Report Deadly Sandfly Disease Sparks Health Warning in Thailand

[newbee2022]

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The thread is about leishmaniasis and as such discussing treatments for this is valid. Although Ivermectin isn't being used "officially", as pointed out research is being carried out and the results are positive. What's wrong with you. Here's an off license extremely cheap drug that research is saying is highly effective. Why are you so stubborn not to recognise this. 

Nothing to do with stubbornness.

It's about medical science and common sense.

And it's not about the price at all.

If you're sick you wouldn't refuse the very best medication because of the price, would you?

And....there are reasons ivermectin is off license and not recommended in case of Leishmania. 

 

[jacko45k]

On 4/25/2025 at 9:22 PM, dinsdale said:

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. This is just ridiculous. Maybe there's an mRNA vaccine in the pipeline.

I see you and a few others have been prodded with a stick! The collapse of a building into it's footprint in Bangkok didn't do it!

[steven100]

10 hours ago, still kicking said:

You counted?

I just reckon there must be around 100 million 

[dinsdale]

54 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Nothing to do with stubbornness.

It's about medical science and common sense.

And it's not about the price at all.

If you're sick you wouldn't refuse the very best medication because of the price, would you?

And....there are reasons ivermectin is off license and not recommended in case of Leishmania. 

 

Medical science is saying Ivermectin is proving effective and add to this Ivermectin is off license so it's very cheap.  A vey cheap and affective drug for the treatment of leishmaniasis. You talk about common sense then common sense should tell you this is a good thing. As for it being available generically what's the problem with that when poverty is seen as a risk factor (*1)?

*1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leishmaniasis

 

[newbee2022]

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Medical science is saying Ivermectin is proving effective and add to this Ivermectin is off license so it's very cheap.  A vey cheap and affective drug for the treatment of leishmaniasis. You talk about common sense then common sense should tell you this is a good thing. As for it being available generically what's the problem with that when poverty is seen as a risk factor (*1)?

*1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leishmaniasis

 

Start a new thread about Ivermectin

[johng]

5 hours ago, Puccini said:

 

Thank you for the link, but I cannot find any mention of Invermectin in that article.

from the link

The bioactive agent was purified and named Avermectin, which was subsequently chemically modified to a more effective compound called Ivermectin. Ivermectin was later tested in humans with parasitic infections and effectively killed parasite larvae (microfilaria) (Figure 3). Collectively, Ōmura and Campbell’s contributions led to the discovery of a new class of drugs with extraordinary efficacy against parasitic diseases.

[dinsdale]

6 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Start a new thread about Ivermectin

Do you mean a new thread about Ivermectin and it application for treating leishmaniasis. No need as this thread is about leishmaniasis and as I have pointed out discussion about affective treatments in relation to leishmaniasis is valid and IVERMECTIN is proving to be affective. Why don't you respond to my previous post about it being a vey cheap (practically free in comparison to Big Pharma alternatives) and affective drug in the treatment of leishmaniasis rather than your simplistic deflection.

[newbee2022]

22 hours ago, johng said:

 

Just because they wear a white coat doesn't mean they are always right or have your best interest at heart  or that you have to blindly do whatever they say.

No, they studied this in Medical Schools for years.

Did you? Obviously not. Your doc is Dr. Google, isn't it?

 

[johng]

I have not studied at medical school for years...doesn't change anything,

just because they are wearing a white coat doesn't mean they are always correct,have your best interest at heart or that you have to blindly go along with what they say.

 

And I try not to use Google as they give biased results to suit a narrative.

[Luuk Chaai]

On 4/25/2025 at 8:33 PM, Puccini said:

 

According to the news, article Dr Jurai Wongsawat recommends an insect repellent as a protective measure against sandfly bites, not Ivermectin.

 

Joking around with my wife, I suggested to use  Pla Ra as an insect repellent,  she asked me if I was crazy .  "what do you want to do attract Bar Girls ?"

[dinsdale]

26 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

No, they studied this in Medical Schools for years.

Did you? Obviously not. Your doc is Dr. Google, isn't it?

 

You're obviously missing the crucial point that not all doctors and scientist are the same. Yes, they've all studied but some, as has been well demonstrated in the past five years, are not independent of Big Pharma funding whilst others are truly independent. For myself I would trust those independent of funding and influence above those that will skewer results to maintain their funding. 

[newbee2022]

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

You're obviously missing the crucial point that not all doctors and scientist are the same. Yes, they've all studied but some, as has been well demonstrated in the past five years, are not independent of Big Pharma funding whilst others are truly independent. For myself I would trust those independent of funding and influence above those that will skewer results to maintain their funding. 

 

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

You're obviously missing the crucial point that not all doctors and scientist are the same. Yes, they've all studied but some, as has been well demonstrated in the past five years, are not independent of Big Pharma funding whilst others are truly independent. For myself I would trust those independent of funding and influence above those that will skewer results to maintain their funding. 

You're going round in circles. We got that already. Review our conversation please 

[dinsdale]

18 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

 

You're going round in circles. We got that already. Review our conversation please 

You've lost it mate. Why would you say I'm repeating myself by double quoting the same post? My previous post on this thread about compromised doctors and scientists was this and it was yesterday:

"Experienced, qualified doctors/scientists on Big Pharma's payroll. Tell me why these should be believed over truly independent scientists and doctors."