Ag In Ok said:

---

Check with the author of the study and don't use tweets as a reference point. She pulled the study and recalculated. It works. Twitter over the scientist, really?

Of the studies mentioned are looking into ivermectin as a prophylactic. The Iranian website hung up on me but the others appear to rest the efficacy of ivermectin for treatment of covid positive patients across various cohorts. My point stands (i apologize if i didn't articulate it clearly) where are the studies for ivermectins use as a prophylactic? The success of this drug in that effort would run 100% counter to any vaccine.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/darkhorse-podcast-with-tess-lawrie-bret-weinstein/id1471581521?i=1000529189232

---

There's a 500 participant study currently recruiting in Mexico.

" Target cohort is mild to moderate symptomatic Covid-19 (Stage 2-3), high risk patients aged 50 years and above with comorbidity, who presented to hospitals within first 7 days of illness"

Don't think that is the one you are referring to - i would like to see it if you have the link.

Why would a treatment "run counter" to a preventative? Does Tamiflu make the flu vaccine unnecessary?

One constant. Your government will lie to you to gain power.

Ag In Ok said:

---

" Target cohort is mild to moderate symptomatic Covid-19 (Stage 2-3), high risk patients aged 50 years and above with comorbidity, who presented to hospitals within first 7 days of illness"

Don't think that is the one you are referring to - i would like to see it if you have the link.

---

I pulled the wrong one. This is the one I meant, and it's looking for 750 participants.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894721

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag In Ok said:

---

" Target cohort is mild to moderate symptomatic Covid-19 (Stage 2-3), high risk patients aged 50 years and above with comorbidity, who presented to hospitals within first 7 days of illness"

Don't think that is the one you are referring to - i would like to see it if you have the link.

---

I pulled the wrong one. This is the one I meant, and it's looking for 750 participants.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894721

---

No offense but where do you stand on this issue? You quote so many different people

No - but there is data showing ivermectin is a successful prophylactic for covid. Surprising i know, but the data are there.

swampstander said:

---

One constant. Your government will lie to you to gain power.S

---

Shut up slave. It's in your best interest.

Ah good. Argentina - certainly an interesting day point along this line of study. However i am stunned there aren't more, especially in the developing world. India for one likely has several, though i haven't found them.

PA24 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag In Ok said:

---

" Target cohort is mild to moderate symptomatic Covid-19 (Stage 2-3), high risk patients aged 50 years and above with comorbidity, who presented to hospitals within first 7 days of illness"

Don't think that is the one you are referring to - i would like to see it if you have the link.

---

I pulled the wrong one. This is the one I meant, and it's looking for 750 participants.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894721

---

No offense but where do you stand on this issue? You quote so many different people

---

My stance right now is that there's nothing that says ivermectin definitely works, because there hasn't been any large scale studies that show it works as either a treatment or a preventative. At best, we have that it might work. But lots of studies show that something might work, and when it gets into larger trials that go through the whole process, the data falls apart.
It would be great if something that is cheap and widely available works. But we aren't there yet to say one way or the other.

What do you disagree with in Dr Lowrys assessment?

I assume you're referring to Dr. Tess Lawrie, a founding member of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group? That organization wouldn't have any kind of bias, now would they?

jimscott85 said:

---

Who here really believes this was "leaked"?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/war-changed-internal-cdc-document-235139094.html

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - The delta variant of the coronavirus appears to cause more severe illness than earlier variants and spreads as easily as chickenpox, according to an internal federal health document that argues officials must "acknowledge the war has changed."

The document is an internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention slide presentation, shared within the CDC and obtained by The Washington Post. It captures the struggle of the nation's top public health agency to persuade the public to embrace vaccination and prevention measures, including mask-wearing, as cases surge across the United States and new research suggests vaccinated people can spread the virus.

---

One strategy is to "leak internal communications" to create the perception that everything is transparent.

---

This has been known for a long time - months really. If you are arguing the CDC was slow to update their guidance, then agreed.

HTownAg98 said:

---

I assume you're referring to Dr. Tess Lawrie, a founding member of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group? That organization wouldn't have any kind of bias, now would they?

---

The group started after several researches noticed studies that indicated ivermectin may be a solution. Dr Kory's work was instrumental in setting her down this path. It's not as if (think Merck here) they started with a solution then backed into its use.

And the data?

The studies that have shown there might be something there is just that: there might be something there. Saying "it works" when there hasn't been a large study to say one way or the other is reckless.