Ivermectin: Yes, No or Maybe

[potters]

On 12/17/2020 at 11:22 AM, Time to grow said:

For those still in denial that Ivermectin is a viable and likely superior prophylactic to experimental vaccines.

 

 

Well done on taking the time to bring this to peoples attention. As much as the other guy was trying to discredit you with mumbo jumbo the evidence and data is out there for Ivermectin. If he is happy to stand inline for an untried-untested vaccine then let him be a guinea pig. Like you I know which I will be using if push comes to a shove. Keep up the good work.

 

[mommysboy]

Providing there are no serious side effects I can't see why this approved drug shouldn't be used on sick patients.  This is an emergency situation.  It could be as effective as dexamethasone in reducing fatalities.

[Time to grow]

1 hour ago, potters said:

Well done on taking the time to bring this to peoples attention.

 

Thanks for the support.

[mtls2005]

On 12/17/2020 at 11:22 AM, Time to grow said:

For those still in denial that Ivermectin is a viable and likely superior prophylactic to experimental vaccines.

 

Takeway quote from this "video".

 

 

"Of course, more research should be done."

 

 

Look, if you want to take Ivermectin please feel free to do so.

 

But why spend so much time convincing other people to take it?

 

Quite frankly you seem obsessed with foisting this unproven (it is a treament? is it a prohylaxis? it's two mints in one?) "medicine" on others? Why? 

 

Maybe treat yourself first, then let us know how it works out for you?

 

I understand that many are afraid, and when people are afraid they do stupid things. And that's OK if they're only harming themselves.

 

Again, I'm amazed the forum/mods allow all this sort of disinformation to be posted here.

 

 

 

Now if your pet has a parasite maybe see a Vet?

 

 

[Time to grow]

6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

But why spend so much time convincing other people to take it?

 

Quite frankly you seem obsessed with foisting this unproven (it is a treament? is it a prohylaxis? it's two mints in one?) "medicine" on others? Why? 

 

You have completely misconstrued this conversation. The conversation started off with me asking the OP if he/she knew where I could find Ivermectin for myself. As shown below:

 

On 12/6/2020 at 3:59 PM, Time to grow said:

Did you ever find it? I can only find veterinary products and the pharmacies wont order it.

 

At that point in the conversation, several unqualified individuals, you being one of them, began to attack the veracity of the science, the validity of the data, and my personal choice with their own medical advice and bloviating nonsense. As demonstrated below:

 

On 12/7/2020 at 1:21 AM, partington said:

So: taking doses shown to be safe in humans would have no effect on the virus, and to reach blood concentrations that would have an effect on the virus would require taking doses that have never been shown to be safe in humans, and that current knowledge suggests could begin to affect biochemical processes essential for health.

 

In fact, I clearly stated that I was interested in finding Ivermectin for "myself". Unfortunately, I fell victim to feel the need to defend my position. 

 

On 12/7/2020 at 6:58 AM, Time to grow said:

I am not here to sell Ivermectin but form my perspective, it is a clear choice "for me" over an unknown, revolutionary new technology in the form of mRNA vaccines. There are no peer reviewed studies on the safety of mRNA vaccines. Only sales brochures written by convicted fraudsters, lying politicians, and a dishonest media.

 

Ivermectin is a well tolerated drug. It has a long history of data to prove efficacy and safety. It is inexpensive and widely available (except in Thailand).

 

No one is recommending excessive dosing. These studies were conducted with the standard recommended dose.

 

Again, I am not trying to convince you that Ivermectin is the preferred treatment for all. Simply to correct your assessment that there are no studies and if there were, they are recommending excessive dosing.

 

As the previous posts demonstrate, this conversation is not about me trying to sell Ivermectin to anyone but if fact, about you and some others trying to discredit the drug, the scientists, the data, and me. Be my guest, it's not as if you have any credibility left in the face of such compelling evidence, bloviate to your hearts content.

 

[Time to grow]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

Look, if you want to take Ivermectin please feel free to do so.

 

Thank you for your permission. As it turns out, I now have a supply of Ivermectin for myself or those I care about should it become necessary.

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Providing there are no serious side effects I can't see why this approved drug shouldn't be used on sick patients.  This is an emergency situation.  It could be as effective as dexamethasone in reducing fatalities.

Ivermectin certainly has side effects. They may not be especially serious or common but there are certainly a lot, lot more of them than for almost any properly tested and non-experimental vaccine (which covers the currently available CoVid-19 vaccines).

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that a ivermectin is a very promising drug, based on various scientific research papers that I've read and I firmly believe it's worthy of additional testing on an expedited basis.

 

But to imply that almost any therapeutic drug is better than a vaccine at preventing a viral infection   - and carries less risk) is just not a valid scientific standpoint (IMHO).

 

With a drug like ivermectin, you would have to take it repeatedly and indefinitely (so long as Covid is still around) to get an unknown level of protection.

 

Whereas with just two shots of an effective CoVid-19 vaccine, the data shows you are 100% protected against serious illness or death and 70 - 95% protected against getting sick at all.

 

We also don't yet know the optimal dosage for safe and effective use of ivermectin as a CoVid-19 prophylactic, nor as mentioned, its percentage efficacy (that's why more studies are needed) but we do know that its side effects are much more numerous than the vaccines' side effects.

 

Here's an extract from an FDA warning for people not to self-medicate with ivermectin, giving some precautions and listing some of the potential side effects.

 

"dizziness

loss of appetite

nausea

vomiting

stomach pain or bloating

diarrhea

constipation

weakness

sleepiness

uncontrollable shaking of a part of the body

chest discomfort

[...]

Some side effects can be serious. If you experience any of these symptoms, call your doctor immediately:

 

fever

blistering or peeling skin

rash

hives

itching

 

Ivermectin may cause other side effects."

 

Once again, I think ivermectin looks promising and deserves more study but as it stands, and based on the available scientific information, I would have to say the vaccines are much, much better established as an effective and safe option.

[stag4]

An Australian drug known as Ivermectin, which is already in use throughout the world to treat parasitic conditions, is showing great results in killing coronavirus in studies involving patients, according to Sky News.

"Because I'm involved in developing these in the U.S. where all the patients are, there are a number of studies that are amazingly successful. We're talking close to 100%. In fact, we haven't seen a result yet under 100%. It looks like corona is very simple to kill,"  Professor Thomas Borody, medical director of Australia's Center for Digestive Disease. "It's available as a prescription medication. You wouldn't use it alone ... but you add two other things to it such as doxycycline and zinc."

Ivermectin is already approved by the FDA and is on the World Health Organization's list of model list of essential medicines.

"We had a 14-hospital trial in Bangladesh. We got [cured] 100 out of 100. In China, they tried to reproduce it. They got 60 out of 60 cured ... So I am behind the Ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc treatment because it has very few side effects and is a real killer of coronavirus," Borody said.

Borody said the Ivermectin tablet could cost as little as $2, which is likely why drugmakers haven't promoted the drug's usage. He also suggested that have a cure for the disease easily would do away with the need for people to be hospitalized, which would make doctors less money.

"There's no huge pharmaceutical company behind it to spend millions of dollars and put people in places to treat," Borody said.

https://www.newsmax.com/health/health-news/australia-ivermectin-coronavirus-covid/2020/08/08/id/981220/

 

[VocalNeal]

We'll all be swimming in sheep dips soon?

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Ivermectin certainly has side effects. They may not be especially serious or common but there are certainly a lot, lot more of them than for almost any properly tested and non-experimental vaccine (which covers the currently available CoVid-19 vaccines).

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that a ivermectin is a very promising drug, based on various scientific research papers that I've read and I firmly believe it's worthy of additional testing on an expedited basis.

 

But to imply that almost any therapeutic drug is better than a vaccine at preventing a viral infection   - and carries less risk) is just not a valid scientific standpoint (IMHO).

 

With a drug like ivermectin, you would have to take it repeatedly and indefinitely (so long as Covid is still around) to get an unknown level of protection.

 

Whereas with just two shots of an effective CoVid-19 vaccine, the data shows you are 100% protected against serious illness or death and 70 - 95% protected against getting sick at all.

 

We also don't yet know the optimal dosage for safe and effective use of ivermectin as a CoVid-19 prophylactic, nor as mentioned, its percentage efficacy (that's why more studies are needed) but we do know that its side effects are much more numerous than the vaccines' side effects.

 

Here's an extract from an FDA warning for people not to self-medicate with ivermectin, giving some precautions and listing some of the potential side effects.

 

"dizziness

loss of appetite

nausea

vomiting

stomach pain or bloating

diarrhea

constipation

weakness

sleepiness

uncontrollable shaking of a part of the body

chest discomfort

[...]

Some side effects can be serious. If you experience any of these symptoms, call your doctor immediately:

 

fever

blistering or peeling skin

rash

hives

itching

 

Ivermectin may cause other side effects."

 

Once again, I think ivermectin looks promising and deserves more study but as it stands, and based on the available scientific information, I would have to say the vaccines are much, much better established as an effective and safe option.

 

It is an approved drug, and seriously ill covid patients don't have the time to wait.  One sometimes has to gamble in these situations.

 

If we took your viewpoint then dexamethasone would never have been discovered as an effective treatment.

 

Besides, all medicines I have taken can have marked side effects. If it was that dangerous, it would have been withdrawn, surely.

 

 

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Time to grow said:

 

Thank you for your permission. As it turns out, I now have a supply of Ivermectin for myself or those I care about should it become necessary.

Can I ask what you paid if it came from a hospital?

 

[Time to grow]

2 hours ago, stag4 said:

Borody said the Ivermectin tablet could cost as little as $2, which is likely why drugmakers haven't promoted the drug's usage. He also suggested that have a cure for the disease easily would do away with the need for people to be hospitalized, which would make doctors less money.

"There's no huge pharmaceutical company behind it to spend millions of dollars and put people in places to treat," Borody said.

 

Yes, and if there were found to have been an alternative treatment for COVID, the new experimental vaccines would not have been eligible for emergency use authorization. 

 

Big Pharma and the health industry have proven over and over that earnings are a priority over health. I see no reason for there to be a different objective this time.

[Time to grow]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Besides, all medicines I have taken can have marked side effects. If it was that dangerous, it would have been withdrawn, surely.

 

I agree with you. But it is my understanding that Ivermectin is actually a very well tolerated drug. Please don't take my word for it or construe that I am attempting to sell it to you. Just sharing my understanding.

[Time to grow]

54 minutes ago, rabas said:

Can I ask what you paid if it came from a hospital?

 

Yes you can, but allow me to preface with the fact that I was entirely aware that I was being overcharged by a significant percentage prior to making the purchase. I over paid US$67.77 per each 3mg x 20pills in a transaction of voluntary highway robbery. I was unable to locate human grade Ivermectin within Thailand and had to resort to importing the drug. I think the market price is something like US$2.00 per treatment but I understand the Indian government supplies nationals with Ivermectin and other drugs/vitamins free of charge if they test positive.

 

I would have to double check but as I recall, each 20 x 3mg packet is enough to treat two to three cases under the MATH+ protocol. If you are interested in further research, check out the "MATH+" protocol being endorsed by a number of governments, doctors, and healthcare professionals.

 

Had governments around the world backed Ivermectin in the same fashion they backed these new experimental mRNA vaccines, we would all be getting Ivermectin for free and the taxpayers would have saved a fortune. COVID might have already been wiped out and the economic damage would likely have been significantly minimized.

 

 

[Time to grow]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Can I ask what you paid if it came from a hospital?

 

I should have mentioned, as an added bonus, the distributor included four Cialis tablets for free. I am not sure if they were implying I should go get <deleted>@ked or offering a backup plan in the event the Ivermectin doesn't work.

[Nout]

On 4/3/2020 at 9:16 PM, ThailandRyan said:

Unfortunately when the druggies could not get their fixes from the hospitals, they turned to using animal tranquilizers and stuff they could buy from the pet stores.  Pretty much the same just the dosages are different, and the name slightly different.

'druggies get their fix from hospitals'!  Ha Ha. Ketamine is part of an array of party drugs used by recreational drug users

[internationalism]

ivermectin 6mg is available in thailand, made by atlantic laboratories. Boxes of 2 blisters by 6 pills. Problem is short expiry date, 06.2021, but new batches with 2022 should be available soon.

It's also available in zentar plus, imported from india, which contain 6mg ivermectin and 400mg albendazole. Comes in blisters by 1 pill. In this combination those substances work synergically, so smaller dose of ivermectin is needed.  

they are not cheap.

there is also chinese iver 7.5mg in boxes of 100 pills, for pigs. Works much cheaper.

 

for treatment of covid dose 0.2mg per kg daily. That's standard dose approved for this medicine.

supposed to be taken until feeling well, might be several days, if given fast, with the first symptoms.

When already hospitalised and serious, the best would be for doctors to prescribe dosage.

Even with dosage 100x recommended one, i.e. 20mg per kg, it's still safe.

Problem is, that thai doctors don't know this medicine and might be scared of using it, because they don't have any experience.

One doctor asked never heard about it. The other 3 doctors I have asked said it's dangerous, because dead blood worms (ivermectin is an anti-parasitic) can even kill, by blocking the heart. That is not true, but that's what they learned at school.

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 1/5/2021 at 2:21 PM, mommysboy said:

It is an approved drug, and seriously ill covid patients don't have the time to wait.  One sometimes has to gamble in these situations.

 

If we took your viewpoint then dexamethasone would never have been discovered as an effective treatment.

 

Besides, all medicines I have taken can have marked side effects. If it was that dangerous, it would have been withdrawn, surely.

I already said it's very promising and deserves expedited study - the question, as raised by the poster I was replying to, was whether, as it stands, it would be safer for a person to take ivermectin or an approved CoVid-19 vaccine in order to avoid infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

My opinion is that with the current level of scientific evidence, a vaccine is the safer and more efficacious choice of those two options.

 

Let me point out that I am not opposed to testing or even the use of ivermectin as a treatment for people who are already ill, (partly because I do accept that it is relatively safe, as far as drugs go) but it certainly isn't safer for someone who isn't sick yet than the current vaccines, which the evidence shows have fewer and milder side effects than ivermectin.

 

To sum up, what I'm saying is that overall, based on the scientific evidence I've seen, I just don't believe we have enough data yet to say that ivermectin is either a better or a safer option than a vaccine as a prophylactic measure.

[partington]

On 1/5/2021 at 3:04 AM, potters said:

Are you a scientist?

Ph.D Cell Biology London University (Imperial  College), 30 years as research biologist, first for Medical Research Council UK, then in a number of biotech companies, 4 years on editorial review board of Biochemical Journal as an anonymous peer reviewer, 32 published papers in peer reviewed journals, plus number of reviews and invited lectures.

 

I was until retirement a competent mid-grade medical scientist, neither a star nor a chimp.

[impulse]

4 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I already said it's very promising and deserves expedited study - the question, as raised by the poster I was replying to, was whether, as it stands, it would be safer for a person to take ivermectin or an approved CoVid-19 vaccine in order to avoid infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

The issue is, with those studies costing in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and no profit to be made on a relatively cheap, off patent drug, who is going to fund those studies?

 

Can you see how lobbying by Big Pharma has made it a non-starter?  Decades ago, when such research was government funded and carried out in government and university labs, maybe...  But intense lobbying has brought that government funding to a virtual halt.

 

[partington]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The issue is, with those studies costing in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and no profit to be made on a relatively cheap, off patent drug, who is going to fund those studies?

 

Can you see how lobbying by Big Pharma has made it a non-starter?  Decades ago, when such research was government funded and carried out in government and university labs, maybe...  But intense lobbying has brought that government funding to a virtual halt.

 

On the contrary, there are now 68 planned clinical trials at different centres investigating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treatment of Covid-19, including  26 now recruiting, 16 active or ongoing, and 8 completed but not yet officially announced or reviewed. 

 

They are listed here in this free paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577703/ in Table 3

 

Jans DA, Wagstaff KM. The broad spectrum host-directed agent ivermectin as an antiviral for SARS-CoV-2 ? [published online ahead of print, 2020 Oct 21]. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;S0006-291X(20)31959-8. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.10.042

 

So you cannot continue to claim that this is not happening and still remain truthful.

 

In addition dexamethasone, a cheap non-patented drug, was also studied in the UK , found to be effective and is now in general use for Covid-19 treatment.  

 

There is no plot by big pharma to prevent these studies. They just don't do them.

 

These studies are absolutely essential. They will provide the evidence that is needed to show whether ivermectin is effective, or is another hydroxychloroquine.

Edited January 6, 2021 by partington

[NorthernRyland]

Just heard "Dr. Drew" (a celebrity doctor in the US) talking about Ivermectin after he's fallen ill with COVID (pretty bad). He says it's basically criminal that it's not getting recommendations by the medical establishment. Maybe it's not a conspiracy but there is probably profound and negligent corruption in the US insofar as they are refusing to engage with non-vaccine related treatments.

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

6 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

He says it's basically criminal that it's not getting recommendations by the medical establishment.

I'm not sure why he's saying there aren't "recommendations by the medical establishment."

 

From what I see, there are plenty of such recommendations.

 

Probably the most prominent among them is an absolutely ringing endorsement from a large grouping of US doctors known as the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Some might say (and indeed some have) that they are actually somewhat over-egging the pudding in their enthusiasm for this medication.

 

Here's a link to their FAQ page for ivermectin.

 

FLCCC FAQ on ivermectin

 

Just to give you a flavour, here's an extract from that page:

 

Quote

"More recently, profound anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties of ivermectin have been identified. In COVID-19 specifically, studies show that one of its several anti-viral properties is that it strongly binds to the spike protein, keeping the virus from entering the cell. These effects, along with its multiple abilities to control inflammation, both explains the markedly positive trial results already reported and poises ivermectin to again achieve similar historic impacts via the eradication of COVID-19."

 

A quick Google search also finds a large number of doctors and groups of doctors, recommending the use of ivermectin and/or additional studies on is effects.

Edited January 7, 2021 by GroveHillWanderer

[NorthernRyland]

3 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

A quick Google search also finds a large number of doctors and groups of doctors, recommending the use of ivermectin and/or additional studies on is effects.

Surely. He wanted the official endorsement of the government though, so that would be the NIH and the CDC.

[potters]

On 1/6/2021 at 3:30 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

I already said it's very promising and deserves expedited study - the question, as raised by the poster I was replying to, was whether, as it stands, it would be safer for a person to take ivermectin or an approved CoVid-19 vaccine in order to avoid infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

My opinion is that with the current level of scientific evidence, a vaccine is the safer and more efficacious choice of those two options.

 

Let me point out that I am not opposed to testing or even the use of ivermectin as a treatment for people who are already ill, (partly because I do accept that it is relatively safe, as far as drugs go) but it certainly isn't safer for someone who isn't sick yet than the current vaccines, which the evidence shows have fewer and milder side effects than ivermectin.

 

To sum up, what I'm saying is that overall, based on the scientific evidence I've seen, I just don't believe we have enough data yet to say that ivermectin is either a better or a safer option than a vaccine as a prophylactic measure.

What data do we have on the vaccines and the possible side effects.Its a case of spin the wheel. However a new experimental vaccine. Ill pass for now.

 

[potters]

On 1/6/2021 at 6:20 PM, partington said:

Ph.D Cell Biology London University (Imperial  College), 30 years as research biologist, first for Medical Research Council UK, then in a number of biotech companies, 4 years on editorial review board of Biochemical Journal as an anonymous peer reviewer, 32 published papers in peer reviewed journals, plus number of reviews and invited lectures.

 

I was until retirement a competent mid-grade medical scientist, neither a star nor a chimp.

But your not a virologist correct?

 

[SaamBaht]

On 4/3/2020 at 9:15 PM, spiekerjozef said:

Wonder how much a dose would cost now?

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

 

These are the doctors who have been testing Ivermectin as well as compiling worldwide research on it. You can buy here in Thailand for about 100 baht per 6mg tab. I've been taking it. My dose is 18mg, as it is calculated by weight. According to the US docs on that website you dose on day one, day three and then every two weeks. 

 

The doc says if you take it, you will not get it...Covid 19. 

[248900_1469958220]

1 minute ago, SaamBaht said:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

 

These are the doctors who have been testing Ivermectin as well as compiling worldwide research on it. You can buy here in Thailand for about 100 baht per 6mg tab. I've been taking it. My dose is 18mg, as it is calculated by weight. According to the US docs on that website you dose on day one, day three and then every two weeks. 

 

The doc says if you take it, you will not get it...Covid 19. 

Very interesting. Is it widely available?

[partington]

42 minutes ago, potters said:

But your not a virologist correct?

 

Yes you're absolutely correct. 

 

(The post in which I mentioned being a scientist was about the misunderstanding by another poster on what exactly peer review meant, and that papers published on online pre print servers are not waiting for those online servers to peer review them. A topic not related to virology, but how scientific research is actually performed and reviewed.)

Edited January 8, 2021 by partington

[mommysboy]

15 hours ago, potters said:

What data do we have on the vaccines and the possible side effects.Its a case of spin the wheel. However a new experimental vaccine. Ill pass for now.

 

 

Attenuated and recombinant vaccines are well researched and have been deployed for decades.  I think it's more than reasonable to assume safety, having once completed safety trials.