which it does.
Only, though, because one takes a cautious and unprejudiced view of the available sizing information and checks it against other reputable sources.
If one goes of the first size-chart that seems attractive and then simply disregards others which don't match it, one might end up in error - and (perhaps worse) lead others the same way.

 

[Freeforester]

http://jja-contents.wdc-jp.com/pdf/JJA74/74-1-open/74-1_44-95.pdf

 

[Freeforester]

...which it does.
Only, though, because one takes a cautious and unprejudiced view of the available sizing information and checks it against other reputable sources.
If one goes of the first size-chart that seems attractive and then simply disregards others which don't match it, one might end up in error - and (perhaps worse) lead others the same way.

Lifted straight off the internet, (predictably):

Meta-analysis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We’d best see your results from your ‘reputable’ sources, then.

From the JJA paper, above, #191, bottom of page 2, in case you’re having difficulty:

“Furthermore, by the 27th of February, the results of 42 clinical trials, including approximately 15,000 patients (both registered and unregistered studies) have been subjected to a meta-analysis after exclusion of biasing factors. It was found that 83% showed improvements with early treatment, 51% improved during late-stage treatment, and there was an 89% prevention of onset rate noted.”

 

[zambezi]

The summary in that Japanese scientific analysis sums it well:

• Ivermectin is a a proven safe drug - 30 years dosing, 3 billion doses
• Data is compelling, samples significant

 

[Dalua]

Lifted straight off the internet, (predictably):

Indeed - nothing wrong with that, is there?
The notable point is that the hat-size chart I lifted was correct, and the one you lifted wasn't.
And hat sizes are relatively straightforward.

 

[Freeforester]

The summary in that Japanese scientific analysis sums it well:

• Ivermectin is a a proven safe drug - 30 years dosing, 3 billion doses
• Data is compelling, samples significant

View attachment 200859

May be a ‘king Cnut’ type, trying in vain to hold back the tide, which will ultimately sweep him aside.

 

[Dalua]

May be a ‘king Cnut’ type, trying in vain to hold back the tide, which will ultimately sweep him aside.

His Majesty's legendary conduct is also commonly the subject of misunderstanding, I think.

 

[Freeforester]

’Never explain, never complain’

 

[Freeforester]

More Easter entertainment: interesting reflections on WHO‘s recent ‘downplay’ of Ivermectin, also marked down as one of its own ’essential’ medicines gets going about 04min 45 sec in:

 

[Dalua]

More Easter entertainment: interesting reflections on WHO‘s recent ‘downplay’ of Ivermectin, also marked down as one of its own ’essential’ medicines gets going about 04min 45 sec in:

An interesting video, though perhaps it has more in common with US-type tele-evangelism than a serious discussion of clinical medicine. Dr Kory's view that the WHO is on the same level as Big Tobacco and the oil industry in terms of manipulation data to the general disadvantage of the public is certainly an interesting one.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the WHO's position is not in any way at odds with ivermectin's being on its own 'essential medicines' list. The medicines on that list are there for particular uses, and those listed for ivermectin do not currently include anything covid-related. In a real-world situation, I guess one also has to acknowledge a risk that if everyone in the world suddenly starts to use it for indications for which its efficacy is unproven, there will be less available for the proven uses - which is clearly not a good thing. Particularly if it doesn't actually work that well for covid.


I'll be interested to see how things pan out. The current situation seems to be that it might do some good with respect to covid, but no-one knows either why (antiviral? inflammation modulator?) or for whom it would be useful (everyone, people at high risk of catching it, people who would be at high risk of illness if they catch it, covid-ill people at home, covid-ill people in hospital, covid-ill ventilated people?).

Until we get some clarity on these points, it seems to me to be at the very far end of imprudent to assume anything about it at all - let alone to do anything about it; other than some decent trials, of course.

 

[Freeforester]

Perhaps Dr Tess Lawrie should have sent you a copy of her comprehensive report on the meta analyses back in January, instead of Hancock and his fellow comedians. Particularly if it was going be of any benefit to mankind to do so.

In the meantime you may benefit from some of the explanations put forward to your questions as to quite why it works and how by Dr Mobeen Syed, the Whiteboard Doctors, and others who are able to explain such details, in detail, as detailed here earlier in the thread.

Now, which of the Corporate disinformation playbook plays would you wish your queries to be filed?

The hardest task is to enable or otherwise help someone to understand a matter or matters which it is manifestly not in their interest to understand.