Ivermectin

[canthai55]

Here, we show that countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/

 

Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals
Medication	Studies	Patients	Improvement
Budesonide (UK)	1	1,779	17%
Remdesivir (USA)	1	1,063	31%
Casiri/imdevimab (USA)	1	799	66%
Ivermectin evidence	63	26,398	67% [59‑74%]

 

Believe the NIH - or are you stuck in the "If the FDA says it's OK then it is OK, no one else rut ?

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by canthai55

[canthai55]

Would be interesting to know the demographic and nationality of posters on here who are so dead set against use of Ivermectin for Covid treatment in the face of overwhelming positive results.

[Danderman123]

12 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

As is posting that gunshot victims are not getting treatment due to OD's of Ivermectin.

Cherry pick much ?

Can't wrap your head around the concept that it may offer relief, clinical trials or not ?

One bogus report does not change the reality that there are now lots of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Do you disagree?

 

BTW, harping on a single datapoint is the hallmark of a troll.

 

As for efficacy of Ivermectin, we have to wait for the outcome of clinical trials.

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Would be interesting to know the demographic and nationality of posters on here who are so dead set against use of Ivermectin for Covid treatment in the face of overwhelming positive results.

There are no overwhelming positive results. Typically, the less rigorous the clinical trial, the better the results for Ivermectin.

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Here, we show that countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/

 

Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals
Medication	Studies	Patients	Improvement
Budesonide (UK)	1	1,779	17%
Remdesivir (USA)	1	1,063	31%
Casiri/imdevimab (USA)	1	799	66%
Ivermectin evidence	63	26,398	67% [59‑74%]

 

Believe the NIH - or are you stuck in the "If the FDA says it's OK then it is OK, no one else rut ?

 

This article was not the result of a NIH study. It happens that NIH publishes studies produced by other agencies or universities. In no way does NIH endorse the use of Ivermectin outside of clinical trials for treatment of Covid-19.

 

As for the study, correlation does not prove causality.

[canthai55]

56 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

This article was not the result of a NIH study. It happens that NIH publishes studies produced by other agencies or universities. In no way does NIH endorse the use of Ivermectin outside of clinical trials for treatment of Covid-19.

 

As for the study, correlation does not prove causality.

So ... the NIH would publish something it does not believe, a study it does not think is true ?  You are mistaking it for Yahoo "News"

555

[Rimmer]

A post from social media has been removed

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

So ... the NIH would publish something it does not believe, a study it does not think is true ?  You are mistaking it for Yahoo "News"

555

There is a fundamental difference between an NIH study and an article posted on an NIH website.

 

Besides, you don’t believe that NIH is valid, so what’s your point?

 

I realize that you have a quasi-religious belief in Ivermectin, but the clinical proof is pretty thin. If it works, we will know soon. You can’t debate Ivermectin into acceptance here on the Internet. If that were the case, hydro chloroquine would be  in widespread use.

[ThaiPauly]

On 8/14/2021 at 3:18 PM, canthai55 said:

How many times are you going to post this ?

Maybe till the penny drops

[interested]

I have just picked up some Ivermectin from a pharmacy shop at wararot market.

The owner speaks English and just got in new fresh stock exp 2025.

1100bt a box. I bought 2 boxes.

From my experience its the cheapest pharmacy in the city, maybe cos it sells wholesale.

 

[leba]

So it seems that you all believe the fake $hitnews saying that no treatment works AT ALL against covid ?

When it's actually so clear for anybody not totally idiot and brainwashed by krap mainstream media that all these therapies can help more or less...

 

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, leba said:

So it seems that you all believe the fake $hitnews saying that no treatment works AT ALL against covid ?

When it's actually so clear for anybody not totally idiot and brainwashed by krap mainstream media that all these therapies can help more or less...

I am not aware of any news source that says "no treatment works AT ALL against covid".  What are these news sources you are referring to?

 

I am aware of legitimate news sources that report that many of the unproven "cures" promoted by social media have been shown to provide no benefit in the treatment of Covid 19.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just for fun in these covid times....:)

 

[Jingthing]

What do y'all think about this?

Is there really much of a downside to taking such a small dose as a prophylactic? Like how many of us including me take Vitamin D? In ADDITION to vaccines of course. 

 

 

[papa al]

Came down with the 'vid July 23.

Upper resp and eyes inflamed &c..

Took Lazada Iver 20mg.

Feeling pretty good in 2 days. 

Riding dirt bike again in  a week.

Sept.10: Antigen test was (-).

             Antibody test was (+) at >3000.

Supposedly this indicates that I have no covid now,

but did before,

and now have big time immunity.

//////

[Old & obese but healthy]

Edited September 13, 2021 by papa al

[papa al]

Thought experiment.

Let's say that those Ivermectin believers are right:

It works.

The CDC/NIH could not approve it because

the emergency auths for the 'vaccines' are

predicated on absence of alternate treatments.

Get it?

No wonder that discussion of Iver is banned

on so many platforms.

 

[xylophone]

On 9/6/2021 at 9:47 AM, Danderman123 said:

There is a fundamental difference between an NIH study and an article posted on an NIH website.

 

Besides, you don’t believe that NIH is valid, so what’s your point?

 

I realize that you have a quasi-religious belief in Ivermectin, but the clinical proof is pretty thin. If it works, we will know soon. You can’t debate Ivermectin into acceptance here on the Internet. If that were the case, hydro chloroquine would be  in widespread use.

This might help..........

 

Ivermectin Fails (Again)

If more proof were needed that ivermectin isn't a helpful treatment for COVID-19, now comes data from Pakistan that will be hard to dismiss as the pharmaco-industrial complex at work.

 

Clinicians at Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi treated 65 inpatients with ivermectin at 12 mg three times daily plus standard care, which at the time (October 2020 to January 2021) consisted of steroids and vitamin C. Their outcomes were no better than in 67 similar patients receiving only standard treatment. All patients were considered to have mild to moderate COVID-19 that nevertheless needed hospital care.

 

Both median hospital stays (4.39 days with ivermectin vs 4.68 for controls) and the number needing assisted ventilation (five vs six) were similar in the two groups.

 

"No symptomatic improvement," relative to standard care, was seen either, said study authors led by S.M. Zubair.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ers/94408?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2021-09-09&eun=g1926667d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily Headlines Top Cat HeC 2021-09-09&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

This might help..........

 

Ivermectin Fails (Again)

If more proof were needed that ivermectin isn't a helpful treatment for COVID-19, now comes data from Pakistan that will be hard to dismiss as the pharmaco-industrial complex at work.

 

Clinicians at Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi treated 65 inpatients with ivermectin at 12 mg three times daily plus standard care, which at the time (October 2020 to January 2021) consisted of steroids and vitamin C. Their outcomes were no better than in 67 similar patients receiving only standard treatment. All patients were considered to have mild to moderate COVID-19 that nevertheless needed hospital care.

 

Both median hospital stays (4.39 days with ivermectin vs 4.68 for controls) and the number needing assisted ventilation (five vs six) were similar in the two groups.

 

"No symptomatic improvement," relative to standard care, was seen either, said study authors led by S.M. Zubair.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ers/94408?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2021-09-09&eun=g1926667d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily Headlines Top Cat HeC 2021-09-09&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

To be fair, it's a small sample size. But it seems to be legit in terms of rigor. 

[canthai55]

These guys say no, it don't work.

These guys say yes, it does work.

Hmmm !

All I know for sure is that the mainstream media hypes the Bejesus out of it - for no better reason than to boost circulation via clickbait.

They can not be trusted

Their philosophy - if it bleeds it leads, and if they publish in error they will state it in font so small and buried so deep no one will ever see it.

All they need to show is Absence Malice

 

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, canthai55 said:

These guys say no, it don't work.

These guys say yes, it does work.

Hmmm !

All I know for sure is that the mainstream media hypes the Bejesus out of it - for no better reason than to boost circulation via clickbait.

They can not be trusted

Their philosophy - if it bleeds it leads, and if they publish in error they will state it in font so small and buried so deep no one will ever see it.

All they need to show is Absence Malice

 

Mainstream media reports cases of people self-administering horse-dose size quantities of Ivermectin and provides statements from qualified sources stating the obvious--that is a dumb thing to do. 

 

Mainstream media also reports on studies giving mixed results.  That's how you know about them.

 

Hyping and click-bait is done by fringe media.

[ozimoron]

8 hours ago, canthai55 said:

All I know for sure is that the mainstream media hypes the Bejesus out of it - for no better reason than to boost circulation via clickbait.

And yet fringe media, with even more incentive to boost circulation aren't motivated to boost circulation with click bait?

[canthai55]

[thailanddogerator]

so ivermecin really works it seems !

 

[heybruce]

On 9/13/2021 at 5:19 AM, papa al said:

Thought experiment.

Let's say that those Ivermectin believers are right:

It works.

The CDC/NIH could not approve it because

the emergency auths for the 'vaccines' are

predicated on absence of alternate treatments.

Get it?

No wonder that discussion of Iver is banned

on so many platforms.

 

Ivermectin does not prevent Covid.  It is not an alternative for prevention, and an unproven and highly questionable treatment. 

 

Get it?

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, thailanddogerator said:

so ivermecin really works it seems !

 

What gives you that idea?

[canthai55]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ivermectin does not prevent Covid.  It is not an alternative for prevention, and an unproven and highly questionable treatment. 

 

Get it?

In your opinion.

Not EVERYONES - and there is studies that say it does have some benefit.

Maybe quit trying to ram your own beliefs down other peoples throats and let them do what they choose.

[papa al]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ivermectin does not prevent Covid.  It is not an alternative for prevention, and an unproven and highly questionable treatment. 

 

Get it?

Done got it.

When papa got covid in July,

20mg poultry Iver cleared it up

pronto.

 

[gamb00ler]

12 hours ago, papa al said:

Done got it.

When papa got covid in July,

20mg poultry Iver cleared it up

pronto.

 

It is VERY difficult to have a quality randomized trial with a sample size of ONE.

[papa al]

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

It is VERY difficult to have a quality randomized trial with a sample size of ONE.

Who would pay for a large n study.?

No one.

Pharm companies can't profit,

so not them.

NIH/CDC would look dumb with a (+) result,

so definitely not them.

[heybruce]

22 hours ago, canthai55 said:

In your opinion.

Not EVERYONES - and there is studies that say it does have some benefit.

Maybe quit trying to ram your own beliefs down other peoples throats and let them do what they choose.

I posted "Ivermectin does not prevent Covid."  That is not an opinion.  There is no study that shows that Ivermectin prevents Covid.  I am not aware of anyone advising the use of Ivermectin as a preventative.

 

I also posted "It is not an alternative for prevention, and an unproven and highly questionable treatment."  That is also true.  Studies on its benefits on treating Covid have shown mixed results.  That means that it remains unproven.

 

I'm not ramming my opinion down other people's throats.  I am pointing out the facts.  Why do you object to that?