Ivermectin obliterates 97% of Delhi cases

[chuckman]

A couple things:

1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.

2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?

3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-associ...elines/676672/

I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.

[georgeib]

A couple things:

1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.

2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?

3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-associ...elines/676672/

I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.

Excellent points!

[ChattanoogaPhil]

A couple things:

1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.

2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?

3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-associ...elines/676672/

I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.

In the link...

The IBA’s notice is, however, based on contested scientific research.

The IBA uses the research findings of two organisations — the US-based ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ as well as the ‘British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel’ — to back up its claims on the benefits of Ivermectin.

Both organisations claim Ivermectin is effective in fighting Covid-19 both as prophylactic and treatment. However, a peer-reviewed journal, Frontiers in Pharmacology, has rejected research by the U.S. based Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for it’s “unsubstantiated claims”. The American Journal of Therapeutics later published the same research.

The use of Ivermectin has always been deeply contested, but even makers of the drug have admitted that it has no potential therapeutic effects on Covid-19, saying it has “no meaningful evidence for a clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease”.

[HKGuns]

A couple things:

1) If this thing, COVID, is as bad as they say, then they should not be poo-pooing any treatment, and try almost every treatment. The fact that politicians and their bureaucracy are dictating what should and shouldn't be given has been troublesome.

2) Why don't they let doctors be doctors and prescribe what they think might work?

3) The Indian Bar Association going after WHO big-time for downplaying the role of ivermectin: https://theprint.in/india/bar-associ...elines/676672/

I don't know that it would work; I don't know that it won't. But the data is, on it's face, promising, certainly as promising as the vaccine, and they (the royal 'they') sure are fine with that.

1. It is and it isn't.......As we are learning, it is very treatable. However, if you end up in a hospital, they basically make you comfortable and maintain you until you die.
2. Because they (Multiple establishment entities and their collaborators in crime) had a vested interest in this being as bad a possible to damage Trump and the economy.

If you think they're morally above such actions I will simply point to the burning cities all last summer. They are power hungry scum.

[chuckman]

In the link...

The IBA’s notice is, however, based on contested scientific research.

The IBA uses the research findings of two organisations — the US-based ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ as well as the ‘British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel’ — to back up its claims on the benefits of Ivermectin.

Both organisations claim Ivermectin is effective in fighting Covid-19 both as prophylactic and treatment. However, a peer-reviewed journal, Frontiers in Pharmacology, has rejected research by the U.S. based Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance for it’s “unsubstantiated claims”. The American Journal of Therapeutics later published the same research.

The use of Ivermectin has always been deeply contested, but even makers of the drug have admitted that it has no potential therapeutic effects on Covid-19, saying it has “no meaningful evidence for a clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease”.

If there are no potential therapeutic effects, then why is it deeply contested? And if it is fine to rush a vaccine to market, why haven't they allowed for rapid clinical trials (for this, or any other)?

I have no horse in this race. Well, I do: I want to see providers--not politicians, not pencil-pushers--make the best decisions between them and their patients. They have been hamstrung from the beginning.

[chuckman]

1. It is and it isn't.......As we are learning, it is very treatable. However, if you end up in a hospital, they basically make you comfortable and maintain you until you die.
2. Because they (Multiple establishment entities and their collaborators in crime) had a vested interest in this being as bad a possible to damage Trump and the economy.

If you think they're morally above such actions I will simply point to the burning cities all last summer. They are power hungry scum.

Being in the medical field and in this particular 'trench' from the beginning, I was talking aloud. To the bolded/italicized, the vast majority of hospitalized patients are discharged. Once you buy a vent, that's a 'nother matter. It is indeed a very, very serious disease...for a small percentage of the population.

[1168]

Being in the medical field and in this particular 'trench' from the beginning, I was talking aloud. To the bolded/italicized, the vast majority of hospitalized patients are discharged. Once you buy a vent, that's a 'nother matter. It is indeed a very, very serious disease...for a small percentage of the population.

Indeed. I think early on some providers were a little quick to call for the roc. I think right now, some people are a little quick to jump on another false hope, potentially.

Life’s easier if you accept that you will die one day, and there’s no amount of scabies treatment that will save you. I guess thats easy for me to say, since I already know that COVID can’t kill me, at least not yet.

Some of you sound like you’ve been a little socially isolated. Maybe you’d like for someone to just listen to you. Hit me up if you want to talk.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I don't buy that. It was working, the gov was suing the WHO and suddenly they drop it? There's more going on behind the scenes.

Who knows... but I think it's fair to suggest that government heath officials might be reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something with an efficacy that is so hotly contested within the pharmaceutical and medical community.

Some among the public seem a bit more fickle. Pfizer alone conducted trials with over 40,000 adults. Yet, some are still screaming that the vaccines aren't sufficiently tested, biased reporting results, conspiracy... on and on. However, with limited and far smaller studies of Ivermectin (some appear promising) often not controlled and taken with other drugs, and highly contested efficacy for even from manufactures, many are screaming Ivermectin is a wonder drug for curing Covid infection and halting the spread.

If I was an anti-vaxxer and was convinced Ivermectin was the Covid cure-all and preventative, I'd call my local primary care guy today. He'd write me a prescription. By the way, how often and for how long does a person need to take Ivermectin tabs to keep all Covid variants away for a year?

[chuckman]

Who knows... but I think it's fair to suggest that government heath officials might be reluctant to put their stamp of approval on something with an efficacy that is so hotly contested within the pharmaceutical and medical community.

Some among the public seem a bit more fickle. Pfizer alone conducted trials with over 40,000 adults. Yet, some are still screaming that the vaccines aren't sufficiently tested, biased reporting results, conspiracy... on and on. However, with limited and far smaller studies of Ivermectin (some appear promising) often not controlled and taken with other drugs, and highly contested efficacy for Covid even from manufactures, many are screaming Ivermectin is a wonder drug for curing Covid infection and halting the spread.

If I was an anti-vaxxer and was convinced Ivermectin was the Covid cure-all and preventative, I'd call my local primary care guy today. He'd write me a prescription. By the way, how often and for how long do ya need to take Ivermectin tabs to keep all Covid variants away for a year?

It's hard to tell what they are reluctant to do/not do these days. But we do know they do not have a crystal ball and change their tunes after time. I am good with this; you should be able to change your mind and change direction with new evidence. What I struggle with is their inability to change their tunes in spite of new data, seemingly digging in their heels.

I think they should do aggressive trials with ivermectin, vit d, all of it. Give it the same voracity that they are willing to give vaccines.

Vaccines...oy, where to begin. I am not anti, but I do look at them with a long eye. I have not gotten one, and I likely won't until my institution makes it mandatory (people can or cannot get it based on their reasons, and none of those reasons are my business; I don't judge, either way). There are some issues that need to be sorted out as time goes on, a need for cleaner data (i.e., clotting, issues in kids, etc.).

[georgeib]

I have a client who is a pulmonologist, and who describes himself as being "on the front lines" of treating the most severe Covid patients. He, like almost all physicians in the US, marched in lockstep with the WHO, NIH, CDC recommendations and treatment protocols. I recently sent him a link to the I-MASK protocol, and his reply was that they "have been using Ivermectin for the last several months now in severe cases." He works at a major metropolitan hospital in SC.

Frankly, I was a bit surprised at his response given his previous intractability to deviate from official protocols. But there you have it.