Ivermectin, for the interested

[J@son]

I never said that the NIH WANTED people to take it, I stated it WASN'T recommended by them.
But they PUBLISHED a dosage, if pointing this out means you think I'm saying that the NIH want people to take ivermectin, then fill your boots.

Does the NIH website say , dont take ivermectin , its for f$^%£$% horses ? No.
Does it list a dosage, yes , why would it do that if it didnt want anyone to take it ?

I am sorry if you think I am being pedantic but I am trying to show you the courtesy of taking what you write seriously and pointing out where you are contradicting yourself. If you think I have made similar mistakes in the views I have expressed, I am sure you would do the same.

 

[Rewulf]

I am sorry if you think I am being pedantic but I am trying to show you the courtesy of taking what you write seriously and pointing out where you are contradicting yourself. If you think I have made similar mistakes in the views I have expressed, I am sure you would do the same.

No, I would concentrate on the topic, try to analyse the information regarding ivermectin in a sensible, unbiased way.
You seem to have drifted away from any attempt at that, and are now in some kind of game of one up manship, while trying to remotely psychoanalyse people.
Your comment about not letting 'us' have the floor, is very telling.

Why don't you reveal why you feel so strongly about the matter, that you would continue with this?

 

[zambezi]

I am sorry if you think I am being pedantic

Yup.

Rewulf made two discreet statements, both of which sought to reveal the lie that Ivermectin is manufactured exclusively as a horse-wormer, or for some other reason toxic to humans.

The first of Rewulf's quotes affirms that inclusion of Ivermectin on the NIH covid trials medicine page does not constitute recommendation for consumption for that ailment. But it does shred the "horse-paste" choir's songsheet.

The second of Rewulf's quotes which you cite exposes the lie that only an overdose of Ivermectin would be effective. The dosage on the NIH covid treatment site is at parity with WHO Ivermectin dosages when used as an anthelmintic. Ergo, safe doses of Ivermectin in consideration for covid treatment.




But all reading this thread are now probably clear on all these points. I would hope we could now all scrap the stalking horse ad hominem attacks. Gaslighting does not serve science nor humanity.

The evidence is that we should all be demanding more rigour on the part of government to investigate all possible covid treatments. Including Ivermectin.

 

[J@son]

No, I would concentrate on the topic, try to analyse the information regarding ivermectin in a sensible, unbiased way...

...Why don't you reveal why you feel so strongly about the matter, that you would continue with this?

Again, you appear to be unable to complete a post without contradicting yourself. Do you want to concentrate on the topic or find out more about me? I am flattered by the attention but let's concentrate on the topic:

"People might have favourite numbers but blood tests really shouldn't. That really only happens if someone sits down and decides to deliberately fake medical research" (Dr Kyle Sheldrick, of the University of New South Wales) Click the link below to find out more:

Covid: Scientist concerned over fake Ivermectin claims

Dr KS asserts that one in three of the trials evidencing Ivermectin as an effective treament for CV19 was compromised. He goes so far as to say "faked". Remove these from the trial data and the evidence in favour of Ivermectin in relation to CV19 "collapses" - again his words not mine.

Dr KS also notes that there isn't some huge conspiracy promoting Ivermectin - just individuals who, for the most part, are trying to boost their own reputations and, I assume, funding streams. The conspiracy theorists are all on the other side of the argument - asserting that widely respected medical authorities (such as the WHO, NIH, FDA, BMJ, NICE, EMA...) and the mainstream media outlets that report their advice (BBC, Guardian, Independent, FT...) are all intentionally supressing an effective, low cost treatment/preventative for CV19.

 

[J@son]

The second of Rewulf's quotes which you cite exposes the lie that only an overdose of Ivermectin would be effective. The dosage on the NIH covid treatment site is at parity with WHO Ivermectin dosages when used as an anthelmintic. Ergo, safe doses of Ivermectin in consideration for covid treatment.

Forgive me but this is absolute nonsense. There is no "NIH covid treatment site". The NIH website is simply reporting on the doses of Ivermectin used within experimental trials based on the data it has received from these trials. It is categorically NOT saying that these doses are either safe or effective. To do so would be to pre-judge the outcome of the trials. And the NIH itself has been very clear that there is - and I quote - "insufficient evidence" to do this.

This isn't a case of me simply disagreeing with you. Rather, you are asserting something which is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[J@son]

Quoted verbatim from the NIH Covid Treatment Guidelines:

Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-27 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26 shorter time to viral clearance,21 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,27

However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:

• The sample size of most of the trials was small.
• Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
• Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
• Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
• The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
• The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.

 

[Rewulf]

OK Jason, you win, its for horses, don't take it kids it's 'deadly dangerous'
Don't take any remedy for anything unless your doc specifically orders you too.
Honey and lemon or a hot toddy?
No way man, that stuff could kill you!

An antiparasitic, humans have been taking for 40 years? Are you mad?
Dr F. Hill told you it's a killer, and he should know.
Post what you like Jason, I'll not be replying to you again, it's pointless and boring, as you twist everything round to... Well, I don't know?
Are you just saying don't take it, because I'm cleverer than you shmucks?
What exactly are you trying to prove?
Whatever it is its not working for me, so I'm out of the debate with you, but not out of the thread.
Have fun.

 

[Fair Hill]

Well done Jason, you absolutely destroyed the self declared ivermectin "experts" who thought their vast experience in strawman arguments would see you give up the chase.

The truth will always prevail when good men like you are willing to stand their ground.

 

[Rewulf]

The truth will always prevail when good men like you are willing to stand their ground.

 

[TomDeer]

The truth will always prevail when good men like you are willing to stand their ground.

What is the truth here? It would appear to be:

1. Iveremectin is approved and used for treatment of certain medical conditions in humans;
2. It is also approved and used for treatment of certain conditions in other mammal species;
3. It is not and cannot be dismissed as being solely horse dewormer;
4. If you overdose on it you may pop your clogs (as with most other medications); and
5. It may or may not have a role to play as part of a treatment programme for Covid patients.

Bearing in mind none of the current vaccines being the panaceas that we may have hoped for, efficacious treatment programmes appear necessary against breakthrough infections. If exisitng medicines, including Ivermectin, are identified as potentially having a part to play in such treatment programmes, it would appear both sensible and proper for them to be appropriately investigated and trialled.

It would also appear to be correct to say that, for whatever reasons, there has been a significant loss of trust amongst parts of the population in institutions and outlets that might be considered to be authorative and/or trustworthy by others. That has not been confined to Covid but also goes for religiuous groups, Brexit, US elections etc etc.

Do obviously shout if anything said above is considered not to be true.

 

[plonker]

Well done Jason, you absolutely destroyed the self declared ivermectin "experts" who thought their vast experience in strawman arguments would see you give up the chase.

The truth will always prevail when good men like you are willing to stand their ground.

really shown your true colours that most already knew.
Arse licker
For our american friends ("boot licker!)

 

[Freeforester]

Although the mechanisms of function of ivermectin are well understood, it would be true to say that some here do not seem to accept this, though they are unwilling or able to share their reasoning or otherwise demonstrate why these mechanisms are somehow incorrect or false.

It follows from there that not only do they do not accept these scientifically demonstrable traits, but are somehow unwilling or able to accept that these traits apply to the protection of humans where the SARS Cov 2 virus is concerned. Yet it is also true that in parts of the world where such matters are not only accepted but also applied, the modes of action appear to correlate with massive reductions in viral load within the communities.

 

[Rewulf]

Although the mechanisms of function of ivermectin are well understood, it would be true to say that some here do not seem to accept this, though they are unwilling or able to share their reasoning or otherwise demonstrate why these mechanisms are somehow incorrect or false.

It follows from there that not only do they do not accept these scientifically demonstrable traits, but are somehow unwilling or able to accept that these traits apply to the protection of humans where the SARS Cov 2 virus is concerned. Yet it is also true that in parts of the world where such matters are not only accepted but also applied, the modes of action appear to correlate with massive reductions in viral load within the communities.

I find it quite telling, that other drugs, some extremely similar to ivermectin, dont garner the same ridicule within the 'consensus community' as ivermectin.
Completely untested for covid use , emergency use licences like molnupirivir, remdesivir, even antiparasiticals like nitazoxanide, with no proven peer reviewed antiviral properties, are not given the tin foil hat treatment.

Why would that be ?
Simple, all these drugs beside ivermectin are still in licence, and cost several magnitudes more.
Molnupirivir has NO licence, and has applied for emergency use, yet the US government has ordered billions of dollars worth anyway.....
Follow the money.

 

[Dalua]

Follow the money.

As has been pointed out more than once, there is money to be made out of all pharmaceuticals - even cheap ones. Perhaps even particularly out of cheap ones if you can get everyone to take them.

 

[big ears]

Although the mechanisms of function of ivermectin are well understood, it would be true to say that some here do not seem to accept this, though they are unwilling or able to share their reasoning or otherwise demonstrate why these mechanisms are somehow incorrect or false.

It follows from there that not only do they do not accept these scientifically demonstrable traits, but are somehow unwilling or able to accept that these traits apply to the protection of humans where the SARS Cov 2 virus is concerned. Yet it is also true that in parts of the world where such matters are not only accepted but also applied, the modes of action appear to correlate with massive reductions in viral load within the communities.

What shoots you in the foot is that you chose to have the vaccine rather than use ivermectin. Strange that you are so convinced in its efficacy and continually argue the point yet we’re not convinced enough to use it on your self.

 

[J@son]

1. Iveremectin is approved and used for treatment of certain medical conditions in humans;
2. It is also approved and used for treatment of certain conditions in other mammal species;
3. It is not and cannot be dismissed as being solely horse dewormer;
4. If you overdose on it you may pop your clogs (as with most other medications); and
5. It may or may not have a role to play as part of a treatment programme for Covid patients.

1. Agree completely;
2. Agree completely;
3. It is obviously not just a horse wormer - or even primarily a horse wormer. Indeed this follows from Point 1 and Point 2. Ivermectin is a widely recognised treatment for a range of parasitic diseases including (in humans) headlice, scabies and river blindness... agree completely;
4. Agree completely;
5. Agree completely.

I accept that Ivermectin may emerge as an effective treatment for CV19. However, the evidence that Ivermectin does provide an effective treatment /preventative for CV19 has not yet been produced.

That's not to say there is no evidence. You can find some evidence to support almost any proposition . Rather, it is to say that there isn't enough evidence or that the evidence that there is, is not reliable enough. And both of these statements apply to the evidence produced to date in support of Ivermectin in relation to CV19.

That's not my just my view. That's the conclusion reached by all of the world's principal medical authorities including the FDA, BMJ, EMA, NICE, NIH and WHO. This conclusion has been widely reported and scrutanised across the mainstream media - as have the views of those who reject it.

I believe that these two words (may/does) are what divide those posting on the forum within this thread.

I don't think a treatment should be advertised (by anyone... let alone someone without relevant medical qualifications) as effective on the basis that it may be effective. Because if you agree that a treatment may be effective, you also have to conceed that it may not be effective.

I also believe people should, for the most part, be free to do as they please. I don't mind at all if FreeForester decides to take a daily dose of Ivermectin or anything else for that matter - Rewulf is as wrong about this as he is about everything else he says about me.

But I do think people should have access to good advice.

If FF takes his daily dose and doesn't get CV19 it doesn't follow that Ivermectin protected him. And this is the problem with the observational evidence on which so much of the evidence in support of Ivermectin in relation to CV19 relies. Medicines are regulated for a reason. The regulation isn't perfect but to claim that you know better than the regulators is bold; to advise other people you know better than the regulators is reckless.

 

[Dalua]

To be able to start to handle it, you have first to identify it.
I think that most of the misunderstandings here concerning ivermectin are relatable to an inability to do that, in what is to most of the correspondents here a completely unfamiliar field.
Regrettable, but perhaps not surprising: everyone would like an easy answer.

 

[Rewulf]

What shoots you in the foot is that you chose to have the vaccine rather than use ivermectin. Strange that you are so convinced in its efficacy and continually argue the point yet we’re not convinced enough to use it on your self.

Where YOU have shot yourself in the foot (welcome back to the debate BTW) is youve completely confused Freeforester with me
Also if you are actually referring to me above, Im NOT 'convinced of its efficacy' but others are, and I respect their rights to use it if they choose to.
To clarify , I am (reluctantly) doubled jabbed, and do not use ivermectin, I have had a good bout of covid , and am happy that THAT is protection enough.
The reason I got jabbed, was for international travel reasons, not because I feared catching covid again.

To be able to start to handle it, you have first to identify it.

Without a doubt , but that doesnt seem to stop the critics of alternative therapies.
What I find strange is , with such a contentious and well publicised 'deadly dangerous' treatment (sorry I have to keep saying that to myself in an Irish accent ) why no one seems interested in doing the necessary studies to FIND that truth ?

 

[Dalua]

One of the things I find most irritating is that there seem to be folk who think that a medicine is either safe or unsafe in some abstract sense, when in fact the concept of drug safety is always relative to the supposed benefit of the drug. On this level, a drug with no demonstrable benefit for a particular indication is unlikely to be considered safe - partly because there's no benefit to counterbalance the risk of side-effect, and partly because people believing they are benefitting in some way from the drug might expose themselves to risks they otherwise would have avoided.

 

[Rewulf]

There seems to be a good deal of unhelpful ridicule and hyperbole in use as tools of argument.

You can say that again

One of the things I find most irritating is that there seem to be folk who think that a medicine is either safe or unsafe in some abstract sense, when in fact the concept of drug safety is always relative to the supposed benefit of the drug. On this level, a drug with no demonstrable benefit for a particular indication is unlikely to be considered safe - partly because there's no benefit to counterbalance the risk of side-effect, and partly because people believing they are benefitting in some way from the drug might expose themselves to risks they otherwise would have avoided.

Excellent point , glad you mentioned that.
There is much talk of potential vaccine side effects being the lesser evil than the covid virus, but in some age groups , this is simply untrue, and the long term effects , well who knows, ALL vaccines have emergency use licences , with no long term human trials possible before deployment.
So in this sense, drugs like remdesivir and molnupirivir, have been ordered up in the 100s of 1000s of doses , without adequate testing, and in one case without even an emergency licence , yet.
What about the risk/benefit ratio of them ?
Whereas a drug that has already been used to fight covid , and CONTINUES to be used, a drug that has an excellent risk/benefit ratio over 40 years, with little known side effects, becomes the bogeyman of the pharma world.
Again , for the benefit of those hard of thinking, NO OTHER potential covid treatment takes as much flak as ivermectin, despite it being the most used, the best safety record, and most widely available.
Because NO OTHER potential covid treatment costs as little per dose.