Or maybe they’ve suckered the populace into helping their portfolios grow. It’s about money not political leanings IMO.
It’s like you summed up this article from 2014
3 Likes
The complete lack of self-awareness in this post is off-the-charts. We don’t know how effective ivermectin is. One side (the left) seems to have to denigrate the thought of it even being possible to be helpful in an off-label application to covid. The other side says “I don’t know if it works, but we know it’s not harmful and there’s some evidence that maybe it helps in some circumstances, so I’ll try it.” The left has been anti-science for most of the last decade, and the treatment of ivermectin just proves it.
3 Likes
Did you actually watch the video? Care to discuss the protease inhibitor angle on how Ivermectin, through peer reviewed studies, referenced in the video, offers many of the same benefits?
I’m fully vaccinated (and booster) but also take Zinc, Vit D, Ivermectin, etc.
Shame it gets political rather than science and evidence based.
I did. It seemed mostly reasonable to me, but I think the guy’s interpretation of one of the papers (the ilimaquinone one, around the 13:30 mark) was incorrect.
From the docking analysis, ivermectin showed the highest docking score with an average energy of −8.5 kcal mol−1 among all the compounds. Remdesivir showed the lowest binding energy and highest docking score of −9.9 kcal mol−1
I only skimmed the actual paper so far, but I think the guy got mixed up with the definition of binding energy here (to my understanding, “lower binding energy” in this context means “more stable”, i.e., remdesivir had better drug potential than ivermectin, opposite to the guy’s conclusion).
In his defence though, the original paper seems quite poorly written/edited, and it appears the authors’ language wasn’t consistent either - fairly surprising for an RSC publication. And the guy does point out that his background is in nursing/teaching rather than pharmacology/chemistry/biochemistry. I noticed a couple of other issues but that was the main one.
1 Like
I didn’t watch the video.
I just don’t understand why folks are still talking about this when there is very little evidence that it works despute all the hoopla while there are already multiple other very effective clinically proven drugs on the market.
3 Likes
It must be wonderful to know everything without ever needing to actually put in the gruntwork of reading and analyzing stuff.
2 Likes
I have read plenty of waffle about ivermectin. Still no sign of a successful clinical trial. And that’s all that matters. In the meantime there have been multiple highly effective and rigorously tested monoclonal ABs and small molecule drugs approved .
What’s the point…There is no point but to spin another conspiracy theory and pop another unproven miracle pill. The man is out to get you !
Except he isn’t . The man is making vaccines and pills to protect people at an incredible pace that will benefit us all immensely in the future . But it doesn’t suit the narrative of some people.
1 Like
That often cost 500 dollars vs 5 cents for ivermectin.
Must be nice to sit on the First World cloud…people call me reactionary but I consider people in the 3rd world rather than just suburban entitled folk.
3 Likes
Yeah but until you can show it works you are selling them snake oil. You have no clinical data to back it up. If it doesn’t work you are killing people who could have taken a vaccine jab or another drug in some cases.
At least the pharma companies make something that we know actually works. And vaccines are being provided to billions of poor people worldwide, eventually it will be the same for those approved small mol drugs.
2 Likes
The vaccine is free just about everywhere, and yet the people refusing to take it are the same morons taking horse dewormer. There is no rational justification for this.
4 Likes
Wait. There’s no justification that a Nobel prize winning medicine is inexpensive yet, a proven ineffective series of “vaccines” carries no cost? I don’t get where the injustice is.
3 Likes
Except they are effective…You don’t make up your own facts.
1 Like
It isn’t “free”. It costs about $30 per dose, IIRC, plus the costs of distributing it and administering. Somebody, somewhere pays for it. And there are many rational justifications for refusing it, the mundane ones being that most people don’t need it, most people won’t see any measurable reduction in their risk-of-death by taking it, and nobody knows whether it is (or will be) safe.
A large number of “morons” advocating “horse dewormer” are people with medical qualifications that far exceed your own, I suspect.
2 Likes
The safety criteria for the vaccines are very well characterised because they’ve been road tested on hundreds of millions of people, undergone the requisite preclinical and clinical safety trials and health authorities have tracked them in dozens of countries , better than potentially any vaccine out there.
Rare serious adverse effects were picked up quickly for both the mRNA vaccines and AZ.
Again you don’t make up your own facts.
1 Like
I’ve asked in various threads for evidence that the vaccine manufacturers are making any effort at all to conduct phase 4 trials (bearing in mind that they haven’t even finished phase 3 in many cases) and been met with silence. AFAIK virtually nobody is being tracked post-vax to ascertain if there are any problems.
We don’t even know how many people are dying as a result of vaccination, despite a massive warning signal in VAERS etc., and that’s because nobody is checking. Again, if you think this number is known, let’s see a link.
And I’m sure I don’t need to point out the impossibility of testing for long-term problems. Never in human history has a drug been given to billions of people with such limited testing.
When you add to that the fact that 90% of vaccine recipients are being jabbed without any medical justification, the risk/benefit for vaccination looks a bit crap.
In any case this debate really has nothing to do with whether vaccines work or not. Some people don’t want the vaccine. Some cannot (or should not) take the vaccine. Most people will never even get covid, and of those who do, that majority will suffer no lasting effects, so the effort required to vaccinate them is wasted. What on earth is so wrong, then, with giving people supervised access to ivermectin? There are multiple sources suggesting that it is at least of some value, and the only objections from governments are (a) “not enough evidence” that it works, so we’re going to ban it to ensure no evidence can be collected or (b) it looks like it might work, so we’re going to ban it to make sure everyone gets vaxed. Which makes me somewhat suspicious of their motives.
“There are plenty of other drugs” is just daft. Would you suggest that aspirin should be deleted from the pharmacopoeia because more modern painkillers have been invented?
As for making up facts, your only evidence supporting your “it doesn’t work” stance is “hahaha horse dewormer”. I remain unconvinced by this.
4 Likes
My only concern with widespread use of Ivermectin is that it would cause mutant strains of parasitic worms and then all hell would break loose.
We have different definitions of effective. My definition is that you wouldn’t get the virus after receiving a vaccine. I’m willing to be proven wrong. The bugger of it is, proof is going to take a while to come out.
Quite a lot of people are getting Covid after vaccinations. So, it’s not a vaccine per se, just one by the ever-changing definitions given by countries’ NIH or related departments.
3 Likes
Because they aren’t sterilising immunity vaccines.
Look it up.
1 Like