Go to push health. You click that you want ivermectin and they connect you with a doctor that prescribes ivermectin. An hour later I got a call from a doctor who asked me a few questions. An hour after that my prescription was ready to be picked up at cvs. No insurance needed for the doctors visit either. It was like $65 for the visit.

Amazon apple flavored ....seriously that is what worked for us.

what prevents covid?

ORAggieFan said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

what prevents covid?

---

Do you enjoy have so little intelligence and bragging about it?

---

if you are thinking a vaccine PREVENTS covid...you are truly dumb and have no idea how vaccines work

Aggie95 said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

Aggie95 said:

---

what prevents covid?

---

Do you enjoy have so little intelligence and bragging about it?

---

if you are thinking a vaccine PREVENTS covid...you are truly dumb and have no idea how vaccines work

---

Does it prevent it in 100% of cases? No. Does it make it much less likely to get it and if one does way less severe? Yes. The OP has been sick 8 days and it's bad enough to ask for an alternative for her husband. 99.5% of current Covid US deaths are unvaccinated. To pretend the vaccine is not effective at exactly what it's advertised to do is political theater.

but you said prevent....not makes it less severe

Aggie95 said:

---

but you said prevent....not makes it less severe

---

I said prevent what?

Aggie95 said:

---

but you said prevent....not makes it less severe

---

you made the assumption

The vaccines do prevent covid, with any reasonable definition of that word.

The Pfizer vaccine, for example, was 95% effective vs placebo at preventing covid. Here is how they defined having it:

Quote:

---

Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplificationbased testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test).

---

If you wanted to be a real stickler you could say it prevents clinical or symptomatic covid.

I read a laymen's translation of a pretty scientific analysis of Ivermectin. It was from Derek Lowe. Original article in authentic scientific gibberish here.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/11/whats-up-with-ivermectin

Bloomberg article here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-07-14/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-seeking-the-elusive-covid-cure

Quote:

---

Here Comes Another Dubious Covid Cure
Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine.
By
Faye Flam
July 14, 2021, 5:30 AM CDT



Better drugs to treat Covid-19 look more appealing than ever. The hope that vaccines would send the virus into retreat with herd immunity is fading as the more transmissible delta variant sweeps across the globe, cases rise, and the vaccine-hesitant millions dig in.

Beyond that, it's unnerving to learn of even extremely rare cases where young, healthy people suffer and die from conditions possibly tied to vaccines: blood clots, heart inflammation and, most recently, the paralyzing disease known as Guillain-Barre syndrome.

Such rare but awful outcomes would seem more tolerable in a drug that cured the sick, and now that clinical studies have dampened enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine, touted early in the pandemic by President Donald Trump, some scientists are pointing to promising studies of an anti-parasitic medicine called Ivermectin. Both drugs held particular appeal because they had already passed safety screening and were being used to combat other human diseases.

And, last week, it looked like some welcome good news had come from a review article concluding that Ivermectin can prevent severe disease and save lives.

That study is getting attention in libertarian-leaning and conservative media. A focus on treating the sick appeals more to the personal-responsibility ethic embraced by conservatives, while those on the left are more comfortable with the collectivist ethic of accepting the small risk and discomfort associated with vaccines for the good of society.

But there's a problem. Experts disagree on the conclusions to be drawn from clinical studies of Ivermectin, and the laboratory experiments that propelled the drug into trials in the first place suggest that it only fights the virus effectively at doses likely to be toxic.

As with hydroxychloroquine, high hopes for Ivermectin owe more to politics than to science.
Effective treatments for viral diseases are even rarer than effective vaccines, according to the medicinal chemist Derek Lowe, who has worked for multiple pharmaceutical companies and writes a drug development blog for Science Magazine called "In the Pipeline."

A recently discovered cure for hepatitis C is a rare exception, along with the drug cocktail that prevents HIV infections from progressing to AIDS. There are drugs that can control but not cure herpes. And that's the extent of Lowe's list of highly effective antiviral drugs.

Most drugs that kill a foreign invader are also likely to be somewhat toxic so it's tricky to find mechanisms that destroy them and spare us. It's usually easier to kill parasites and bacteria than viruses, Lowe said, because the larger pathogens have more working parts that might be more vulnerable to chemical disruption than human cells.

Vaccines, by contrast, tend to prevent viral disease with fewer side effects because they work not by toxicity but by stimulating the immune system. And the animal immune system has had hundreds of thousands of years to get good at killing invaders.

Ivermectin was chosen for clinical testing for legitimate reasons. It's true, as some detractors have said, that it's used as a deworming medication for sheep and other farm animals. But it's also one of the few miracle drugs for humans, having saved hundreds of thousands of people from going blind with onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness, or suffering from the limb-swelling disease elephantiasis. The drug's discoverers won a Nobel Prize in 2015.

One of the co-inventors, William Campbell, then at Merck & Co., developed a new technique for screening large numbers of compounds to find ones that might kill parasites eventually leading to a positive signal from a compound isolated from soil bacteria found near a golf course in Japan.

Large-scale screening techniques allowed scientists to discover that the drug also fought SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. It's always appealing to start with a drug that's already in use, Lowe said, because safety data has already been gathered.

Ivermectin doesn't kill parasites; it cures parasitic diseases by disrupting the parasites' reproduction. "In treating parasites, one of the things that makes Ivermectin so wonderful is that it can be given at extremely low doses, so it's very safe and well tolerated," Lowe said.

That doesn't appear to be the case in test-tube studies against viruses. There, the drug looks like it works only at a high enough dose to trigger a mechanism called phospholipidosis a process Lowe compared to killing things with detergent. That prevents viruses getting into cells, but it's also extremely toxic to people.

So what would explain the positive conclusions of the new meta-analysis, published in the American Journal of Therapeutics? In the numerous clinical studies analyzed, it was given in low enough doses not to kill people. Lowe said he is skeptical because the strongest, best-run studies showed nothing and only the weakest ones seemed to show any effect. Ivermectin's owner, Merck, has delivered a skeptical assessment of its usefulness against Covid-19 similar to Lowe's.
Several larger, more definitive trials are underway, so there's still a chance it will work. And that's worth doing, as long as people don't bank too much hope on it.

Anecdotes of Ivermectin Covid miracles abound for the same reason that people believe in cures for the common cold: most people get better on their own and then attribute their recovery to a drug. Even with the much more dangerous Covid-19, people tend to overestimate their odds of dying and imagine that anything they took must be responsible for their recovery. But what actually saved them was the human immune system which in most cases works and, with more widespread vaccination, will work even better.
[url=https://sponsored.bloomberg.com/article/gamuda/building-an-iot-enabled-sustainable-smart-city-in-southeast-asia][/url]

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

I read a laymen's translation of a pretty scientific analysis of Ivermectin. It was from Derek Lowe. Original article in authentic scientific gibberish here.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/11/whats-up-with-ivermectin

Bloomberg article here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-07-14/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-seeking-the-elusive-covid-cure

Quote:

---

Here Comes Another Dubious Covid Cure
Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine.
By
Faye Flam
July 14, 2021, 5:30 AM CDT



Better drugs to treat Covid-19 look more appealing than ever. The hope that vaccines would send the virus into retreat with herd immunity is fading as the more transmissible delta variant sweeps across the globe, cases rise, and the vaccine-hesitant millions dig in.

Beyond that, it's unnerving to learn of even extremely rare cases where young, healthy people suffer and die from conditions possibly tied to vaccines: blood clots, heart inflammation and, most recently, the paralyzing disease known as Guillain-Barre syndrome.

Such rare but awful outcomes would seem more tolerable in a drug that cured the sick, and now that clinical studies have dampened enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine, touted early in the pandemic by President Donald Trump, some scientists are pointing to promising studies of an anti-parasitic medicine called Ivermectin. Both drugs held particular appeal because they had already passed safety screening and were being used to combat other human diseases.

And, last week, it looked like some welcome good news had come from a review article concluding that Ivermectin can prevent severe disease and save lives.

That study is getting attention in libertarian-leaning and conservative media. A focus on treating the sick appeals more to the personal-responsibility ethic embraced by conservatives, while those on the left are more comfortable with the collectivist ethic of accepting the small risk and discomfort associated with vaccines for the good of society.

But there's a problem. Experts disagree on the conclusions to be drawn from clinical studies of Ivermectin, and the laboratory experiments that propelled the drug into trials in the first place suggest that it only fights the virus effectively at doses likely to be toxic.

As with hydroxychloroquine, high hopes for Ivermectin owe more to politics than to science.
Effective treatments for viral diseases are even rarer than effective vaccines, according to the medicinal chemist Derek Lowe, who has worked for multiple pharmaceutical companies and writes a drug development blog for Science Magazine called "In the Pipeline."

A recently discovered cure for hepatitis C is a rare exception, along with the drug cocktail that prevents HIV infections from progressing to AIDS. There are drugs that can control but not cure herpes. And that's the extent of Lowe's list of highly effective antiviral drugs.

Most drugs that kill a foreign invader are also likely to be somewhat toxic so it's tricky to find mechanisms that destroy them and spare us. It's usually easier to kill parasites and bacteria than viruses, Lowe said, because the larger pathogens have more working parts that might be more vulnerable to chemical disruption than human cells.

Vaccines, by contrast, tend to prevent viral disease with fewer side effects because they work not by toxicity but by stimulating the immune system. And the animal immune system has had hundreds of thousands of years to get good at killing invaders.

Ivermectin was chosen for clinical testing for legitimate reasons. It's true, as some detractors have said, that it's used as a deworming medication for sheep and other farm animals. But it's also one of the few miracle drugs for humans, having saved hundreds of thousands of people from going blind with onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness, or suffering from the limb-swelling disease elephantiasis. The drug's discoverers won a Nobel Prize in 2015.

One of the co-inventors, William Campbell, then at Merck & Co., developed a new technique for screening large numbers of compounds to find ones that might kill parasites eventually leading to a positive signal from a compound isolated from soil bacteria found near a golf course in Japan.

Large-scale screening techniques allowed scientists to discover that the drug also fought SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. It's always appealing to start with a drug that's already in use, Lowe said, because safety data has already been gathered.

Ivermectin doesn't kill parasites; it cures parasitic diseases by disrupting the parasites' reproduction. "In treating parasites, one of the things that makes Ivermectin so wonderful is that it can be given at extremely low doses, so it's very safe and well tolerated," Lowe said.

That doesn't appear to be the case in test-tube studies against viruses. There, the drug looks like it works only at a high enough dose to trigger a mechanism called phospholipidosis a process Lowe compared to killing things with detergent. That prevents viruses getting into cells, but it's also extremely toxic to people.

So what would explain the positive conclusions of the new meta-analysis, published in the American Journal of Therapeutics? In the numerous clinical studies analyzed, it was given in low enough doses not to kill people. Lowe said he is skeptical because the strongest, best-run studies showed nothing and only the weakest ones seemed to show any effect. Ivermectin's owner, Merck, has delivered a skeptical assessment of its usefulness against Covid-19 similar to Lowe's.
Several larger, more definitive trials are underway, so there's still a chance it will work. And that's worth doing, as long as people don't bank too much hope on it.

Anecdotes of Ivermectin Covid miracles abound for the same reason that people believe in cures for the common cold: most people get better on their own and then attribute their recovery to a drug. Even with the much more dangerous Covid-19, people tend to overestimate their odds of dying and imagine that anything they took must be responsible for their recovery. But what actually saved them was the human immune system which in most cases works and, with more widespread vaccination, will work even better.
[url=https://sponsored.bloomberg.com/article/gamuda/building-an-iot-enabled-sustainable-smart-city-in-southeast-asia][/url]

---

---

Myself and many call BS......

99+% of current COVID hospitalizations are non-vaxxed. That seems pretty conclusive. Get the ******* shot already people.

Data is mixed for ivermectin at best

It can hurt. Just because side effects are known and generally no issue doesn't mean there are none. And if it truly doesn't help, any side effect is harm with no benefit. This is vastly amplified if you're talking about some kind of mass distribution campaign, which is what ivermectin advocates seem to want.

Ag Natural said:

---

99+% of current COVID hospitalizations are non-vaxxed. That seems pretty conclusive. Get the ******* shot already people.

---

What is the current percentage of those who catch Covid requiring hospitalization?

Ive shared my Covid Long Haul and Ivermectin story before on here, but for those who havent read it, here it is.

I've had Covid (and vaccine) Long Haul symptoms for more than 13 months now: feverish feeling, chills, joint pain, fatigue, brain fog, bad ear aches, warm feeling etc. Ive taken every drug known to man to treat long term covid and not much has helped except for Ivermectin. Ive taken Ivermectin on two separate occasions while experiencing pretty bad covid symptons, and both times I instantly felt better after taking the ivermectin. I got my energy back. Unfortunately, the symptoms returned after I stopped taking it.

Something Ive been trying out lately is Famotidine. I read that it has helped with the covid long haulers, also Trump took it as part of his covid cocktail. Ive been taking 40mg for a week and a half and I havent had any symptoms since then. One day I experienced symptoms for an hour or so but they went away. Not sure if the Famotidine is the reason why Im feeling better or its just the natural cycle of my symptoms, but hey if it works, I will continue taking it lol!

Quote:

---

Myself and many call BS......

---

Why? This always intrigues me. You have laid out in front of you a long list of well thought out analytical points by a trained, experienced, and recognized subject matter expert. He explains why it won't work based on ongoing real world experience and even shows how actual lab testing of the concept doesn't seem to work and yet you choose to ignore that and embrace a different narrative. Why is that?

If there is some sort of equally rigorous and qualified contra-argument, that would be interesting.

JFrench said:

---

Ag Natural said:

---

99+% of current COVID hospitalizations are non-vaxxed. That seems pretty conclusive. Get the ******* shot already people.

---

What is the current percentage of those who catch Covid requiring hospitalization?

---

Here in Pennsylvania, it's consistently been between 7.5-9%. I've tracked those numbers off of raw data, and it surprised me that it is so high.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Myself and many call BS......

---

Why? This always intrigues me. You have laid out in front of you a long list of well thought out analytical points by a trained, experienced, and recognized subject matter expert. He explains why it won't work based on ongoing real world experience and even shows how actual lab testing of the concept doesn't seem to work and yet you choose to ignore that and embrace a different narrative. Why is that?

If there is some sort of equally rigorous and qualified contra-argument, that would be interesting.

---

traxter said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Myself and many call BS......

---

Why? This always intrigues me. You have laid out in front of you a long list of well thought out analytical points by a trained, experienced, and recognized subject matter expert. He explains why it won't work based on ongoing real world experience and even shows how actual lab testing of the concept doesn't seem to work and yet you choose to ignore that and embrace a different narrative. Why is that?

If there is some sort of equally rigorous and qualified contra-argument, that would be interesting.

---

---

What a stupid post. There are plenty of doctors with just as much education and experience whose research and experience takes them to a different result. Stop making it sound like it is the entire scientific community on one side of this debate and a bunch of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing guys on message boards taking the other side.

I haven't read through this thread but I am going to assume the majority of the responses are addressing the OP's question.

traxter said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Myself and many call BS......

---

Why? This always intrigues me. You have laid out in front of you a long list of well thought out analytical points by a trained, experienced, and recognized subject matter expert. He explains why it won't work based on ongoing real world experience and even shows how actual lab testing of the concept doesn't seem to work and yet you choose to ignore that and embrace a different narrative. Why is that?

If there is some sort of equally rigorous and qualified contra-argument, that would be interesting.

---

---

I just want to know where you can get a Ph.D. in 6 years. Not in the US, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

What a stupid post. There are plenty of doctors with just as much education and experience whose research and experience takes them to a different result. Stop making it sound like it is the entire scientific community on one side of this debate and a bunch of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing guys on message boards taking the other side.

---

I would maybe agree in principal with you (not on this subject but potentially on others) and think this is relevant if doctors were actually being criticized. That meme has always targeted the skeptical, random, uninformed internet poster with hot takes and little supporting logic.

And in terms of the OP, she has tried for an ivermectin scrip from both tele-docs and urgent care docs and been denied in both cases. She is hoping for alternate venues. I know there is a group called FLCCC that is clanging the gong heavily for this particular treatment.

Directory of Ivermectin Prescribers.

FLCCC founder is second author of the supporting meta-analysis. That's what you call undisclosed bias.