447 replies to this topic

[geo12the]

Just to present an extreme opposite opinion on Ivermectin. Here is a video of Gideon Meyerwirz-Katz, essentially claiming every single bit of data regarding Ivermectin use is fraudulent, junk, or otherwise not reliable. All of the doctors, all of the researchers, hospitals etc... who have conducted the trials have no clue what they are doing or are faking the data. Ivermectin Misinformation DEBUNKED w/ Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz (rumble.com)

 

 

I didn't watch the video and likely wont. Ivermectin has become unnecessarily polarized by both sides. I honestly have no idea if it works based on what I have read. My one issue with the data that show it works, and I have mentioned it here before, is that the studies are almost all from places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia etc.  But there is enough data there that there might be SOME effect that it aught not be dismissed with Horse medication memes. Sooner or later the science will answer the question.  Until then the partisans will fight about it, like they fight about everything else in America 2021.

Edited by geo12the, 19 September 2021 - 11:01 PM.

[Gal220]

I've got both niacin & melatonin in my medicine chest in case I fall ill, but I got intrigued by both Zelenko & McCullough's HCQ prophylaxis of 200-400mg (low dose) HCQ per week with zinc.  

 

Don't know, but I'm going with HCQ/zinc prophylaxis, and will add IVM if I fall ill.  Have a budesonide inhaler to round out my acute disease stack.  

 

McCullough agrees, he thinks HCQ is better - video    skip 49:35

Its important to take it with zinc salt, Zalenko uses zinc sulfate.  The liquid zincs are sulfate and state specifically they are ionic.  However Im just using EGCG/curcumin till symptoms instead of HCQ

Edited by Gal220, 20 September 2021 - 12:05 AM.

[Hebbeh]

It's actually a very informative interview that gives a highly educated critique of the IVM "studies" and how it all unfolded.  I can't thank Mind enough for posting this and highly recommend everybody find the time to watch it.  It's a real eye opener.  And not just for IVM but likely  demonstrates how bad science can permeate any subject when taken as gospel at face value when not objectively questioning what the data is or if it even exists.  Especially cases where bad science is built off bad science.

 

Watch the video with an open mind and especially pay attention to the details.  You will find it informative.

[Gal220]

Have a budesonide inhaler to round out my acute disease stack.  

 

So is this not happening in hospitals?  Seems like there is something I am missing.  ICU patients cant breath, surely they can be given something to break up the mucus like this.

Chris Masterjohn mentioned glutathione which was discussed in the last thread for this reason - link1,  link2

I would nebulize it - video

Edited by Gal220, 20 September 2021 - 12:31 AM.

[lancebr]

It's actually a very informative interview that gives a highly educated critique of the IVM "studies" and how it all unfolded.  I can't thank Mind enough for posting this and highly recommend everybody find the time to watch it.  It's a real eye opener.  And not just for IVM but likely  demonstrates how bad science can permeate any subject when taken as gospel at face value when not objectively questioning what the data is or if it even exists.  Especially cases where bad science is built off bad science.

 

Watch the video with an open mind and especially pay attention to the details.  You will find it informative.

 

Also for anyone watching the video they should take the time to register for a free account to be able to read the video comments.

 

Some of the commenters clearly show evidence of how Gideon is biased and only reporting misinformation himself about certain

studies and not talking about the good points of other studies.

 

As some of the commenters say....it is ironic that Gideon is on the video saying he is debunking misinformation when he is also

giving misinformation himself.

 

I kinda got the feeling Mind posted this with a sarcastic tone from his comments about...."All of the doctors, all of the researchers,

hospitals etc... who have conducted the trials have no clue what they are doing or are faking the data".  But maybe Im wrong in

this assessment.

Edited by lancebr, 20 September 2021 - 01:13 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

McCullough agrees, he thinks HCQ is better - video    skip 49:35

Its important to take it with zinc salt, Zalenko uses zinc sulfate.  The liquid zincs are sulfate and state specifically they are ionic.  However Im just using EGCG/curcumin till symptoms instead of HCQ

 

Jeez Gal, you've got your data quite organized (remembering exactly where Dr Mc gave his preference for HCQ).  Don't suppose you recall where Dr Marik talked about the red cells sopping up all the HCQ the first couple days after initiation of therapy.  It's driving me to madness trying to find it again.  

 

Regarding the budesonide, I'm hoping to treat at home and not have to go to the hospital.  Once you're in hospital, you're under the care of only one hospitalist, and he/she has dictatorial and omnipotent power over what (if anything) you'll get.  You may get to refuse remdesivir, but you have no say as to what you do get.  

 

Dr Kory said it's madness that some hospitalist's will still only give low dose dexamethasone, as that's what showed minor benefit in the trial, when prednisolone is known to accumulate in lung tissue to a far greater extent.  

 

Don't know if some hospitalist's will offer inhaled steroid, but you aren't going to get anything they don't want to give.  

[Hebbeh]

I disagree as he made his assessments quite convincingly.  And I'm sure all the semi-educated anonymous  armchair scientists took the opportunity to weigh in with their preconceived biases.

 

But the proof is in the pudding as many well known IVM supporters have been sick with covid and it hasn't appeared to have been of any substantive benefit for any of them and not surprisingly, you never hear another peep about IVM from any of them.

 

Knock yourself out though and let us know how it goes.

 

Also for anyone watching the video they should take the time to register for a free account to be able to read the video comments.

 

Some of the commenters clearly show evidence of how Gideon is biased and only reporting misinformation himself about certain

studies and not talking about the good points of other studies.

 

As some of the commenters say....it is ironic that Gideon is on the video saying he is debunking misinformation when he is also

giving misinformation himself.

 

I kinda got the feeling Mind posted this with a sarcastic tone from his comments about...."All of the doctors, all of the researchers,

hospitals etc... who have conducted the trials have no clue what they are doing or are faking the data".  But maybe Im wrong in

this assessment.

 

[lancebr]

I disagree as he made his assessments quite convincingly.  And I'm sure all the semi-educated anonymous  armchair scientists took the opportunity to weigh in with their preconceived biases.

 

But the proof is in the pudding as many well known IVM supporters have been sick with covid and it hasn't appeared to have been of any substantive benefit for any of them and not surprisingly, you never hear another peep about IVM from any of them.

 

Knock yourself out though and let us know how it goes.

 

And then there are an abundance of stories of people who used Ivermectin when they got Covid and said it was what saved them.

 

So as with anything when it comes to medication...the same thing doesn't always work for everyone.

 

 

And in reference to Gideon:

 

Actually he is not that highly educated compared to others who have discussed the facts and issues of Ivermectin.

 

Also the fact that it has been noted that he has said on several occasions that he wishes that his research would be

funded by pharmaceutical companies (ie vaccine makers) does not make him sound impartial as he likes to make

people think he is.

Edited by lancebr, 20 September 2021 - 02:23 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Rather than vague non-issue deflections, perhaps you can point out the inaccuracies or disagreements with his analysis of the facts?

 

Quite honestly, IVM is a dead issue.

 

Actually he is not that highly educated compared to others who have discussed the facts and issues of Ivermectin.

 

Also the fact that it has been noted that he has said on several occasions that he wishes that his research would be

funded by certain pharmaceutical companies (i.e. vaccine makers) does not make him sound impartial as he likes to

make people think he is.

 

[lancebr]

Rather than vague non-issue deflections, perhaps you can point out the inaccuracies or disagreements with his analysis of the facts?

 

Quite honestly, IVM is a dead issue.

 

As noted earlier there are many comments on that one video and then the other numerous videos

he has done on youtube and the internet with comments that clearly point out his inaccuracies.

 

He sure does seem to make the rounds spreading his misinformation all over the internet.

But I guess that makes sense if you want to put yourself out there in the hopes to get funding

from pahrmaceutical companies.

 

So, all you got to do is take the time to read them
 

Edited by lancebr, 20 September 2021 - 02:07 AM.

[Hebbeh]

That's the best you can do?  To keep regurgitating vague unreferenced "comments" from anonymous internet jockeys?  Quite honestly, that's lame at best.  And who is really guilty of spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories?  Hint: you shouldn't need to look far.

 

As noted earlier there are many comments on that one video and then the other numerous videos

he has done on youtube and the internet with comments that clearly point out his inaccuracies.

 

He sure does seem to make the rounds spreading his misinformation all over the internet.

But I guess that makes sense if you want to put yourself out there in the hopes to get funding

from pahrmaceutical companies.

 

So, all you got to do is take the time to read them
 

 

[lancebr]

That's the best you can do?  To keep regurgitating vague unreferenced "comments" from anonymous internet jockeys?  Quite honestly, that's lame at best.  And who is really guilty of spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories?  Hint: you shouldn't need to look far.

 

LOL...that is a funny comment about misinformation and conspiracy theories coming from someone like you.

 

At this point I don't see any advantage to wasting any more of my valuable time with someone of your questionable caliber.

 

So have a good evening.

Edited by lancebr, 20 September 2021 - 02:32 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Be sure and get back to us when you've managed to make the big breakthrough in IVM treatment.

 

LOL...that is a funny comment about misinformation and conspiracy theories coming from someone like you.

 

At this point I don't see any advantage to wasting my time with someon of your caliber...so have a good evening.

 

[Gal220]

(These are not my opinions....just the opinions of the people in the video comment section).

 

I think IVM is helpful also - Link .  I just dont like the idea of taking it long term unlike Quercetin or EGCG.

Edited by Gal220, 20 September 2021 - 06:18 AM.

[Mind]

The NIH is even-handed in its statement on Ivermectin - noting past successes and in vitro action against several viruses. Many researchers are investigating the drug and many doctors are using it based-upon past research - not because they are dumb, a conspiracy theorist, evil, or other slurs that some in this thread are fond of using.

 

https://www.covid19t...apy/ivermectin/

 

 

[Hebbeh]

As much as I truly wish otherwise, there is nothing on your link that indicates ivermectin is of benefit for covid:

"Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses."

"Recommendation
There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."

"Rationale
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.14,15 Even though ivermectin appears to accumulate in the lung tissue, predicted systemic plasma and lung tissue concentrations are much lower than 2 µM, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.16-19 Subcutaneous administration of ivermectin 400 µg/kg had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in hamsters. However, there was a reduction in olfactory deficit (measured using a food-finding test) and a reduction in the interleukin (IL)-6:IL-10 ratio in lung tissues.20"

"Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-27 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26 shorter time to viral clearance,21 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,27

However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:

The sample size of most of the trials was small.
Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined."

Also note that the publication date of your link is February 11, 2021 and no further beneficial updates have been noted since.

[Gal220]

This month, Dr. Fareed testified before the Italian Senate in Rome, Italy, and discussed this experience. He and Tyson have now treated a total of some 7,000 COVID patients.

Dr. Fareed explained that patients can almost always be saved when they start the early treatment cocktail within the first five to seven days of symptoms.

"We have now treated over 7,000 patients, and there has not been a single death in patients treated within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms. NOT A SINGLE DEATH. This (series) includes patients with multiple co-morbidities as well as patients in their nineties!"


History will not be kind to the deniers

 

Dr Mollie being way more polite than she should

"Aren’t you CURIOUS?

If you’re a doc and have been saying for 18 months, there’s no tx for Covid and 15-20% or more of your patients get admitted…

And there are docs who almost have a ZERO percent admission rate….

Wouldn’t you think a good doc would be asking WHY?"

[Gal220]

Dr. John Campbell chides Health Agencies to give an official explanation to India's turn around

 

Edited by Gal220, 24 September 2021 - 07:14 PM.

[Hip]

In a meta-analysis of 15 ivermectin clinical trials, the reduction of death from ivermectin treatment was only 2.6 times.

 

Useful, but it does not really compare to the COVID vaccine, which reduces death by a factor of up to around 20 times, but it depends on the vaccine and the variant. 

 

 

 

This is an excellent article about the efficacy of the different COVID vaccines against different strains. It says that for the delta variant, the efficacy of the various vaccines against hospitalization are:

 

mRNA Vaccines:

 

Pfizer/BioNTech = 96% protection from hospitalization = a reduction in hospitalization by a factor of 25.

 

Moderna - no data regarding hospitalization reduction, but protection from symptomatic disease from delta virus is 85% = a reduction in symptomatic disease by a factor of 6.7.

 

 

Adenovirus Vector Vaccines:

 

Oxford/AstraZeneca = 71% protection from hospitalization = a reduction in hospitalization by a factor of 3.4.

 

Janssen/Johnson and Johnson = 71% protection from hospitalization = a reduction in hospitalization by a factor of 3.4.

 

 

 

So it is clear that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (and I expect the Moderna too) is much more effective at preventing hospitalization and death that the adenovirus vector vaccines.

Edited by Hip, 28 September 2021 - 03:34 AM.

[joelcairo]

Dr. John Campbell chides Health Agencies to give an official explanation to India's turn around

 

 

The drop in cases in India is fascinating and demands an explanation, but I don't see how that dramatic decline could possibly be related to Ivermectin or any of the other items in that package the government provided.

 

A recent study showed that something like 70% of people in India now have antibodies against COVID-19, suggesting that the delta variant swept the country and they are now nearing the point of herd immunity. That's an incredibly high figure, something like a billion cases, but it seems to be what has happened.

Edited by joelcairo, 29 September 2021 - 01:58 AM.

[joelcairo]

Here's an article about the study, which was conducted this past June-July.

 

https://www.reuters....ies-2021-07-20/

[Gal220]

Here's an article about the study, which was conducted this past June-July.

 

https://www.reuters....ies-2021-07-20/

 

Fareed and Tyson have given early treatment to over 7000 patients, including high risk, without any deaths. 

But they are throwing everything at it - link

 

Others seem like they are mainly using IVM, but not certain - link

[EliotH]

The drop in cases in India is fascinating and demands an explanation, but I don't see how that dramatic decline could possibly be related to Ivermectin or any of the other items in that package the government provided.

 

A recent study showed that something like 70% of people in India now have antibodies against COVID-19, suggesting that the delta variant swept the country and they are now nearing the point of herd immunity. That's an incredibly high figure, something like a billion cases, but it seems to be what has happened.

 

Indonesia also had a major drop in cases after - wait for it - approving ivermectin. I think they didn't hand out kits for everyone like India but they gave the OK for doctors to prescribe it. They also had a sharp rise in cases after more people got the vax.

[Hip]

BBC article on a new data by Dr Kyle Sheldrick investigating fraudulent activity in the ivermectin studies: Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug.

Here is a BBC interview with paper author Dr Kyle Sheldrick. He basically found that a third of the ivermectin studies were fraudulent, especially the ones claiming miraculous results.

Even in the midst of a pandemic, it seems researchers in the third world will publish fake studies just in order to try to advance their careers, even though such fake papers can lead to people's deaths in a situation like this. These ivermectin papers were blatantly fraudulent, so this is no honest mistake, but a deliberate attempt to deceive.

 

Dr Kyle Sheldrick's investigation is published here. It states:
 

The authors of one recently published meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19 have publicly stated that they will now reanalyze and republish their now-retracted meta-analysis and will no longer include either of the two papers just mentioned.

As these two papers were the only studies included in that meta-analysis to demonstrate an independently significant reduction in mortality, the revision will probably show no mortality benefit for ivermectin.

Several other studies that claim a clinical benefit for ivermectin are similarly fraught, and contain impossible numbers in their results, unexplainable mismatches between trial registry updates and published patient demographics, purported timelines that are not consistent with the veracity of the data collection, and substantial methodological weaknesses.

We expect further studies supporting ivermectin to be withdrawn over the coming months.

 
 

Seems like the FLCCC, the group promoting ivermectin, have been stunned into silence, as there is nothing on their site about Dr Kyle Sheldrick's paper. I think they are now going to have egg on their faces.

Thank goodness for the scientific intellectual giants in Western countries who held their ground, and maintained that there is no good evidence for ivermectin having benefit for COVID.

Edited by Hip, 10 October 2021 - 04:11 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Dr John did a vid on the latest BBC ivermectin hit piece here: 

 

 

Apparently written by a journalism student?  Few references..  

 

The bottom line?  As some of the studies appear fiddled, this means all of the studies must be bad.  

 

Personally, I'm back on the HCQ bandwagon.  Never in history has their been such a frantic suppression of a cheap & historically safe generic.  Why the hysterical smack-down?  What was Fauci & Big Pharma so afraid of.  If it doesn't work, they should have let us have at it, & a failure would be obvious by now.  

 

HCQ still the primary therapeutic in much of the world.  I'm on the Zelenko/McCullough prophylaxis now.  Will up the dose and add IVM should I fall ill.  

[Hip]

Personally, I'm back on the HCQ bandwagon.  Never in history has their been such a frantic suppression of a cheap & historically safe generic.  Why the hysterical smack-down?  What was Fauci & Big Pharma so afraid of.  If it doesn't work, they should have let us have at it, & a failure would be obvious by now.  

 

A meta-analysis of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID treatment found this drug is linked to increased mortality of COVID patients. 

 

Hydroxychloroquine is also a fairly toxic drug, and starts to cause permanent retinal damage after several years use. It destroys the rods and cones responsible for vision. It's OK to take short term, but damage to the retina starts to appear after around 5 years.

 

But if anyone wants to take a drug which seems to increase the chances of death by COVID, that's their choice. If someone follows Facebook, YouTube and other dubious sources of information, and believes there is a conspiracy to suppress information about supposed positive effects of hydroxychloroquine, that's up to them. 

 

It's not possible to help most people who go against received scientific advice. For example, anti-vaxxers are killing thousands of themselves each day, as most people dying of COVID nowadays are unvaccinated. But there is not much we can do to save these people from themselves. They believe Facebook and YouTube are reliable sources of information, to be trusted more than the scientific community. So that's their choice, and they have to face the consequences of their decisions. 

 

I have come to realize that in the individualistic West, there is not much we can do to help our fellow man, not matter how much we try. Disinformation often wins, as it shouts more loudly than reasoned voices. 

Edited by Hip, 10 October 2021 - 08:16 PM.

[Hip]

Apparently written by a journalism student?

 

The BBC article refers to an investigation by a medical professional, Dr Kyle Sheldrick. As explained in my above post. This is nothing to do with the BBC. The BBC are just reporting on Dr Sheldrick's investigation into the fraudulent ivermectin papers.

 

 

As for Dr John Campbell's video, it goes on for half an hour, but he really does not say anything. No incisive conclusion at the the end of the video. Waste of time to watch, really. Did you find anything useful in that video?  

 

 

Most of Campbell's videos are getting around a quarter million hits, which will be earning him around $500 per video on advertising. On YouTube, you earn about $2000 for each million view your video gets — reference here. Dr John Campbell's YouTube channel has got around 193 million views (ref here), so he has earned himself about $386,000 just by publishing these COVID videos. 

Edited by Hip, 10 October 2021 - 08:18 PM.

[geo12the]

 

 

Personally, I'm back on the HCQ bandwagon.  Never in history has their been such a frantic suppression of a cheap & historically safe generic.  Why the hysterical smack-down?  What was Fauci & Big Pharma so afraid of.  If it doesn't work, they should have let us have at it, & a failure would be obvious by now.  

 

HCQ still the primary therapeutic in much of the world.  I'm on the Zelenko/McCullough prophylaxis now.  Will up the dose and add IVM should I fall ill.  

 

If you look at the science it's just not there for HCQ. They talked about why it doesn't work on one of the TWIVs from a while back. And the idea that there is a conspiracy to suppress HCQ is a conspiracy theory. Utter nonsense. Many people believe in HCQ and Ivermectin and that there must be  a grand conspiracy to suppress them because it reinforces there tribal political identity and for them truth doesn't matter, being right does. Good luck with that.

[Dorian Grey]

https://hcqmeta.com/

 

[geo12the]

https://hcqmeta.com/

 

 

All I know is that if you go to Pubmed and enter in HCQ and clinical trial all of the recent studies I see are negative.. There is so much crappy science, and crappy analysis of science with these treatments that I can understand how people are fooled: "Meta analysis, must be real!" But if you dig deep, really look at the studies, it doesn't look like HCQ has much benefit. The real story here is not that there is a grand conspiracy to suppress data about miraculous drugs, the real story is how much crappy science has been spewed out during the pandemic.