Ivermectin, for the interested

[zambezi]

It's a sort of thing which I have some degree-level training and professional practice at doing

As do many of Ivermectin's proponents. Their opinions are based on their own patients, regimes they have administered.

Feugh nailed it: whether or not convinced by the data already available, there exists a concerted effort to stifle objective scientific revelation.

in vivo trials

Those are the ones on which pro-Ivermectin medical professionals are basing their support. Nothing theoretical.

You chose to discount those trials. And to set aside data from Uttar Pradesh and other regions that have quelled the pandemic in their land.

It is laughable that Molnupiravir has been expedited with negligible testing. And it contains NHC, a known mammalian mutagenic compound.



Whether or not any medical professional finds the extant body of data sufficient for their personal Ivermectin-for-SARS-CoV-2-replication-disruption acceptance threshold, I cannot see that it is a position of scientific objectivity to do anything other than demand full trials.

 

[User00053]

just to say, don’t have an opinion either way, open mind. But, the truth is out there!

 

[Dalua]

As do many of Ivermectin's proponents. Their opinions are based on their own patients, regimes they have administered.

I think this is the main problem here. The proponents are, for good reason, in the minority in their understanding and interpretation of the currently-available data.

I can't speak for their experience with their own treatment of their own patients - and nor, of course, can any other objective observer: which is a problem from an evidential perspective.

 

[J@son]

[in vivo trials] Those are the ones on which pro-Ivermectin medical professionals are basing their support.

Sorry - but you are muddling your terms again. This time you are blurring the distinction betweeen the Randomised Controlled Trials required to evidence a medicine's effectiveness and the mass observational trials you have previously sited in support of your position - the findings of which are widely recognised as flawed at best and, at worst, faked.

Both are in vitro but this does not make them equivalent.

 

[Sharpie]

whether or not convinced by the data already available, there exists a concerted effort to stifle objective scientific revelation.

Science does not deal in "revelation". Though I realise that you believe in such things, from bible study etc.

"Dr." Campbell (retired Nurse, and Nurse Trainer) has rather made a thing out of his pontifications, and increasingly shrill snidy remarks, about, well, almost everything, including frankly digs about how he speculates that other countries are going about things. Carefully skating around the boundaries of what's acceptable and bamboozling his acolytes, in such an ever so soothing voice. Such a nice man.

As for this video, well it was simplistic patronising nonsense. He knowns no more about molecular design of drugs than I do, possibly less. But has self-educated himself and learned more long words along the way. Brandishing 2D representations of molecules then claiming to know how they work is so fatuous that I can't even to begin to express my contempt.

Nevertheless he seems to have sucked in over a third of a million viewers to just this one video. If they watched all twenty minutes of it, that might be 100,000 hours of time wasted around the world just listening to his ramblings. For this one video alone. Extend that, and you might consider him to be rather a drain on humanity, even though he might just occasionally come up with a rare insight. I see the rest as just noisy commentary. And, to an extent, increasingly playing to his crowd.

I can't be doing with that, it would be rather sad if I felt that I needed to watch his every video.

I think that he might be a bit stuck. He has created a channel that needs feeding, and viewing figures, to remain viable. Don't think for a moment that he is not incentivised to do so.

As for the idea that Ivermectin, and other off-patent generic drugs are "free", so cheap that there can be no profit in them, dream on.

Do you seriously thing that the manufacturers of generics do so out of the kindness of their hearts, pro-bono ?

Certainly not. To sell generics you have to compete with the other generic manufacturers. And make a profit. Which means smaller margins, but massive scale. Thinking of tooling up to make even more Ivermectin (for one example), then use every trick to stoke up demand for that.

There is big business interested in promoting Ivermectin, also political interest in spreading it around, perhaps to divert attention from other failings.

As there is a huge "industry" amongst researchers eager to be funded to study it, publish more or less quality findings, and add them to their CVs to otherwise progress their careers.

Does it have some efficacy ? Who knows ? Yet.

Is it all a conspiracy by big pharma to bury it. Actually I don't think so, overall, nor do I despise efforts to develop new drugs specifically targeted at the virus, or re-purpose in-patent ones.

Are you being played ?

 

[zambezi]

Both are in vitro

Nope.

The trials referred to by most proponents are in vivo: in humans. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but they are definitely not in vitro.

The success criteria are recovery time, hospitalisations, mortality. Those are not lab [in vitro] tests results. Those statements pertain to the relative well-being of infected persons.

https://ivmmeta.com/

 

[J@son]

The trials referred to by most proponents are in vivo

You are absolutely right. I am sorry - I should have written "Both are in vitro but this does not make them equivalent." My bad.

 

[kes]

I would be interested to hear of anyone who has taken it - rather than simply talking about it.

 

[Freeforester]

I would be interested to hear of anyone who has taken it - rather than simply talking about it.

Been taking it since January, partner, postie, delivery van driver, neighbours (3 families) either side, partner’s brother and sister in law, and about 200 million in a state in India, as well as many other countries. Partners nephew didn’t take it, caught delta variant at work, brought it home to his parents sharing the same modest house with him during the pre-symptomatic stage (when shedding lots of virus) and thereafter, without undue precautions, they didn’t get it either. It doesnt change your life, other than you might not have internal parasites after taking it, and you are highly unlikely to have SARS COV-2 virus replicating in your body, and so you cannot pass it on, unlike those vaccinated. Hard to know what’s not to like, really?

As you may gather, this is good enough for us, no safety issues, cheap, effective, and per the video suggests, does the trick in real life scenarios, even if it doesn’t come up to the RCT standards that some here would insist it must prior to use, even though other drugs with unknown longer term effects are being rolled out by big pharma and the various governments in their thrall, as if it was some sort of pandemic we are trying to overcome…

 

[J@son]

You are absolutely right. I am sorry - I should have written "Both are in vitro but this does not make them equivalent." My bad

Sorry - I have done it again. I think my phone is changing IN VITO to IN VITRO and I can’t see the bloody difference,

@zambezi is right. I have used one where I should have used the other.

 

[zambezi]

@zambezi is right. I have used one where I should have used the other.

To muddle is human, to edit is destiny

 

[J@son]

I suspect autocorrect will one day make fools of us all

 

[Freeforester]

Sorry - I have done it again. I think my phone is changing IN VITO to IN VITRO and I can’t see the bloody difference,

@zambezi is right. I have used one where I should have used the other.

Should that be IN VIVO?

 

[J@son]

Should that be IN VIVO?

It should... a couple of pages ago I am pretty sure I was trying to make a point. If nothing else I think I have proved beyond all doubt that I can’t spell/see.

 

[mchughcb]

Science does not deal in "revelation". Though I realise that you believe in such things, from bible study etc.

"Dr." Campbell (retired Nurse, and Nurse Trainer) has rather made a thing out of his pontifications, and increasingly shrill snidy remarks, about, well, almost everything, including frankly digs about how he speculates that other countries are going about things. Carefully skating around the boundaries of what's acceptable and bamboozling his acolytes, in such an ever so soothing voice. Such a nice man.

As for this video, well it was simplistic patronising nonsense. He knowns no more about molecular design of drugs than I do, possibly less. But has self-educated himself and learned more long words along the way. Brandishing 2D representations of molecules then claiming to know how they work is so fatuous that I can't even to begin to express my contempt.

Nevertheless he seems to have sucked in over a third of a million viewers to just this one video. If they watched all twenty minutes of it, that might be 100,000 hours of time wasted around the world just listening to his ramblings. For this one video alone. Extend that, and you might consider him to be rather a drain on humanity, even though he might just occasionally come up with a rare insight. I see the rest as just noisy commentary. And, to an extent, increasingly playing to his crowd.

I can't be doing with that, it would be rather sad if I felt that I needed to watch his every video.

I think that he might be a bit stuck. He has created a channel that needs feeding, and viewing figures, to remain viable. Don't think for a moment that he is not incentivised to do so.

As for the idea that Ivermectin, and other off-patent generic drugs are "free", so cheap that there can be no profit in them, dream on.

Do you seriously thing that the manufacturers of generics do so out of the kindness of their hearts, pro-bono ?

Certainly not. To sell generics you have to compete with the other generic manufacturers. And make a profit. Which means smaller margins, but massive scale. Thinking of tooling up to make even more Ivermectin (for one example), then use every trick to stoke up demand for that.

There is big business interested in promoting Ivermectin, also political interest in spreading it around, perhaps to divert attention from other failings.

As there is a huge "industry" amongst researchers eager to be funded to study it, publish more or less quality findings, and add them to their CVs to otherwise progress their careers.

Does it have some efficacy ? Who knows ? Yet.

Is it all a conspiracy by big pharma to bury it. Actually I don't think so, overall, nor do I despise efforts to develop new drugs specifically targeted at the virus, or re-purpose in-patent ones.

Are you being played ?

Thanks Sharpie. Where do you get the time?

 

[Rewulf]

"Dr." Campbell (retired Nurse, and Nurse Trainer) has rather made a thing out of his pontifications, and increasingly shrill snidy remarks, about, well, almost everything, including frankly digs about how he speculates that other countries are going about things. Carefully skating around the boundaries of what's acceptable and bamboozling his acolytes, in such an ever so soothing voice. Such a nice man.

'Dr' Campbell has a PhD , so is perfectly entitled to call himself a doctor, hes also a senior lecturer in nurse training, he also has a masters and various other qualifications , plus a number of published books , that make your rather pathetic attempt at character assassination, not only innaccurate but childish and snide.
The fact you have issues with his voice, are frankly , quite bizarre ....

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-john-campbell-5256223b

As for the idea that Ivermectin, and other off-patent generic drugs are "free", so cheap that there can be no profit in them, dream on.

Do you seriously thing that the manufacturers of generics do so out of the kindness of their hearts, pro-bono ?

The WHO puts the price of an ivermectin tablet at 5 US cents, now you can probably guess that there is a margin in there somewhere, so flex your brain and do some maths.
How many tablets do they need to sell at say 100% profit margin to make a million dollars ?
A course for one person of molnupirivir is $700 , maybe 12 or 24 tablets .

Does it have some efficacy ? Who knows ? Yet.

Is it all a conspiracy by big pharma to bury it. Actually I don't think so, overall, nor do I despise efforts to develop new drugs specifically targeted at the virus, or re-purpose in-patent ones.

Youre not sure of any of these claims really are you ?
Neither am I , but I do know that there are some on here, seemingly including yourself , who have an inherent need to stifle debate on the possible benefits, why is this ?
Are you , and the 'doctors' on here , that concerned about your fellow man , POISONING themselves with horse wormer, that you need to ridicule people who are genuinely interested ?
The whole 2 people on here that actually use it , and give positive feedback, are in your opinion , along with medical professionals who support it , so dangerous in their thinking , you need to step up and tell everyone how stupid they are for listening to them , backed up by the couple of websites and blogs you found that agree with you.

Thanks Sharpie. Where do you get the time?

In the vastness of the internet, you can find something somewhere that will agree with whatever point of view, no matter how bizarre.
At the end of the day , its up to YOU to decide the truth , by reading both sides , using gut instinct and experience to decide at what point that truth will be found.
Sharpie decided where his truth was before he set out to find it.

 

[kes]

Still going ?

 

[J@son]

I am grateful to those who disagree with me for not crucifying me over my recent typos! I really struggle to see the difference between words that are spelled in a similar way - so perhaps drawing attention to the distinction between in silico, in vivo and in vitro wasn't my greatest idea!

It is clear that lots of people on SD feel very differently about this issue but do so equally passionately.

We do the argument and ideas at stake no favours if we go after each other in personal terms and it can be rather grim for those on the receiving end - so thanks to those who do not share my views on this for your admirable restraint.

When you look at how Ivermectin works - how it destroys the parasites it was designed to kill - it is quite chilling and sobering. I readily accept that Ivermectin is unable to attack the CNS of mammals in the same way when taken in the doses generally prescribed. But as far as I am aware the reccomended dosages all anticipate Ivermectin being used as a (short term) treatment not a (long term) prophylactic.

I readily accept that FreeForester should be able to make up his own mind about this. But I think the risk he is running in deliberatly undertaking long-term exposure to Ivermectin may be greater than he realises if he is basing his assessment of this risk on the (widely accepted) data supporting Ivermectin's safe use in small doses over short periods.

As someone pointed out in this thread earlier - all medicines offer benefits and risks. They are worth taking when the perceived benefits outweigh the associated risks. For my money, I cannot see how this criteria can be reached for anyone in the UK based on the information currently available. But I accept others should be free to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Fair Hill]

'Dr' Campbell has a PhD , so is perfectly entitled to call himself a doctor, hes also a senior lecturer in nurse training, he also has a masters and various other qualifications , plus a number of published books , that make your rather pathetic attempt at character assassination, not only innaccurate but childish and snide.
The fact you have issues with his voice, are frankly , quite bizarre ....

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-john-campbell-5256223b

The WHO puts the price of an ivermectin tablet at 5 US cents, now you can probably guess that there is a margin in there somewhere, so flex your brain and do some maths.
How many tablets do they need to sell at say 100% profit margin to make a million dollars ?
A course for one person of molnupirivir is $700 , maybe 12 or 24 tablets .

Youre not sure of any of these claims really are you ?
Neither am I , but I do know that there are some on here, seemingly including yourself , who have an inherent need to stifle debate on the possible benefits, why is this ?
Are you , and the 'doctors' on here , that concerned about your fellow man , POISONING themselves with horse wormer, that you need to ridicule people who are genuinely interested ?
The whole 2 people on here that actually use it , and give positive feedback, are in your opinion , along with medical professionals who support it , so dangerous in their thinking , you need to step up and tell everyone how stupid they are for listening to them , backed up by the couple of websites and blogs you found that agree with you.

In the vastness of the internet, you can find something somewhere that will agree with whatever point of view, no matter how bizarre.
At the end of the day , its up to YOU to decide the truth , by reading both sides , using gut instinct and experience to decide at what point that truth will be found.
Sharpie decided where his truth was before he set out to find it.

So is Roy Keane.

 

[Rewulf]

So is Roy Keane.

And your point is ...?

If Mr Keene wishes to use his honorary doctorate as a prefix to his name , he is perfectly entitled to.
But anyone with a shred of sense and self respect wouldnt.