NicosMachine said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

AgRebel08 said:

---

What is the dosage?

---

Ivermectin works better. I'm taking my prophylactic dose as we speak. Healthy as a horse, stopping the spread.

---

Unless you have worms, Ivermectin doesn't help with Covid.

---

What do you recommend as a therapeutic?

---

I'm not a Doc. I'm not the one to give that advice. But when I had it? It's a virus. I took NSAIDs and monitored my O2.

JFABNRGR said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

Are you a doctor?

---

No. I'm not claiming to be. That's why I'm linking to high quality research done by medical experts.

---

You're making statements of fact and telling people to ignore advice given by doctors.

---

Wait, what are the people advocating Ivermectin and HCQ doing regarding the advice of doctors and major medical societies?

---

I am simply sharing my experience from my own doctor who has been treating patients here in the Austin area for over 20 years. He prescribed the drugs. I didn't ask for them. I know several others who have been prescribed both drugs by other doctors. Yet here you are telling people not to listen to their doctors.

---

Ok. What is your doctor's specialty? And what research is he using to reach his decisions? Again, I'm linking to the research that's been done. Large studies using various cohorts and models, that all reach the same conclusion. MDs can be wrong, too.

---

Oh, I know MDs can be wrong. You'll never hear me claim otherwise. Your studies can be wrong as well.

---

Okay. But you would agree that multiple high quality studies with large cohorts are less likely to make a significant error?

---

Sure. I don't have the time to examine or review the many studies who are thrown around on this board.

There are a lot of "facts" that have been debunked over time and the CDC or governing bodies have not been completely honest throughout this pandemic. It is heavily politicized and the push for vaccines over therapeutics and/or natural immunity should be clear to anyone who has been following along.

Look at the mask efficacy where they have flip-flopped and no real data to support the use and regulation of masks. Fake numbers on efficacy.

The continuous changing understanding of the efficacy of vaccines.

---

"Natural immunity" has resulted in over 800,000 dead Americans and overwhelmed healthcare systems. It would seem logical to push for the most efficacious public health and medical responses to the virus. The vaccine IS the most efficacious response. Masking does work, but no one is claiming masks alone are a panacea. The response to both of these things has been political rather than scientific.

---

If the number is truly 800,000 dead Americans; you must also believe the USA has the worst response to Covid, than any other country in the world?

If you don't believe we have the worst medical response in the world than how do you reconcile 800,000 dead? Is it possible these numbers are significantly overstated given the known number of serious comorbidities?

If your an expert on reviewing the data by other medical professionals, what do think of the efficacy or risk reward with what is presented on pages 11&12 of below link, which show Pfizer's own original trial data?

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf

---

It's widely accepted that many countries have underreported deaths. Countries like India don't have the infrastructure or organizational structure necessary to know the real number - but most estimates are in the ~5MM COVID deaths. Other countries like Russia deliberately lie about the data for political reasons.

But it also shouldn't be surprising because we are a somewhat old country with a lot of obesity and one of the largest populations on the planet. The truth is the US' official count is actually an underestimate. However, it is closer to the actual number than almost every non-western country.

I can't believe some of you still think the total is still some sort of conspiracy.

Sapper Redux said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

AgRebel08 said:

---

What is the dosage?

---

Ivermectin works better. I'm taking my prophylactic dose as we speak. Healthy as a horse, stopping the spread.

---

Unless you have worms, Ivermectin doesn't help with Covid.

---

What do you recommend as a therapeutic?

---

I'm not a Doc. I'm not the one to give that advice. But when I had it? It's a virus. I took NSAIDs and monitored my O2.

---

You act like a doc. I thought you might be familiar with Ivermectin's efficacy as an antiviral agent both in vitro and in vivo. I can share with you a paper which explains Ivermectin's antiviral properties. To dismiss it as a "dewormer" is very disingenuous at best.

Is the paper from a peer reviewed journal?

Salute The Marines said:

---

Is the paper from a peer reviewed journal?

---

Why don't you read it and then tell me if you believe the methodology is flawed. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The paper is either true or not true regardless of whether it is peer-reviewed.

I'll take that as a no. I don't rely on this board for junk data. It was created for accurate, real information for covid and to provide a forum for medical professionals giving guidance. Save the conspiracies and junk science for another place. That's what f16 is for.

Salute The Marines said:

---

Is the paper from a peer reviewed journal?

---

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00210-020-01902-5.pdf

I look forward to your reasoned and scientific response.

Quote:

---

I'll take that as a no. I don't rely on this board for junk data. It was created for accurate, real information for covid and to provide a forum for medical professionals giving guidance. Save the conspiracies and junk science for another place. That's what f16 is for.

---

Unfortunately our society has the process backwards. We start with a gut feeling that makes us happy and then try to find the data that fits our narrative and generally hide or argue away contrary evidence.

No matter how many times weak or contradictory evidence sprouts up, folks are going to be dug in on their particular stance and wave around one small, meaningless study to make their point.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

I'll take that as a no. I don't rely on this board for junk data. It was created for accurate, real information for covid and to provide a forum for medical professionals giving guidance. Save the conspiracies and junk science for another place. That's what f16 is for.

---

Unfortunately our society has the process backwards. We start with a gut feeling that makes us happy and then try to find the data that fits our narrative and generally hide or argue away contrary evidence.

No matter how many times weak or contradictory evidence sprouts up, folks are going to be dug in on their particular stance and wave around one small, meaningless study to make their point.

---

To dismiss the use various therapeutics as reliance on "one small, meaningless, study" is woefully ignorant or purposefully misleading. There are thousands of doctors prescribing Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin as an early therapeutic for Covid and who will testify as to the anecdotal efficacy. They base their use of those drugs on both common sense (Ivermectin has been shown to have antiviral properties both in vitro and in vivo with other viruses) and their personal experience. Here is a summary of some of the studies on Ivermectin.

https://ivmmeta.com

I have not reviewed all the studies and I'm also familiar with studies which indicate Ivermectin has no therapeutic effects for Covid. I don't know the answer, but to dismiss other scientists and actual doctors who are treating thousands of patients as some sort of hacks or rubes seems quite arrogant.

A possible mechanism of action is meaningless without real world results. You don't need an understood mechanism of action for a drug to work, and an iron-clad proposed mechanism of action is completely useless if the drug doesn't provide a benefit in clinical trials.

Quote:

---

I have not reviewed all the studies and I'm also familiar with studies which indicate Ivermectin has no therapeutic effects for Covid. I don't know the answer, but to dismiss other scientists and actual doctors who are treating thousands of patients as some sort of hacks or rubes seems quite arrogant.

---

But this works both ways . . . . .you are trying to dismiss much more experienced and educated researchers and medical experts as well. A similar (if I am guessing much. much larger) cohort of thousands of scientists and doctors say it doesn't work.

NicosMachine said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

I'll take that as a no. I don't rely on this board for junk data. It was created for accurate, real information for covid and to provide a forum for medical professionals giving guidance. Save the conspiracies and junk science for another place. That's what f16 is for.

---

Unfortunately our society has the process backwards. We start with a gut feeling that makes us happy and then try to find the data that fits our narrative and generally hide or argue away contrary evidence.

No matter how many times weak or contradictory evidence sprouts up, folks are going to be dug in on their particular stance and wave around one small, meaningless study to make their point.

---

To dismiss the use various therapeutics as reliance on "one small, meaningless, study" is woefully ignorant or purposefully misleading. There are thousands of doctors prescribing Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin as an early therapeutic for Covid and who will testify as to the anecdotal efficacy. They base their use of those drugs on both common sense (Ivermectin has been shown to have antiviral properties both in vitro and in vivo with other viruses) and their personal experience. Here is a summary of some of the studies on Ivermectin.

https://ivmmeta.com

I have not reviewed all the studies and I'm also familiar with studies which indicate Ivermectin has no therapeutic effects for Covid. I don't know the answer, but to dismiss other scientists and actual doctors who are treating thousands of patients as some sort of hacks or rubes seems quite arrogant.

---

The more experienced and better researchers have shown it doesn't work. The poorly constructed retrospective studies suggest yes and no.

If people want to subject themselves to the risks, fine, but without a mechanism, no reason to believe it can work.

I don't understand why people are arguing whether or not these drugs works. Who cares. There are plenty of doctors using them successfully to treat covid. It's not hard to get a prescription. None of these doctors are using these drugs in isolation. They are always using a drug/supplement cocktail. To go back and forth about studies say this or that is meaningless. If you don't want early treatment, you don't have to get it.

Who cares? You don't think it's maybe a little bit important whether or not a drug actually works against the condition you're using it for?

So you're saying it does matter whether the drug works or not?

If it can't be replicated in a study that sounds more like alchemy than medicine. At any rate, I'm pretty sure that a cocktail of drugs is usually comprised of individual drugs which all show benefit when used alone, but greater benefit when used together. Not what we see here with HCQ or Ivermectin.

I haven't seen any indication that the FLCCC is doing any better than anyone else in treating COVID other than their own self-promotion.

01agtx said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Who cares? You don't think it's maybe a little bit important whether or not a drug actually works against the condition you're using it for?

---

Like I said, none of these doctors are using these drugs in isolation, so until there are studies with the entire FLCCC combination or whatever other combo doctors are using, the studies don't really matter. At this point, we should go to those doctors who are not losing patients, ask them what them are doing and then replicate that.

---

Except that's not how medicine advances. Trials and cohort studies are the backbone of therapeutic approaches for a reason. It's quite easy and common for a doctor to treat one area or population that for a variety of confounding factors does not show the outcome of interest. Or, you can have one treatment that works mixed with a dozen that don't, but because one of the treatments worked, you have doctors swearing by the entire regiment. Take Joe Rogan for example. He gets Covid and is treated with (according to him) vitamins, Ivermectin, and monoclonal antibodies. The fact that he recovered is being used by some as an example of the efficacy of Ivermectin. Just looking at the list, I'd clearly point to something else he used coupled with the fact that most people do recover from Covid.

Anecdotes are often dangerous in something like medicine if they get used as an excuse to ignore better research.

What you're describing is the opposite of the approach used for evidence based medicine. There is a reason people use RCTs.

All of the questions you point to don't matter. The drugs either works or they don't. What I do has nothing to do with it.

01agtx said:

---

Zobel said:

---

So you're saying it does matter whether the drug works or not?

If it can't be replicated in a study that sounds more like alchemy than medicine. At any rate, I'm pretty sure that a cocktail of drugs is usually comprised of individual drugs which all show benefit when used alone, but greater benefit when used together. Not what we see here with HCQ or Ivermectin.

I haven't seen any indication that the FLCCC is doing any better than anyone else in treating COVID other than their own self-promotion.

---

I'm saying it matters if the combination of what doctors are giving works. These doctors are replicating their own protocols every day with their own patients, successfully.

How many doctors giving early treatment have you spoken too, in person, and asked you questions? Have you attended any of their talks? How many people have you directed towards a treating physicians practice?

---

If I treat your bacterial infection with Clindamycin and distilled goat piss and you get better, does that demonstrate the efficacy of distilled goat piss, or perhaps should we run some studies to determine just what the causative agent is?

You're saying there's no reason to see if it's actually working because it looks like it's working. Again, opposite of evidence based medicine.

NicosMachine said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

Is the paper from a peer reviewed journal?

---

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00210-020-01902-5.pdf

I look forward to your reasoned and scientific response.

---

It's an early and speculative paper. Computational modeling is helpful for idea generation and people have used these kinds of Structure-Activity Relationship analyses for decades to identify and design drug candidates. It's a first step and is subject to a lot of attrition and optimization.

Most of the mechanisms described therein are reasonable and have been demonstrated in nonclinical (mostly in vitro) models. The problem is that when you get into human dosing, you have to deal with clinical pharmacokinetics. Many drugs are promising only to find out that you can't really achieve exposures that are needed for the mechanisms that were hypothesized. In the case of ivermectin, you're stuck with a drug that has low solubility and high protein binding. That's not a good combination if you need to achieve high exposures, which is what is necessary to address those mechanisms.

NCT registry shows 39 studies currently active around the world for ivermectin in Covid19. It's still being studied, but it's clear there's no slam dunk with existing formulations. Getting around clinical limitations, like pharmacokinetics, likely requires new formulations. If you have a new formulation of ivermectin, and it works, it's not going to be cheap.

Nothing wrong with your paper. It's just not enough.

HCQ is a nasty-looking molecule. If I ordered something like that for my lab, I'd be doing paperwork with corporate safety for weeks. Knowingly ingesting a chlorinated alkaloid is not something I'd ever want to do without a really good reason.

01agtx said:

---

It's ridiculous to compare goat piss and a bacterial infection, something no one does, to MDs who are having success with a protocol.

---

I'm going over the top to make a point. Success with a protocol that's not properly tested doesn't mean the protocol works. It means you have success while using a protocol. Correlation does not equal causation. That's why we have research and regulations.

The mRNA vaccines have undergone multiple RCTs with thousands of participants - much larger sizes than normal. The results of those trials were published - you can read them here and here for Pfizer and Moderna's Phase III, respectively. You will not find a similar RCT for ivermectin or HCQ, much less one with such clear outcomes.

Pfizer's vaccine has full FDA approval. Moderna's does not, but not because of not meeting any evidence-based approach of medicine. The FDA gets 10 months to review their application, and has said that they will make a decision on Moderna in January of 2022. The delay is to get more information on the risk of myocarditis in young men.

All medicines have side effects and none are perfectly effective. It's an error to make an equivalence between drugs based on that alone. Using an undefined standard for 'evidence' to draw a comparison is a further error.

No one is claiming perfect certainty. You have varying degrees of evidence, and varying degrees of efficacy. HCQ and Ivermectin come nowhere close to the standard of evidence and efficacy that the vaccines do. In most cases they've failed to show evidence vs placebo in RCTs.