D-R-AZ | 18 points
Is ivermectin ready to be part of a public health policy for COVID-19 prophylaxis?https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00024-9/fulltext
[-] dogrescuersometimes | 7 points
Someone want to stop me from sending this email to email at https://www.thelancet.com/eclinm/editorial-team?
Hello, Ms. Schaefer,
I was wondering how much the devil pays for genocidal opinion pieces?
Ivermectin is so superior to any other treatment, that not to scream "take it!" from the roof tops is murder during a pandemic.
I would send you the science and amazing observational anecdotal evidence but you work for THE LANCET, you're supposed to know how to read.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 3 points
Yeah go for it - nothing like insulting people to get them to take you seriously
[-] Alpha_pad_385743438 | 1 points
Case in point.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 1 points
Ditto
[-] dogrescuersometimes | 1 points
Thank you. That was exactly the reason I used you guys as a stopper.
excerpt:
Ivermectin has been extensively used as antiparasitic, approved by the FDA and other agencies to be administered in a single dose of 200 mcg/kg to treat onchocerciasis, strongyloidiasis, and lymphatic filaria, among other parasitoses. A study by Caly et al. reported that ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and suggested to develop further investigation in vivo. [4] Some argue that the existing clinical series support safety and effectiveness, but doses and posology vary between studies and controversies remain, making it necessary to develop more research with improved methodology, controlling for confounding variables.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
I find the variable dosing criticism confounding. If ivermectin shows effect that is dose dependent this will show in the data, which it does. Researchers experimenting with dosage because there is no fixed protocol is completely reasonable and not a weakness in the study designs. It certainly shouldn't be a roadblock to adoption.
Critics repeatedly referring back to the Caly et al proof of concept study done in Vero cells as the means of determining effective dose in humans is a huge fallacy.
[-] newtonma2020 | 5 points
IVM has been ready for many months. But the US public health is not, and never will be. They are too beholden to pharma, and will not support policies unless there is $$$$ in them for pharma
[-] PeruvianPotato | 5 points
If a frail, elderly person died post sars-cov-2 vaccination, they would claim there's no connection. They claim Ivermectin is dangerous: cherrypick one person who developed hepatitis and those with Loa Loa who developed encephalitis. Right...
I took IVM pretty late into my infection. I think it works most successfully as a prophylactic, or on days 1 & 2. I had a noticeable relief in symptoms after taking meds every day, so I truly believed it help lessen the severity of my infection. It also helped with my most recent symptoms post-recovery (heart palpitations and shortness of breath). I’m a believer, and yes, a pretty good safety profile on the med., so I took it. It’s helped so many people.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 2 points
Unfortunately, whether people like it or not much of the evidence for IVM being effective against Covid is anecdotal like your own case.
Whether that's because of "The Big Pharma" bogeyman or because medics on the front line are too busy treating sick people to have time to design, carry out and analyse double blind experiments, I don't know.
Personally, I think it tends towards the latter.
There has been little or no investigation into the most effective form or dosage. The FLCCC''s MATH+ protocol says its part of the solution but not all of it and the other studies are running into problems of Western biases against anything not carried out in US especially or Europe.
I'm glad that you are recovering well and in the end being a believer in a fairly benign drug is not going to do you any harm.
Having more prophylaxis or effective treatments, like IVM or MATH+ (if they work) against any virus, never mind Covid, would be a step forward within the medical profession, as the prevailing belief seems to be that there is no real cure against viral infections, only supportive care whilst the body tries to rid itself of the disease.
Since the 1700s, the fight against viral infections has been to find vaccines that work. The scientific community has pursued that path ever since then and is doing so now - "prevention rather than cure" being the motto.
Whereas in this case, without the preventive part, there should have been two races. One to find a cure and one to find effective vaccines.
Sure, I agree. But it doesn’t hurt to have some IVM on hand if you get exposed. I mean, why not? It’s literally not going to hurt you. The vaccines aren’t preventing illness 100%, and they lessen severity, which is great. But until they’re tweaked for other variants, I’d have some IVM and do MASK+ protocol at home if I think I was exposed.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | -1 points
Whatever about the Ivermectin, as the MATH+ protocol calls for the intravenous administration of methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid and thiamine along with heparin, ivermectin, zinc, statin, famotidine and melatonin, I'd hold off on that bit.
MASK+ is at home treatment. Not the MATH+, which is for hospitals.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 1 points
Sorry missed that, I went back over their paper - apart from the ivermectin, it looks like everything else is available from eating loads of fruit and vegetables and getting a good night's sleep.
They also state that "i-Mask+ protocol MUST be part of an overall strategy which includes common sense public health measures, i.e. masks, social distancing and avoidance of large groups of people."
When I read many of the ultra pro- IVM use comments, I get the sense that this bit of the protocol has been skipped over.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 3 points
We now have vaccines but the media falls to understand that ivermectin remains relevant not only for treating covid but for a wide range of other viruses and some bacterial infections. The most everyday of these are the common cold and influenza A. We should come to a point where every home has ivermectin in the pantry to treat parasites, colds, flu early.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 1 points
Who really cares what the media do or do not understand? its what the medical profession believe that counts.
And given that they are among the most sued for malpractice professions, isn't it only to be expected that they'd be slow to embrace anything.
It took them years to finally get their heads around gastric ulcers being caused by heliobacter bacteria, and curable with antibiotics rather than antacids and surgery.
When you read some of the papers about ivermectin you'd wonder why its not in every home But then again, when you read the list of diseases it seems to work against you understand why - they are all 3rd world diseases.
This is a bit extreme, IVM has environmental impact as many chemicals. I remind the prosac problem in usa water treatment plants. IVM is safe but it’s very potent. Worse : it’s not water soluble so it accumulates in biomass. As with any med use must by as much as its necessary. Don’t view it as aspirin.
All this is even more important as IVM taken oraly is delivered partly to organs and metabolised in part by the body, most is excreted from body.
It would be prime use as neboulized for the lung, at least one study has been done in mouse in vivo, BUT not yet to humans . Researchers are probably afraid & cautious and probably don’t have funds. If the press and Wikipedia demonized IVM don’t expect good studies... I’m hopeful for the large study in Oxford.
The so called anecdotal use in usa should ve been done at least with some data collection from prescribing doctors. NIH’s stance as Pontius Pilote just ‘crucifies’ the public health. Unbelievable hypocrisy.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points
Fair call and in the past I spoke about excessive use causing resistance in parasites and toxicity in water. On the other hand its use is so widespread in livestock. I am hopeful about Oxford but they seem to excel in creating a misguided dosing protocol and drawing all the wrong conclusions (thinking of HCQ and Dexamethasone, even Remdesivir).
[-] Besensiblewouldya | -1 points
Now you're getting to the nub of the issue.
There isn't a gold standard set for how to administer it in the quantities being talked about on this forum, I.e everyone and pretty much all the time.
Self medication has unintended consequences - whether its to yourself or others.
In my experience, most of the people I went to school with who became doctors had this really annoying habit at exam time of proving that they were smarter than me.
Whilst one should discuss treatments with your doctor, its probably best to be guided by them on what medicines to take or not to take.
When all is said and done, this disease is fairly mild for those U65 with no underlying health conditions. It becomes more serious as you get older and is very serious in the over-85s, where in Ireland the death toll is about 22% of those that test +ve for it.
[-] ironman12261 | 1 points
Self medication is a term used to have an offensive connotation. Another term might be taking personal responsibility for your own health. The only reason ivermectin efficacy in the the USA is only anticdotal is because the ones with the money and authority to do the appropriate studies don't want to have side by side results to compare with their prospective drugs/vaccines. There is at least one study that showed prophylactic use of ivermectin in healthcare workers who used prescribed PPE to those who used only PPE. Of those who took ivermectin, none got covid19. Of those who did not take ivermectin, 56% became covid19 positive.
[-] Besensiblewouldya | 0 points
You're either taking doctor prescribed medications or you're self medicating - straightforward situation, not an offensive connotation.
Ivermectin is generally a prescription only drug in US and Europe and taking personal responsibility for your own health does not start by taking prescription only meds that you buy on the Internet from god knows where or using versions that are formulated for animals.
When you analyse the numbers available you see a fairly consistent outcome across the world - of the people who have been infected, 95% recover without major input from the healthcare systems, 5% are hospitalised and around 1.7 to 2% die. It is potentially more serious for those over 65 and fairly deadly (about 22%) for those over 85. Having an underlying health condition doesn't help at all.
Not withstanding the tragedy of individual deaths, this whole thing is a numbers game. Average number of hospital beds across the world seems to be about 3 per thousand of population and I'd say those allocated for Covid is substantially less than that.
If this disease travels unchecked through the population in a very short space of time, at 5% requiring hospitalisation that is is a hell of a lot beds needed and they just aren't there so you get what we are seeing - healthcare systems getting totally overwhelmed.
From what you say later about you're own circumstances, you could attribute your good fortune to the meds you were prescribed/bought yourself or you could attribute it to being in the 95% category rather than the 5% or the 1.7 to 2% categories.
When this whole things dies down, there's going to be a lot of soul searching needed to see what could have and should have been done better. But my bet is that doesn't happen.
[-] ironman12261 | 2 points
My wife was diagnosed positive on Dec. 31 2020, at an urgent care facility. They did not prescribe any drugs, only said quarantine for 10 days, and if you get so you can't breathe go to the emergency room. I had to go to MyFreeDoctor.com to get her prescriptions. She is 65, had open heart surgery, is on dialysis, and diabetic. I believe she did well because she was given hydroxychloraquin, doxycicline, and ivermectin.
[-] ironman12261 | 0 points
My wife through such a fit about me going here and there without mask, because of her concern that I might get sick and pass it to her. I started taking 300mg quinine sulphate daily. In November, I was notified by Redcross that my blood samples from my donation tested positive for covid19 antibodies. I was never sick, had no symptoms, not even loss of taste or smell. I had openheart surgery two years ago, have high cholesterol, and high blood pressure.
[-] Infusion01 | 1 points
Wow!
[-] AdvantageAncient2193 | 7 points | Feb 14 2021 18:40:17
It is best to stop covid as well as being anit inflammatory and anti parasitic. It isnt expensive and the for profit system cannot make money on it. So it has been demonized. I have used it. It works really well and I want a script.
permalink
[-] dogrescuersometimes | 5 points | Feb 14 2021 20:17:24
The horse de wormer is literally the same ivermectin as in the human rx.
Go to the feed store, buy a tube, use between 1/4 and 1/2 inch for bodyweight between 150-200 lb., i.e, 1/8 in. for each 25 lb. Do this on day 1 and 3,then every two weeks.
permalink
[-] Alexanderandjeff | 1 points | Feb 20 2021 15:15:30
Its always preferred to get the human form of Ivermectin however until this drug is widely available, I agree with you wholeheartedly ...To counter this potentially deadly disease is a way..I also believe that fenofibrate....A drug found in the 1970's ...This practically harmless drug decreases cholesterol in a way that Covid 19 requires for replication....Its in 3rd phase studies now..Its like any other cholesterol lowering drug ...Given out by the millions the years I would think and relatively safe ...Worst that happens( and Im joking of course) is it will lower your Ldls ,Increase your HDLs, and lower your triglycerides level but the thing it seems to do , within 4 to 5 days stop Covid 19 virus from replicating... The drug is easy to get, generic and really cheap. The clinical study being done by Hebrew University and NY Mt. Sinai hospital I believe began in early last summer and in 3rd phase studies What harm would come, if ones kidneys and liver are normal to take it daily and Ivermectin once every 1 or 2 weeks through periods, waiting for a vax or for those anti vaxers as well..The world needs meds that inactivate the virus early on and which can be produced quickly..
permalink