As previously mentioned, I had no opinion on Ivermectin because I hadn't spent enough time researching it.
Sept 22 update: My wife and I started on a low dose(test) amount of Ivermectin yesterday. Then boosted gradually to the full dose when there were no adverse reactions. More at the bottom.
I was busy the last 2 weeks, repairing, cleaning and sealing(with 2 coats) our huge asphalt driveway and since Gunter isn't requiring me to spend hours a day showing the facts/data/authentic science to bust his neurotic, speculative, junk science, anti COVID vaccine posting, I've had a bit more time this week to look at it.
"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
"At least 5 other reviews of ivermectin use for COVID-19 have been published, including one coauthored with Nobel Laureate Professor Satoshi Ōmura, discoverer of ivermectin,9,10,118,119,120 but only 3 have been peer-reviewed9,118,120 and only 2 attempt full systematic review.10,119 We applied AMSTAR 2,121 a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews of health care interventions, to the 2 nonpeered systematic reviews10,119 and both were judged to be of low quality (Table 5). However, there was also a suggestion that ivermectin reduced the risk of death in treatment of COVID-19 in these reviews."
metmike: Clearly, there is solid scientific data here to strongly support the use of Ivermectin. Sadly, many of those that are drawn to use it, do so without medical expertise and many of them are anti vaxx.
The mentality of depending on Ivermectin instead of the COVID vaccine as a way to manage COVID risk is like a farmer, using a garden hose to water his crops compared to installing an irrigation system designed to optimize watering efficiency.
By an extremely wide margin, getting vaccinated is the best way to protect us from severe COVID and death. The small risks from the vaccine are also MUCH LESS than the risks of taking Ivermectin for most people.
Alot of people will read this and think.............see, I told you so. The MSM is covering up/censoring the benefits of Ivermectin up just like everything else about COVID and the COVID vaccine that they are lying about.
That would be wrong too............about half of it...........the Ivermectin part but not the vaccine part!!
People can only know if its the truth or not if they are capable and willing to do their own fact checking.
It's impossible for you to know if Alex Jones, or FOX or CNN or Fauci is telling you the entire truth by just listening to them. It's just as impossible to know if they are manipulating/manufacturing the facts or outright lying.
The only way to really know is by doing an objective fact check or have somebody else do an objective fact check.
The biggest reason that usually fails is that folks already know what they want to believe. People that watch FOX/CNN are not skeptics of FOX/CNN that fact check them. If you were skeptical of FOX/CNN, you probably would not go there in the first place.
The place that you go to...........is the place that you trust.
So no fact checking or skepticism takes place.
Same thing with NOT believing anything Fauci says because he got busted in some lies.
How do you really know when he is lying? Be honest. You have no idea unless your favorite source tells you that he is or might be lying...........again.
Almost all the time, Fauci does tell the truth by the way...........I know because I objectively fact check.
A judge in Ohio has reversed an earlier emergency order that required a hospital to administer ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient against the hospital's wishes. The anti-parasitic drug is most commonly used in the U.S. as a dewormer in animals.
Federal agencies and medical associations alike have cautioned against the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, as there is little evidence it is effective. But prescriptions — and related calls to poison control centers — have skyrocketed in 2021 as right-wing media have hyped it as a treatment for COVID-19.
A previous ruling by a different judge had ordered the hospital, West Chester Hospital near Cincinnati, to administer the drug to a patient after his wife brought suit over the hospital's refusal to administer a prescription written by an outside doctor.
"After considering all of the evidence presented in this case, there can be no doubt that the medical and scientific communities do not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19," Judge Michael A. Oster wrote in the new ruling, issued Monday.
Ivermectin is used in humans to treat parasites such as lice and the worms that cause river blindness. It is also approved by the Food and Drug Administration for similar use in animals, including as a livestock dewormer and a heartworm preventative for dogs and cats.
But the FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Preventionand American Medical Association have all warned against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment until additional clinical trials can be completed. The National Institutes of Health, which has not issued a formal recommendation, says most existing studies about the drug's ability to fight COVID-19 "had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations."
At the center of the lawsuit affected by Monday's order is Jeffrey Smith, who tested positive for the coronavirus in July, court records say.
After Smith was admitted to West Chester Hospital, his condition deteriorated steadily. In mid-July, he was transferred to the intensive care unit. On Aug. 1, he was placed on a ventilator. By Aug. 20, doctors put him in a medically induced coma.
His wife, Julie Smith, contacted Dr. Fred Wagshul, affiliated with the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which has lobbied for the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. He is not board certified within any specialty and has not worked at a hospital in 10 years, according to his own testimony. "
metmike: I am not agreeing with some of the things stated in this article but am showing it as reported by the MSM site NPR.
I think that almost everybody that likes the idea of taking Ivermectin, is totally unqualified to make a decision about it and with many, its dangerous because they have no idea what they are doing, as evidenced by all the people overdosing on it.
Under a doctors supervision............then its fine.
Would I take it?
If not for being vaccinated, I would likely STRONGLY consider taking it in the early stages of a positive diagnosis but only after reading more about how it works and understanding the drug better than I do.
There could be a host of risks related to my medical condition or drugs that I take. I'm smart enough to figure out the best dose.
It appears that alot of people are hurting themselves with the drug because of ignorance. And they are in the same group of people that are anti COVID vaxxers.........so the decision is based on rebellion against being forced to do something and not trusting the government and exercising their freedom to pick the treatment to some extent as well as believing THEIR sources.
This is not the recipe for smart medical decision making.
Sorry to butt into your discussion…. However, I noticed a link in this thread, printed in large font…
I clicked the link to find out what they are saying.
In this article it says “In Mississippi, which has one of the lowest rates of vaccination against the coronavirus, the state Department of Health issued an alert about the surge in calls to poison control in August. The department said that at least 70% of recent calls to the state poison control center were related to people who ingested a version of the drug meant for livestock.”
I checked around, and found out that this very same story was presented by multiple news outlets. Well of course,… it comes from an government agency… it has to be “authentic news”.
There is only one problem with this story…. it’s B.S..
AP amended it’s original story, admitting that only 2% of the calls were for human overdoses
Here is the AP story, with a hardly noticeable amendment at the bottom.
Disclosure: I am not qualified to make a comment on this medication.I only wanted to point out how quickly B.S. and junk data is being paraded around and goes “viral” in this pandemic…
Good catch Gunter, thanks for adding that.
I can't speak to the reason for the apparent error in the statement from the MS health department warning about Ivermectin that falsely claimed 70% of their calls to poison control but we know why the MSM picked up on the story without doing critical thinking and can apply that here using facts/data to look closer at the situation.
Their warning issued this statement:
RECIPIENTS: All Physicians, Hospitals, ERs, ICPs, NPs, and
Healthcare Providers – Statewide
Friday, August 20, 2021
SUBJECT: Increased Poison Control Calls due to Ivermectin
Ingestion and Potential Toxicity
This is an official
MS Health Alert Network (HAN) Alert
"At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal
formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.
• 85% of the callers had mild symptoms, but one individual was instructed to seek further
evaluation due to the amount of ivermectin reportedly ingested.
• No hospitalizations due to ivermectin toxicity have been directly reported to the
Mississippi Poison Control Center or the Mississippi State Department of Health."
metmike: 70% of calls is very alarming news........if you stop there. If you just read to the next points, it puts it into proper perspective and its NOT alarming.
Just 1 person needing to seek further evaluation and ZERO hospitalizations. Who would lead with news headlines like that?
Time to gather the REAL facts and not focus all the attention on 1 incident that counts almost nothing to the big picture.
1. In this incident, 1 side greatly exaggerated the negative affects of Ivermectin to make it look bad.
2. In this incident, some(at least one) misleading sources from the other side used it to make you believe that Ivermectin is great stuff and the MSM and crooked doctors(almost all of them) making money off of COVID are intentionally covering it up because you could just use Ivermectin and save thousands of dollars that the other treatments cost(including the free vaccinations of the high risk, deadly COVID vaccines) :
Let's spend some time with Mr. Empirical data and Mrs. Facts to see what's going on here.
This is an official
CDC HEALTH ADVISORY
Distributed via the CDC Health Alert Network
August 26, 2021, 11:40 AM ET
Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe
Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to
Prevent or Treat COVID-19
Ivermectin is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription medication used to treat
certain infections caused by internal and external parasites. When used as prescribed for approved
indications, it is generally safe and well tolerated.
Clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19
in humans have yielded insufficient evidence for the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to
recommend its use. Data from adequately sized, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are
needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of
A recent study examining trends in ivermectin dispensing from outpatient retail pharmacies in the United
States during the COVID-19 pandemic showed an increase from an average of 3,600 prescriptions per
week at the pre-pandemic baseline (March 16, 2019–March 13, 2020) to a peak of 39,000 prescriptions in
the week ending on January 8, 2021.1 Since early July 2021, outpatient ivermectin dispensing has again
begun to rapidly increase, reaching more than 88,000 prescriptions in the week ending August 13, 2021.
In 2021, poison control centers across the U.S. received a three-fold increase in the number of calls for
human exposures to ivermectin in January 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline.
In July 2021, ivermectin calls have continued to sharply increase, to a five-fold increase from baseline.
These reports are also associated with increased frequency of adverse effects and emergency
In some cases, people have ingested ivermectin-containing products purchased without a prescription,
including topical formulations and veterinary products. Veterinary formulations intended for use in large
animals such as horses, sheep, and cattle (e.g., “sheep drench,” injection formulations, and “pour-on”
products for cattle) can be highly concentrated and result in overdoses when used by humans. Animal
products may also contain inactive ingredients that have not been evaluated for use in humans. People
who take inappropriately high doses of ivermectin above FDA-recommended dosing may experience
Clinical effects of ivermectin overdose include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and
diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased
consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death. Ivermectin may potentiate the
effects of other drugs that cause central nervous system depression such as benzodiazepines and
I'm just providing the statements from all the experts here. You will also remember, that the anti COVID vaxx group stated that the vaccine was experimental because the FDA had not approved it(then the FDA DID approve it) so they apparently care about what the experts state........sometimes.
AMA, APhA, ASHP Call for Immediate End to Prescribing, Dispensing, and Use of Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19 Outside Clinical Trials
The American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial. Ivermectin is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human use to treat infections caused by internal and external parasites. It is not approved to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin is also available to treat certain veterinary conditions; medications formulated or intended for use in animals should not be used by humans. We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months. As such, we are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial. In addition, we are urging physicians, pharmacists, and other prescribers — trusted healthcare professionals in their communities — to warn patients against the use of ivermectin outside of FDA-approved indications and guidance, whether intended for use in humans or animals, as well as purchasing ivermectin from online stores. Veterinary forms of this medication are highly concentrated for large animals and pose a significant toxicity risk for humans.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA have issued advisories indicating that ivermectin is not authorized or approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and Merck (the manufacturer of the drug) all state there is insufficient evidence to support the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19 also recommend against the use of ivermectin outside of a clinical trial.
Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients. Calls to poison control centers due to ivermectin ingestion have increased five-fold from their pre-pandemic baseline. A recent CDC Health Alert Network Advisory recommends that healthcare professionals should counsel patients against use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, including emphasizing the potentially toxic effects of this drug, including “nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death.”
For more information, we encourage patients and healthcare providers to consult the FDA’s Consumer Update on Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 and the CDC Health Alert Network Advisory on the Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19. "
metmike: Again, this is just THEIR official statement. I'm not done with evaluating the objective data/facts.
American Medical Association: (Sept 1, 2021)
Stop using Ivermectin to treat Covid
Tokyo Medical Association: (Aug 12, 2021)
The head of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association has urged doctors and Covid-19 patients to begin a regimen of ivermectin, which he says is effective at treating and preventing the virus.
Australia, (June 2020)
Ivermectin inhibits the replication of Covid19 in vitro
Disclosure: I have no personal opinion on this medication… only reporting various publications
Dogs are not humans(neither are horses/cattle for which Ivermectin is safe) but Ivermectin is very toxic for several breeds of dogs.
There is a test available to check sensitivity to ivermectin. If your dog is one of the breeds that is prone to ivermectin toxicity, you might consider testing for it. If you decide not to have the testing done, be cautious about using ivermectin to prevent heartworm disease or for the treatment of mites.
metmike: But one of the best selling meds today to prevent heartworms in dogs uses Ivermectin:
Now, we'll get down to the nitty gritty:
"A number of cases included in the final case series may be related to drug–drug interactions. Drugs that are substrates of CYP3A4 enzymes are often also substrates for P-glycoprotein transport, and thus there may be a risk of increased absorption past the blood-brain barrier with concomitant ivermectin administration.21 Several cases presented here reported concomitant use of such drugs, such as statins (case 12), HIV protease inhibitors (case 8), calcium channel blockers (case 28), and benzodiazepines (cases 9, 11, 17, 18). A recent publication documents evidence of an in vitro interaction of ivermectin and a number of antiretroviral agents.22 Current labeling for ivermectin contains no warning for co-administration with CYP3A4 substrates.
Another possible explanation is that some humans experiencing serious neurological adverse events after ivermectin therapy may have mutations in the mdr-1 gene, allowing for penetration of ivermectin into the CNS. More than 50 naturally occurring single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been identified in the mdr-1 gene; the majority of these SNP are silent, and there is no current evidence of a mutation that results in loss of function. However, various combinations of these SNPs, composing different P-glycoprotein haplotypes, have been found to exhibit reduced mdr-1 expression.23 Bourguinat et al.24 analyzed mdr-1 genotypes in 13 subjects from Cameroon: four who experienced a serious adverse event and nine who did not. Haplotypes associated with altered drug disposition were present as homozygotes in two of the patients experiencing serious adverse events and in none of the control patients. One of the cases in our series was investigated for the most common polymorphisms associated with decreased mdr-1 expression and found that none were present; however, further details were not provided.15
Limitations of spontaneous adverse event reports are that they are come from both voluntary and regulated sources, a suspicion that the reported drug caused the event may or may not be present, and the amount of information included in the report is variable. Detection of “signals” in these types of databases is intended to be hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of causality.
In conclusion, there is evidence that serious neurological adverse events can occur with ivermectin beyond the treatment of O. volvulus complicated by concomitant high burden L. loa infection. Potential explanations include concomitantly administered drugs which inhibit CYP3A4 and polymorphisms in the mdr-1 gene. By comparison with the extensive post marketing experience with ivermectin in the successful treatment of parasitic infections, the total number of reported cases suggests that such events are likely rare. However, elucidation of individual-level risk factors could contribute to therapeutic decisions that can minimize harms. Further investigation into the potential for drug interactions and explorations of polymorphisms in the mdr-1 gene are recommended."
metmike: What this means is that even people taking the right dose of Ivermectin can get messed up (small number) because of genetic traits or because of an interaction with several different meds. So unless the person is extremely well educated medically or under the supervision of a doctor, they are taking a non trivial risk by using the right dose.
In the case of anti COVID vaxx people, we almost have to assume that they are not well educated medically. These are the ones most motivated to take Ivermectin. Dial into that the likelihood that some of them are overdosing the amounts because of lack of medical savvy and we have the recipe for the increase in serious neurological adverse events.
I would still consider taking Ivermectin after doing more homework here but only after additional research to rule out adverse reactions with all of my meds and probably only at a 50% dose to be safe but maybe a full dose under the right conditions.
The absolutely worst thing about the Ivermectin thing right now, is millions of people thinking that its a cure and a substitute for what really does work to greatly reduce severe cases and deaths........COVID vaccinations. And they are relatively safe.
There are at least a hundred times more lives being lost from not getting vaccinated than lives being saved by Ivermectin!
Again, I personally would still consider Ivermectin, administered with extreme caution/knowledge but waaaay after making the no brainer decision to get vaccinated.
If you are not vaccinated but would take Ivermectin................take control of your brain back so that your intelligence stops getting stolen from going to bad information sources.
The dangers of Ivermectin are very much being exaggerated by one side but that doesn't mean to believe the disinformation from the other side.
my youngest daughter has many serious health problems. and is immune compromised. she got covid. her alternative med doc prescribed ivermectin, and she ended up with only mild/moderate illness. she has pretty much gotten over the covid. yes, i know, it is possible that she would have gotten over it even without the ivermectin. but yes she has gotten over the covid, and did not have any bad side effets from ivermectin.
(i did tell her to read about the warnings/side effects carefully).
Conventional medicine now insists on the Covid vax for the immunocompromised, stresses it as priority. God Bless she has an integrative health advisor that steered her proper. My opinion, vaccination of the immunocompromised is doubly dangerous. Either it crushes them or is of no use, due to near absence of immune army. Either way, great jeopardy. Keep that alternate Doc close to the family. He saved her life. I saw a flu shot kill my similarly compromised aunt within 2 days. She was undergoing blood transfusions and her oncologist flippantly ordered the flu shot. Immediate deterioration, rapid decline.
By the way, Melatonin has super positive synergy with bee propolis in fighting all manner of degenerative conditions. Those magic bees, industrious flower tenders from Heaven~!~
I'm happy to hear that your daughter recovered. Was it the Ivermectin?
The result from 1 person can't tell us that.
My oldest son, at 32 got the sickest of his life from COVID last November and recovered without Ivermectin, so not taking Ivermectin caused him to recover......right?
I would definitely consider taking Ivermectin(a proven anti viral) very early, as in immediately after you find out that you have COVID but make sure to not take too much.
There have been neurological side effects in a small number of people.
Hydrochloroquinn is also an anti viral and anti inflammation drug with an even lower risk than Ivermectin, with over 100 million doses given and benefits to autoimmune disorders, like Lupus and mine. Benefits? Uncertain but probably helps some people and its pretty safe.
Thanks much hayman!
I don't know everything about all those drugs but she clearly doesn't understand how hydrochloroquinn works and totally doesn't understand the reasoning for steroids and is wrong about some of the risks for short term use of steroids.
I've been taking steroids every day since 1994 for my autoimmune disorder and they've absolutely saved my life.
They may have saved more lives than any other drug known to humans, except maybe antibiotics and can be used to effectively treat more than 100 different problems in medicine.
For this case, COVID, they reduce inflammation, especially in the lungs but even more importantly, they modulate the over reacting immune response that causes extreme cytokine storms which kill many people with COVID. Somehow, she overlooked this? No mention of this key factor in her long dissertation on steroids. Again, I've been on them for 27 years and know about everything to know about them. She states: "Chronic use of glucocorticoids such as dexamethasone and methylprednisolone can cause rapid bone loss and clinical osteoporosis." She mentions this again later.
She totally misses the huge cytokine storm factor, then mentions the risks of chronic use.........treating COVID with steroids is of a very short duration to crush inflammation and cytokine storms and would not be "chronic use"
I will have to do more research on melotonin for COVID that she is totally sold on.
On Ivermectin, she warns of the side affects:
"Another peer-reviewed paper published at Chemosphere by Zhang et al. (2020) was able to show for the first time that ivermectin can induce cytotoxic effects that may be potentially dangerous to human health .
Using a colony formation assay, Zhang et al. demonstrated that IVM treated cells exhibited decreased colony formation in a dose-dependent manner, showing IVM can inhibit proliferation of human cells . IVM also was observed to induce DNA oxidative damage and DNA double-strand breaks . The genotoxicity and cytotoxicity in cells treated with IVM exhibited increased expression of autophagic proteins, leading to mitochondrial damage, membrane permeability, and decreased ATP production that eventually resulted in cell death ."
I'm just making general comments on her report. The bottom line is that there is tremendous uncertainty regarding any and all of these treatments.
The amount of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of getting vaccinated in order to reduce your chances of severe COVID or death is only in the magnitude of the massive benefits and how long before those benefits wane and what the rate of the reduction is.
Does the vaccine make hospitalization and death 10 times less likely or is it as high as 30 times less likely within a couple of weeks after the 2nd shot? Then, does it drop to only a few times less likely 8 months later?
We don't know the exact numbers or magnitude but by a very wide margin, getting vaccinated makes you much, much less likely to get severe COVId or dying than taking any drugs or supplements.
People not getting vaccinated but recommending these other drugs/treatments are dropping like flies.
"As COVID-19 cases continue to surge, nearly all of the COVID-19 deaths in the United States are among unvaccinated people, and misinformation around the virus and vaccines remains widespread."
They can use whatever scary words they want to trick people into being afraid of vaccinations or to trick them into thinking they don't work or cherry pick data/studies or use anomolies and outlier doctors.........but the vast majority of empircal data and authentic science says its not even close.
Here's much more on HQC:
84% fewer hospitalizations for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine
31 responses |
Started by metmike - Dec. 18, 2020, 12:35 a.m.
Trump-touted COVID-19 drug hydroxychloroquine works
18 responses |
Started by metmike - July 3, 2020, 8:07 p.m.
Previous threads on this topic:
Scientists/academics-On the “science” of COVID
15 responses |
Started by metmike - May 31, 2020, 2:40 p.m.
Trump’s taking hydroxychloroquine (and he could cause alot of deaths)
Started by metmike - May 18, 2020, 7:30 p.m.
FDA approves COVID-19 fighting drugs
15 responses |
Started by metmike - March 30, 2020, 11 p.m.
I'm not going to comment about whether or not Ivermectin is effective, other than to say that it sure appears to be useful as a preventative and for early treatment in a lot of people. The one thing i'll comment on is whether or not it is dangerous for humans. If it was, my brother and I, along with very large numbers of other people who worked cattle as far back as thirty or more years ago, would have died by now. We treated thousands of cattle with the pour-on. Messy stuff - to put it mildly. Got on everything. Gloves soaked with it. We used it five days a week - every day - for much of the year. I would get a bit spacy, but my brother wasn't affected at all. The other guys working with us weren't bothered at all either. It is hard to estimate just how large the doses we received were - almost every day.
So, when the CDC says " Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients." - I just have to be somewhat skeptical.
This brings me to the point I want to make - where are the large statistically valid trials for this cheap and available drug?? It's been a year and a half now. Could it be that the agreements the vaccine companies have with governments include a clause where a certain number of doses MUST be purchased - no matter what? Over a very long time, I have found that "follow the money" is always the best advice. We do not want to think the people in charge are driven by money and power, but that always seems to be the case. There is no money in Ivermectin - so who would want to do a major study that might show that it is indeed an effective early treatment? Or, even worse - useful as a preventative? And if you are a politician who has agreed to purchase vaccines regardless - would you want a study done on something like Ivermectin?
I do not like the fact that I have become cynical. But with overwhelming evidence of corruption almost everywhere I've looked, I seem to have gotten that way.
But, it's a really simple question - why no large statistically valid trials of Ivermectin after all this time and all of the deaths?
Interesting - I just read this link:
This, and the use of something like ivermectin, are all about personal liberty, IMHO. I get it that some think it is selfish for someone to not get the vaccine. But, should it be mandated??
Maybe Sweden did get it right - at least more than almost any other country.
I’ll have to do a good search for ivermectin studies and pass it on. I showed one above that had some neurological problems in a small number of people but those seem minor.
It appears to be relatively safe and there are some modest anti viral properties that probably help in the key early stages.....to give your immune system help in beating it early.
Once COVID becomes severe ivermectin just is not powerful enough to make much difference anymore.
When they find a drug that can kill it at that stage, then this will be over. But it’s a virus, so that ain’t happenin any time soon.
5 people at my wife's work have COVID and she was around all of them and feeling bad and has a slight fever.
Going to get some Ivermectin at Rural King and dose her on a few other supplements(me too).
Fortunately, both of us were vaccinated but mine was 9 months ago, so I'm due for a booster.
This is the supplemental protocol that we will be using the rest of the week:
Hoping everything is ok with you two. Keep us informed.
She gets tested at 1pm, I feel great(have only been sick 1 time the last 15 years) but may go with her.
I already take tons of supplements(including all the ones that you are supposed to take for COVID) but just added a bit more melatonin last night.
I put her on those and she said it made her stomach hurt all night(could be a symptom of COVID too).
I was going to start the Ivermectin but am pretty sure but not positive on the best dose and maybe we'll wait to see if she's positive or not.
She really doesn't want to take it too.
I was shocked out how many different forms and types of Ivermectin were at Rural King. I got the "sheep drench" and told Deb, for it to work, you have to go "baaaaaa!!!" after taking it (-:
There are tons of studies done on Ivermectin, prior to COVID, which are some of the more meaningful ones for me because science and medicine gets totally screwed up when a drug gets big political or financial implications.
Safety of Ivermectin:
metmike: If you just read that study, you would think "man, I have nothing to fear taking Ivermectin.
But that would be wrong. If you have a rare genetic defect, like certain breeds of dogs do that allows the Ivermectin to cross the blood/brain barrier(which many drugs do) it can mess you up badly and even kill you. But you wouldn't have any idea about that unless you dug more deeply into the medical literature with an open, somewhat educated mind. This is also why you don't want to take too much. If you have that genetic defect and take a dose that's too high it could even kill you. So if my wife is positive for COVID, we'll take the Ivermectin but on the very first dose, will under dose by at least 50% to check for adverse reactions. If there are none, then I'll boost the dose.
Ivermectin fact sheet
metmike: cfdr, being in the cattle raising biz for years, I'm assuming that you know alot about problems with parasites in animals and probably used Ivermectin before.
The analogy that comes to mind about how well Ivermectin works, because its an antiviral agent but not strong enough, like antibiotics to kill the pathogen, once the virus multiplies.
If you had a very small fire with a few sticks, you might be able to douse it or at least knock it down to almost nothing with a glass of water.
If you wait for it to grow and spread into a raging inferno, a glass of water...........or 10 glasses of water are not going to make much difference anymore.
The first few days after being infected with COVID are like the very small fire and Ivermectin is like the glass of water.
After COVID multiplies and spreads and you have major illness............Ivermectin has almost no impact.
I've learned a TREMENDOUS amount about IVERMECTIN this month and especially the last several days. My wife and I started on it on Tuesday. I'll explain the reasoning for the smaller safe/very low doses that we started with initially to test it on us and quickly went to the full dose after 24 hours when there were no adverse reactions.......... along with much more information later to share about how it works and what the minimal risks are that you can almost completely eliminate by using it like we are.
The pro Ivermectin crowd will feel vindicated. If that's you and you still haven't been vaccinated..........then you're still screwing yourself and having your intelligence stolen.
Does the Covic vaxx really reduce hospitalizations and death?
6 responses |
Started by GunterK - Sept. 22, 2021, 5:48 p.m.
metmike: "One political side says that only vaccines work and Ivermectin and other things don't work, which is half bs and is killing the least amount of people! Saving the most lives.
The other political side says only Ivermectin and the other supplements work-they do work...... and the vaccines are killing more people than COVID(which is half bs and the MUCH more dangerous bs that's killing many thousands of people) .
What is this..............a friggin contest to see who can KILL the least amount people??
Can both political sides get together to SAVE the most lives.....PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP??
Busy with harvest here, but a light shower slowed things down.
"What is this..............a friggin contest to see who can KILL the least amount people??
Can both political sides get together to SAVE the most lives.....PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP??"
Mike, you are great at analysis of known facts, but sometimes your assumptions give you a bad starting point. (My opinion - of course!). They are not trying to kill the least amount of people. Their main concern is NOT to save the most lives - IMHO. These are mostly psychopaths, again, IMHO, and they are only about money and power. Some might even have convinced themselves that what they are doing is good for "humanity" - it seems easy for them to rationalize like that. To put this in perspective - is this any different than the use of "climate change" to achieve the goals they seek? They are willing to shut down much of the world's economy to save the world.
The people in charge today are not good people. Our world, as we have seen in the most recent years, is not the world we were taught about in school. As I have said many times over the last years - corruption is NOT a feature of the system. Corruption IS THE SYSTEM.
Thanks much cfdr.
I very much respect your wisdom and opinions.
On this particular issue. I let the science and data determine my views on everything.
Ivermectin for instance. There is tons of stuff in the medical literature going back decades to learn almost everything you want to know, if you are medically savvy and understand the terminology.....and have tons of time.
Billions of people have had the shots, many millions the disease and we have undoctored empirical data from reliable sources that doesn't lie.
So I don't have to rely on the MSM or FOX news or INFOWARS to tell me what I should think. The data and authentic science are there for anybody that wants to do the homework/research.
I have lots more to share about Ivermectin but am waiting for my wifes 2nd COVID test to come back and more free time to share it.
I agree that there are nafarious sources controlling alot of the narratives but there are ways to get authentic science and data which is out there which can't be censored.