Ivermectin , covid cure

I have some in the cupboard. Certainly no downside so nothing lost.


We're not discussing whether or not there is 'no downside' we're looking for evidence that it actually works. If it was just a case of finding something that had no downside heck you could just dish out an aspirin a day and leave it like that: it's been around since Adam kicked a snake and is consumed daily by the truckload with no apparent ill effect.
 

MEDIA STATEMENT MINISTRY OF HEALTH MALAYSIA

IVERMECTIN TREATMENT EFFICACY IN COVID-19 HIGH RISK PATIENT (I-TECH STUDY)


...The Institute for Clinical Research (ICR) NIH today announced findings for the Ivermectin study (I-TECH) in 500 hospitalised patients with Stage 2 or 3 COVID-19. This multi-centre open-label randomised controlled trial evaluated a 5-day course of ivermectin (0.4mg/kg/day) plus standard of care (IVM group), compared to standard of care (SOC group) according to Ministry of Health Malaysia (MOH) guidelines for COVID-19 patients at 20 government hospitals and MAEPS 2.0 Quarantine and COVID-19 Treatment Centre (PKRC).

The trial was conducted by infectious disease physicians and clinicians who were actively involved in COVID-19 management in collaboration with the Institute for Clinical Research (ICR), National Institute of Health (NIH). The main outcome of the I-TECH study was to see if ivermectin administered during the first week of illness prevented deterioration to severe COVID-19 Stage 4 or 5 among hospitalised patients aged 50 years and above with at least one comorbidity.

ICR Director, Dr Kalaiarasu M. Peariasamy, said the I-TECH findings showed that patients in the IVM group compared to SOC group had similar rates of progression to severe COVID-19 disease at 21.2 percent and 17.3 percent respectively (OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.82-2.02]; p = 0.30). For the same primary outcome, the mean time to progression was 3.0 days for the IVM group compared to 2.9 days for the SOC group, but the difference was not statistically significant; p=0.68.

This MOH initiated study obtained Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC) approval on 25th May 2021. In order to disclose to the public key information about the I-TECH study, the trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 31st May 2021 (NCT04920942). From the sample of 500 subjects enrolled in the trial, four (4) were excluded for not meeting study criteria and six (6) withdrew after expressing concerns about ivermectin side effects. The last subject was recruited on 9th October and the follow-up ended on 25th October 2021...


ITECH trial finds no benefit from ivermectin vs standard of care. High power study with a snitch under 500 participants. Trial doesn't seem to have appeared in any journal as yet though so not sure about it's reliability. Lots of adverse events reported in the ivermectin arm, too.
 

Cowabunga

Member
Location
Ceredigion,Wales
We're not discussing whether or not there is 'no downside' we're looking for evidence that it actually works. If it was just a case of finding something that had no downside heck you could just dish out an aspirin a day and leave it like that: it's been around since Adam kicked a snake and is consumed daily by the truckload with no apparent ill effect.
Where was the evidence that the vaccines actually worked until it was proven that they didn’t work anything like as well as expected, didn’t last as long and had far more serious adverse events than first thought? The evidence is often not in big trials but comes from experience during use, which is where the evidence for Ivermectin’s efficacy, or not, comes from. Not from big official trials, of which there has only been one, very recently completed and designed to fail. Nobody in the pharmacological industry wants a hint of it succeeding for reasons that have been illustrated many many times. They will not trial it, will cast doubt on its safety and demonise it in every way possible. This reached a crescendo a few months ago with a coordinated media storm that was demonstrably full of blatant lies, such as that US hospitals were full of overdosed Ivermectin patients and that some were shedding their guts. This was from a doctor that had not worked at a hospital for some time and which hospital authorities denied absolutely, stating categorically that they had not had a single such patient or even one with any side effect whatsoever. Not a single Ivermectin-related patient.
Not even the chap in the video YOU provided, probably without watching it, because you never do according to yourself, cast the slightest doubt on its safety. He did cast doubt on its efficacy though, but from some equally theoretical computer generated studies of a similar kind that others postulate as to how it actually works.

Experience on the ground in India, South America, Africa and now Japan seems to indicate that it does work. At the very least we can say that it does no harm and costs next to bugger-all. Those that think it is an alternative to vaccination and social distancing are the fools. I’m sure that both Pfizer and Merck will emphasise that their new products are an adjunct to vaccines for early intervention, not alternatives. That is where the Oxford trial went wrong, likely not by accident. I can bet you a fiver that no such ‘mistake’ will be done when it comes to these two novel new patented products. If the Oxford trial had been conducted appropriately and came up with the same result, fair enough. But everyone with an ounce of sense knew it wasn’t being conducted appropriately and I said so as soon as it was announced and described and am sticking to that view. It’s most unfortunate because it only persuades people like you, who just cannot think outside the box and look at the bigger picture.
 
Last edited:
Where was the evidence that the vaccines actually worked until it was proven that they didn’t work anything like as well as expected, didn’t last as long and had far more serious adverse events than first thought? The evidence is often not in big trials but comes from experience during use, which is where the evidence for Ivermectin’s efficacy, or not, comes from. Not from big official trials, of which there has only been one, very recently completed and designed to fail. Nobody in the pharmacological industry wants a hint of it succeeding for reasons that have been illustrated many many times. They will not trial it, will cast doubt on its safety and demonise it in every way possible. This reached a crescendo a few months ago with a coordinated media storm that was demonstrably full of blatant lies, such as that US hospitals were full of overdosed Ivermectin patients and that some were shedding their guts. This was from a doctor that had not worked at a hospital for some time and which hospital authorities denied absolutely, stating categorically that they had not had a single such patient.

I'm sorry but you'll have to back up a bit there. Are you saying the vaccines don't work, the immunity they grant isn't as long as expected and has a lot more adverse events than first believed?

That's three separate claims there, could you please present the evidence you have found to lead you to these conclusions?

Evidence does come from trials. I can't stress this enough. Drugs in the UK aren't even approved for use unless they can demonstrate efficacy (and safety) these days. Doesn't matter who you are, in the UK at least, you can't prescribe something that isn't approved. You won't even be able to source a supply of the stuff unless NICE and the trust in question have approved it. That's right. You could be the world's leading expert in any realm of medical science but you can't prescribe a treatment, therapy or the like unless it is authorised through the correct channels. You will see this occasionally results in conflict between patients (or their families) and the NHS organisation providing their care, and so it will result in a court case that might appear in the media.

I believe we may have touched on this subject before.
 

Cowabunga

Member
Location
Ceredigion,Wales
I'm sorry but you'll have to back up a bit there. Are you saying the vaccines don't work, the immunity they grant isn't as long as expected and has a lot more adverse events than first believed?

That's three separate claims there, could you please present the evidence you have found to lead you to these conclusions?

Evidence does come from trials. I can't stress this enough. Drugs in the UK aren't even approved for use unless they can demonstrate efficacy (and safety) these days. Doesn't matter who you are, in the UK at least, you can't prescribe something that isn't approved. You won't even be able to source a supply of the stuff unless NICE and the trust in question have approved it. That's right. You could be the world's leading expert in any realm of medical science but you can't prescribe a treatment, therapy or the like unless it is authorised through the correct channels. You will see this occasionally results in conflict between patients (or their families) and the NHS organisation providing their care, and so it will result in a court case that might appear in the media.

I believe we may have touched on this subject before.
I am saying that they do work but it cannot be denied that they do not prevent transmission of the virus as first expected and certainly do not last as long as expected, hence the third dose within twelve months [the need for a second unexpected booster] and they absolutely do cause a far higher severe adverse reaction in people than ever expected, including hundreds of recorded deaths as a result from this so far. Have you actually the temerity to deny any of this? Yes! Of course you do, it’s written above.

The vaccines were not fully tested either for efficacy or safety to normally expected standards before being given licenses under emergency provision which meant they could be used regardless and in massive quantities. Standards that you insist Ivermectin should go through but that no authority is willing to do, because no drug company will finance it.

Doctors are perfectly at liberty to prescribe drugs that are not licensed for use in the UK, under special provisions. Again I am [no longer] shocked that you do not know this.
 
Last edited:
I am saying that they do work but it cannot be denied that they do not prevent transmission of the virus as first expected and certainly do not last as long as expected, hence the third dose within twelve months [the need for a second unexpected booster] and they absolutely do cause a far higher severe adverse reaction in people than ever expected, including hundreds of recorded deaths as a result from this so far. Have you actually the temerity to deny any of this? Yes! Of course you do, it’s written above.

The vaccines were not fully tested either for efficacy or safety to normally expected standards before being given licenses under emergency provision which meant they could be used regardless and in massive quantities. Standards that you insist Ivermectin should go through but that no authority is willing to do, because no drug company will finance it.

Doctors are perfectly at liberty to prescribe drugs that are not licensed for use in the UK, under special provisions. Again I am [no longer] shocked that you do not know this.

The vaccines when through the testing process. I don't think you understand the terminology of an emergency approval. I believe you will see elsewhere on this thread where I mentioned that they did a phase 3 trial of over 40,000 participants. If you wish I can trawl the web and provide references for these.

So you have no actual evidence that vaccines 'don't work' or last as long as expected, you're just going on what the government intend to do. Ok. Glad we cleared that up.

Adverse events- ok, so what do you classify as an adverse event? And tell us please, how many deaths have their been attributed to the vaccine, I'm genuinely interested to know.

Doctors are not at liberty to prescribe or do whatever they please, I don't know where you formed that belief from. As I keep telling you, if a drug isn't accepted by the MHRA it won't even be available to buy in the UK legally, much less prescribe it. And doctors would be expected to work within NICE guidelines and the usual cascade or else have very good reasons to go outside of these. Whilst this is perfectly acceptable practice and doctors would have some leeway within the guidelines, their actions would eventually be scrutinised by others so doctors in the UK don't just 'try out' something they read about on the web. To do this would mean formulating an actual trial and there are strict rules in place governing how these are performed. And guess how MHRA and NICE arrive at their guidelines? That's right, they use an available evidence base. If you don't believe me then you can check out the recent legal case brought against a top oncologist who was way off the reservation in the treatment he was giving his patients.
 
TOGETHER trial starting to churn out results now. Hydroxychloroquine findings published. Others in the pipeline for publishing and release.




1639091035353.png



Some details of the trials in question:

Clinical trials

As of the most recent update, the TOGETHER Trial has concluded investigations on five medications (hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir / ritonavir, ivermectin, fluvoxamine maleate, and metformin), and two investigations (doxazosin and Peginterferon Lambda) are continuing (see Table 1). A summary of the progression of clinical trials is presented in Figure 1.

Recruitment for the Trial began in 2020 and has been ongoing to present day. Eligible patients are randomized with equal chance to an investigational product (IP) or to placebo. Patients are included if they are:

  • 18 years of age
  • have a positive antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
  • have an indication for high risk of disease severity, including co-morbidities, older age, or high body mass index.


Write up of the trial in JAMA is below. High power study, randomised clinical trial. About 600 patients in three treatment arms (nicely reaching the 200 needed to be statistically worthwhile). The lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was interesting because of the background of these drugs showing demonstrable activity in vitro but also in MERS in non-human primate models:

...Lopinavir-ritonavir, an HIV aspartate protease inhibitor type 1, has been reported to have in vitro inhibitory activity against SARS-CoV,9 and also improved clinical, radiological, and pathological outcomes in a marmoset model of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection....


Here is the JAMA link:


Importance Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed.

Objective To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020.

Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were COVID-19–associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19–associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events.

Results Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19–associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio
, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group.

Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19–associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Crofter64

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Quebec, Canada
Check out this story on Mercola.com
Unfortunately only available for 24 hours more


A few highlights should the interview disappear:

…Of course, mainstream media and “fact checkers” (now legally defined by recent Facebook litigation as opinion promoters) call him ( Dr. Robert Malone) a liar for saying he invented the mRNA technology currently used, but his name on 10 patents proves otherwise.

"No one can dispute that I played a major role in this tech," Malone said. "And virtually all other voices that have that background have financial conflicts of interest. I think I'm the only one that doesn't. I'm not getting any money out of this."
Some of the cliff notes from Malone’s interview include the following:

Government responses — Malone believes the U.S. government is “out of control” and “lawless” in their COVID response and that their actions have resulted in, probably, half a million excess deaths. COVID jab mandates are “explicitly illegal” as the shots are experimental. What’s more, people are not getting the information they need to be able to make an informed decision about the risks they’re taking by participating in this experiment.
Social psychology of the times — Malone believes the irrational behavior we’re witnessing is the result of “mass formation psychosis,” a societal diagnosis first presented by Desmet at the end of 2021.
Natural immunity — Natural immunity is more robust than “vaccine” induced immunity, and people with natural immunity also have a higher risk of adverse events from the COVID jab.
COVID jab risks — Malone actually took the Moderna shot, thinking it might help with some long-COVID symptoms he was having after getting seriously ill with COVID-19 in February 2020. He says he suffered some side effects from the shot, but that those effects have since resolved.
Malone expresses concern about post-jab myocarditis rates and the possibility of fertility problems. When it comes to reproductive health, he warns that the lipid nanoparticles in the COVID shots can have adverse effects on the ovaries.
He also reviews how the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can cause blood clots, regardless of whether they come from natural infection or the COVID jab, and how the spike protein can disrupt the blood-brain-barrier.
Malone believes the reason some experience no or few adverse effects from the COVID shot has to do with phenotypic or genetic differences. He points out that diabetics and those with high blood sugar levels tend to be more affected by spike protein effects, for example.
Suppression of early treatment — Early treatment with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin is very effective and both drugs have also been safely administered for several decades. The Chinese anti-COVID protocol, obtained by Malone in February 2020, actually included hydroxychloroquine. When he got COVID-19, Malone also self-treated with femotadine (Pepsid). He’s now leading a clinical trial to assess its usefulness in the treatment of COVID.
Narrative management and global coordination of censorship — The Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC is central to the censorship campaign, according to Malone. It labels anyone who disagrees with the official narrative on vaccines as an “anti-vaxxer,” and suppresses anything that goes against “approved” sources such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization.
He also points out that Thomson-Reuters, which has ties to Pfizer, is a primary fact checker of Twitter. Since they in part decide what’s allowed to be discussed on Twitter, Pfizer has this hidden influence as well (not to mention that James C. Smith, chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, also has been a director at Pfizer and chair of their compensation committee since 201412).
COVID jab efficacy — Malone notes the window of effectiveness is ever shrinking, with some studies, such as one from Denmark,13 showing negative effectiveness against Omicron.
According to Malone, we’re administering a “mismatched vaccine” and driving the B and T memory cells toward a virus that is no longer in circulation. His hypothesis for why the shots stop working so quickly is because of this original antigenic sin. He explains:
“We've got a new pathogen [Omicron] but it's got a series of overlaps with the old ones that we've seen before, and our immune system is biased to respond as if it's the old one.
Now, to make matters worse, we're taking the spike protein — only one of the proteins the dominant immunologically dominant protein — and we're jabbing everybody multiple times, and driving memory cells and effector cells to a virus that is not the one we're encountering.
So it could very well be that as you're taking more jabs, you're further skewing your immune response in a way that's dysfunctional for infection to Omicron ... When you see a signal this strong, it's saying something's going on you ought to pay attention to it in my opinion.”
 
Last edited:

Crofter64

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Quebec, Canada
Dr. Robert Malone, who is interviewed here, with highlights, developped / invented the mRNA vaccine, had the original Wuhan variant, was very ill and treated himself with fematodine( repurposed drug)was double vaxed, had a bad response and then caught the Delta variant with complications.He , along with Dr. Mercola, is banned fron Twitter and You tube. He is a very learned man who just wants to openly discuss treatments for the best outcomes but is being silenced.
D r. Robert Malone, who is interviewed here by Joe Rogan,developped / invented the mRNA vaccine, had the original Wuhan variant, was very ill and treated himself with fematodine( repurposed drug)was double vaxed, had a bad response and then caught the Delta variant with complications.He , along with Dr. Mercola, is banned fron Twitter and You tube. He is a very learned man who wants to openly discuss treatments for the best outcomes but is being silenced. He is etremely well educated in this subject which he has been involved with since it first surfaced. He personally knows most of the key players.
He is the president( among other posts) of the international alliance of physicians and scientists. Their website is https://globalcovidsummit.org/
 
Last edited:

Crofter64

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Quebec, Canada

🤔

He is villified by mainstream media-Whoever has a different take gets cancelled.
 

Crofter64

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Quebec, Canada

🤔

From the article you posted from McGill Univeristy. This is how misinformation works.
They printed this

”…A similar loosening of restrictions can be seen all over the world, from France to Canada. Australians have, for months, been allowed to dine out and not wear face masks in most places because of how successful they were at stopping the spread of the infection…”
But we here, in Quebec ,are in full lockdown at the moment- 10p.m. curfew,no school, no restaurants, no churches, no gatherings since December 24th. its freezing cold
0A101C71-2889-482A-A0E6-46B582A6B31A.png


and we are all FED UP!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Crofter64

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Quebec, Canada
We're not discussing whether or not there is 'no downside' we're looking for evidence that it actually works. If it was just a case of finding something that had no downside heck you could just dish out an aspirin a day and leave it like that: it's been around since Adam kicked a snake and is consumed daily by the truckload with no apparent ill effect.
My brother in law is unvaccinated. He travelled to Europe on business in October and took Ivermectin every second day as a protection against infection as he has no spleen and must be careful.He’s never felt better.
 

primmiemoo

Member
Location
Devon
He is villified by mainstream media-Whoever has a different take gets cancelled.

He hasn't been cancelled from what I can see, but it's worth noting that he has form for unreliability. I'd want to know a little about a machinery dealer, or a livestock agent before making decisions about their wares, and this is no different.
 

primmiemoo

Member
Location
Devon
From the article you posted from McGill Univeristy. This is how misinformation works.
They printed this

”…A similar loosening of restrictions can be seen all over the world, from France to Canada. Australians have, for months, been allowed to dine out and not wear face masks in most places because of how successful they were at stopping the spread of the infection…”
But we here, in Quebec ,are in full lockdown at the moment- 10p.m. curfew,no school, no restaurants, no churches, no gatherings since December 24th. its freezing cold View attachment 1009148

and we are all FED UP!!!!!

Lockdowns are horrible! I don't blame anyone for feeling fed up to the back teeth with a continued lockdown.

I think the article is dated June last year.. ~ 4th June 2021.
 
@ollie989898 & @Cowabunga isn't the point with Ivermectin that it is a parasite killing drug ?

So I guess the reason it is used in Asia is to reduce parasitic load on populations that might suffer from Covid. Hence increasing likelihood of survival. Asian populations do like to eat raw fish for example.

I have no idea if UK populations suffer from worm parasites. It would be interesting to know after 50+ years whether we humans are likely to have such parasites.

The most likely source of UK infection would be from salad or early years infection whilst playing outside or interactions with dogs/cats.
 
My brother in law is unvaccinated. He travelled to Europe on business in October and took Ivermectin every second day as a protection against infection as he has no spleen and must be careful.He’s never felt better.

A useful anecdote there, thank you for that. I myself carry a keepsake in my wallet and have not yet been killed in a cycling accident. I am convinced the keepsake is the reason.

I suggest you research both the characters you mention in your latest posts above.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,286
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top