Ivermectin: Yes, No or Maybe

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, samtam said:

 

When pharma is banning a treatment for monetary gain, this is generally not a good sign.

 

 

 

No money in it, unlike the gravy train that is rolling out in its first year of many, in the form of vaccinations annually, bi-annually and with lower efficacy drugs, tri-annually. Toot-toot, all aboard!

 

 

 

And of course the alternative, getting a vaccination in Thailand, is widely and freely available...said no one.

Except that freely available treatments, such as Dexamethasone, are not banned, even though it’s no longer under patent.

 

your entire thesis is contrary to actual facts.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, DeepSea said:

 

A lot of people hold very polarized opinions these days and are seemingly incapable of discussing the pro's and con's of potentially effective treatments for COVID (among other issues, don't even get me started on politics) without taking an entrenched position from which they utterly reject any alternative point of view. I think it's reasonable to keep an open mind and I have no problem recognizing that dexamethasone (corticosteroid) displays both anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties, what it doesn't appear to have are any of the 'preventative' properties of Ivermectin) according to the real-time meta analysis of 60 studies i pasted in my earlier post).

 

I don't know how the minds of those at the FDA work, or what would represent an effective treatment in their esteemed opinion, but my personal opinion is that it's an outrage, that an ostensibly safe, relatively inexpensive drug, used by many front-line doctors with apparently favorable results (as a both a preventive and treatment - why would they lie about this, what's in it for them?); is being ridiculed, trashed, torn down and that those who even dare to mention the name Ivermectin are dismissed as anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists... What happened to the world, what happened to our ability to think logically for ourselves, when did we all turn into a bunch of mindless morons, swallowing everything we are told and turning on each other for raising logical and reasonable questions?

 

I heard the same rants from fans of chloroquine last year. It takes time to conduct rigorous clinical trials. We will know whether Ivermectin is useful against Covid soon enough.

[JetsetBkk]

 

So that's a YES from me, then.

 

 

 

[DeepSea]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I heard the same rants from fans of chloroquine last year. It takes time to conduct rigorous clinical trials. We will know whether Ivermectin is useful against Covid soon enough.

 

I was ranting... because you don't agree with my point of view? Thank you for proving my point...

Edited July 3, 2021 by DeepSea

[DeepSea]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I heard the same rants from fans of chloroquine last year. It takes time to conduct rigorous clinical trials. We will know whether Ivermectin is useful against Covid soon enough.

 

'It takes time to conduct rigorous clinical trials.'

 

I couldn't agree more with this statement, but highlighting the need for 'rigorous' clinical trials, for a drug which has been in use for 40 years and shown to be safe seems a little ironic. Vaccines are being foisted on the population of the world under an Emergency Use Authorization, which shields the manufacturers from liability; or have you been cheer leading for rigorous clinical trials for those vaccines also?

 

If there is even a slim chance that Ivermectin can help a COVID victim, or free thinking people want to use it as a preventive, then where's the harm, why are people so offended by this choice?

[Danderman123]

11 hours ago, DeepSea said:

 

'It takes time to conduct rigorous clinical trials.'

 

I couldn't agree more with this statement, but highlighting the need for 'rigorous' clinical trials, for a drug which has been in use for 40 years and shown to be safe seems a little ironic. Vaccines are being foisted on the population of the world under an Emergency Use Authorization, which shields the manufacturers from liability; or have you been cheer leading for rigorous clinical trials for those vaccines also?

 

If there is even a slim chance that Ivermectin can help a COVID victim, or free thinking people want to use it as a preventive, then where's the harm, why are people so offended by this choice?

You seem confused why clinical trials are necessary to determine efficacy of a medication.

 

Even if a medication actually works in regards to a disease, clinical trials are required to determine optimal therapies and dosages.

[internationalism]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You seem confused why clinical trials are necessary to determine efficacy of a medication.

 

Even if a medication actually works in regards to a disease, clinical trials are required to determine optimal therapies and dosages.

this is 35 years old medicine, with thousands of clinical trials on humans and animals, including those for many different viral infections, even for cancer. With billions of patients, including repeated many times, and nobel price on top of everything.

it's a very safe medicine. In many countries, including thailand, it's over the counter.

 

In comparison to emergency approved covid vax (that includes pretty new mrna technology), with pfizer (approved only in 5 smallish countries - Bahrain, Brazil, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland.) and AZ (only approved in brasil) stil in 2-3 phase.

Dosage for them is still unknown, with pfizer stating, that booster might be needed after 6 months, with AZ adjusting dosage from full to half initial dose, and playing with second dose between 8 to 48 weeks. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html#jnj

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, internationalism said:

this is 35 years old medicine, with thousands of clinical trials on humans and animals, including those for many different viral infections, even for cancer. With billions of patients, including repeated many times, and nobel price on top of everything.

it's a very safe medicine. In many countries, including thailand, it's over the counter.

 

In comparison to emergency approved covid vax (that includes pretty new mrna technology), with pfizer (approved only in 5 smallish countries - Bahrain, Brazil, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland.) and AZ (only approved in brasil) stil in 2-3 phase.

Dosage for them is still unknown, with pfizer stating, that booster might be needed after 6 months, with AZ adjusting dosage from full to half initial dose, and playing with second dose between 8 to 48 weeks. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html#jnj

You are comparing vaccines with proven efficacy against Covid-19 with a medication with many negative clinical trials against Covid-19. Interesting.

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, internationalism said:

it's a very safe medicine

 

 

Perhaps, for the right diagnosed condition, and in the right amounts.

 

Perhaps for animals, and humans with parasites.

 

Anything else, feel free to self-medicate, but you should not be advocating that others do something stoopid.

 

All that said, you can't tell a physician or a hospital to treat you with ivermectin here, so why even spend time trying to convince anyone else this medicine is applicable to COVID?

 

I understand that you are afraid, and that you are looking for answers, but dragging others down with you is well, shameful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DeepSea]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You seem confused why clinical trials are necessary to determine efficacy of a medication.

 

Even if a medication actually works in regards to a disease, clinical trials are required to determine optimal therapies and dosages.

 

Come on... I expected a more cogent argument from you than this, now you're just telegraphing your ignorance (if you don't know the definition of the word, look it up).

 

Clinical trails are necessary for more than just determining the efficacy of a medication. The FDA state that clinical trials are carried out 'to determine whether a new drug or device is safe and effective for people to use' you'll note they use the word 'safe' in addition to 'effective', the former is of course missing from your description, and which brings use nicely back to the fact that you rail against Ivermectin, but have no issue with newly developed vaccines under emergency use authorization... Interesting (as you like to say).

 

 

[DeepSea]

26 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are comparing vaccines with proven efficacy against Covid-19 with a medication with many negative clinical trials against Covid-19. Interesting.

 

I posted a link to a totally transparent, real-time meta analysis of 61 studies (which also includes a couple of negative results), which I'm sure you haven't read, would you care to reciprocate by linking us to your list of negative clinical trials?

[Danderman123]

12 minutes ago, DeepSea said:

 

Come on... I expected a more cogent argument from you than this, now you're just telegraphing your ignorance (if you don't know the definition of the word, look it up).

 

Clinical trails are necessary for more than just determining the efficacy of a medication. The FDA state that clinical trials are carried out 'to determine whether a new drug or device is safe and effective for people to use' you'll note they use the word 'safe' in addition to 'effective', the former is of course missing from your description, and which brings use nicely back to the fact that you rail against Ivermectin, but have no issue with newly developed vaccines under emergency use authorization... Interesting (as you like to say).

 

Vaccines are now well tested for efficacy and safety.

 

Your argument is that Ivermectin has been proven to be safe, so that should be good enough. But, that is not how modern medicine works. A treatment should be tested for efficacy with unambiguous results. Ivermectin has not yet passed that hurdle.

[DeepSea]

29 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

All that said, you can't tell a physician or a hospital to treat you with ivermectin here, so why even spend time trying to convince anyone else this medicine is applicable to COVID?

 

 

 

Untrue... A prescription is not required to get Ivermectin from a Hospital of pharmacy, you just have to ask for it (from a Pharmacy - if in stock) or request a doctor prescribe it (as even non-prescription medications, require a prescription) from a Hospital.

 

The only reason I feel compelled to discuss this, is in response to what appears to be a coordinated effort (between WHO, FDA, Governments) to ridicule, trash and otherwise dismiss any discussion regarding the use of Ivermectin for the purpose of Prophylactic use or early treatment of COVID. It is a disgrace, that it's not possible to have a calm, reasonable discussion about the pro's and con's of this potential alternative to emergency use authorization vaccinations, without being labelled as a conspiracy theorist. It is those who have blindly submitted, without question who should take a look in the mirror.

[Danderman123]

9 minutes ago, DeepSea said:

 

I posted a link to a totally transparent, real-time meta analysis of 61 studies (which also includes a couple of negative results), which I'm sure you haven't read, would you care to reciprocate by linking us to your list of negative clinical trials?

It’s too early to rule Ivermectin in or out as a Covid treatment. Let’s wait for further clinical trials.

[DeepSea]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Vaccines are now well tested for efficacy and safety.

 

Your argument is that Ivermectin has been proven to be safe, so that should be good enough. But, that is not how modern medicine works. A treatment should be tested for efficacy with unambiguous results. Ivermectin has not yet passed that hurdle.

 

Like the unambiguous safety results of the m-RNA and other vaccines? So unambiguous, that they are rolled out under emergency use authorization to shield the manufacturers from Liability... You can't have it both ways, medicines and vaccines are either unambiguously safe and effective or they are not (actually no medicine is unambiguously safe and effective by definition), but you choose to cherry pick... Vaccines OK... Invermectin... more clinical trials required. 

[internationalism]

55 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

 

Perhaps, for the right diagnosed condition, and in the right amounts.

 

Perhaps for animals, and humans with parasites.

 

Anything else, feel free to self-medicate, but you should not be advocating that others do something stoopid.

 

All that said, you can't tell a physician or a hospital to treat you with ivermectin here, so why even spend time trying to convince anyone else this medicine is applicable to COVID?

 

I understand that you are afraid, and that you are looking for answers, but dragging others down with you is well, shameful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know about thailand, but in some countries, where iver is not approved for covid, patients can take with them to hospital their own and ask doctor  administer it according to his knowledge.

wife tells me, that some thai doctors are recommending iver.

I did pack a box of 100 pills for my emergency backpack, the case when I have to move to a safe house (when my wife becomes infected and will chose to stay home), hospitel or hospital. That's together with colchicine, chloroquine, melatonin, dutasteride, finasteride, budesonide, tamiflu. I packed even doxycicline, azithromicine, acyclovir, loperamide - just in case hospital runs out those basic medications.

no, I am not advocating anything and not dragging anybody, I am not afraid about my health (not at all in a risk group), I do not care about your health, so I don't feel ashamed at all.

But you are welcome to went some more of your frustration in some more baseless statements. Reads for good entertainment (no, I don't call you fool, as you do to me), but because I had enough for today, so I am blocking you 

Edited July 4, 2021 by internationalism

[DeepSea]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It’s too early to rule Ivermectin in or out as a Covid treatment. Let’s wait for further clinical trials.

 

Now that's a reasoned response... But I would suggest to you, that based on the information available to date (admittedly some of which appears to be negative, but you have to drill into those studies to find out why... insufficient dosage, not truly randomized trials etc.), there is extremely low risk of harm if people choose to use is as a prophylactic, and that this drug, should not be defamed for those considering its use for early treatment COVID patients.

 

My gripe is not that medicines should be tested for safety and efficiency, it's the obvious disinformation, misinformation and scaremongering which is being perpetuated out there. Reasonable people can disagree, but generally speaking, this is not a reasonable discussion.

[internationalism]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

You are comparing vaccines with proven efficacy against Covid-19 with a medication with many negative clinical trials against Covid-19. Interesting.

yes, I do.

let me tell again - I don't trust those experimental vax, I do trust this medicine and some other medicines in my covid drug cabinet.

simply because I was taking this medicine for years and I don't have a smallest chance for a vax till the very end of year. I will be the very last 70th % to be vaccinated (and when I have a choice of a minimum 2 vax which would be trusted at that time)

Even if vaccinated 10x with many different vocid vax you can still become ill and still end end up in hospital, where some medication might be given

Edited July 4, 2021 by internationalism

[tlandtday]

Ivermenctin is a drug that has been used safely for decades across the globe the same cannot be said for the rushed vaccines.

[tifino]

2 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

Ivermenctin is a drug that has been used safely for decades across the globe the same cannot be said for the rushed vaccines.

yeah, the agenda was to highlight the negative effects suffered by those who overdosed (unregulated doseage)  

[tlandtday]

2 minutes ago, tifino said:

yeah, the agenda was to highlight the negative effects suffered by those who overdosed (unregulated doseage)  

you can overdose on water if you drink enough

[Taboo2]

Can someone explain why India's death toll dropped like Lead balloon?  Not too long ago it was news #1.  Now, no one mentions the great success of India and how they fought back.

 

If I mention why, I will be punished by the censors...but you can find the answer in the Forbes article (May 11, 2021).

 

The solutions starts with an "I".....and ends with a "N".

 

Thailand could learn a thing or two....and so can you expats who are worried about when you will get your vaccine.

 

Do some research and do not panic.

 

Good luck!

[FarFlungFalang]

6 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

Can someone explain why India's death toll dropped like Lead balloon?  Not too long ago it was news #1.  Now, no one mentions the great success of India and how they fought back.

 

If I mention why, I will be punished by the censors...but you can find the answer in the Forbes article (May 11, 2021).

 

The solutions starts with an "I".....and ends with a "N".

 

Thailand could learn a thing or two....and so can you expats who are worried about when you will get your vaccine.

 

Do some research and do not panic.

 

Good luck!

They apparently did a massive dose up of the population and now there are some trials and studies being done now that "proper" vaccines are available.Funny that.If it turns out the stuff actually works well then some excuses will be made I'm sure.

[dinsdale]

26 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

Can someone explain why India's death toll dropped like Lead balloon?  Not too long ago it was news #1.  Now, no one mentions the great success of India and how they fought back.

 

If I mention why, I will be punished by the censors...but you can find the answer in the Forbes article (May 11, 2021).

 

The solutions starts with an "I".....and ends with a "N".

 

Thailand could learn a thing or two....and so can you expats who are worried about when you will get your vaccine.

 

Do some research and do not panic.

 

Good luck!

It's out in the rural areas. The dead are not being counted and the infected are not being tested.

[rabas]

47 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

Can someone explain why India's death toll dropped like Lead balloon?  Not too long ago it was news #1.  Now, no one mentions the great success of India and how they fought back.

 

If I mention why, I will be punished by the censors...but you can find the answer in the Forbes article (May 11, 2021).

 

The solutions starts with an "I".....and ends with a "N".

 

Thailand could learn a thing or two....and so can you expats who are worried about when you will get your vaccine.

 

Do some research and do not panic.

 

Good luck!

 

You refer to Goa, one of India's smallest states, which said they would distribute Ivermectin. The problem is that India's huge Delta spike dropped equally fast all across India, not just in Goa, so their is no reason to believe Ivermentin was the main reason.  More confusing, Goa now claims they never purchased the Ivermeticn.  Rather, they had leftover kits containing other medications, including zinc. Link

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by rabas

[FarFlungFalang]

32 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

You refer to Goa, one of India's smallest states, which said they would distribute Ivermectin. The problem is that India's huge Delta spike dropped equally fast all across India, not just in Goa, so their is no reason to believe Ivermentin was the main reason.  More confusing, Goa now claims they never purchased the Ivermeticn.  Rather, they had leftover kits containing other medications, including zinc. Link

 

Any ideas or links to why India has such a low deaths per million count compared to most western countries?

[jackspade]

On 7/3/2021 at 5:28 PM, DeepSea said:

 

If there is even a slim chance that Ivermectin can help a COVID victim, or free thinking people want to use it as a preventive, then where's the harm, why are people so offended by this choice?

 

People who are offended by it are your typical mainstream apologist next door. They will go to the grave fighting for any argument with a governmental "Official" sticker slapped across it, and they get a good proportion of their internal self-worth and validation for existence by being on the "Official Side" of political arguments.

 

The fact that people who are willing to question the status quo and think for themselves—ostensibly, if you are among such people, the fact that people like you even exist offends them, because people such as yourself threaten to pop their miniscule reality bubble. It is the same thing that goes on in insular religious groups when one of their members starts asking those silly "off-limits" questions.

 

In fact, "member" is the perfect word to describe such people. They are like members of a special club. If you do not accept every little word off the lips of your government Officials, then you are not part of their club.

 

They like to use terms like "conspiracy theory" to justify their supercilious attitudes toward those who "ask questions" and challenge anything with the "Official" sticker on it.

 

They also tend to have low self-esteem, be grossly naive, see things in black and white, have a sad misunderstanding of human nature, be somewhat afraid of the world, be pitifully out of touch with themselves, and tend to look upon government offices through rose-colored glasses.

Unfortunately, there are billions of them on this planet. ????
 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by jackspade

[DJBenz]

Some good (long, if you care to invest the time) reading here on the flaws in the 'evidence' that keeps getting touted for Ivermectin use:

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine/

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-3-conspiracy-theories-vs-science/

 

And also at the BMJ which touches on sites such as IVMMeta (the new darling of Ivermectin proponents):

 

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

 

Quote

Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by DJBenz

[hotandsticky]

28 minutes ago, jackspade said:

 

People who are offended by it are your typical mainstream apologist next door. They will go to the grave fighting for any argument with a governmental "Official" sticker slapped across it, and they get a good proportion of their internal self-worth and validation for existence by being on the "Official Side" of political arguments.

 

The fact that people who are willing to question the status quo and think for themselves—ostensibly, if you are among such people, the fact that people like you even exist offends them, because people such as yourself threaten to pop their miniscule reality bubble. It is the same thing that goes on in insular religious groups when one of their members starts asking those silly "off-limits" questions.

 

In fact, "member" is the perfect word to describe such people. They are like members of a special club. If you do not accept every little word off the lips of your government Officials, then you are not part of their club.

 

They like to use terms like "conspiracy theory" to justify their supercilious attitudes toward those who "ask questions" and challenge anything with the "Official" sticker on it.

 

They also tend to have low self-esteem, be grossly naive, see things in black and white, have a sad misunderstanding of human nature, be somewhat afraid of the world, be pitifully out of touch with themselves, and tend to look upon government offices through rose-colored glasses.

Unfortunately, there are billions of them on this planet. ????
 

 

 

 

 

Yep...... that's the sort of self-opinionated arrogance I am talking about..................... never a clue about the middle ground.

[MajorTom]

11 hours ago, rabas said:

 

You refer to Goa, one of India's smallest states, which said they would distribute Ivermectin. The problem is that India's huge Delta spike dropped equally fast all across India, not just in Goa, so their is no reason to believe Ivermentin was the main reason.  More confusing, Goa now claims they never purchased the Ivermeticn.  Rather, they had leftover kits containing other medications, including zinc. Link

 

Not correct. The use of Ivermectin started in Dehli in April, then Goa followed. It has since been widely used in several states across India. Now look at the curves.

 

I dont have any strong opinions or expertise in this matter. But how can the success in India be explained? Its certainly not vaccines. They are currently at 4% of total population. Cases and deaths now reduced by 80-90%.... I find it hard to believe that's just pure coincidence.