The absolute void of any discussion on Ivermectin

Bits and pieces just like this keep pouring through my inbox: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ — COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage.

All this is beyond my expertise, but there are lots like it.

Meanwhile, no one in the media, no matter how supposedly on the conservative side of things, ever says a word about Ivermectin. And even though I am aware that the various “vaccines” were developed at the instigation of Donald Trump, whose judgment I normally trust, there are lots of issues that need to be raised and as many questions that need an answer.

But really, why does no one ask about Ivermectin or say a word in public even though there are article like this within easy reach? – A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness, dated February 2021, [“Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;103:214-216. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191. Epub 2020 Dec 2.”]

PLUS LET ME ADD THIS: Aside from the damage to our health, there is the damage to out economies: The Number of Small Businesses Destroyed by COVID Lockdowns Will ASTOUND You.

COVID shutdowns championed by U.S. governors and D.C. bureaucrats are responsible for destroying nearly 40% of small businesses since the virus was unleashed on the world—and we know now that it was for little to no damned good reason. A study by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences revealed recently that shutdown orders made little to no difference in COVID’s impact….

While bureaucrats gave Walmart, Costco, Lowe’s, and other big-box stores “essential” status, allowing them to stay open during the COVID pandemic, 38.9% of America’s small businesses, the providers of most of the country’s jobs, were forced to close based on fear, hackneyed social-distancing rules, early ignorance about transmission, and an insatiable desire by governors to micromanage the affairs of men.

In short, small businesses could have operated the entire time, exactly like big-box stores did, had it not been for tyrants in statehouses and mayor’s offices around the country destroying lives in the name of “science.”

The questions keep multiplying while every answer we get seems unable to deal with the issues raised.

This entry was posted in COVID-19, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to The absolute void of any discussion on Ivermectin

  1. Tezza says:

    I tried to observe, in reader comments in ‘The Australian’, that India’s experience by region with Ivermectin and with vaccination would repay some study. Not wildly irresponsible, one would think. However the comment was rejected. I suspect the mere use of the work Ivermectin triggers filters on many websites. Why? In some cases that’s obvious vested interest. But in general discussion, it’s puzzling (at least to me).

  2. Matt says:

    Firstly, the authors themselves note ‘Although the study sample was too small (n = 72) to draw any solid conclusions.’
    But what does the study actually show:
    Any reduction in hospitalisation?
    The mean duration of hospitalization after treatment was 9.7 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.1–11.0 days) in the placebo group, 10.1 days (95% CI 8.5–11.8 days) in the ivermectin + doxycycline group, and 9.6 days (95% CI 7.7–11.7 days) in the ivermectin alone group (p = 0.93).

    What about symptoms?
    Of note, these changes were not statistically significant for fever (p = 0.35 and p = 0.09), cough (p = 0.18 and p = 0.23), or sore throat (p = 0.35 and p = 0.09) in the ivermectin + doxycycline and the 5-day ivermectin groups when compared with placebo.

    So what did it show?
    The mean duration to viral clearance was 9.7 days (95% CI 7.8–11.8 days) for the 5-day ivermectin arm (p = 0.02), 11.5 days (95% CI 9.8–13.2 days) for the ivermectin + doxycycline (p = 0.27) arm, and 12.7 days (95% CI 11.3–14.2 days) for the placebo group.

    So it resulted in 3 days earlier viral clearance, which didn’t impact on symptoms or hospitalisation.

  3. Ubique says:

    I tried to observe, in reader comments in ‘The Australian’, that India’s experience by region with Ivermectin and with vaccination would repay some study.

    I have made much the same comment in The Australian twice and been rejected both times.

  4. Stu says:

    Steve you might find this website to be useful:
    link.

    It lists every published trial on ivermectin as a therapeutic for Covid. It also has a meta analysis of all trials which updates every time a new paper is published. And it has links to a bunch of other possible therapeutics such as thedrugwhichshallnotbenamed. I’m quite familiar with the literature of the randomised controlled trials on that latter drug and it seems to me to have been proven conclusively as an effective treatment when used early or for prophylaxis at a suitable dosage. It might even have some benefit when used later (but not for patients already on ventilators), but that is less conclusive. I’m left wondering what standard of proof is required for agencies such as the TGA to approve its use as a therapeutic. Hopefully the WEHI’s Covid Shield trial will come up with a strong result but we won’t know about that st least until the end of the year.

  5. Boxcar says:

    3.7 Billion doses of Ivermectin have only 16 attributed deaths.
    Quaccines exceed that already.
    And, to quote the politicians, “if it saves one life”, why aren’t they pumping Ivermectin out?

  6. FlyingPigs says:

    COVID shutdowns championed by U.S. governors and D.C. bureaucrats are responsible for destroying nearly 40% of small businesses since the virus was unleashed on the world

    funny about that!

  7. Deano says:

    The Aussie media’s refusal to even allow the word “ivermectin” to be uttered tells us something’s going on.

  8. nb says:

    There are hints here and there that people in the USA are waking up from woke and other interventions in their lives. It’ll be interesting to see how things unfold over the next couple of months.

  9. BrettW says:

    Bret Weinsteins podcast Dark Horse has covered Invermectin quite a bit in past week.

  10. Shane says:

    “Conspiracy theory” is widely acknowledged to be a loaded term. Politicians use it to mock and dismiss allegations against them, while philosophers and political scientists warn that it could be used as a rhetorical weapon to pathologize dissent.

    Today it goes far beyond mere monetary interest like when ones ultimate media employer is a director for GSK , its more on the lines of the Holodomor denial practiced by our media in the 1930’s because its just RightGroupThink…to be otherwise would be committing a Thoughtcrime.
    On a personal level along with regular ivermectin prophylactically, I now practice the mask mandate & other measures rigorously not because of anything that Brett Sutton might advocate out of fear of a corona virus that somehow got spliced with a spike protein that its now being claimed, the PRC was fine tuning on the Uighurs a few years back, but rather because of the as yet undebunked observation with no conventual scientific explanation of why mRNA vaxs, like the pfizer & moderna versions are continuingly being associated with, as one speculative explanation has it. of [non ferrous] ”magnetism …. There is no material available in such a small amount that can be injected and cause what we are seeing. The magnetism is being caused by the vax re-programming your DNA (and it has to be exactly that, they are lying if they say otherwise – ) the vax re-programs people to have a literal iron spike be part of the normal internal structure of of many cells, if not all cells eventually”
    As Sherlock might well ask, ”why isn’t any watchdog barking?”

  11. m0nty says:

    The magnetism is being caused by the vax re-programming your DNA

    Hoo boy, we have a live one here. Who needs Bird when loons like this run free on the Cat?

  12. RogerW says:

    I have also had numerous comments re ivermectin rejected by The Australian. Once, I wrote just the word and nothing else. Once, I wrote about a Professor Ivor McTyne. All rejected.
    What do they fear?

  13. Dave Brewer says:

    It would be very much in drug companies’ interest both to squelch stories about vaccines going wrong and to squelch stories about a cheap drug being an effective treatment. But somehow our “anti-capitalist” media are happy to do the work of Big Pharma? Or are they just too busy trying to wreck the lives and reputations of any prominent conservatives?

  14. Maniac says:

    There will be more tyranny now that the so-called “Delta variant” is supposedly making the rounds, and I suspect that the citizenry won’t put up with another round of tyranny.

  15. Fat Tony says:

    m0nty says:
    June 14, 2021 at 11:10 pm
    The magnetism is being caused by the vax re-programming your DNA

    Hoo boy, we have a live one here. Who needs Bird when loons like this run free on the Cat?

    Fuck off you fascist prick – you shouldn’t be allowed on here, along with your mate numberwang

    Still getting a woody thinking about shooting people lined up on the side of a ditch?

  16. FlyingPigs says:

    the citizenry won’t put up with another round of tyranny.

    The Australian “citizenry” will be either ‘heels up’ or touching their toes with their pants down.

  17. dover_beach says:

    Then:

    Scientists ‘strongly condemn’ rumors and conspiracy theories about origin of coronavirus outbreak

    By By Jon Cohen in Science mag Feb. 19, 2020

    Now:

    Spike protein produced by vaccine is not toxic

    By The Associated Press Jun 12, 2021

  18. Figures says:

    If someone has a vested interest then you shouldn’t take what they say on faith.

    That doesn’t magically change just because the person with a vested interest calls themself a “scientist”.

    And I see that Monty (who believes men can have babies and that the Khmer Rouge built a successful economy) is calling other people crazy.

  19. Arky says:

    Their fucked up vaccines are going to kill an at this point unknowable number of people.
    Their dumb as dog shit medical establishment and public service are going to channel as many people as possible into them without true, informed consent.

  20. herodotus says:

    News com au is running at the top of their page an attack on the credibility of Kayleigh Mcenany, formerly the press flack for Trump. She was very good at her job, which no doubt pissed off the left leaning media generally.
    We see no such concern about credibility when it comes to the bulk of the US media, on matters pertaining to Trump for the four years he was president, on the credibility of the Democrats who have lied about everything, on matters pertaining to the stolen election, or about alternatives to the rather edgy vaccines that are now being mandated with a suspicious degree of coercion around the globe.

  21. another ian says:

    There is that song from “Lil’ Abner” that starts

    “The country’s in the very best of hands”

    After that summary by Judith Sloan it seems to me that we are ripe for a rewrite that might start

    “Our covid’s in the very best of hands”

  22. Rabbi Putin says:

    Should we just start a mass telemarketing campaign against the phone-lines of the admin-desks of Australia’s MSM, whereby we just keep saying “ivermectin ivermectin ivermectin…” until they hang up?

    Or how about this? Make it your task to say “Ivermectin” three times out loud in conversation today. Doesn’t need to be in a context that makes any sense, eg: “Goodbye sweetie! Have a great ivermectin day and see you at dinner!”

  23. another ian says:

    Now in Zimbabwe – –

    “Being very aggressive with a drug which has caused 16 deaths in 32 years in 4 billion doses is not being a cowboy; it’s trying to save the patient’s life.”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2021/06/14/policy-you-cant-see-in-canada/

  24. Helen Davidson (nmrn) says:

    The Aussie media’s refusal to even allow the word “ivermectin” to be uttered tells us something’s going on.

    Yep.

    Ivermectin has been approved (properly approved, not just provisionally approved like the vaccines), for other uses, so we know it isn’t harmful.

    Worst case scenario is that the results of the studies are just showing a placebo effect. Best case scenario is that it works.

    Absolutely no reason for demonising it the way they are.

  25. Bad Samaritan says:

    I’ll distill it down….

    Leftists appeal to, and demand obedience to, the science, and are in awe of the science because socialism is a science!

    Seek out any old dead German or French dude from centuries ago and it can be found in their scribblings….”Scientific socialism is a term coined in 1840 by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his book What is Property? to mean a society ruled by a scientific government, “…… “In the 1844 book The Holy Family, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels described the writings of the socialist, communist writers Théodore Dézamy and Jules Gay as truly “scientific”.[2] Later in 1880, Engels used the term “scientific socialism” to describe Marx’s social-political-economic theory.[3]

    Got it now Cats? The only science that matters is socialism wielded by commie-govts. that is all.

    BTW: Adolf + Co also saw themselves as scientists wielding racial science to get racial health. Leftism has always been perversion of reality,so why the surprise now?

  26. Eyrie says:

    Bullshit link, Monty. Just bare assertions and outright lies like this:
    Dr. Daniel Kaul, an infectious disease expert at the University of Michigan, noted that the vaccines have been proven safe and effective through clinical trials and the millions of people who have so far received the vaccines in the U.S.
    No mention of the deaths and injuries.

  27. Boambee John says:

    m0nty says:
    June 14, 2021 at 10:05 pm
    Spike protein produced by vaccine is not toxic

    By The Associated Press Jun 12, 2021

    Posted by the fat fascist fool munty with his fingers crossed, desperately hoping that it is true.

  28. Boambee John says:

    m0nty says:
    June 14, 2021 at 11:10 pm
    The magnetism is being caused by the vax re-programming your DNA

    Hoo boy, we have a live one here. Who needs Bird when loons like this run free on the Cat?

    Perfessor Dr munty, MSc, PhD, leading scientist specialising in molecular biology, hath spoken. Hear his words, lesser beings, and wonder.

  29. Boambee John says:

    Simple reality is that the “vaccines” are not actual vaccines. At best, they might prevent a sufferer from spreading the Kung Flu, and ease the effects on the sufferer, but they do not prevent any “vaccinated” person from catching the Kung Flu.

    At best, they might be a therapeutic prophylactic, but in that role, they are in competition with HCQ and ivermectin, both of which have demonstrated at least some beneficial effects, without the risks associated with the “vaccines”.

  30. m0nty says:

    No mention of the deaths and injuries.

    Which are at rates far, far less than deaths and injuries from contracting the virus in the wild. What part of that fact do you not understand, Eyrie?

  31. dover_beach says:

    Amusing how Monty just waves off deaths and injuries from a vaccine program.

  32. m0nty says:

    Not everything in life is perfect, db. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  33. Boambee John says:

    munty seems to be somewhat nervous this morning. Despertely justifying the wondrousness of the “vaccine”.

    Is he wondering if he might have made a bad, potentially fatal, decision?

  34. Epicurious says:

    New definition, hopefully others can add to:
    Monty
    1) Considered to be a primal, partial striptease accompanied by bad Caribbean music, or
    2) the Lord of Doom Lodoon, or
    3) a really bitter person warped by Herr Marx, or
    4) a pain in the arse able to be removed with 1 dose of ivermectin

    Full monty
    1) a primal full striptease accompanied by bad Caribbean music, or
    2) God of Doom Godoon, or
    3) a really bitter person warped by Herr Marx then sniffed by Joe Biden
    4) a pain in the arse able to be removed with 1 injection of ivermectin (horse variety)

    I hope this helps you to understand why monty is as he is….

  35. Chris says:

    Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    So why are Their ABC the enemies of Christian values?

  36. dover_beach says:

    Not everything in life is perfect, db. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    More waving away.

  37. Bad Samaritan says:

    Why would anyone bother discussing this stuff with a leftist? Or a caricature of a leftist? None of it’s for real. Leftists do not give a fig about science or “the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals” or anything else.

    On every corner there’s a Chiropractor, or a Bowen Therapist, or a Naturopath, Osteopath, Homeopath….plus a hundred other “unproven” cures for whatever ails you. A thousand dietary supplements, powders, pills and potions in every supermarket….but no state premier or CHO / CMO threatening to gaol you if you use them.

    What leftist is not in thrall to some “holistic” approach to health, or other?

    FFS. This is about the money. This is about the power. This is about the control. Ivermectin probably works against the purported SARS CoV2 thingy, and is cheap as chips. My dog gets it once in a while and is quite happy…..which shows you that mutts are much smarter than leftist sheep….and of more value to boot!

    BTW: Just watching a Netflix show on “einsatzgruppen” (death squads) in WWII eastern Europe, where one Latvian survivor says (paraphrased) “the killers were every kind of scumbag; the type who delight in humiliating other people“. Now we are watching the exact same psychopathy running rampant on the left yet again.

  38. Kneel says:

    “Which are at rates far, far less than deaths and injuries from contracting the virus in the wild.”

    You know Monty, the reason we have stage 3 animal trials is to look at long term risks, as well as the risk that a vaccine may make contact with the “wild” virus worse. The record for corona-virus vaccines in this regard is not good. And the current vaccines “skipped” that part of the testing, because it takes a long time to do. 70 years of trying, and even though many created anti-bodies like the current vaxxes, they failed stage 3 animal trials – some made contact with the wild virus more dangerous, and some created auto-immune reactions that were debilitating or fatal.
    So there are risks – and we should know what they are, and weigh them against our own risk factors, so everyone can decide for themselves what is appropriate for them.

    I would also again draw your attention to the work of the man who created the first WHO approved COVID-19 treatment regime (anti-coagulants & steroids), a pulmonary specialist who has a long publication record and a very high citation record, who is saying loudly and publicly that Ivermectin is a useful treatment for COVID-19 at all stages – prophylaxis, early treatment and late treatment.
    It’s not perfect, but we wouldn’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, now would we? And given Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs ever created (at the level of aspirin or better), while the vaxes look considerably more risky, it seems prudent to get a treatment rather than a vax – or so it seems to me.
    Can you tell me why this is a “problem” for you? I mean, you are free to make your own choices and do what seems best for your particular circumstance, why cannot I have the same choice?

  39. Bad Samaritan says:

    Why would anyone bother discussing this stuff with a leftist? Or a caricature of a leftist? None of it’s for real. Leftists do not give a fig about science or “the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals” or anything else.

    On every corner there’s a Chiropractor, or a Bowen Therapist, or a Naturopath, Osteopath, Homeopath….plus a hundred other “unproven” cures for whatever ails you. A thousand dietary supplements, powders, pills and potions in every supermarket….but no state premier or CHO / CMO threatening to gaol you if you use them.

    What leftist is not in thrall to some “holistic” approach to health, or other?

    FFS. This is about the money. This is about the power. This is about the control. Ivermectin probably works against the purported SARS CoV2 thingy, and is cheap as chips. My dog gets it once in a while and is quite happy to be illness free…..which shows you that mutts are much smarter than leftist sheep.

  40. Mango Man says:

    Nothing is reported because the world is run by a conspiracy of medicos who have shares in pfizer, are members of the Chinese Communist Party and who hate Catholics (other than Joe Biden and Malcolm Turnbull). They are literally crushing the life out of all centres of useful information (except certain centres at RMIT) and aim to retun the world to a feudal stats in which they have all the big houses and we live on dirt.

  41. Figures says:

    Which are at rates far, far less than deaths and injuries from contracting the virus in the wild

    To this day you haven’t provided a skerrick of evidence that anybody has died from the virus.

    All you have is the opinions of journalists and people getting paid 300k per year to scare you.

  42. rickw says:

    The story so far?

    French funded construction of Wuhan Lab as a joint venture.
    After construction the CCP locked the French out.
    Fauci funds gain function testing on novel coronavirus.
    CCP gets bats for use in testing.
    CCP starts genetically modifying mice with human DNA so they make better test subjects.

    So far the reality reads like something written by Alex Jones….

  43. rickw says:

    Not everything in life is perfect, db. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Why this whole thing is BS, we shouldn’t all be locked up because of your co morbitities.

  44. Boambee John says:

    rickw

    From the beginning, the fat fascist fool’s only priority ahs been his own self-preservation, regardless of any costs to others.

  45. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld. Aus. says:

    I have blocked so many times on the Oz, I gave it away. Our MSM is on the same level as US with leftists running every show. Believe nothing on print media or electronic. Far better getting information on Conservative websites from US and Europe. At least they are not singing from the same choir book. Just Google Conservative websites, there are heaps of them and a few in Australia.

  46. Kneel says:

    “FFS. This is about the money. This is about the power. This is about the control.”

    True enough.
    But the useful idiots allow it to happen.
    I may not be able to edumacate ’em all, but I can try – one by one.
    What else would you suggest I do – lie back and think of England?

  47. Steve trickler says:

    Some interesting history here presented from Doc Coleman detailing what the Medical Establishment have been doing to those thinking against the grain of accepted medical procedure, treatments and methods for over hundreds of years. From the discovery of the treatment for scurvy ( 200 years for that to be Aok from Est ) to the treatment of festering wounds, wound treatment after amputation, new surgical techniques, anesthesia, anatomy, doctor and nurse hygiene practices, and the related hospitals care of patients….FMD! All those pushing for a change to the betterment of heatlh, got hounded by the establishment at the time.

    Not much seems to have changed today. A few horror stories included. A new tab and the audio playing in the background is all you need…..no need to watch the clip. 18 mins.

    Ignorance and Prejudice in Medicine

  48. Kneel says:

    “From the beginning, the fat fascist fool’s only priority ahs been his own self-preservation, regardless of any costs to others.”

    As is mine.
    As, likely, is yours.
    It’s human nature.
    At least when push comes to shove, it is.
    The last time someone said how good it would be to be nice to everyone and actually did it – about 2000 years ago – he got nailed to a tree for his efforts.
    So I don’t fault anyone for looking after themselves.
    But I do fault them where they do not investigate and think for themselves.
    And that, IMO, is where Monty fails.
    YMMV.

  49. Sean says:

    Why would there be some world wide conspiracy to deny Ivermectin works? It’s not been shown to decrease 28 day mortality above placebo, that’s why it’s not being used. If it was more effective than a vaccine the results would be so obvious it would be impossible to deny it.

  50. Bad Samaritan says:

    Steve T (3.48pm) 18 minutes is too long….

    Here’s a snippet of medical bastardry to whet the appetite. The most common operation in the world today is cataract surgery. Harold Ridley was a pommy eye surgeon who noticed during WW2 that his wounded patients did much better when the eye was wounded by plastic than with glass fragments…..

    “This led him to propose the use of artificial lenses to treat cataract. He had a lens manufactured using the same material – brand name Perspex, made by ICI – and on 29 November 1949 at St Thomas’ Hospital, Ridley achieved the first implant of an intraocular lens, although it was not until 8 February 1950 that he left an artificial lens permanently in place in an eye. The first lens was manufactured by the Rayner company of Brighton & Hove, East Sussex, a company which continues to manufacture and market small-incision intraocular lenses today.

    The first IOL implant in the United States was performed in 1952: a Ridley-Rayner lens implanted at the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia.[7]

    Ridley pioneered this treatment in the face of prolonged strong opposition from the medical community.

    The medical community are almost all lying f’wits. They are mostly in it purely for the money, and will ruthlessly ostracise anyone who might limit their income by being honest and decent. See all the current lying BS artists CMOs and CHOs for verification of this reality.

  51. Chris M says:

    Noticed without fail these posts always bring out Matt the mouthpiece from TGA and Figures from Nimbin.

    Haha I guess variety is a spice, of some kind anyway.

  52. dover_beach says:

    Why would there be some world wide conspiracy to deny Ivermectin works? It’s not been shown to decrease 28 day mortality above placebo

    Sean, Dr. Tess Lawrie thinks otherwise.
    As to the why, emergency use authorisation of experimental vaccines depends upon no alternative prophylaxis or treatments.

  53. m0nty says:

    while the vaxes look considerably more risky

    That is it though Kneel, they are not risky at all in relative terms, compared to getting the virus in the wild. Even if using ivermectin is 99% effective, the maths still work out well in favour of the vaccine.

    If you don’t understand that, after all this time, I can’t help you.

  54. Matt says:

    When the evidence supports Ivermectin Chris, I’m happy to jump on board.
    Until then …

  55. Chris M says:

    The evidence doesn’t support the Covid vaccine efficacy or safety so you must have been paid to unquestioningly jump on board with that.

  56. Matt says:

    If you say so Chris.

  57. dover_beach says:

    Matt, where is Tess Lawrie wrong?

  58. dover_beach says:

    Even if using ivermectin is 99% effective, the maths still work out well in favour of the vaccine.

    Not at all. Ivermectin has 40+ year safe record of usage and is off- patent and so can be produced super cheaply by anyone. The COVID vaccines don’t and are expensive.

  59. Matt says:

    No idea dover – I’m not going to waste my time watching an hour of video to attempt to pick it apart. But to your second post – ivermectin may well have 40+ years of safe usage – but at a particular dose. As I commented on another thread, the likely dose required to get to a level sufficient to be effective against SARS-CoV2 far exceeds to upper limit of safety. Which is why most of the studies don’t appear to show effectiveness – as I pointed out regarding the study linked to above (no decrease in symptoms or hospitalisation, and only a 3 day reduction in viral clearance).

  60. Steve trickler says:

    What a surprise!

    YouTube Punishes Politician for Sharing Information About Ivermectin as Evidence of ‘Regulatory Capture’ Grows

    TrialSite Staff
    June 14, 2021

    Apparently, Congressman Sen Ron Johnson (R-Wis) is in hot water again with social media, this time his team uploaded a video associated with a June 3 appearance by the senator at the Milwaukee Press Club. Upset with both the previous Trump as well as the current Biden administrations for “not only ignoring but working against robust research [on] the use of cheap, generic drugs to be repurposed for early treatment of COVID-19,” YouTube made the call that these violated their “misinformation” policy and thus yanked the content. But what’s misinformation and what’s not is up for debate and, in many cases, the regulators and government agencies, such as the FDA and NIH, appear to move in concert with the regulated to establish a party line that blocks low-cost competition. Does overt censorship exist in America today? What if a nation such as Slovakia, or India, for at least a duration during the emergency pandemic, authorize the use of Ivermectin as an early on care option for COVID-19? What if that’s an absolute fact backed by government documents? Is reporting on that fact considered misinformation? In fact, it is, as TrialSite can attest both Facebook and YouTube have taken down TrialSite content that simply reports on the fact that Slovakia, for example, authorized the emergency use of the drug. They assume the American public are too dumb to understand that just because Slovakia authorizes use doesn’t mean the FDA does. But perhaps that’s not the real intention. Perhaps regulatory capture is so strong now that a confluence of interests can literally censor large swathes of the internet? The evidence of government and tech industry collaboration over what is fair game for censorship is on display for all to see. For example, as the lab theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 became a topic again, perhaps in anticipation of the Fauci email leak, the line between government and federal agency blurs as recent emails demonstrate collaboration between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and NIAID’s director Dr. Anthony Fauci. Put another way, the U.S. government’s dictating to a massive social platform what is and what is not truth and not necessarily to protect the public but rather to prevent them from the diverse opinions that can help one find the actual truth.

    As reported recently in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, YouTube’s position on the matter was that the recent censorship was “in accordance with our COVID-19 medical information policies, which don’t allow content that encourages people to use Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus.”

    In the meantime, Rep. Johnson was “baffled” that this “concerted effort to deny the American public the type of robust exploration research into early treatment early in this pandemic.” Apparently, YouTube follows a policy launched in May 2020 that centers on the censorship of what’s deemed misinformation as defined by the World Health Organization. So, in America, where the National Institutes of Health seemingly would have influence changed their position on Ivermectin to neutral (meaning they don’t recommend to use or to not use given the evolving data sets), the fact that YouTube would enforce such a restrictive interpretation serves essentially to introduce similar censorship of the internet one would experience in a place such as a China.

    In response, Rep. Johnson criticized Google-owned YouTube suggesting that these tech companies “have accumulated too much unaccountable power.” He went on, “Big Tech and mainstream media believe they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives.” Johnson continued, “They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies.”

    In this way, perhaps the concept of regulatory capture—the economic theory that emphasizes what occurs when regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating—is actually a major force at this point in our history. What results? Instead of serving the public’s interest, the agencies serve industry, those very firms they’re supposed to regulate.

  61. Steve trickler says:
  62. Steve trickler says:

    Bad Samaritan says:
    June 15, 2021 at 5:43 pm
    Steve T (3.48pm) 18 minutes is too long….

    It wasn’t long enough.

  63. Steve trickler says:

    Another opinion going against the WHO CDC NIH WEF [Add to the list]…. cesspool.

    TrialSite Staff
    June 14, 2021

    Why Is Information About Ivermectin Censored? A Retired Physician in Lewiston Suggests the Answer

    While TrialSite frequently follows clinical investigational superstars and their breakthroughs around the world, just as important are those practicing physicians in the clinic, in the cities and small towns across America, and beyond. After all, that’s where health care is delivered and, at times, when your doctor has a little time in his practice to get caught up with yourself, family, and overall well-being, they may just share some of their point of view on important topics, such as COVID-19—less any background chatter or noise. During the pandemic, with lots of information and misinformation circulating about, it’s certainly refreshing to listen to some straight talk, that is, without all the spin, positioning, and packaging of information. That’s because the impact of such a massive public relations campaign is exhausting. So once in a while, to get perhaps a different point of view of COVID-19 current events, sometimes a visit to the local small-town newspaper is a peaceful respite from the information war that’s accompanied the pandemic. Recently, that’s exactly what a retired physician here in Lewiston, Idaho, did—bought some good old-fashioned western straight talk directly to the world, thanks to the Lewiston Tribune. And this physician, a retired ophthalmologist, breaks down and conveys an explanation for the root cause of so much information suppression and censorship associated with the pandemic and many of the efforts to find low-cost, effective treatments in the quest to augment vaccines and drive a global recovery. And if they’re smart, they should be listening. He plays an open hand, putting all the cards on the table for the world to see. He shares that while most of the world’s governments and health authorities all behave like they’re worthy of the people’s trust during this pandemic—that is, they have incorporated objective, unbiased and scientific methods to support the various national and regional programs to combat COVID-19—in all reality, shares this retired small town doctor, “They have likely lost it.” While, rightfully, patients and the healthcare-consuming public generally seek more accurate information to guide better, more informed decision making, along with expecting accountability from their government authorities, the people haven’t received either. Eggleston suggests that a confluence of government, social tech conglomerates, and pharmaceutical industry interests end up during the pandemic actually driving more misinformation while evading necessary accountability to the people they serve.

    Do Your Best to Help the Patient

    Physicians, in providing the best possible care to their patients, seek out objective, unbiased information from health authorities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and global bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO). They, unfortunately, have been “misled by entities that previously could be trusted,” suggests the retired physician in the Op-Ed in the Lewiston Tribune.

    Reminding all that care to understand, the physician shares that regardless of normal times or emergency, doctors look at multiple sources for evidence, from randomized controlled trials to real-world evidence and other empirical observations ongoing. That’s how doctors and medical clinics have treated patients. Never before has there been so much top-down pressure from a confluence of interests and authorities to dictate what’s fact versus fiction and surprisingly, those that are responsible for publishing the truth while serving to hinder misinformation are actually, according to Dr. Eggleston, doing the opposite.

    Eggleston raises the Ivermectin example. With four decades of use accompanied by about 4 billion doses and now backed by nearly 60 studies, backed and validated by meta-analyses, the Idahoan wonders aloud what’s behind the intense, virulent and toxic response. Why was Facebook’s CEO confirming with the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), on what to block on that near-monopolistic social media platform? Dr. Eggleston puts forth his suggested answer ,thanks to the support of the Lewiston Tribune. A hint: the “disinformation playbook” mobilizes a broad range of actors to ensure competitive alternatives don’t cut into pandemic-based profit-taking.

    Call to Action: Follow the link to read Dr. Eggleston’s piece in the Lewiston Tribune here.

    Link

  64. m0nty says:

    But to your second post – ivermectin may well have 40+ years of safe usage – but at a particular dose. As I commented on another thread, the likely dose required to get to a level sufficient to be effective against SARS-CoV2 far exceeds to upper limit of safety. Which is why most of the studies don’t appear to show effectiveness – as I pointed out regarding the study linked to above (no decrease in symptoms or hospitalisation, and only a 3 day reduction in viral clearance).

    None of this has been proved conclusively yet, but this appears to be the most likely conclusion when all is said and done.

    One might have thought after the HCQ debacle that Cats would think twice about supporting every snake oil salesman who bobs along, but they’re too dumb to figure it out.

  65. Dot says:

    One might have thought after the HCQ debacle that Cats would think twice about supporting every snake oil salesman who bobs along, but they’re too dumb to figure it out.

    Jesus christ man you are just repeating talking points.

    At least search on NBCI/NIH for a bit you illiterate dweeb.

  66. Steve trickler says:

    Jesus christ man you are just repeating talking points.

    That is his M.O.

  67. m0nty says:

    They did multiple full-strength clinical trials on HCQ, Dot. It does nothing to combat COVID. Give it up and move on.

  68. dover_beach says:

    No idea dover – I’m not going to waste my time watching an hour of video to attempt to pick it apart. But to your second post – ivermectin may well have 40+ years of safe usage – but at a particular dose. As I commented on another thread, the likely dose required to get to a level sufficient to be effective against SARS-CoV2 far exceeds to upper limit of safety. Which is why most of the studies don’t appear to show effectiveness – as I pointed out regarding the study linked to above (no decrease in symptoms or hospitalisation, and only a 3 day reduction in viral clearance).

    But she shows that most of the studies do show effectiveness and she lists the studies in the video, incl. the one above which combined with the other RCTs shows 65% fewer deaths compared with the control. And if that much fewer people are dying you can bet that rate and days of hospitalisation are similarly reduced.
    As to the safety, these same studies use dosages in the recommended range. In the study above, they use a dosage in the low range, 12mg for someone 60kg, but you could also use 24mg/day.

  69. Steve trickler says:

    m0nty says:
    June 15, 2021 at 10:34 pm
    They did multiple full-strength clinical trials on HCQ, Dot. It does nothing to combat COVID. Give it up and move on.

    Who is THEY?

  70. dover_beach says:

    Hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug touted as a magical Covid-19 cure by former US President Donald Trump last year, has been found effective in a prophylactic study published in the Journal of The Association of Physicians of India (JAPI) last week.

    The study showed that hydroxychloroquine, popularly known as HCQ, could prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in varying degrees depending on its dosing regimen. The highest prevention rate of 72 per cent was found among those given hydroxychloroquine over six weeks or a longer duration.

    The study said, “[W]hen adjusted for other risk factors, HCQ dose as per government recommendations, 2-3, 4-5, 6 or more weeks reduced the probability of Covid positivity by 34 per cent, 48 per cent and 72 per cent.”

    The study was conducted May-September last year when HCQ was still part of the Union health ministry’s recommendation in treatment protocol for Covid-19.

    Hmmm.

  71. Tel says:

    The HCQ trials and extensive meta analysis are here.

    https://c19hcq.com/

    Benefits from early treatment are unquestionable. Even without early treatment there is some benefit although not as much.

    India was using HCQ last year and then they started distribution of their Ivermectin combination packs. Given their large population, high density, high poverty, and no option of stopping the entire economy like wealthy Western nations were doing … Indian covid stats were exceptionally good … all things considered.

    The various studies comparing regional differences across India also confirm the effectiveness of these treatments.

  72. Dot says:

    Thanks Tel,

    Monty is lying. He’s too stupid to understand anything he babbles on about.

  73. m0nty says:

    Do you hear yourselves? 65% fewer deaths, even in the unlikely event that it holds up, is not good enough compared to a vaccine. 24 to 72% is nowhere near it either. You are just not being serious at all. No wonder these treatments are ignored by scientific consensus.

  74. Dot says:

    monty

    Everyone else is laughing at you. Be a good boy now and run along.

  75. FlyingPigs says:

    m0nty, properly known as ‘montezumas revenge’ aka a dose of the shits.

  76. m0nty says:

    Who is THEY?

    Google for HCQ COVID trial, all the major American trials should appear on the first page. All with conclusions that HCQ is a bust for treating and preventing the coof.

    You lost that one. For Gods sake show some humility and take the L.

  77. FlyingPigs says:

    stop voiding yourself mr diarrhea

  78. Steve trickler says:

    s’ytnom O.M sah neeb suoivbo rof sega. A cissalc tish rerrits.

  79. Steve trickler says:

    Gulag are in on it.

    Google for HCQ COVID trial, all the major American trials should appear on the first page. All with conclusions that HCQ is a bust for treating and preventing the coof.

    Bold: Pick a couple of these trials. Post them.

    Who are the players?

  80. dover_beach says:

    Do you hear yourselves? 65% fewer deaths, even in the unlikely event that it holds up, is not good enough compared to a vaccine. 24 to 72% is nowhere near it either. You are just not being serious at all.

    These are the numbers for those being treated. Her number, by the way, for the metaanalysis is 83% reduction in deaths. And 88% reduction in infection when used as prophylaxis. Not good enough? Cheaper than the experimental vaccines, safer than the vaccines, and could have been rolled out April last year. As Weinstein/ Heying suggest, crime of the century this never occurred.

  81. Chris M says:

    the likely dose required to get to a level sufficient to be effective against SARS-CoV2 far exceeds to upper limit of safety.

    This has been quoted ad nauseam by armchair critics with no clinical experience related to Covid and only partial understanding of the drugs action.

    Clinical doctors with real Covid afflicted patients have proven time and time again (tens of thousands of time over) it works extremely well, is safe and well tolerated. And more info on the mechanism of action is available such as how it concentrates in the critical cells. But the armchair critics are political activists and not interested in real world treatments.

  82. m0nty says:

    safer than the vaccines

    No, they are not safer than the vaccines. You have far more risk of dying from wild COVID if you aren’t vaccinated, even if you are doped up with 13 different non-vax unguents and potions.

    The only people still getting hospitalised and dying in America are the unvaccinated, pretty much.

  83. FlyingPigs says:

    wild COVID

    great point mr diarrhea

    we are now way past delta covid.

  84. FlyingPigs says:

    covid…. born to be wild…

  85. FlyingPigs says:

    keep voiding your shit mr diarrhea

  86. dover_beach says:

    No, they are not safer than the vaccines. You have far more risk of dying from wild COVID if you aren’t vaccinated, even if you are doped up with 13 different non-vax unguents and potions.

    Not at all. Ivermectin is safer. No one is dying from taking ivermectin or experiencing adverse reactions. And it’s almost as efficacious.

    wild COVID

    I think you mean Bespoke COVID. Made by Wuhan Institute of Virology.

  87. Steve trickler says:

    m0nty says:
    June 15, 2021 at 11:19 pm
    Who is THEY?

    Google for HCQ COVID trial, all the major American trials should appear on the first page. All with conclusions that HCQ is a bust for treating and preventing the coof.

    You lost that one. For Gods sake show some humility and take the L.

    You lazy bastard. Pick one.

  88. Boambee John says:

    None of this has been proved conclusively yet, but this appears to be the most likely conclusion when all is said and done.

    One might have thought after the HCQ debacle that Cats would think twice about supporting every snake oil salesman who bobs along, but they’re too dumb to figure it out.

    Para 1: Dr munty, MB, BS, PhD (Molecular Biology) hath spoken. All Hail Dr munty.

    Para 2: WEhat HCQ debacle? Oh, Right, the opinion of Dr munty, MB, BS, PhD (Molecular Biology).

    Look, we all understand that you have nailed your colours to the “vaccine” mast, but given your record of wrongology, should we be collecting for a wreath?

  89. Boambee John says:

    The only people still getting hospitalised and dying in America are the unvaccinated, pretty much.

    Except for the ones dying soon after getting a “vaccine”.

  90. dover_beach says:

    Summary of Israel double-blind randomized study on Ivermectin using 0.2mg/kg (low-end dosage) for mild patients
    Results: 72% of Ivermectin group non-infectious by day 6 after 3 days of treatment; placebo 50% by day 6. Chances of being negative by day 6 just over two and half times better for ivermectin group.

    3 hospitalisations, all in placebo group.

    The claim that ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID is poorly supported by data has always been rubbish.

  91. Matt says:

    dover_beach says:
    June 16, 2021 at 2:20 pm

    1. It’s a preprint, not published yet
    2. The pre-registered clinical trial has 3 primary outcome measures – viral clearance at day 6, viral shedding duration, and symptoms clearance time. But the paper only reports one – viral clearance. Why might that be?
    3. The primary outcome measure that they did report on (viral clearance using PCR Ct cycles) was not specified prior, and the measure they used (30) was lower than that normally used in that country (40). Interesting.
    4. As the authors note themselves, the study was designed to look for differences in viral load, but not for clinical deterioration and prevention of hospitalization. Given the issues noted above, it’s questionable that it has even demonstrated that.

  92. dover_beach says:

    Matt, I should have guessed you would just propose more reasons to avoid the more likely conclusion.

  93. dover_beach says:

    3. The primary outcome measure that they did report on (viral clearance using PCR Ct cycles) was not specified prior, and the measure they used (30) was lower than that normally used in that country (40). Interesting.

    They used the same standard for both groups and there is nothing wrong with 30 cycles.

    As the authors note themselves, the study was designed to look for differences in viral load, but not for clinical deterioration and prevention of hospitalization.

    And yet the study noticed a difference between the ivermectin (0 hospitalisations) and control (3 hospitalisations) groups where the former was the larger of the two.

  94. Matt says:

    All I’m saying is that it’s not a particularly strong study, and I wouldn’t use this to suggest that Ivermectin is going to provide a clinical benefit.

  95. dover_beach says:

    All I’m saying is that it’s not a particularly strong study, and I wouldn’t use this to suggest that Ivermectin is going to provide a clinical benefit.

    You really haven’t identified any weaknesses.

  96. Matt says:

    1 & 2 are weaknesses.
    For 1, let’s see whether it gets published, and what changes between pre-print and final publication.
    For 2 – the whole point of pre-registering a clinical trial is to specify outcomes upfront, to prevent authors re-defining them after the data collection. For one, the actual outcome (PCR threshold) wasn’t specified. So what would the results look like if they used 35 or 40? We don’t know. And why not report on the other 2 measures (particularly the symptom clearance) which is arguably more important? Is it because they weren’t significant? And what does that say about academic intergrity?
    I’d say they are reasonable weaknesses.
    And then the actual result isn’t really that clinically significant. So …

  97. Leo G says:

    No, they are not safer than the vaccines. You have far more risk of dying from wild COVID if you aren’t vaccinated, …

    Straw man argument.
    Treatment/drug/vaccine safety refers to the frequency or severity of adverse effects arising directly from the treatment/drug/vaccine.

  98. dover_beach says:

    Not at all. Re (1) they publish preprints to get information out to clinicians quickly because they are needed. Re (2), you are simply speculating as to why they didn’t have another standard without having identified any problem with the standard of 30 used. I might as well worry about why they didn’t use o.3mg/kg or 0.4mg/kg given that these higher dosages would produce a greater effect than the one identified here. But this isn’t a mark against this study;s it’s simply grist for the mill for a future study.

    And then the actual result isn’t really that clinically significant.

    Oh, its clinically significant but ‘not really that’ clinically significant. This must be the new standard now.

  99. Matt says:

    Pre-prints – partly to get info out early yes, but also to get informal feedback and peer review. So pre-prints can change prior to publication, or not get published at all.
    Point (2) is actually really important – if you don’t pre-specify the outcome measure, then how do we know that they haven’t adjusted the result by picking a Ct that shows a favourable outcome? And you’ve still ignored that they didn’t report on 2 of the 3 outcomes – what are they hiding?
    Clinical significance – 72% of treatment group had reduced viral load (using Ct 30) at 6 days, compared with 50% of control group. So by day 6, half of the controls had reached this arbitrary level of reduced viral load, and treatment increased this to 72%. But what was the clinical significance? They didn’t report on symptom clearance time, so we don’t know whether the treatment group had improvement in symptoms – which would tell us whether the outcome is clinically significant.
    So the authors pivot to talking about potential infectiousness – but again what is the evidence that Ct 30 is the cut-off for infectiousness? So in the end the study doesn’t clearly demonstrate that there is a clinical benefit (as opposed to a statistically significant difference between groups).

  100. Matt says:

    Also re preprints, as medRxiv states – ‘This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.’

  101. dover_beach says:

    So by day 6, half of the controls had reached this arbitrary level of reduced viral load, and treatment increased this to 72%. But what was the clinical significance? They didn’t report on symptom clearance time, so we don’t know whether the treatment group had improvement in symptoms – which would tell us whether the outcome is clinically significant.
    So the authors pivot to talking about potential infectiousness – but again what is the evidence that Ct 30 is the cut-off for infectiousness?

    The standard for diagnosing a positive case of COVID is 30-35 cycles. Until you can demonstrate that 30 cycles is insufficient your criticism is moot. In mild cases of COVID (subjects in this study), if viral load has drop we can assume whatever mild symptoms they had would have dropped as well (or are you proposing there is no relationship between viral load and symptom improvement?) That no hospitalizations occurred in the ivermectin group is indicative of this or do you think that is due to chance?

  102. Matt says:

    No hospitalisations could be due to chance, because the numbers are small and they didn’t provide a statistical analysis of it.

    if viral load has drop we can assume whatever mild symptoms they had would have dropped as well

    We can assume that, and it’s a reasonable assumption. But they also had an outcome measure related to symptoms that they didn’t report on. Which suggests to me that it showed no improvement. So all we’re left with from this study is a slightly faster viral clearance with no impact reported on health or symptoms. It’s not conclusive.

  103. dover_beach says:

    No hospitalisations could be due to chance, because the numbers are small and they didn’t provide a statistical analysis of it.

    It’s not conclusive.

    You are beating this paper with a feather duster.

  104. Matt says:

    And you’re talking it up like it’s the definitive study.
    For the record – ivermectin may well be effective, but at the moment the evidence doesn’t support it. There are lots of studies of variable quality, and many that don’t show effectiveness. That might change over time. But I wouldn’t hang my hat on this paper as something that clearly shows a clinical benefit.

  105. dover_beach says:

    And you’re talking it up like it’s the definitive study.

    No, I didn’t. I pointed out another study that again indicates the efficacy of ivermectin. The cumulative evidence is near overwhelming. The nitpicking is indicative of this.

  106. Matt says:

    I think we disagree on whether this study indicates efficacy.
    And whether the cumulative evidence is overwhelming.

  107. dover_beach says:

    Oh, so you’re now disputing that it even indicates efficacy, not simply that it is conclusively efficacious? Make your mind up.

  108. Matt says:

    We’re going round in circles now. As I’ve noted, it doesn’t show a clinical benefit to the patient. It shows an increase in viral clearance at 6 days – where 50% of controls reached that same level anyway. So efficacious? Not on the basis of this study.

  109. dover_beach says:

    So a drug that reduces viral load quickly, and thus symptoms and transmissibility, compared to the control, and likely lowers the incidence of hospitalization, is not efficacious. The idea that you wouldn’t prescribe such a drug, that has an excellent safety record at the dosage used in this study, and risk deterioration of mild COVID patients, and the transmission of the virus to close contacts, verges on malpractice.

  110. Matt says:

    and thus symptoms

    But it didn’t reduce symptoms.
    Not only that, they authors prior to the study said in their protocol that symptoms were an outcome measure, but then they didn’t report on them. I’m surprised that doesn’t concern you. That’s a massive red flag for me.

    likely lowers the incidence of hospitalization

    But it didn’t show that either.

    risk deterioration of mild COVID patients

    Nor did it show that.

    transmission of the virus to close contact

    There a non-pharmaceutical ways to do this.

    verges on malpractice.

    No

  111. Timothy Neilson says:

    One might have thought after the HCQ debacle

    Yes, I remember the HCQ “debacle” m0nty. You kicked it off by sneering at the idea that HCQ was a “miracle cure”, doubled down with sneers that it was useless, then when you got your arse whipped you tried to shift the goalposts and pretend that you’d never denied that it could be an efficacious treatment, lying through your teeth that you’d been talking all along about it’s use as a prophylactic. It didn’t fool anyone. You were just as much of an object of ridicule and contempt as you always become.

  112. dover_beach says:

    But it didn’t reduce symptoms.

    It’s a reasonable inference that reduction in viral load reduces symptoms. You, on the other hand, are stating without evidence or reasonable inference that a reduction in viral load doesn’t reduce symptoms. Apparently symptoms are now unrelated to viral load!

    But it didn’t show that either.

    0-3 and the ivermectin group was larger than the control. Pure coincidence, hey.

    Nor did it show that.

    It follows from a reduction in viral load, and the reduction in hospitalization.

    There a non-pharmaceutical ways to do this.

    This is both better and complements any social distancing. You could say the benefits are cumulative.

    No.

    Yes. Safe, will very likely benefit the patient, and there is nothing to lose. All upside, little to no downside.

  113. Matt says:

    All the things you’ve said are what studies like this are supposed to show, but this study didn’t show.

  114. Matt says:

    and there is nothing to lose

    I don’t know how you practice, but if I’m prescribing any medication or treatment and things go haywire, I know that the defence ‘there’s nothing to lose’ won’t cut it.

  115. dover_beach says:

    I don’t know how you practice, but if I’m prescribing any medication or treatment and things go haywire, I know that the defence ‘there’s nothing to lose’ won’t cut it.

    You are perfectly within your rights to prescribe ivermectin within the identified range and still cover your arse, old boy.

  116. dover_beach says:

    Matt, I’m actually struck by the disingenuous of your last reply. Ivermectin is safe at the dosages we are talking about. The study identifies a real benefit, derived at little monetary cost, that enjoys a long safety record at this dosage. There is literal no sound reason not to prescribe ivermectin in this situation, unless you believe a deterioration of symptoms due to COVID is less likely on average than an adverse reaction due to ivermectin.

  117. Matt says:

    I don’t think it’s disingenuous. Serious question (because I don’t know your background) – are you a health professional? Because it’s one thing to talk hypothetically about risk and benefit, it’s another when you are the person prescribing treatment/intervention.

  118. dover_beach says:

    Is it really? Unless you can identify a safety concern at this range of dosage, for a drug that has had 4B doses over 40 years with a stellar safety record, I’m going to conclude that this shift in concern is handwaving.

  119. Matt says:

    I take it from that response that you aren’t a HCW.
    There are two parts to the prescribing equation – safety and efficacy. You focus on the safety and say at currently prescribed dosage it safe, therefore why not give it a go. But even at usual dose there is always a risk (do you think there is zero risk from paracetamol at usual dosage?). So then you need to look at the efficacy side – and it’s simply not good enough to say ‘let’s give it a go, at worst it makes no difference’. Because in fact if it does make no difference, then there is no need to prescribe.
    The in vitro studies that kicked this off showed a significantly higher dose required to be effective, and the meta analysis of studies to date continues to show low quality evidence of efficacy. Now that might change in the future, and shift the equation in favour of prescribing. But on the evidence available (and including this paper we are discussing), not yet.

  120. dover_beach says:

    There are two parts to the prescribing equation – safety and efficacy. You focus on the safety and say at currently prescribed dosage it safe, therefore why not give it a go. But even at usual dose there is always a risk (do you think there is zero risk from paracetamol at usual dosage?). So then you need to look at the efficacy side – and it’s simply not good enough to say ‘let’s give it a go, at worst it makes no difference’. Because in fact if it does make no difference, then there is no need to prescribe.

    What part of my previous responses didn’t reflect these two sides? And now your trying to exaggerate a very negligible risk of an adverse reaction. Give me a break. You have a stellar safety record, and you have reports by frontline doctors of the efficacy of ivermectin, you have OCTs that indicate the efficacy of ivermectin, and you have RCTs that do they same. In fact, the OCTs and RCTs are in reasonable harmony in their reports. And this is reflected in the Tess Lawrie’s meta-analysis. You are simply stonewalling. Why are frontline doctors being ignored?

  121. Matt says:

    I wouldn’t want to be fronting up to an AHPRA disciplinary hearing backed by the evidence currently on the table.

  122. Leon L says:

    When you can’t beat them with brains, you just baffle them with bull.

  123. 1735099 says:

    The evidence doesn’t support the Covid vaccine efficacy or safety so you must have been paid to unquestioningly jump on board with that.

    One measure of Covid vaccine efficacy ought to be a comparison of countries with low vaccination rates with like countries with high vaccination rates.
    Israel has one of the highest vaccination rates worldwide, Japan, one of the lowest.

    Check and compare the active cases and daily new cases for each.

  124. dover_beach says:

    I wouldn’t want to be fronting up to an AHPRA disciplinary hearing backed by the evidence currently on the table.

    LOL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.