Ivermectin , covid cure

[Cowabunga]

Maybe , but there's no evidence it actually works , you should have got infected for the cause .

From Trial Site News
Why isn’t ivermectin used more widely?

The great majority of regulations and national research agencies suggest more trial data is needed, and of a higher quality of data. They point out that the existing trials are either too small or not standardized enough in dosage amount or are subject to bias. Increasingly, numbers of experts speculate however that various economic interests are blocking true, open and honest debate about the potential of the drug. It could threaten a therapeutic market worth tens of billions of dollars per annum in sales.

What is the counter argument to the naysayers?

Dr. Tess Lawrie, author one of the leading meta-analyses and recent guest on the TrialSite Podcast, suggests that the meta-analyses results demonstrate safety and efficacy. Moreover, they argue the fact that some think there isn’t quite enough data is hardly a reason to stop the use of a life-saving drug.

They provide examples to drugs like remdesivir, authorized with less evidence than what various meta-analyses studying ivermectin demonstrate.

Also in detail

https://www.francesoir.fr/sites/francesoir/files/media-icons/bird-proceedings-02-03-2021-v151.pdf

 

[bobk]

From Trial Site News
Why isn’t ivermectin used more widely?

The great majority of regulations and national research agencies suggest more trial data is needed, and of a higher quality of data. They point out that the existing trials are either too small or not standardized enough in dosage amount or are subject to bias. Increasingly, numbers of experts speculate however that various economic interests are blocking true, open and honest debate about the potential of the drug. It could threaten a therapeutic market worth tens of billions of dollars per annum in sales.

What is the counter argument to the naysayers?

Dr. Tess Lawrie, author one of the leading meta-analyses and recent guest on the TrialSite Podcast, suggests that the meta-analyses results demonstrate safety and efficacy. Moreover, they argue the fact that some think there isn’t quite enough data is hardly a reason to stop the use of a life-saving drug.

They provide examples to drugs like remdesivir, authorized with less evidence than what various meta-analyses studying ivermectin demonstrate.

Also in detail

https://www.francesoir.fr/sites/francesoir/files/media-icons/bird-proceedings-02-03-2021-v151.pdf

Haven't read it , but it would appear iver is curative not preventative . well might be curative .

 

[Cowabunga]

Haven't read it , but it would appear iver is curative not preventative . well might be curative .

You really should read up before commenting or you will turn into an Olly clone. One thing it is not is a 'curative'.

Here is another very recent comment from a leading doctor...

Dr. Alessandro Santin, a practicing oncologist and scientist who runs a large laboratory at Yale, believes firmly that ivermectin could vastly cut suffering from COVID-19. Santin joins a growing group of doctors committed to using the safe, generic drug both as an early home treatment to prevent hospitalization and alongside inpatient treatments like steroids and oxygen.

Explore Further

Why I am challenging NIH ivermectin secrecy in federal court

Dr. Pierre Kory Talks Covid-19, Ivermectin and the FLCCC
“The bottom line is that ivermectin works. I’ve seen that in my patients as well as treating my own family in Italy,” Santin said in an interview, referring to his father, 88, who recently suffered a serious bout of COVID. “We must find a way to administer it on a large scale to a lot of people.”

Santin’s statements carry the prestige of a leadership position at Yale School of Medicine and the gravitas of a top uterine cancer researcher, who has authored more than 250 science journal articles and pioneered treatment, used worldwide, for the most aggressive form of uterine cancer. At Yale, he is an OB/GYN professor, team leader in

 

[smallholder99]

WTO, FDA, Canadian and even the Czech authorities have all said that this stuff should be limited to use in well controlled trials only. There is not an infinite supply of the stuff and it is needed for people with other health problems. This is exactly the same as the hydroxychloroquine thing. More research is needed.

The stuff is freely available over the counter in many countries where their use is very much needed to counter some particularly nasty diseases caused by parasites endemic to these regions. I don't know which population the ivermectin advocates want to point to as their case study, cases in Brazil, India, Peru and the like are rocketing.

This all stems from some Australian researchers putting the drug in a test tube with coronavirus and finding the virus wasn't able to infect cells in vitro at concentrations that were way outside those ever found in the lung tissue of people taking the drug. They then did some potent computer modelling and arrived at a probable mechanism by which the drug was causing this on a molecular level.

As I've said consistently for months:

1. There is not an unlimited amount of money to go buying tonnes of different drugs and throwing them at big portions of society without evidence that they are A: safe and B: effective. And I don't just mean safe to everyone, I mean are they safe to give to patients suffering with often extreme symptoms caused by covid 19?

2. There is not an unlimited supply of any drug, no matter how cheap, generic or plentiful. If rich countries suddenly bought up the entire world's supply on a whim, someone somewhere is gonna go without and get fudged hard by some very nasty disease.

3. More genuine primary research is definitely needed. All the retrospective observational and meta-analyses in the world are not substitute for randomised and double blinded controlled trials. There is a very good reason that these methods are used for testing drugs, vaccines and medical devices. People's lives may depend on the outcome.

is the disease worse in india than in the uk now

 

[Cowabunga]

is the disease worse in india than in the uk now

India has a population of 1380million, many crammed into relatively unsanitary conditions in towns and villages, compared to the UK population of less than 68million. What do you think? Take a guess.

 

[Highland Mule]

India has a population of 1380million, many crammed into relatively unsanitary conditions in towns and villages, compared to the UK population of less than 68million. What do you think? Take a guess.

Curiously, the population density of England is higher than that of India. But there aren’t as many slums in England, I’m told.

 

[ollie989898]

is the disease worse in india than in the uk now

India are hitting 60,000 new cases a day atm and have been above 40,000 cases a day for the last 3 weeks.

 

[smallholder99]

India are hitting 60,000 new cases a day atm and have[/QUOTE the bbc news been peddling this propaganda that disease is rocketing out of control in india ,youve got to be brainwashed to believe it, they got 20 x our population so 11,000 cases a day to 60,000 is the same as us going from 500 cases a day to 3,000, we went to 60,000 a day, in fact theyre doing better than us having only had a fraction of the vaccine

 

[ollie989898]

I don't watch anything from the BBC. I use Reuters news from time to time, they have a handy Covid tracker thing.

India have had 12 million cases. Are they 'doing better'. Better than who and how?

 

[Farmer Fin]

I don't watch anything from the BBC. I use Reuters news from time to time, they have a handy Covid tracker thing.

India have had 12 million cases. Are they 'doing better'. Better than who and how?

Comparing global cases is a pretty useless metric. Depends on access to testing and the populations willingness to test. Surveys like the ONS do are best but not sure how many countries are actually doing this.

 

[smallholder99]

has the astrazeneca vaccine had less side effects than ivermectin so far say per million doses

 

[Cowabunga]

has the astrazeneca vaccine had less side effects than ivermectin so far say per million doses

Far more side effects for the vaccine. Over 3700,000,000 Ivermectin doses have been prescribed over 20 years. A relatively tiny number of issues and I believe less than a handful of deaths. Compare that with the vaccine issues and deaths reported from blood clotting in the sinus cavity after the AZ/Oxford jab, which is itself a tiny number but relatively high compared to Ivermectin, which I'll copy below.

Serious Neurological Adverse Events after Ivermectin—Do They Occur beyond the Indication of Onchocerciasis?

Serious neurological adverse events have been reported from large scale community-based ivermectin treatment campaigns against Onchocerciasis volvulus in Africa. The mechanism of these events has been debated in the literature, largely focusing on the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A total of 1,668 reports for ivermectin were identified. The most commonly reported adverse events for ivermectin were pruritus (25.3%), headache (13.9%), and dizziness (7.5%). Under the MedDRA SOC “Neurological disorders,” there were a total of 426 reports; 156 of these were classified as “serious” according to ICH Guidance.14 Of the serious reports, 60.9% (95) originated from Africa, 20.5% (32) from the Americas, 12.2% (19) from Europe, and 6.4% (10) from Asia. One duplicate report was identified and excluded from the analysis.

Sixty-four of the 155 serious reports described the use of ivermectin for O. volvulus. Forty-two reports did not include an indication; one reported only “infection parasitic.” The remaining 48 reports underwent clinical review, and twenty reports were further excluded from this analysis. Reasons for exclusion were neurological adverse events reported in the context of other clinical syndromes (lactic acidosis/circulatory collapse, cerebral infarction/cerebral artery embolism, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, hepatitis/hepatic failure, brain cancer, pneumonia with hypotension, accidental exposure to product, sepsis complicating chemotherapy, multi-organ failure, history of epilepsy, and Alzheimer’s disease), topical ivermectin for rosacea, prolonged time to onset of events in comparison with the known half-life of ivermectin (14 days and 8 years), and unclear onset of symptoms in relation to ivermectin.

The remaining 28 reports are included in this case series (Table 1). The cases were received from the United States, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Canada, and Sierra Leone. The patient ages were included in 25 reports and ranged from 11 to 97 years. Fourteen reports described adverse events in males, 13 in females, and the gender was not provided in one report. Scabies was included as an indication in 10 reports, acarodermatitis (within the MedDRA terminology, acarodermatitis may be used to indicate any of the following terms: acarodermatitis, Norwegian scabies, Sarcoptes scabeii infestation, scabies, and scabies infestation) in eight, filariasis due to Wucheria bancrofti in five, strongyloidiasis in three, teniasis in one, and myiasis in one. The time to onset of the serious neurological events ranged from hours to 7 days, with 14 cases noting a time to onset of 1 day or less. Examples of serious neurological adverse events reported included such terms as unable to walk, consciousness disturbed or depressed level of consciousness or loss of consciousness, seizure or convulsion, encephalopathy or coma, and tremor. The reported dosages of ivermectin ranged between 3 and 24 mg. Most of the cases reported a one-time dose or two doses separated by 1 week. Weight information was provided for most of the cases, and there was no suggestion of overdose based on the data provided. Nine reports documented a positive dechallenge, with resolution of symptoms after discontinuing ivermectin without further intervention. Three reports documented a positive rechallenge, with recurrence of symptoms with re-exposure to ivermectin, including one case with repeated symptoms on three separate treatment courses with ivermectin. Concomitant medications were reported in 20 cases. In nine of the cases, the drugs co-administered with ivermectin were also reported to be “suspected” for the described adverse drug reactions, including oxatomide, piperonyl butoxide/esdepallethrime (topical), darunavir and ritonavir, terbinafine, and albendazole. Eight cases reported concomitant drugs with known CNS effects, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and anticonvulsants; however, in none of these cases were the concomitant CNS-acting agents considered to be “suspected.”

 

[Cowabunga]

Forget about doxycycline in combination with Ivermectin. Keep it for malaria. However it seems that pretty low doses of SSRI anti-depressants may be very effective if administered in combination with Ivermectin if covid or indeed flu is suspected. Ivermectin can be used as a prophylaxis and indeed I am still using it myself. It is now recommended to take it weekly but I have stuck with every ten days to a fortnight. There is now increasing evidence that Ivermectin is effective at quickly eliminating bad vaccine reactions without neutralising the vaccine's effectiveness. Also for preventing and curing so-called 'long covid' in combination with low dose of an SSRI for a period limited to about ten days.

I stocked up with Ivermectin for human emergency use in March 2020. I've been taking it every two weeks since about July orAugust last year apart from a month after I had my first vaccine just in case that it neutralised the vaccine. I am now quite sure that there is plenty of evidence that it doesn't as there is now a much better understanding of its mode of action.

 

[Kidds]

Like others who have posted above, I am now totally convinced about this low-risk treatment. On that basis I put my order in today for 100 x 12mg tablets of Ivermectin from a well known phramaceutical wholesaler in India.

How come you didn't just either get the vaccination here or just stay away from people instead of depriving India of something they can afford?

 

[Cowabunga]

Hi Cowabunga. The Indian trial used two doses with the intention that this would provide protection for 28 days. Do you mind me asking what dose you are taking?

I took two doses 48 hours apart initially and when I restarted. Then i take a pour-on formula meant for cattle at the recommended dose for my weight which happens to be the same for cattle worming and human covid prophylaxis. I take this every two weeks although the latest recommendation is for a weekly dose. If I had any sign whatsoever of impending infection I would take another dose immediately.. So far I haven’t had as much as a sniffle since I started.
I’m the only one in my family doing this but we’ve all agreed to take a course if any had symptoms.

I do not recommend anyone else do this. I would like to say ‘take your advice from your doctor’ but most [not all] doctors are so behind the curve on this that its almost criminal. My own GP had not even heard of Ivermectin last Autumn. He’s only started to take it seriously in the last six weeks. I know because he regularly walks past my farmyard and his family and mine are all friends.

 

[Cowabunga]

Here is the best protocol that is proven to work. Its not the only one. My wife and I take everything apart from the melatonin and she does’t take the ivermectin either. Her choice. We were actually on 8000iu vitamin D all winter but recently changed to 4000iu but with this dreadful weather with even the cows back indoors, we’re back to 8000 daily with some vitamin K to make sure the D is directed to where it should work best.

Treatment Protocols

Prevention and treatment protocols for COVID, Flu and RSV.

covid19criticalcare.com

 

[Cowabunga]

Since Wheatear has, for whatever reason, deleted his posts, I’ll repost his video reference which is quite interesting, made by two doctors who are somewhat paranoid about the vaccine. They do summarise very well the probale reasons for the resistance of big business to use or even test Ivermectin, which are for the most part expanding on what I already knew. Start by skipping to minute 27 of the video.

 

[Highland Mule]

Since Wheatear has, for whatever reason, deleted his posts, I’ll repost his video reference which is quite interesting, made by two doctors who are somewhat paranoid about the vaccine. They do summarise very well the probale reasons for the resistance of big business to use or even test Ivermectin, which are for the most part expanding on what I already knew. Start by skipping to minute 27 of the video.

They may have PhDs, but they’re not what most people would call doctors, in a medical context .

 

[Cowabunga]

They may have PhDs, but they’re not what most people would call doctors, in a medical context .

Yes, they are research biologists apparently. Matters not, their logical breakdown of the situation is very hard to dispute. It should be noted that neither has been taking Ivermectin although he takes it for the first time at the end of the presentation. Neither have been vaccinated for reasons they explain. Since hundreds of millions of people have now been vaccinated, we are in for a hell of a mess if their fears are well founded, which is why I mentioned they are rather paranoid. Both are agreed that the safety record of Ivermectin far and away betters the record of the vaccines even so far, let alone long term where Ivermectin has a 45 year safety history. All is revealed in the presentation.

 

[Highland Mule]

Yes, they are research biologists apparently. Matters not, their logical breakdown of the situation is very hard to dispute. It should be noted that neither has been taking Ivermectin although he takes it for the first time at the end of the presentation. Neither have been vaccinated for reasons they explain. Since hundreds of millions of people have now been vaccinated, we are in for a hell of a mess if their fears are well founded, which is why I mentioned they are rather paranoid. Both are agreed that the safety record of Ivermectin far and away betters the record of the vaccines even so far, let alone long term where Ivermectin has a 45 year safety history. All is revealed in the presentation.

He’s certainly a colourful character, reading his bio - most definitely not an intellectual heavyweight and instead a bit of an oddball. Not sure I’d take his advice on anything important though, as it looks like he’s more into making controversy than anything else.