The suppression of therapeutics in covid is a national disgrace. Follow the money to the vaccine companies.

Oak Tree said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

You do hate Trump, your post are dramatic towards Trump man. Also, Trump thought the same when he appointed them.

Your criticism needs to be directed at the right people to have the best impact. Trump wasn't the problem. Understand for the 1000th time?

---

Criticism isn't hate....having higher expectations for ANY Republican would have the best impact.

---

You hate Trump, what you say about him is beyond criticism. Worry more about the republicans than Trump.

I thought Trump was a Republican. How many times did you defended W Bush, McCain and Romney before you figured out they were Rinos? Blind partisanship needs to stop.

https://rumble.com/vbp4fp-what-if-i-told-you-there-was-a-nobel-winning-medicine-for-covid-that-is-not.html

Oak Tree said:

---

I thought Trump was a Republican. How many times did you defended W Bush, McCain and Romney before you figured out they were Rinos? Blind partisanship needs to stop.

---

Didn't vote for any of the others but W the first time. Trump was elected by republicans, to bad the other people republicans voted for that could have helped didn't work with him. We'd be a lot better off if they had.

ShaggySLC said:

---

Oak Tree said:

---

I thought Trump was a Republican. How many times did you defended W Bush, McCain and Romney before you figured out they were Rinos? Blind partisanship needs to stop.

---

Didn't vote for any of the others but W the first time. Trump was elected by republicans, to bad the other people republicans voted for that could have helped didn't work with him. We'd be a lot better off if they had.

---

Yes sir.

robdobyns said:

---

The suppression of therapeutics in covid is a national disgrace. Follow the money to the vaccine companies.

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

Remember how in the early 2000's, every few months a new "computer virus" would go around, people would get a little perturbed, and within a few days McAfee would have the "cure?"

COVID feels like that

---

To be fair, while the similarities can be somewhat apt... in the 90s and 2000s we were learning about viruses on computers as they were fairly new, AV companies were seeing what the virus did and then writing signatures to stop the exploits.

Nowadays, most AV is just stopping the exploits from executing to begin with since there really aren't "new" exploit techniques.

Sorry. Off my nerd soapbox.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

flashplayer said:

---

Yet I had to practically beg my PCP to give it to me when I got to the point of nearing hospitalization.

Medical professionals are the biggest frauds on the planet. I say that as someone who works with them daily.

---

99% of doctors prescribe the drugs that are approved by their practice group at the rate negotiated with the insurance companies.

Its a massive shell game of kickbacks and rebates.

---

PCP's don't really have that to my knowledge.

I think the issue is standard of care and liability.

If a doctor does something that does not follow the general standard of care they are liable and could lose their license

The issue, as I see it, is lawyers, bureaucracy and time.

The bureaucracy is preventing good research and time has not been very long to go against it

My rep in India came down with the latest strand a few weeks ago, his whole family lives in the same house and all got it. No hospital beds or anything left for his 89 year old gma.

All got ivermectin, and he said all of them recovered without any major issues.

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

Because its a generic, decades old drug that can't bring in massive profits. If Ivermectin is proven to be effective and safe then they cant issue the EUA for the fauci juices.

When I caught the Covid for Christmas, my local good ole boy doctor prescribed me Ivermectin (along with a host of vitamins some of which I had already been taking) I was A okay in 2 days. Same story for my dad who is 67 overweight and has type 2 diabetes. He was fine in short order. It could be anecdotal but we all received Ivermectin quickly.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

You are a step closer to awakening. But I'm not sure you are ready.

Quote:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:
So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

The question I have is, "What would have been the downside in giving Ivermectin, which has been safely used in humans for 30 years, if it could have possibly prevented 1%; 10%; 20% (or more) deaths?".

Assuming arguendo that the Covid deaths are at 600,000+ for the U.S. and 3,860,000+ for the world and that Ivermectin would have had a 1%; 10%; 20% reduction in mortality, the following number of lives would have been saved for the U.S. and world, respectively:

• 6,000+ 38,600+
• 60,000+ 386,000+
• 120,000+ 772,000+

The potential to save this staggering number of lives using a drug that has been safely used for 30 years seems worth the risk.....

I think we just saw Logan's Run with a bunch of extra steps to create plausible deniability.

Throughout history, and across all kinds of cultures, humans have found creative ways to exterminate each other.

What we just saw play out with covid is horrifying when you step back and look at it.

I think we are willfully blind to what actually happened because the truth is too horrifying to consider for most people.

Instead of treating this as a bioweapons attack, our leaders decided to lean into it for political gain.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

Well big tech censored every post relating to treatments in favor of pushing a vaccine.

Pookers said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

Because its a generic, decades old drug that can't bring in massive profits. If Ivermectin is proven to be effective and safe then they cant issue the EUA for the fauci juices.

---

Pookers said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

Because its a generic, decades old drug that can't bring in massive profits. If Ivermectin is proven to be effective and safe then they cant issue the EUA for the fauci juices.

---

THIS

had to suppress all evidence of ivermectin working in order to justify the Fauci vaccine and getting it emergency use authorization and raking in trillions on it

No one can deny that off the shelf treatments existed at the time of the first cases in 2019.

Those treatments were suppressed.

100% fact.

We were talking about ivermectin and hydrox on here way way back.

What really gets me about all this?

The hysteria surrounding ventilators.

There was a couple months where we heard about 'ventilators' non-stop.

We were made to believe that ventilators were the key to surviving this thing and there were not enough to go around.

That seems to me like it was a huge lie.

Turns out that ventilators were killing more people than they were helping.

Once you go on a ventilator your odds are very low.

Point is that a lot of people died after going on a ventilators unnecessarily.

We had ivermectin and hydroxycloriquine the whole time.

At least some the people that died of covid, died because of politics.

Theres no way around that fact.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

HCQ was lied about from the beginning by the left and the media and Fauci. They banned its use in many states. Now it's no longer banned. I wonder why?

Ivermectin has been known for a LONG time to be effective against covid- at least 9 months, probably over a year now. Where are all the news stories about Ivermectin on all the msm channels? Has CNN ever said the word Ivermectin? I doubt it. They don't care about saving lives.

This "pandemic" has been an agenda-driven reality show from day 1, perpetuated by liars on the left. It continues now with pushing of an unneeded vaccine to enrich people like Fauci and other political cronies.

And it was way too easy.

This is already superior to any data that ever emerged for HCQ. The data for ivermectin has been mixed in general but this shifts things in a more promising direction. I remain skeptical for two reasons, one being that drugs for infectious diseases with such mixed data (even early data) tend to ultimately not be paticularly effect and two, the concentrations needed to inhibit virus in vitro are so high that it can never be naturally achieved in a human so there would have to be other processes occurring in vivo for it to truly be effective.

I've been sifting through the data that went into this meta-analysis, and thus far my one criticism is much of the individual data that went into this analysis was fairly poor and appears a bit cherry picked. For reasons that are unclear they didnt include some of the "bigger" studies that didnt show any benefit even in early disease. But overall, it's something that should prompt large randomized controlled trials IMO. We'll need really large numbers in such trials to assess mortality given the benefit (if its there) appears to be only really be seen in early disease and COVID19 has an overall low mortality. Outpatient treatment of low mortality illnesses makes it tough to detect benefit. Assessing morbidity benefit should theoretically be easier.

Pookers said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

Because its a generic, decades old drug that can't bring in massive profits. If Ivermectin is proven to be effective and safe then they cant issue the EUA for the fauci juices.

---

This doesn't hold up when you consider the staple and most widely used drugs in COVID19 have been steroids, which are generic, dirt cheap and don't make anyone any money. We used them because the evidence for benefit in certain COVID patients was overwhelming and based on high quality, well constructed studies. It also had a highly plausible mechanism of action.

The reason for the skepticism regarding ivermectin has largely been two fold

1: It lacks an obvious in vivo mechanism for treatment of COVID19, and the in vitro mechanisms observed occur at such high concentrations that they could never be achieved in the body. In the absence of a clearly plausible mechanism, people are going to be skeptical and often unwilling to devote time, money and energy to studying it.

2: In light of the above, the data that was collected was very much mixed. Generally you'd need something impressive at least on a small scale to change the thinking related to the first point. The majority of ivermectin studies that showed benefit, much like we saw with HCQ, were poorly designed and pretty clearly intended to arrive at a desired outcome. The difference is people still conducted large, well designed HCQ studies and it failed. This is a large multi-faceted study that while flawed is already better than anything that was ever produced with respect to HCQ.

It will be interesting to see where this goes from here though. I will say that, while nobody is going to be getting rich off ivermectin directly, if someone or some group is able to show this is anywhere near as effective as the outspoken proponents claim they will benefit greatly. That discovery would make the career of whoever discovers it. So there is incentive.

https://c19ivermectin.com/

31 randomized control trials

https://ivmmeta.com/

81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 28 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Pookers said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

Because its a generic, decades old drug that can't bring in massive profits. If Ivermectin is proven to be effective and safe then they cant issue the EUA for the fauci juices.

---

This doesn't hold up when you consider the staple and most widely used drugs in COVID19 have been steroids, which are generic, dirt cheap and don't make anyone any money. We used them because the evidence for benefit in certain COVID patients was overwhelming and based on high quality, well constructed studies. It also had a highly plausible mechanism of action.

The reason for the skepticism regarding ivermectin has largely been two fold

1: It lacks an obvious in vivo mechanism for treatment of COVID19, and the in vitro mechanisms observed occur at such high concentrations that they could never be achieved in the body. In the absence of a clearly plausible mechanism, people are going to be skeptical and often unwilling to devote time, money and energy to studying it.

2: In light of the above, the data that was collected was very much mixed. Generally you'd need something impressive at least on a small scale to change the thinking related to the first point. The majority of ivermectin studies that showed benefit, much like we saw with HCQ, were poorly designed and pretty clearly intended to arrive at a desired outcome. The difference is people still conducted large, well designed HCQ studies and it failed. This is a large multi-faceted study that while flawed is already better than anything that was ever produced with respect to HCQ.

It will be interesting to see where this goes from here though. I will say that, while nobody is going to be getting rich off ivermectin directly, if someone or some group is able to show this is anywhere near as effective as the outspoken proponents claim they will benefit greatly. That discovery would make the career of whoever discovers it. So there is incentive.

---

I don't understand you. It's like you're purposely trying to find reasons not to treat people. No one's career is going to be made. There are already plenty of doctors out there using Ivermectin. Is actually treating patients not enough?

01agtx said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Pookers said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

So when people here post about hydroxychloroquine, it's all anecdotal and usually just some made up fake news. It's not a real clinical study.

This is different. This does show promise and very good early clinical results.

I'd be curious to know why this wasn't considered more.

---

Because its a generic, decades old drug that can't bring in massive profits. If Ivermectin is proven to be effective and safe then they cant issue the EUA for the fauci juices.

---

This doesn't hold up when you consider the staple and most widely used drugs in COVID19 have been steroids, which are generic, dirt cheap and don't make anyone any money. We used them because the evidence for benefit in certain COVID patients was overwhelming and based on high quality, well constructed studies. It also had a highly plausible mechanism of action.

The reason for the skepticism regarding ivermectin has largely been two fold

1: It lacks an obvious in vivo mechanism for treatment of COVID19, and the in vitro mechanisms observed occur at such high concentrations that they could never be achieved in the body. In the absence of a clearly plausible mechanism, people are going to be skeptical and often unwilling to devote time, money and energy to studying it.

2: In light of the above, the data that was collected was very much mixed. Generally you'd need something impressive at least on a small scale to change the thinking related to the first point. The majority of ivermectin studies that showed benefit, much like we saw with HCQ, were poorly designed and pretty clearly intended to arrive at a desired outcome. The difference is people still conducted large, well designed HCQ studies and it failed. This is a large multi-faceted study that while flawed is already better than anything that was ever produced with respect to HCQ.

It will be interesting to see where this goes from here though. I will say that, while nobody is going to be getting rich off ivermectin directly, if someone or some group is able to show this is anywhere near as effective as the outspoken proponents claim they will benefit greatly. That discovery would make the career of whoever discovers it. So there is incentive.

---

I don't understand you. It's like you're purposely trying to find reasons not to treat people. No one's career is going to be made. There are already plenty of doctors out there using Ivermectin. Is actually treating patients not enough?

---

You don't understand why doctors have a keen interest in knowing whether a given medicine actually offers benefit in a given condition?

And for anyone interested in a critical view of this article, and of the ivermectin data in general, I offer this:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/

I personally don't understand why, if it is harmless and has been used for 30+ years, that you have the tone of refusing to prescribe it and HCQ because of the off chance it may not "heal" or "treat" people.

Do you need a perfect study in order to tell people to try it? Is it worth the wait to have all those people suffer? Is steroids the only answer here, and if so, what is the harm in prescribing the others?

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

I personally don't understand why, if it is harmless and has been used for 30+ years, that you have the tone of refusing to prescribe it and HCQ because of the off chance it may not "heal" or "treat" people.

---

No drug is harmless. Ivermectin is about as safe as antimicrobials get, but taking it certainly confers more risk than not taking it. And I personally have no real issue with any physician who wants to give a patient ivermectin. I do believe it's misleading to tell that patient this is a miracle cure, as many are touting, because the evidence doesn't support that claim.

But ultimately, at some point, you do want to know whether or not what you're doing for a given condition works no matter how "harmless" the treatment is. This is true for many reasons, the least of which is not that settling on something that doesn't work inhibits progression towards finding something that does.

Quote:

---

Do you need a perfect study in order to tell people to try it?

---

No study is perfect, and definitive evidence always constitutes a body of studies

Quote:

---

Is it worth the wait to have all those people suffer?

---

This isn't really a meaningful question, because nobody has shown people are suffering because they aren't getting ivermectin.

Quote:

---

Is steroids the only answer here, and if so, what is the harm in prescribing the others?

---

Steroids are the only thing to date that is known to clearly help keep moderate to severely ill patients requiring oxygen alive, but they actually appear to increase morality in those not requiring oxygen. So no it isn't a perfect medication for COVID19. It does refute the claim that cheap drugs are being suppressed and ignored however.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

I personally don't understand why, if it is harmless and has been used for 30+ years, that you have the tone of refusing to prescribe it and HCQ because of the off chance it may not "heal" or "treat" people.

---

No drug is harmless. Ivermectin is about as safe as antimicrobials get, but taking it certainly confers more risk than not taking it. And I personally have no real issue with any physician who wants to give a patient ivermectin. I do believe it's misleading to tell that patient this is a miracle cure, as many are touting, because the evidence doesn't support that claim.

But ultimately, at some point, you do want to know whether or not what you're doing for a given condition works no matter how "harmless" the treatment is. This is true for many reasons, the least of which is not that settling on something that doesn't work inhibits progression towards finding something that does.

Quote:

---

Do you need a perfect study in order to tell people to try it?

---

No study is perfect, and definitive evidence always constitutes a body of studies

Quote:

---

Is it worth the wait to have all those people suffer?

---

This isn't really a meaningful question, because nobody has shown people are suffering because they aren't getting ivermectin.

Quote:

---

Is steroids the only answer here, and if so, what is the harm in prescribing the others?

---

Steroids are the only thing to date that is known to clearly help keep moderate to severely ill patients requiring oxygen alive, but they actually appear to increase morality in those not requiring oxygen. So no it isn't a perfect medication for COVID19. It does refute the claim that cheap drugs are being suppressed and ignored however.

---

You have some nerve coming on here lecturing people about COVID, quack.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

And for anyone interested in a critical view of this article, and of the ivermectin data in general, I offer this:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/

---

The author repeatedly claimed people are calling ivermectin a "miracle drug". No one here, I have seen, has called it a miracle drug. Throughout the article you cite the author stated it is possible it has some effect but the studies he referenced showed no peer reviewed significant results and he out of hand dismissed meta data analysis.

Ivermectin may have therapeutic effect as sown in he meta data analysis, it has a stellar safety record and is inexpensive. For those people who are suspicious of the vaccines and especially in those poor countries that cannot afford expensive vaccines or expensive therapeutics. like monoclonal antibody treatment, you are intentionally closin options that may work however less effective.

richardag said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

And for anyone interested in a critical view of this article, and of the ivermectin data in general, I offer this:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/

---

The author repeatedly claimed people are calling ivermectin a "miracle drug". No one here, I have seen, has called it a miracle drug. Throughout the article you cite the author stated it is possible it has some effect but the studies he referenced showed no peer reviewed significant results and he out of hand dismissed meta data analysis.

Ivermectin may have therapeutic effect as sown in he meta data analysis, it has a stellar safety record and is inexpensive. For those people who are suspicious of the vaccines and especially in those poor countries that cannot afford expensive vaccines or expensive therapeutics. like monoclonal antibody treatment, you are intentionally closin options that may work however less effective.

---

I don't disagree with this. It is possible it has some benefit (I've said this repeatedly over the last year) and I don't have any issue giving it especially in resource limited areas. I'm just pointing out this paper has a lot of problems but still rises above anything produced for HCQ.

I have an Aggie friend who is a nurse practitioner. I told her my friend and his wife had covid (maybe 8 months ago). She was already on a prophylactic ivermectin regimen and gave me a covid positive regimen for my buddy and his wife. Their doctors just sent them home to quarantine. I tried to get him to do ivermectin. He didn't. They got over covid, but it was a week long ordeal with some shortness of breath issues for the wife.

What would it have hurt to use ivermectin early when they were diagnosed? It's a widely used safe drug that MANY medical professionals testify that it works against covid.

The solution for covid positive people should not be "go home until you get better or can't breathe, then we'll put you on a ventilator and you'll probably die". But that's the incredible solution that most medical professionals gave... It's shameful and barbaric, and it was NOT based on science or logic or medicine.