Ivermectin, for the interested

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I think this is what is correctly known as 'begging the question' - meaning that in arguments about its safety, efficacy etc., it is assumed as a premis (in spite of the lack of adequate evidence - much as it pains me to point it out) that ivermectin 'works' in the prevention and/or management of covid infection in one or more of the diverse supposed ways.

It might come as a surprise to readers of this thread, but in my daily experience of the real world of UK healthcare ivermectin seems to get hardly any flak at all. I suspect that this is because few people even think about it in the context of covid.

Outside a proper trial, a 'potential' (as you call it - realistically) medicine for covid that turns out not to work is in fact too expensive at any price.
 
Probably a couple of hundred million Indians may disagree with that.
That's another logical fallacy, I think. Argumentum ad populum.
It also presupposes that the ivermectin they might or might not have been given had anything to do with whatever benefit with respect to covid they might or might not have received from it, which I think is again begging the question.

Anyhow, much as I enjoy the company on this astonishing and revealing thread, I'm now going to try to nail a blancmange to the ceiling instead.
:)
 
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.

Does that mean you are in favour and supportive of clinical trials of Ivermectin to determine whether it is or isn't effective as part of a treatment programme against Covid, which appears to be the WHO's position?

In the meantime, it would seem to be his shout if FF wants to take Ivermectin prophylactically. The rest of us are all hopefully big enough and ugly enough to make our own minds up as to whether we do or don't and are (hopefully!) not dependent in any event upon the concensus of opinion or advice of the SD membership for our medical treatment (thanks heavens because we can't even agree on deer calibres ;) ).
 
Does that mean you are in favour and supportive of clinical trials of Ivermectin to determine whether it is or isn't effective as part of a treatment programme against Covid, which appears to be the WHO's position?

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.
 
It also presupposes that the ivermectin they might or might not have been given had anything to do with whatever benefit with respect to covid they might or might not have received from it, which I think is again begging the question
Sooo, flying spaghetti monsters aside, how did India get on top of its covid spike?
It certainly wasn't vaccines, they still only have about 20 % at best , or lockdown, flattening their curve, or massive spike of delta as it were, did it just go away on its own?
I'm now going to try to nail a blancmange to the ceiling instead
It's probably easier doing that, than explaining how ivermectin definitely had NOTHING to do with fighting covid in India.
 
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.
NSW have ordered as well, as well as the as yet unproven Pfizer equivalent; if I’m not mistaken, neither even have EUA yet…🤔

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.
Just to clarify, I certainly do not assert that I know better, on the contrary, every day is a schoolday, and my decision to take ivermectin whilst personal has nothing to do with belief, but arrived at with reasoned regard to the results that have been attained where it has been used in the real world, admittedly in tandem with my concerns about the safety, much less the efficacy of the alternatives, ie the vaccines on offer - ’efficacy’ that has seen friends laid seriously low. I don’t personally think that is an unreasoned position, and I hear your complaint about those I have chosen to invest a little research time into, all the same I don’t see the efficacy of the vaccines, nor their safety, whereas I do see these in ivermectin, by virtue of sheer weight of number.

For my own part, I view the WHO’s role in the pandemic to be quite suspect, based upon the reading I’ve done and their track record, their involvement in the whole affair has been less than convincing, when one considers their part played. BMJ did not exactly cover themselves in glory either in trying to close down what is obvious to most thinking people very much an as yet unresolved matter in the origins of the pandemic, FDA ditto. NIH - I’m open to their neutral stance, despite the overwhelming evidence I see. EMA - I have not as yet seen their evidence which overruled Ex Pfizer man Prof Mike Yeadon’s court bid to halt the rollout of the same vaccines on safety grounds, which have gone on to be used widespread and inter alia have injured some of my friends, and rather a lot of other people, some fatally so. The lack of investigation of these matters is something one might consider the purview of the medical authorities you hold in such esteem, yet they seem strangely quite incurious, and not only to my mind. Perhaps you can understand my reticence, therefore, from my position - I have no problem in picking holes in those you consider to hold ‘consensus’ in these mainstream medical authorities where they are obvious, and lack both efficacy in their positions in regard to their management of Covid and their record of obfuscation, delay, ineffectiveness, etc. That holding such a view may make me something of an ‘outsider’ in your view troubles me not in the slightest.

My own familial brush with Covid, ie that of a nephew, who presented with the symptoms of delta variant and was tested positive as thus, only serve to further strengthen my belief that ivermectin is useful - his (ivermectin using) parents were in full contact with him both before his symptoms became apparent, in the days where he would undoubtedly have been shedding plenty of the infectious virus in proximity to them, and also during the week when he was isolating at home; with all due respect, when some ‘men in their bedrooms’ I’ve never heard of try to persuade me that this is some happenstance or lucky escape, you’ll perhaps understand my reluctance to set much store in your advice -to what or whose benefit would that be?

Whereas I have enjoyed the learning process from Dr Mobeen Syed, the little talks by Dr John Campbell and the many other men of letters who have helped me form my opinion (there seem to be rather little facts about, so I tend to concentrate on them when I can), I’m left with the random ‘men in their bedrooms’ here who continually try to persuade me that it’s just all wrong, but never offer any tangible evidence to the contrary. And thus, we agree to differ, and I’m happy in my ‘belief’ in the safety of a track record here in the less esoteric, but nonetheless real world of applied therapeutics in other countries of a medicine which is otherwise considered by FDA, when given or taken in the recommended doses that eg FLCCC as an ’essential’ drug, yet according to our illustrious ‘contributor’ from o’er the water to be at the same time some ‘deadly dangerous’ poison 🤔🤣😷 - to be sure, when taken for the purposes of prophylaxis, or early stage treatment of Covid.

’What’s your poison’?
 
Last edited:
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.
I’m happy to advise you that I’ve not chosen to have the Covid vaccine, you are quite mistaken :tiphat:
 
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.
If you are suggesting that ivermectin is unsafe, or doesn’t inhibit viral reproduction, don’t be mealy-mouthed about it, just say it - there are numerous studies demonstrating that people do not die from its effects when taken in the dosage recommended, whether in respect of treating Covid or internal parasites. Ask those who have benefitted from it. Your latter point about people believing they are benefitting in some way from the drug, when applied to those vaccinated yet succumbing to the virus is quite apt.
 
...than explaining how ivermectin definitely had NOTHING to do with fighting covid in India.
OK, so is your argument that unless ivermectin definitely had nothing to do with fighting covid in India, it must be a useful tool in the management of covid?

If that is indeed the argument, I can see why there is so much enthusiasm for the drug's use on this thread: but also that such enthusiasm appears to be without adequate foundation to those who, without necessarily being the lackies and running-dogs of the putative pharma-capitalo-totalitarian conspirators, have a broader view of how these things are meant to be judged.

As an aside, I've found that on YouTube one can watch the 1987 Radio Bremen 10-part television adaption of ,The Riddle of the Sands'. I'm finding it quite enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
used in the real world, admittedly in tandem with my concerns about the safety, much less the efficacy of the alternatives,
@Freeforester: This is a small point and I readily accept your intended meaning is quite clear but efficacy and effectiveness mean different things in this context.

Efficacy refers to performance in controlled conditions; effectiveness refers to performance in "real world" conditions.

RCT's measure efficacy against placebos. I think it is important to define our terms.
 
NSW have ordered as well, as well as the as yet unproven Pfizer equivalent; if I’m not mistaken, neither even have EUA yet…🤔


Just to clarify, I certainly do not assert that I know better, on the contrary, every day is a schoolday, and my decision to take ivermectin whilst personal has nothing to do with belief, but arrived at with reasoned regard to the results that have been attained where it has been used in the real world, admittedly in tandem with my concerns about the safety, much less the efficacy of the alternatives, ie the vaccines on offer - ’efficacy’ that has seen friends laid seriously low. I don’t personally think that is an unreasoned position, and I hear your complaint about those I have chosen to invest a little research time into, all the same I don’t see the efficacy of the vaccines, nor their safety, whereas I do see these in ivermectin, by virtue of sheer weight of number.

For my own part, I view the WHO’s role in the pandemic to be quite suspect, based upon the reading I’ve done and their track record, their involvement in the whole affair has been less than convincing, when one considers their part played. BMJ did not exactly cover themselves in glory either in trying to close down what is obvious to most thinking people very much an as yet unresolved matter in the origins of the pandemic, FDA ditto. NIH - I’m open to their neutral stance, despite the overwhelming evidence I see. EMA - I have not as yet seen their evidence which overruled Ex Pfizer man Prof Mike Yeadon’s court bid to halt the rollout of the same vaccines on safety grounds, which have gone on to be used widespread and inter alia have injured some of my friends, and rather a lot of other people, some fatally so. The lack of investigation of these matters is something one might consider the purview of the medical authorities you hold in such esteem, yet they seem strangely quite incurious, and not only to my mind. Perhaps you can understand my reticence, therefore, from my position - I have no problem in picking holes in those you consider to hold ‘consensus’ in these mainstream medical authorities where they are obvious, and lack both efficacy in their positions in regard to their management of Covid and their record of obfuscation, delay, ineffectiveness, etc. That holding such a view may make me something of an ‘outsider’ in your view troubles me not in the slightest.

My own familial brush with Covid, ie that of a nephew, who presented with the symptoms of delta variant and was tested positive as thus, only serve to further strengthen my belief that ivermectin is useful - his (ivermectin using) parents were in full contact with him both before his symptoms became apparent, in the days where he would undoubtedly have been shedding plenty of the infectious virus in proximity to them, and also during the week when he was isolating at home; with all due respect, when some ‘men in their bedrooms’ I’ve never heard of try to persuade me that this is some happenstance or lucky escape, you’ll perhaps understand my reluctance to set much store in your advice -to what or whose benefit would that be?

Whereas I have enjoyed the learning process from Dr Mobeen Syed, the little talks by Dr John Campbell and the many other men of letters who have helped me form my opinion (there seem to be rather little facts about, so I tend to concentrate on them when I can), I’m left with the random ‘men in their bedrooms’ here who continually try to persuade me that it’s just all wrong, but never offer any tangible evidence to the contrary. And thus, we agree to differ, and I’m happy in my ‘belief’ in the safety of a track record here in the less esoteric, but nonetheless real world of applied therapeutics in other countries of a medicine which is otherwise considered by FDA, when given or taken in the recommended doses that eg FLCCC as an ’essential’ drug, yet according to our illustrious ‘contributor’ from o’er the water to be at the same time some ‘deadly dangerous’ poison 🤔🤣😷 - to be sure, when taken for the purposes of prophylaxis, or early stage treatment of Covid.

’What’s your poison’?
This FLCCC and its founder Paul E. Marik that you look up to so highly are far from illustrious, Paul was reprimanded by his Medical Board and ordered to complete additional training as recently as March 2021.
 
Sorry... I hit post too quickly. I was going to add:
who continually try to persuade me that it’s just all wrong, but never offer any tangible evidence to the contrary.
This is an interesting point. On the basis that it is very difficult to prove a negative, it is very difficult to offer "tangible evidence" that something doesn't work. Rather the onus is those who believe that something has a medical benefit to demonstrate this. And the the trials to date have failed to establish this at least to the satisfaction of the WHO, FDA, BMJ, NICE, NIH and EMA.
 
Medicine isn't conventionally prescribed on the basis that we don't know it doesn't work but on the basis that we do know that it does work - along with an understanding of the risks associated with taking it (the risk/benefit trade off which was referred to above).
 
Last edited:
OK, so is your argument that unless ivermectin definitely had nothing to do with fighting covid in India, it must be a useful tool in the management of covid?
No, my argument, to your acertation of the logical fallacy is this.
If ivermectin didn't solve the delta spike in India, what did?
How you looked at Indias figures lately?
 
My own familial brush with Covid, ie that of a nephew, who presented with the symptoms of delta variant and was tested positive as thus, only serve to further strengthen my belief that ivermectin is useful - his (ivermectin using) parents were in full contact with him both before his symptoms became apparent, in the days where he would undoubtedly have been shedding plenty of the infectious virus in proximity to them, and also during the week when he was isolating at home;
This anecdote neatly demonstrates the problem of observational trials (and personal experience) and, for instance, the confirmation bias that almost inevitably undermines the validity of conclusions drawn from them.

Your nephew's parents didn't get ill despite coming into contact with their son during the time he was likely to be highly infectious. They were taking Ivermectin. Therefore you assume that this is the reason they didn't become ill.

I contracted Covid in early August. My wife and daughter were away on the day I tested positive and decided not to come home until my isolation period was over. My son decided to isolate with me. We hung out as normal and made no attempt to socially distance. My son has a fish tank in his bedroom. My son, despite accidentally sharing my toothbrush, (did I mention he's a complete numpty?) did not catch Covid. Draw your own conclusions about the impact of the fish tank...
 
No, my argument, to your acertation of the logical fallacy is this.
If ivermectin didn't solve the delta spike in India, what did?
Logical fallacies, I'm afraid. More than one.

I have no idea whether it was ivermectin, the doxycycline (another cheap drug, but one widely available in this country), or something completely different. I've not even a clear idea what's going on across the vastness of India's various states, how they measure what's being published, how similar their populations are to ours, how they're behaving in and out of doors, nor how those variables might have impacted the apparent results and affected their transferability.

However, if it was ivermectin then it should be possible to show some unequivocal effect in a proper trial - so we should see whether someone can come up with such evidence.
 
ivermectin didn't solve the delta spike in India, what did?

Ivermectin is taken by lots of people in India.
The transmission rate in India is falling.
The widespread use of ivermectin is causing the transmission rate to fall in India.

Rice is the staple diet of lots of people in India.
The transmission rate in India is falling.
The widespread consumption of rice is causing the transmission rate to fall in India.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top