Effectiveness or otherwise of Ivermectin for treating anything/everything

No, that’s what happens when almost everybody is vaxxed versus a small number of unvaxxed and the vaccine is ineffective. If the vaccine had the effectiveness that you claim (70%+), we’d be observing roughly 25% vaxed and 75% unvaxed with 90% coverage. 80%/20% suggests a vaccine effectiveness down in the weeds (~10-15%) … and the HSA aren’t claiming anything better than that, at the last count.

You’re also overlooking the fact that thousands have been vaccinated for every one person who benefits: 99% were never going to get seriously ill in the first place. Drug treatment, in contrast, is directed at those who are sick, or who are likely to get sick.

In any case there is no either-or here. Listen to the Hill-Lawrie video. The fact is that they knew this worked way back in 2021, and they destroyed it. Why?

2 Likes

The ivermectin sub on Reddit was brigaded with actual horse pr0n for months and the admins didn’t stop it nor did the mods. I reported a lot of it and got reply after reply that they had checked the content and it was ok.

Seems conclusive…but probably won’t be the end of the matter :man_shrugging:

2 Likes

Crickets from the dewormer fans.

1 Like

Are you saying Ivermectin can get rid of insects as well as worms? :thinking:

3 Likes

That’s one study. Others have shown substantial benefits. And fluvoxamine has shown good results in every study as far as I know. I think repurposed drugs still have their place in this pandemic, but vaccines were an equally important part before Omicron. Now? It’s time to give up and let natural immunity do its work.

1 Like

Did you read the study? Have you understood what it measured and why it was a complete waste of time and money (or, less charitably, designed to fail)?

1 Like

Vaccination significantly reduces hospitalisation, not just death.
And look at Hong Kong to see what happens when the elderly don’t get vaccinated.
Last I checked the elderly weren’t ‘1 in a 1000’.

‘Drug treatment, in contrast, is directed at those who are sick, or who are likely to get sick.’

Drugs can also harm people.

1 Like

That makes no sense at all, and you know it doesn’t. Do you really need me to point out that HK is experiencing something that happened nowhere else on earth, and that a million doses of a drug with well-characterized and very rare side effects is going to result in considerably fewer harms than 10 billion doses of a novel, untested product that only ever made it to market by fraud and regulatory capture?

This vaccine fanaticism is getting completely ridiculous. Respiratory diseases are and always have been treatable, and the overwhelming majority either don’t get them or don’t have any lasting harms. Meanwhile, the death-cult built around Covid has produced harms orders of magnitude bigger than the potential of the disease itself. And you’re still supporting the people doing this. Why?

1 Like

Even if that was true, hello Italy, why should we not be concerned about what is happening there as broadly conditions there are similar to Taiwanese cities?

Your logic doesn’t stack up.

Anyway, vaccination rates are much higher here, which hopefully allows the govt to finally to grow a pair and open up.

1 Like

This has nothing to do with ivermectin. The point here is that Taiwan has completely ignored all the research on early treatment, and they still have a webpage on the CDC site stating that no such treatments exist (apart from - amusingly - remdesivir, which has been repeatedly shown to be both useless and dangerous).

This issue of early treatment has been so polluted by politics and outright fraud (on the part of the authorities, mostly) that any paper on the subject needs to be examined rather carefully.

1 Like

Horse dewormer makes it onto the NIH treatment guidelines for COVID 19. Who’d have thunk it?

4 Likes

It’s only “being evaluated” though. Funny how you can get a vaccine through approvals in a matter of a few weeks but it takes 2 years to even get around to considering stuff that doctors have been shouting about since day 1.

3 Likes

Wasn’t if evaluated and found to be ‘worthless’ with all the vitriol thrown at it for two years yet here it is on the investigation list again? Hmm

Horse dewormer , once you start you can’t stop.

1 Like

I think it’s now broadly acknowledged that ivermectin doesn’t have much of an effect on omicron, which despite being classified as a COVID-causing organism is really quite different, and causes a different syndrome. When people die “of omicron”, they are invariably dying of something else - see the CECCs famous spreadsheet for details - and just happen to test positive for the lurgy. The aim of these ongoing experiments seems to have no purpose except to say “see, we were right all along, it’s a good thing we took ivermectin off the shelves at the first opportunity and forbade doctors from even thinking about it”. It really doesn’t matter anymore: they got their required body count, recalcitrant doctors were duly identified and stripped of their licenses, and the game proceeds. In short, they won. They’ll probably keep winning until a majority of the population are angry enough to stop them winning.

Ivermectin was shown to have a therapeutic effect on the original cluster of 2020 strains, which were all potentially-nasty viruses. It’s very hard to show a therapeutic effect against something which very rarely causes serious symptoms in the first place, particularly since there are now confounding effects such as the damage caused by vaccination. Apparently, they didn’t bother separating out vaccinated and unvaccinated, perhaps because that would have made the trial even more hopelessly underpowered than it was to start with. It’s also hard to tell when they gave the ivermectin - those claiming success with it have been using it either as a prophylactic or at first onset of symptoms, and nobody has ever suggested that it’s of great value if administered when the patient is already in trouble. The hospitalisation rate in this cohort also seems insanely high - 6% - which suggests almost everyone enrolled was chronically ill in some way.

Just realised there’s a link there, so I’ll have a read through it.

EDIT:

  1. They have no hypothesis. “Does such and such …” is not the way you run an experiment, unless you’re on a fact-finding mission to cobble together a hypothesis. In fact the statements in “Question/Meaning/Importance/Objective” are … unconventional, at best. The claim for ivermectin is that it prevents progression of COVID to severe complications if used as an early intervention in high-risk populations. This should be the hypothesis being tested, and it requires a large enough population that such complications would be expected in significant numbers.

  2. Participant selection is reasonable. They appear to have excluded people who are already hospitalized. However since they are (presumably) more-or-less healthy, there is no reason to expect that any of these people are at high risk of complications, and therefore no reason to expect anything other than spontaneous recovery.

  3. Median dose (0.5mg/kg) is the dose recommended by the FLCCC and others, IIRC. It is not a “higher dose”, unless they’re simply pointing out that it’s higher than previous designed-to-fail experiments.

  4. 600 people in each arm (intervention/placebo) strikes me as a woefully small number, bearing in mind that only a handful of adverse outcomes from infection would be expected.

  5. Hospitalizations and deaths were uncommon, with 5 events (including 1 death not attributable to COVID-19 or treatment) in the ivermectin group and 2 events (no deaths) in the placebo group (eFigure 5A in Supplement 3). Statistical comparisons were uninformative due to the few events. Really? You don’t say. Whoever could have predicted that.

  6. Among a largely vaccinated outpatient population with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a targeted maximum dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days. Well, at least they acknowledged that this was a study on a largely-vaccinated population, which might not be relevant to unvaccinated people.

  7. Due to infrequent hospitalization, this study cannot assess the effect of the intervention on this clinical outcome. So what was the fecking point?

4 Likes

One must seriously question the unbalanced amount of money and time spent studying such things as various treatments, with a virus that has zero or mild symptoms for 99.5% of the population, and where the number of officially reported deaths due solely to Covid, have been grossly over-padded.

We all know that good diet, fresh air, healthy lifestyles and so on, are all the very best things one can do, in any event, and if one wants to avoid succumbing to Covid in any way. Smoking, alcohol abuse, overeating, sedentary lifestyles, etc. make one susceptible to Covid and any other virus. Locking people up in their homes, masking them 24/7, roping off parks, closing gyms, destroying social bonds that keep one emotionally and mentally happy, ordering fast food and alcohol to one’s home, and getting people addicted to fear mongering messages from the govt, probably isn’t gonna help.

If we’d been mandated to live healthy for the past three years, then I suspect ivermectin wouldn’t be needed. Three months of daily walking, especially for the morbidly obese, during the height of the pandemic might have meant ivermectin didn’t need to even be on the treatment table.

1 Like

Perhaps many things should just stop being mandated, perhaps common sense should be mandated.

As long as I’m not mandated to ingest dewormer daily I’m all good.

:wink: