Ivermectin, for the interested

[mchughcb]

The BBC did a "complete hit job": Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug (Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug)

So did Nature: Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies (Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies)

As did the US Food and Drug Administration: Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 (www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19)

Along with The Independent: Husband of wife who sued to demand ivermectin treatment has died of Covid-19 (Husband of wife who sued to demand ivermectin has died of Covid-19)

And the Financial Times: Poisonings rise as Americans treat Covid with anti-parasitic drug (Subscribe to read | Financial Times)

Not to mention the Guardian: Desperation, misinformation: how the ivermectin craze spread across the world (Desperation, misinformation: how the ivermectin craze spread across the world)

And the British Medical Journal: Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 (Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine)

And the European Medicine's Agency: EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials (EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials - European Medicines Agency)

...there's plenty more where these came from. But you get the idea.

No-one on this forum really knows what they are talking about. If we have established nothing else, I think we have established this. We are all dependent on information provided from other sources. So look at your sources. Do you normally seek medical advice from people posting from their bedrooms on the other side of the world? Or pressure groups that exist soley to make the case for a specific agenda, such as bird.org?

Perhaps you (Freeforester, Zambezi et al) do. But the fact is most people don't. And I think this gives you an enormous problem as you try to advance your argument. No credible or respected sources seem to share your perspective on this.

No doubt in response to this post you will trumpet the name of doctor that I have never heard of, writing in a journal I have never heard of, published on a website I have never heard of. And therein lies the problem that you seem almost willfully blind to. I have never heard of them. And I am willing to bet neither had you - until you discovered they happened to agree with your perspective on this issue. And that is why you suddenly regard them as a great authority on the subject.

You seem to think that Expert = Someone who agrees with me. But this is not the case. If you want to convince someone of something you have to do so using a source that they trust. That is why this thread isn't changing people's minds. You don't trust the BBC, The FT, The Guardian, The Independent, The British Medical Journal, Nature, the FDA or The European Medicine's Agency. And I don't trust the doctors posting from their bedrooms in Uttah Pradesh.

I suggest we all agree to differ on this point and come back in ten years' time to see who is still alive. At least we can all have confidence the cause of your death is unlikely to be parasitic worms.

The whole world was to believe the mainstream narrative the incidents that started the Vietnam war, the second Iraq war and that a wet market in Wuhan that doesn't sell bats was the most likely source of the virus. All true and until proven otherwise by conspiracy theorists. And then it is quietly swept under the carpet.

The absolute vigor at which governments and social media have banned even the discussion of anything other than approved vaccines i find disturbing.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Seconds out - round errr, anyone know??

 

[Freeforester]

Talking of ‘experts’, it’s quite interesting that when the discoverer/co-developer of Ivermectin, Nobel prize winner Satoshi Ōmura, of Kitasato University, Tokyo, Japan, himself, in light of the dilemma Jason Page describes above, recently wrote to Merck, and offered to make available the resources of Kitasato Uni’s medical institute to conduct a large scale trial of the type none of the big pharma players have until now been willing to undertake; Merck, the company who benefited from the patent of his work and for whom he did the development, er, declined

Obviously nothing to see, then.

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/omura-lecture.pdf

 

[Rewulf]

“Lies” - surely not? Really, really low porkies figures from a junta government in a country which manipulates the press, puts millions of its population in concentration re-education camps centres and maybe even infected invented C19? Maybe even perhaps has most to lose if (they let the investigators back into their labs) C19 doesn’t go away! Gracious, you will be telling me Iraq really had nuclear arms next!

So let me get this right , you dont believe the official MSM figures on Chinas covid/.death rate , or Taiwans (which isnt China , and doesnt have re education camps) but youre happy to believe that ivermectin isnt safe to use as a covid treatement, because the same source told you so ?
Despite many countries using it with official sanction... successfully ?

Im not having a dig , Im just trying to understand how a source can be trusted with providing some information, but not other info . Surely a mistrusted source cant be trusted at all ?

 

[Foxyboy43]

Errr, lets sort out the biggie first. China, hmmm, class discuss……

 

[Freeforester]

So let me get this right , you dont believe the official MSM figures on Chinas covid/.death rate , or Taiwans (which isnt China , and doesnt have re education camps) but youre happy to believe that ivermectin isnt safe to use as a covid treatement, because the same source told you so ?
Despite many countries using it with official sanction... successfully ?

Im not having a dig , Im just trying to understand how a source can be trusted with providing some information, but not other info . Surely a mistrusted source cant be trusted at all ?

Obviously this applies to the 5 part time cyberchums who magicked up the now discredited ‘hatchet job’ on ivermectin. One wonders whether it was a commissioned piece by those controlling BBC (I don’t think you can just phone Justin Webb up of a morning and say ‘We‘ve got a piece for your early prog, can we have a go?’, and I’m fairly sure there are meant to be competent editors, producers and the like who were every bit as culpable) or who might be behind the ‘famous’ five’s little wheeze - Cui buono?

Btw inter alia, it appears that quite a lot of programming had also been done by the Beeb from their presenters’ spare bedrooms as is queried above, but it would not matter where the source came from, were it reliable; this is where we must leave talk of the BBC, great at opinion forming and propaganda, but presenting news objectively? Not in decades.

 

[zambezi]

BBC, great at opinion forming and propaganda, but presenting news objectively? Not in decades.

Absolutely.

 

[J@son]

I think your posts are starting to confuse the fact that <insert name of mainstream organisation/outlet here*> has published information that contradicts your position, with evidence that you are right to take the position you have adopted on Ivermectin.

* take your pick: BBC, World Health Organisation, FDA, European Medical Agency, FT, BMJ, Guardian, Independent... the list goes on.

Again, you would have us believe that all of these organisations are seeking to suppress an effective treatment for CV19.

And again, I think this says more about your distrust of the mainstream media/consensus than it does about the efficacy of Ivermectin.

 

[mchughcb]

I think your posts are starting to confuse the fact that <insert name of mainstream organisation/outlet here*> has published information that contradicts your position, with evidence that you are right to take the position you have adopted on Ivermectin.

* take your pick: BBC, World Health Organisation, FDA, European Medical Agency, FT, BMJ, Guardian, Independent... the list goes on.

Again, you would have us believe that all of these organisations are seeking to suppress an effective treatment for CV19.

And again, I think this says more about your distrust of the mainstream media/consensus than it does about the efficacy of Ivermectin.

WTF is the mainstream media consensus? That Hillary Clinton was going to win the election? That Brexit would never get over the line? That the virus came from a bat at a wet market? That Saddam had WMD?

 

[J@son]

WTF is the mainstream media consensus? That Hillary Clinton was going to win the election? That Brexit would never get over the line? That the virus came from a bat at a wet market? That Saddam had WMD?

Let's consider the examples you give:

Hilary Clinton: I agree that the vast majority of mainstream media accurately reported polling predictions that gave her the election. These predictions were wrong. The results of the election turned out to be much closer that the pollsters predicted and the pollsters had not given enough weight to important considerations when making their predictions - placing, for instance too much weight on the number of votes cast and not enough on the districts where they were cast. But this wasn't a problem with the media - which accurately reported what the pollsters predicted. You may as well rail against the performance of the tipster on the Today Programme when the 3.45 at Kempton Park isn't won by the favourite horse. This story is about a prediction. And it is worth noting that the mainstream media then examined and exposed why the pollsters had got things so wrong.

Brexit: Same point. The apparent favourite in the race wasn't first over the line. What's your point? That elections are sometimes won by the underdog. Well, you are right. They are won by the person who gets the most votes within the rules of the electoral system being used. This means they are, almost by definition, won by the mainstream.

Origins of the virus: Sorry - I don't know enough about this to understand the point you are making.

Iraq's WMD: This is an interesting one. I think you are wrong to offer this as an example of the "mainstream" being wrong. I think it is, in fact, a very good example of where the mainstream media actually called an issue correctly. First, there was not a widely held consensus on this issue - either politically, with the mainstream media or among popular opinion. Second, in so far as there was a consensus in the media, it was around agreement that the stated thresholds for military intervention had not been met and that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time. In supporting military intervention, the Government of the day actually went against the generally held views expressed in the media, by the majority of politicians and by the public. Moreover these divisions were refected in the reservations repeatedly expressed by the UN agencies involved. The case for miliary action and the decision to take it was made in defiance of the consensus, not because of it, and the resulting cost in blood and treasure is well documented.

But this isn't just about the mainstream media. It is about the mainstream more generally. It is about consensus. As far as Invermectin goes, it is about the well documented views expressed by the WHO, the BMJ and the EMA - not just how these views are reported in the media. There's a tendency to want to shoot the messenger because it is easier than blowing meaningful holes in the message. Disagreeing with the BBC on a medical issue is so much easier than disagreeing with the British Medical Journal. And, I suspect, that this is explains your position.

 

[zambezi]

come back in ten years' time to see who is still alive.

Home | America's Frontline Doctors

Meet America's Premier Civil Liberties Organization. America's Frontline Doctors wants to Fight for Your Medical Freedom.

americasfrontlinedoctors.org

 

[J@son]

Oh for heavens sake! Lots of things contain toxins. At the risk of dragging this thread back to something that someone on this forum can actually offer an expert opinion on: cured meat is full of toxins! Indeed bacon and jerky rely on the poison to preserve them.

Do you really need two doctors and a pathologist posting on an anti-vax site to tell you that medicines can be bad for you?

Bacon sandwiches are bad for you. But try advancing the argument that we should stop eating them and see how far that gets you on this forum.

 

[Freeforester]

Did someone mention the ’credibility’ of the WHO, you know, the ones that got it wrong in the first instance, istr?

 

[zambezi]

Bacon sandwiches are bad for you. But try advancing the argument that we should stop eating them

No body is attempting to force bacon into my body

 

[J@son]

No body is attempting to force bacon into my body

I get it.

You are anti-vax.

You think the BBC spouts "propaganda" - that is to say deliberately misleading information.

And you think that the BBC is part of a global conspiracy with the likes of the FT, Guardian, Independent, Federal Drug Administration, British Medical Journal, European Medical Agency, World Health Organisation and others, to suppress an effective treatment for CV19.

While I completely disagree with your views on this, I think I do understand them and I think you have every right to express them.

But I also think it is right to expose your views to scrutany - to join up the dots - so that other people can consider your opinions on these wider issues when evaluating the views you express on Ivermectin.

One of the reasons I don't trust your views on Ivermectin is that I think you are obviously wrong about this other stuff. Indeed, I suspect you hold your views on Ivermectin because of the views you hold on these other issues and that is why nothing I - or anyone else - can say is going to change your mind.

And this is the difference between us.

If the sources that I trust change their position on Ivermectin, I can readily imagine changing mine. I would have no difficulty doing this if, for instance, the BBC other mainstream UK media reported that the BMJ and WHO had reversed their current positions on the use of Ivermectin.

However, I cannot imagine you changing your mind. If the experts you quote change their position, I imagine you will simply stop regarding them as experts - and claim, instead, that they have been bought off by Big Pharma or silenced by the Deep State.

I think there is a massive problem not only with what you think but also how you think - and this is what I have been trying to point out.

 

[zambezi]

You are anti-vax

Wrong. See previous statements. I have had every vaccination to date.

However, science shows that the "covid vaccine" family of drugs does not deserve to share the mantle we place on other, true, vaccines.

Per the OP, Ivermectin [or other treatments] appear a safer solution for many.

And you think that the BBC is part of a global conspiracy

Wrong. I am 100% clear that they lack rigour in their research and frequently ape or spout opinions rather than facts.

If the experts you quote change their position, I imagine you will simply stop regarding them as experts

Wrong. My opinion is data driven. Not author-obsessed. Data to date is overwhelming in favour of (1) Natural immunity (2) treatments other than "covid vaccine" (3) efficacy of Ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 replication suppression in vivo at safe doses

 

[Freeforester]

There’s a world of difference between being anti vaccine and anti mandated ‘vaccine’, the latter which befits the jab in question is now in some parts of the world. I’ve had each and every other (proper) vaccine ever offered.

Were you able to demonstrate that the modes function of Ivermectin to be other than is commonly understood to be, then you may have a convert; but as it is, your position is little different to those who accused Galileo of heresy in suggesting that the Earth wasn’t the centre of the universe, until they were shown to be incorrect in their assumption. Weight of opinion, irrespective number and ‘calibre’ of adherents is as naught when compared to fact.

 

[Rasputin]

For all you vax aficionados who couldn’t wait to get dosed up any comment to make on Singapore 90%+ vaccination and within touching distance of all time highs of cases?

Oddly enough British press barely mentioning this …

 

[Mick Miller]

For anyone suffering with it and, let's be honest, for almost everyone alive in any age group under 70 that means nothing other than a mild to bad flu, there is anecodotal evidence that simple Aspirin can reduce the symptoms considerably.

I certainly found that a combo of honey, lemon and dissovable aspirin helped alleviate my symptoms and I was back on my feet in a few days.

So maybe no need to nick and lick dobbins horse paste?

 

[zambezi]

So maybe no need to nick and lick dobbins horse paste?

Nice turn of phrase. LOL. And I broadly agree your assessment of this virus' impact, on most people.

More seriously, as data has made clear, covid vaccines cannot prevent a vaccinated person from carrying the virus and thus potentially infecting a vulnerable relative/patient.

Whereas, any treatment that arrests viral replication in the host, will obviously be a superior means by which we protect the widest populace.

Per the OP, data suggests therapies that include Ivermectin have the potential to do just that.