Haitchpeasauce | 16 points
In Far-Flung Places, COVID-19 Is Being Treated Early And Well. Here’s Why Americans Don’t Know This (TrialSiteNews 2020-12-27)[-] Alexanderandjeff | 4 points
Its obvious...There's no money to be made it... Under a doctor care, since its given routinely for parasitic infections, there is no reason why not to offer it as long as those that want it know its side affects and ir risk/benefit ratio. Ever look at those evening drug company commercials. The side affects are potentially worse then the disease thats drug being offered to treat including death and cancer... In 40 years of Ivermectins use ...2 recorded deaths. Follow the money, it's how I see this. Imagine if drug companies just stumbled on this drug ...Youd hear it touted as a miracle drug ,it would be plastered on all the media outlets and they'd patent it and charge a $100 a dose Im sure...Its less the $2 The good news is , word of Ivermectin is a almost everyone , except by your doctor....The cat is out of the bag so to speak .
[-] grumpygirl1973 | 4 points
The reason is simple. In order for the vaccines to have received their Emergency Use Authorization, there had to be no effective treatment for COVID-19 available. If they had recognized ivermectin or even hydroxychloroquinone as treatments for COVID, then Pfizer and Moderna would have had to go through the regular approval process that any other vaccine has to go through and no EUA for them. As someone with an extensive history of multiple anaphylaxis allergies who isn't going to be taking this vaccine anytime soon, I am both angry and disgusted by the whole debacle.
[-] JosephTheManJohnson | 1 points
Wow--very interesting perspective--makes total sense.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Ivermectin is not a practical alternative to the vaccines, IMO. People are bad at taking their meds. It would be much harder for schools, employers and public health departments to monitor who is taking their ivermectin at the proper (as yet unknown) schedule, compared to vaccines that will be done in clinics and pharmacies, that might need to be renewed no more often that annually, like the flu shot.
The Monash 48 hours study (ivermectin kills 99.98% of the virus in 48 hours, at a high concentration) came out on April 3. On April 17, Lancet published two letters stating that based on the Monash result, the required concentration of ivermectin is too high. IMO those letters were written as favors to Big Pharma, and they were EXTREMELY effective.
It is nonsense, but the CONCENTRATION TOO HIGH!!! argument has massive mindshare. As I often write: people who only know ONE THING about ivermectin know CTH!!!.
I see this in /r/medicine and /r/pharmacy. I hear it on This Week in Virology. I read it in the New York Times:
In April, Australian researchers reported that the drug blocked coronaviruses in cell cultures, but they used a dosage that was so high it might have dangerous side effects in people.
CTH!!! and ivermectin's unfortunate and illogical association with HCQ has forestalled even a half-assed look at the drug by NIH and FDA.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 4 points
I'm a simple man. When I hear CTH I say "Vero cells do not express interferons or TMPRSS2 and do not model the immune response, therefore in vivo the therapeutic concentration will be much lower."
Ivermectin won't replace vaccines, but neither should vaccines replace viral therapeutics.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Wow, good answer and (separately) a good point!
I might replace "Vero" with "Green monkey" to make the point to people for whom Vero is meaningless.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
What's a Green monkey? A Dr Seuss character?
[-] wikipedia_answer_bot | 3 points
The green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus), also known as the sabaeus monkey or the callithrix monkey, is an Old World monkey with golden-green fur and pale hands and feet. The tip of the tail is golden yellow as are the backs of the thighs and cheek whiskers.
More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_monkey
This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If something's wrong, please, report it.
Really hope this was useful and relevant :D
If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
LOL. Points for spelling Seuss correctly; I would have to look it up.
Do you know what a brown monkey is? Same thing only...
[-] grumpygirl1973 | 1 points
And if they don't figure this anaphylaxis thing out, the viral therapeutics are critical for those of us that deal with such allergies. As it stands, I'm sitting the vaccine out until they figure out the anaphylaxis. I've got more than one of those kinds of allergies, and I know I'm not allergic to ivermectin because I've taken it.
[-] grumpygirl1973 | 1 points
How many people are going to forget to get their 2nd vaccine dose? Plenty, I am sure.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 6 points | Dec 29 2020 12:33:46
Good article by Mary Beth Pfeiffer that captures the current state of progress in early treatment with Ivermectin.
“All the ivermectin studies are lining up,” FLCCC co-founder Dr. Paul Marik told me. “If the trials all line up, it means the findings are reproducible and real. Reproducibility is critical in the evaluation of scientific studies.”
But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seems bent on ignoring both safety and efficacy findings. In a Q&A on ivermectin, the agency lists side effects from nausea and swelling to neurological events and liver injury. FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory described the list for me as “purposefully alarmist.”
Indeed, despite more than 40 positive studies on ivermectin for COVID, the FDA seems stuck in a time warp. Its web site calls the Australian study from eight months ago “recently released” while still declaring, without acknowledging newer studies, that “additional testing is needed.” That’s fine, if only there was support. Just three studies on ivermectin are proceeding in the United States – and none is funded by the National Institutes of Health or any other U.S. agency.
Late last April, US COVID Czar Anthony Fauci decreed remdesivir the “standard of care” before even the first study was published. Failures aside, it is still the only FDA-approved treatment, suggesting a rather arbitrary yardstick for judging the adequacy of COVID drugs.
For 25 years, ivermectin has been distributed free in 19 African countries to control parasites. Is it a coincidence that those countries had 28 percent fewer COVID deaths and 8 percent fewer cases than 35 other African nations? Is it a coincidence that the 240-million-resident Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, which distributes free ivermectin, has a COVID death rate that is one-sixtieth that of the United States’?
permalink