Been seeing here a lot of post(since 2 days) telling the ivermectin is not effective. Really disheartening. People who have used it. Can you tell me your experience?

[-] machinelearny | 9 points | Apr 18 2021 14:27:17

Do you mean the one Czech doctor giving his opinion in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/mssjfv/a_new_long_interview_with_the_first_czech_doctor/ ?

There's a lot more "doctors" giving their "opinions" against ivermectin, including the NHS, WHO, CDC, FDA and the NIH. If you've been following ivermectin since the beginning, you will by now have realized that you cannot trust any of these institutions and there's a huge amount of doctors that you also cannot trust, usually the ones giving interviews on mainstream television.

Unfortunately our scientific community has been morphed into a big pharma propaganda channel, I believe many of the doctors and scientists are not actually corrupt or "on the take", but that peer pressure and the brainwashing campaign convincing them that the only good science is big pharma science has been extremely effective.

The biggest accomplishment of big pharma has been the vilifying of any studies that are not large double blind randomized control trials done in the US or Europe. By doing that, they have effectively monopolized science, since who actually has the money and motivation to go through phase 1, phase 2 and large scale phase 3 trials? Only big pharma.

When the NIH or the WHO or the NHS states: We require a "high quality" large scale RCT to be able to approve the use of Ivermectin (or whatever other drug), what does that mean? It means that they will not approve it without the big pharma stamp of approval.

If however, the NIH, WHO or NHS had said back in April or May 2020 that the level of evidence in favor of Ivermectin is not sufficient, we are going to sponsor and run a high quality large scale RCT to get the definitive answer, then that would have been a totally different story.

But what happened was that Dr. Kory went to the Senate and petitioned for the immediate approval of IVM back in December 2020, back then they again said they need more data, but they didn't lift a finger to get it. What are they waiting for? Big pharma's OK I guess.

[-] magebane1 | 4 points | Apr 18 2021 17:51:08

A bigger and well-recognized study is coming but the results won't be available in pre-print until I'd say October at earliest. This is the Gates Foundation Ivermectin study at McMaster University (my alma mater) in Hamilton. I will be able to judge the truth about Gates based on the outcome of this study (and/or throw my bachelor's degree in the garbage)

https://www.togethertrial.com/

[-] machinelearny | 4 points | Apr 18 2021 23:30:19

Yeah, not holding my breath... it feels like a delay tactic and then, when the results eventually comes in, if it shows some benefit from IVM it will be the story that will be used to say, "see, now we can recommend it's use".

This study should have been started at least 6 months ago. But seems like the western medical institutions didn't really look for treatment options... almost as if they had blinkers on.

[-] tikapikalol | 2 points | Apr 19 2021 02:38:07

They originally had 1 dose schedule 🙄

Switched to 3 dose.

When are we expecting results?

[-] magebane1 | 3 points | Apr 19 2021 19:39:53

I believe it will run through this summer and we might have early pre-print results by October (doh)

[-] scionkia | 2 points | Apr 20 2021 13:14:14

The result will be - we need further studies

[-] dhmt | 3 points | Apr 18 2021 17:54:56

Do you work around doctors IRL, or are you just conjecturing about them?

I ask, because I have several colleagues and friends with doctors in their family, and these colleagues are absolutely stonewalled against any nuanced discussion of lockdowns, COVID or vaccines. Basically, there is no point in saying things that they can't hear.

So, I want to understand the doctors' world better. There has to be a loose stone somewhere in the wall that I can pry at.

[-] machinelearny | 6 points | Apr 18 2021 23:23:21

I don't work with/around doctors. I've debated quite a bit online with the medical research community, and I can tell you, it is a waste of time. My experience with those that work in the field and voice their opinions online is that they're very much a close knit clic that will defend their own ideas and that of their peers to the end without giving an inch to anybody that might challenge them. Extremely defensive and goes into personal attack mode very quickly when they see they might be losing an argument.

So my opinion is formed from a bit of an adversarial interaction with them, but the following is what I took away from these encounters over the past few years (very much solidified with COVID + early treatment)

Strategies they employ:

Claim you know nothing because your not in their field and you arguing with them about science and statistics (even though your statistics knowledge might be, and probably is, far superior to theirs) is pointless, because what they do is so complex that only a god-like being such as themselves could possibly understand it.
Then, when you reference other doctors, they tell you that those are a lot of snake oil salesmen that don't know shit. Also, doctors don't know what they are talking about, because they are not researchers!
Then, when you reference the degrees, publications etc. of the doctor you mentioned in 2. they will say you are using the "appeal to authority argument" (see 1. above and 2. above...)
They also have a lot of catch-frases that don't actually mean anything and/or they don't really understand themselves that they will throw around to try and confuse you, like "garbage-in-garbage-out" or "p-hacking"
They will also try and use terminology from their field that sounds complicated to try and assert their authority, but a quick google search and 5min of reading will put you on an even footing with them (actually probably ahead of them) and because of this it often backfires.
Then when you point out how flawed their argument is, they usually start with personal attacks, blocking you etc.

Then I have had contact with your average GP type doctor. Most of the ones I've dealt with directly would just be following what they have been told by the research community. Usually they are also not very up to date with the latest data, they will quote the mainstream "consensus" from a year back or so and if you, a mere patient, dare to ask for or about something that doesn't match with that, they kinda shut down. I personally hope that they just feel threatened and just want you out of there so they can go read up and not appear incompetent the next time you talk.

So my conclusion has been that people in the medical community are required to portray a front of being infallible. They are expected to always do the right thing and know what the right treatment is for everything etc. So I think they learn these defense mechanisms. They also watch each other's backs, just like the police I guess. So instead of confronting them, usually it's best to guide them so they can seem to have not been on the wrong side all along.

So perhaps, what you can try if you are actually friends with some of them, is ask them if they saw that the NHS has now approved the use of Budesonide for COVID. Perhaps tell them you saw a very interesting study on Ivermectin, and quote the stats and ask them if they think that sounds like something that should be investigated further. If they actually agree, tell them that there are quite a few other studies that confirm the results of that study, whether they think that makes it more likely to be a useful treatment.

[-] dhmt | 3 points | Apr 19 2021 00:05:38

Thank you for this very thorough answer.

My only contact has been GPs (where most of them are as you describe) and emailing with authors of medical papers (where, since you cannot really determine their leanings from the paper, you get all kinds). What you describe resonates quite well with my experience.

The other contact is indirect, in that I have 4 colleagues who are married to medical people, and they seem to have acquired (by osmosis?) a similar "doctors must appear infallible" attitude. They will say things like "there is no such thing as alternative medicines. If it actually works, it becomes standard medicine." Really? I can list you 5 things which I have experienced which are not drugs, do not make anyone a profit, and work better than your so-called standard medicines! No profit == means no doctor has every heard of them.

It is these "no such thing as alternative medicine" colleagues who I am trying to reach. They are fundamentally intelligent, and they see themselves as critical thinkers and not gullible. And yet there appears to be no way to reach them about ivermectin, COVID or lockdowns.

Here is an example of a conversation:

Colleague (married to a nurse): "I have a crazy aunt who is into all sorts of alternative medicines. She is very into detoxification by fasting. Doesn't she know there are no toxins that she is removing?!?"
Me: "Do you know what autophagy is?"
Colleague: "no."
Me: "Then don't make any statements about detoxifying until you have at least googled 'autophagy'".

He has never dismissed detoxing after that, but he still has all his other consensus beliefs. I may have correct them one by one, which will take years.

[-] scionkia | 2 points | Apr 20 2021 13:16:43

I live with my father - who is a doctor (retired at this time). He has very nuanced discussions about everything you mentioned. As for IVM, he won't take it as he says he's on enough meds. He thinks it 'might' work based on his reading. He, like all of us, really don't know.

[-] dhmt | 2 points | Apr 21 2021 02:20:52

What is your father's opinion of a bunch of counter-narrative doctors who have done small-N studies and are pro-IVM, or (like Dr. McCullough) pro-IVM included in a protocol.

Are they Hippocratic-oath heros or snake-oil salesmen who believe their own bullshit?

Second question - what is your father's opinion of my list of medical dogma that I have watched go from consensus to falsehood within my lifetime.

(Question 2 is for my calibration purposes.)

[-] scionkia | 2 points | Apr 22 2021 10:56:11

First point - he generally thinks the treatments aren’t being provided for ‘political’ reasons. He doesn’t get hung up on any specific drug, but finds the lack of outpatient treatment unusual.

I would need to review your second question with him.

[-] dhmt | 1 points | Apr 22 2021 14:39:24

Thanks for your answer. Is it safe to say that he considers the counter-narrative doctors as Hippocratic-oath heros? (rather than snake-oil salesmen who believe their own bullshit?)

I have a similar question out to another doctor - I really am trying to get into the mind of doctors, to understand their thought processes.

I am also on the "evil" side in a different scenario: I am a simple engineer, and I have woo-woo friends who think that the project I am working on will cause micro-black-holes which will destroy the world (think CERN). They think that I am either evil (I am convinced I am not) or that I have been completely fooled by a false narrative to think there are no black holes. So, am I being the "woo-woo anti-medical nut" in the COVID narrative?

[-] LIGHTWARRIOR_1111 | 7 points | Apr 18 2021 09:52:01

Pls dont listen to anyone ivermectin is way more effective then HCQ & it is cheap & safe to use. According to the study, published in the journal Antiviral Research, the drug, Ivermectin, stopped the virus, SARS-CoV-2, from growing in cell culture within 48 hours. AIIMS India endorsed ivermectin in covid:-

https://twitter.com/drakchaurasia/status/1383102960788402177/photo/1

[-] LIGHTWARRIOR_1111 | 3 points | Apr 18 2021 10:25:31

" And don’t forget ivermectin is so good that it completely obviates the need for HCQ. It blocks the ACE2 receptors stops Viral replication the same as HCQ , without the need for zinc,and does eight more things " Dr Dillon.

Source:- https://twitter.com/DRDILLON6/status/1383093227297808385

[-] LIGHTWARRIOR_1111 | 2 points | Apr 18 2021 09:21:16

You may refer this link & also may contact the Dr A.K Chaurasia. He is really good Dr, out there.

https://twitter.com/ravirsp/status/1382756910382739456/photo/1

[-] Tap-Holiday | 2 points | Apr 18 2021 13:38:59

It’s effective . Check out IVM MD group on Facebook

[-] roonie1 | 1 points | Apr 18 2021 15:50:32

I just searched FB "IVM MD" and could not find them.

Might you have the link?

[-] Tap-Holiday | 2 points | Apr 18 2021 15:54:27

Ivermectin MD Group . If you can’t find it , I can send an invite

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Apr 18 2021 15:53:02

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3595465843801899/?ref=share

[-] AutoModerator | 1 points | Apr 18 2021 15:53:03

URL shorteners not allowed

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] stereomatch | 1 points | Apr 19 2021 22:06:11

Was removed by default Auto-moderator script.

Approved manually.

[-] Inner_G84 | 2 points | Apr 19 2021 04:31:30

I'm using it and doing just fine. 2nd week of 15mg/once a week

[-] magebane1 | 1 points | Apr 19 2021 19:41:10

If you're prophylaxing might need to consider dose increase to 0.4mg/kg because of variants. I'm thinking of stepping up to 0.3mg/kg as if anything because of the anti-inflammatory effects I feel fantastic for a few days after taking.