Sokrjrk12 | 27 points
An MD (and JD hopeful)'s take on IvermectinI wrote this in a comment thread, but figured I would make a formal post for visibility. I hope that is acceptable.
Alright so disclaimer these thoughts are my own and do not reflect those of any institution(s) I am affiliated with. I might get a lot of flame for this opinion. This is also off the top of my head and may have small errors which I will fix.
I am an MD, pursuing a JD, who practices evidence-based medicine and is interested in medical law and ethics. I can't disclose where I practice or with what organization I am affiliated with. I firmly believe that in the face of new evidence and studies, we as clinicians should adjust our current mindsets to factor in this new information. I have been following IVM from the start of this pandemic, starting with Dr. Mandeep Mehra's Surgisphere preprint that was notoriously redacted.
Many people in this subreddit, as well as clinicians, feel that in the face of a pandemic we should not be waiting for the most robust of trials to guide our decision-making, and instead utilize the principles of:
In my opinion, Ivermectin met these criteria a full year ago. Last year, I contacted the COVID team at Merck to discuss what their plans were for studying IVM, and was told they had no plans to evaluate it further at that time due to the benchtop study suggesting that therapeutic concentrations could not be achieved in vivo.
In addition, I reached out to my organization's head of clinical research and inquired about Ivermectin. The response was that our organization is very closely regulated and there is NOT any room for deviating from our clinical practice guidelines and we must wait for formal guidance from the NIH/FDA.
I cannot give my personal opinions about these decisions, but I can share those pieces of information with you.
I see a LOT of anger directed towards physicians and "BigPharma". It is NOT the fault of the physicians-- many of us are not ALLOWED to deviate from clinical practice guidelines because of the potential grounds for a malpractice suit. If something WERE to lead to harm, and we did not follow the current "standard of care" as described by our organization's clinical practice guidelines, we assume GREAT risk of being sued. It is unfortunate that we as providers must practice "defensive medicine", but our country's medical/legal systems have worked to create this culture.
I also do not think it is the fault of BigPharma. They are profit-driven by the nature of the fact that we live in a capitalist society. I do not blame them for wanting to find ways to monetize their time/effort/research. That being said, there is a surprising lack of physicians in the highest of administrative roles both at hospitals and at pharmaceutical companies. The loudest voices in the room tend to be MBAs who do not grasp the human side of medicine and drug-development.
Now, onto the topic of research. We are taught early on in medical school that there are multiple levels of clinical evidence, and to take the lower levels with a grain of salt. Looking over the last year of very low-quality study designs, it is clear why this is the case-- with the right framing method, a good scientist can reach whatever conclusion they would like and make it VERY hard for your average doctor to find the flaws and biases. One example of this was the research that led to the opioid epidemic. Doctors were presented research that was flawed, and falsely believed in it because they were told it was unbiased and the authors did not fully disclose their financial relationships. Now, if DOCTORS can be fooled, think how easy it is for your average person who has not spent almost a full decade of their life trying to master this stuff to get fooled. That is why when patients come to me with studies that might not be legitimate, I never get mad at them and rather talk through the study with them and teach them how to critically analyze a paper. The secret is to remove your own bias from the equation and try to actively look for problems with the paper. Once you know what to look for, it becomes very easy. Stanford Medical School has a great publicly available article on how to be really critical of scientific articles. I might link it if people are interested.
It is okay to be angry. That being said, I personally do NOT think that this is some organized conspiracy to keep Ivermectin out of the hands of the public. This pandemic has simply brought to light a number of flaws within our scientific, medical, and pharmaceutical industries that I have explained above. These sort of systemic flaws take YEARS to fix. I am hoping to make an impact here by the time I retire, but realistically any changes might not be witnessed until the next generation of doctors/researchers/MBAs come around that have learned from this and drive these changes from within.
Just as an edit: I am not some sort of shill. I am not getting paid for this (this is actually my break for lunch). I am an actual human being who is a nerd (MD) and who likes playing devil's advocate all the time (trying for JD) because discourse is what I think helps us learn and develop as individuals.
Again: it is okay to be angry. Please do not take this anger out on all physicians/scientists/MBAs and give up on medicine/science. Give us a chance to adjust fire and make changes for the next generation.
[-] HeeeeeyNow | 11 points
I’m sorry but that’s bullshit - I agree there are certain system limitations that can cause the bureaucratic mess.. but the deaf ears of doctors /politicians / press in positions of power who hear counter evidence is criminal.
Who paid off companies like Surgisphere to falsify data on HCQ? There is some evil forces in play here and they are profit driven.
Snap your fingers and make IVM the standard of care.. politicians lose Covid, a tool they repurposed to yield power, and the medical community loses billions and billions and billions!! Vaccines not needed.
I see in your history you posted regarding IVM almost a year ago. What a different world we’d live in if science was based on science.
The worst part is those fuckers claim “science based” !
The thing is the players in the current regulatory setup do not want to see any solution coming outside their "perfected" setup. It's that simple.
If IVM turns out to be highly efficacious it will expose just how ridiculously ineffective the current research setup is. And the current research setup provides livelihood for those involved, and it is beneficial for big pharma, as it's an efficient barrier for entry for competitors. Hence there's natural bias to decide against ivm unless there's no other choice.
[-] PrepperLady999 | 1 points
IVM has already turned out to be highly efficacious.
[-] HeeeeeyNow | 1 points
Pierre Kory breaks down what he sees as the roadblocks in this video (posted in its own thread)
https://youtu.be/YcLnW_3_r2c
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
Thank you for your thoughts. I have been in the medical trenches x 35years.
Medicine is a business more than a health enterprise ever since physicians capitulated to the MBA's 30 years ago. The bottom line will always be profit now. No matter what pretty dressing is attempted.
Most people are followers vs leaders. Most people don't want to stick their neck out or to make waves. This includes physicians who will go along to get along. "just show me the protocol, the algorithm" that the experts on high have deemed Holy. Head down, collect your paycheck, climb the ladders. Play it safe.
There is so little now of the practice of the Art of Medicine, of docs using ALLtheir resources to treat the patient in front of them.
You younger physicians have only known this system and have been groomed to assimilate. The number of private practice MD's on their own and not swallowed into some corporate disease system has plummeted to rarity status.
Notice many of the docs screaming "Hey, wait, the Emperor has No Clothes" (Ivermectin saves lives!), are in the latter half of their careers. They are older guys and ladies.
Also, there is one huge revolving door between Pharma and the FDA, and Govt.-Public Health Orgs. Pharma has insured that their interests will be served.
It is in Pharma's interest that they massively increase their profits with this covid "opportunity". And they have.
Vit D, weight loss, IVM, and the other safe modalities just are too nuanced and can't be monetized "properly". Thus people die --collateral damage in the Iron Triangle of Pharma/Govt-Public Health/Academic-Corporate Fusion.
Your post was very well written and thought out and scared the hell out of me. A great Dr. should NEVER withhold a life saving treatment from his or her patient. If you get sued, you get sued, if you lose your job, you lose your job. What you don’t ever do is let your patient die when you could have done otherwise. This is not a generational fight this is a today fight. STAND UP!
[-] No-Look-3001 | 1 points
They won't because they will yank their licenses. They went to medical school forever and did residency to become a physician. The high vast majority will not want to lose their job. The truth will come out but it will take a very long time. In the meantime, get Ivermectin and treat yourself.
[-] HeeeeeyNow | 5 points
Look I love you’re willingness to fight. It seems as if you could make a difference.
You will risk looking like a crazed conspiracy nut job. But it will save lives.
I’d fight now, not later.
[-] No-Look-3001 | 1 points
Ass
[-] VisibleQuark | 4 points
I appreciate your thoughts and am glad you found the time, energy and passion to post this. But I believe there is much more evil and malfeasance than you think.
Other smaller nations are being told to take ivermectin off the selves or they won't get the vaccines. There is ZERO evidence that anyone in the US government or halls of medical powers that show they are trying to save lives if it doesn't benefit the mRNA vaccine makers.
The mRNA vaccines cause more portal vein clots (44/million) than the adenovirus vector brain clots (J&J is 1/1.2 million) yet the US will not use the adenovirus vaccines in order to give the mRNA vaccine makers control of the market. Meanwhile thousands of people die everyday and this delay allows new variants to develop. How convenient since now we need yet more mRNA vaccines against the variants. But ALL the vaccines exponentially safer than getting covid so pausing any vaccines is criminal in my opinion.
JAMA is disgraceful in publishing that ivermectin study done by the Columbian researchers, which was so poorly done, with the authors having so many conflicts of interest, it stands that the is paper prima facie evidence of how low the AMA has stooped in order to shill for Big Pharma. And even though the authors did say "although larger trials may be needed to understand effects on other clinically relevant outcome" we see no evidence of larger trials. The drug is just too damn cheap.
Every doctor who is afraid to speak up is in conflict with the Hippocratic oath, being more loyal to corporations than to the people they supposedly serve.
I wish you luck in your endeavor but I will hope once your law studies are completed you will do more homework relative to this discussion.
This is a great post that provides some context and perspective. Overall I agree with most of the sentiments and in today's world, we need more empathy and less 'lose-my-shit' immediately polarized responses.
I have no problems with development of vaccines, and marketing and promoting it as Pharma should is fine. BigPharma has a poor track record when it comes to ethical decisions, and in the case of Ivermectin we are seeing levels of corruption and malfeasance we haven't seen for a long-time including within the scientific community that we trust.
Early on in the pandemic, I was displeased but understanding of 'There's not enough evidence', however, now we are seeing journalists purposefully being biased against IVM as a treatment, the WHO report by Dr. Bird modified, and studies and meta-analysis being conducted specifically in a way to distort and obsfucate the truth of efficacy.
Your comments regarding studies and the Stanford Medical Paper are interesting. If governing bodies like FDA/CDC/NIH/EMA/WHO were consistent about their standards I'd actually be ok with this. But when you look at remedsivir as an example, it is still standard of care in some places with FAR less statistically significant evidence than Ivermectin. A constantly-changing standard with no impartial foundational basis to me is extremely unscientific.
Physicians ARE in a tough spot, make no mistake. However, I think for physicians in the US, there should be more adopters. If they take their craft and oath seriously they've done their own research on efficacy and safety and also realize the NIH has a neutral stance towards Ivermectin. This should especially be true if they are not governed by a Hospital policy.
I totally agree with what you have said. There needs to be a uniform standard of guidelines when it comes to approving bodies: whether this is the peer review process of journals, or the governmental agencies deliberating on granting EUA.
One issue we need to overcome is the nature of "peer review" means that you often have different bodies of reviewers each time, and these reviewers are all coming in with personal biases and motivations that can negatively impact their objectivity.
[-] machinelearny | 3 points
" I also do not think it is the fault of BigPharma. They are profit-driven by the nature of the fact that we live in a capitalist society. I do not blame them for wanting to find ways to monetize their time/effort/research. "
This is what's wrong with society.
I guess you also don't blame the tobacco industry for causing so many people to die of cancer, they just wanted to make some money, that's why they paid scientists to delay and play games to make it look like it's not tobacco, even though they knew for years it was causing cancer?
The only way you can make a statement like that is if you lay the blame 100% at the feet of the governmental scientific entities, such as the NIH, CDC, WHO etc. But it's not that simple, these entities have basically become an extension of big pharma, with most of the scientists working there having financial ties with pharma. They also have their own patents in many drugs. Even researchers working only for the government these days have patents in the drugs they develop. I haven't researched it, but I am 100% sure Fauci is making royalties from multiple patents and probably have stocks or other ties to pharma.
Also, your idea that they could not possibly be able to orchestrate something like this is ridiculous. You should go work at a marketing/spin company. One of those PR companies that work to get politicians elected. These people get things done.
It is so simple it's actually funny. Just plant a few "respected doctors" all over the world. Pay the right people at the NIH and WHO. Get a few journalists or higher ups at the mainstream media and also get a few websites up "in the name of science".
Here are a few examples:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/2020-and-the-pandemic-a-year-of-physicians-behaving-badly/
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine/
https://forbetterscience.com/2020/12/15/ivermectin-now-against-covid-19-why/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400
You send out the right messaging to all of your media outlets, and let them do the rest.
Oh, the only piece of genius that they achieved, was to make it a political issue. I think this was a decision they made early on, and it was pure genius. They kept the early treatment options out of mainstream media. Then, the moment Trump or any other "right wing" president mentioned early treatment, they pander to the left telling them how anti-science and stupid this guy is. Since people with strong political beliefs (especially the left) trust "their" media sources, they will all just believe the narrative and promote it as part of their political agenda.
Anyway, it is clearly a marketing and scientific manipulation campaign. Anybody saying different is either fooling themselves or part of it.
And if you really think it's ok to let thousands of people die, because some huge organization wants to make a few extra bucks, then it really is a sad world. Especially if you are also promoting lockdowns at the same time, which are killing small businesses, making ordinary people bankrupt and without a means to feed their children, so that maybe some lives could be saved.
The argument for lockdowns is: We think it works, it kinda makes sense that it should. We know it will devastate some communities and result in huge debt etc. The poor doesn't want it because they live from paycheck to paycheck, dont have a computer and cant work from home, but we can control them with the police.
The argument against ivermectin is: There's a huge amount of evidence showing it works, we're not exactly sure how, the exact dose is not clear, but for sure, the earlier you use it the better and we're not sure if it reduces deaths by maybe just 50% or maybe 90%. We know it's super safe and none of the studies so far showed any specific COVID related AEs. But since we're not completely sure the exact percentage of benefit, and we could find one study that didn't show statistically significant benefit and another one where it had 2 more AEs, we are going to advice against it.
Who suffers most from lockdowns? The poor. Who's been making a killing over the past year? The super rich. Even myself, with not much money and zero knowledge of the stock market, I've been able to make around 50% profits on the stock market.
Who would benefit most from early cheap treatments? The poor. Who's been making a killing on Remdesivir and vaccines? Oh I don't know....
No time for a long reply right now. Thank you for putting so much time and effort into this and I promise I will get back to this eventually.
One thing I would like to say in the meantime is Citizens United is ultimately what allows for this degree of influence by the ultra-wealthy and by corporations in the form of PACs. It must be repealed, full stop.
Corruption exists at all levels of influence (it is human nature, in my opinion, to be greedy). It is much more common/likely that this corruption is existing at a personal level and not that an entire organization is being bought out. Naturally, organizations can be influenced by specific individuals and that can spell danger. But again, do I place the entirety of the blame on the pharmaceutical industry for exploiting loopholes that exist in our current system of government? No. They are obviously doing wrong, but the system that has enabled them to do so is what deserves the blame, in my opinion.
[-] machinelearny | 5 points
but the system that has enabled them to do so is what deserves the blame
Ok, so you would go hard on the NIH, CDC, FDA and WHO then I guess, and I agree, those entities are the ones that I am most disappointed in.
However, I still cannot say I don't blame pharma, just as I can't not blame the tobacco industry.
The fact that is more and more normalized, especially in the US, that it's ok to do whatever you can get away with for the sake of making money is really problematic. A company that's willing to put out a false statement saying that there is no possibility that a drug works (because it is out of patent) just because they want to make money off their other drugs, in my opinion that is completely and utterly wrong. I don't care if it is legal, if it's immoral it should not be condoned.
Correct, I demand better from those in my field.
If I remember correctly, Merck never explicitly said that ivermectin doesn't work. Whenever you are speaking publicly you cannot make blanket statements of fact, because if you are found to be wrong then you can be sued.
They likely said something along the lines of "based on the data we have gathered, there is no evidence to support conducting further clinical trials at this time."
Analysis: based on the data we have gathered means "we are ignoring outside data". There is no evidence to support means "we have not gathered evidence from our own trials to support". Conducting further clinical trials at this time is a catch-all where they can always backtrack and start trials should they so choose.
[-] Ok-Film-9049 | 2 points
Many thanks for your post. My best bet is that IVM was blocked because it would prevent the emergency authorisation of the vaccines. I don't believe it was blocked by big pharma. They may not promote or fund it but they haven't got senior government scientists in their pocket. Can you imagine the backlash if that was ever uncovered!!! I suspect that IVM will be used to treat the vaccine refusers in the Autumn surge. Again, it was good to hear your perspective. Fundementally the 'rules' need to be able to be changed in a pandemic so this can't happen again
[-] Main_Performer4701 | 2 points
Are you absolutely sure that pharma doesn’t have govt and science officials in their pockets? I mean every other industry has vested interest in politicians for lobbying power. Did you forget that fauci and some other pandemic experts have stock in gilead? I don’t buy the NWO world communism BS all the covid deniers believe in but you are underestimating the power of an industry that made and broke America
[-] Ok-Film-9049 | 1 points
OK to an extent when I think about Giliead, but in the UK we came up with Deximethasone, which is generic. They are both using to fix the seriously ill. Obviously remdisavir is hopeless at this stage and possibly earlier. I think that IVM could be a proper effective solution that would hv prevented the vaccine getting emergency authorisation. Not absolutely sure I am right but I hope so.
[-] Main_Performer4701 | 2 points
If it smells like big pharma then it is. It’s no longer about profit and plain old capitalism the pharma industry has owned our politicians and media narratives for the last few decades and you would be a shill to say that big pharma is not censoring covid treatments. If they are willing to pay big money to big tech and buy people in health organizations to pursue their narrative you know it’s been organized at the top. Remember how the opioid epidemic started?
I guess what I was trying to get across with my point is the following: being mad at pharmaceutical companies does nothing to actually address the underlying issues that allowed this situation to play out. Change has to come either thru laws/policies, or through a mass cultural shift from within (which I believe to be unlikely to occur without some degree of legal motivation)
[-] Main_Performer4701 | 6 points
Change has to come through laws and policies. You’re absolutely right about that and that is the problem. We the common people have no decision when it comes to laws and policies when industries can lobby all they want and buy as many politicians under the table as they please to gain an advantage in the “free” market.
Again what’s wrong with being mad at pharma? If someone was personally affected by gun violence are they not allowed to be mad at the NRA for lobbying for less gun restrictions? Both are powerful organizations that control our institutions legally, economically, and socially.
[-] RogerKnights | 3 points
We the common people have no decision when it comes to laws and policies when industries can lobby all they want and buy as many politicians under the table as they please to gain an advantage in the “free” market.
That's why we-the-people should be represented in every nook and cranny of the administrative state by randomly chosen citizens oversight panels (COPs).
[-] stereomatch | 2 points
The thing is if people see a disconnect and don't see the system correcting itself, then they get mad.
Some of that spills over into blaming one or the other actor involved.
Even if change comes through changes in law etc., there has to be a motivator for that change. The outrage that some feel is that motivator. Just like any political movement, there is some motivator - and perhaps the conspiracy theories and the accusations against Big Pharma may be legitimate, or may be over reach - however as long as Big Pharma cannot answer those questions, that will stick to them.
I have argued from before that one should not expect commercial companies to fund generic drug trials. There is no commercial interest for them to do so.
However the governmental agencies need to pick up that slack.
Yet, what is happening is that the govt agencies are looking at Merck to provide some support for one or the other course of action - is ivermectin useful - oh Merck says it is not.
One of the reddit sub-reddits quotes Merck to make ivermectin sound controversial - any post on ivermectin generates that automatic comment to go along with it as a warning to viewers. There is an automatic advertising of Merck's view on the matter. Such a privilege is not given to the FLCCC.
These sub-reddits are looking to the govt agencies for guidance.
But they are looking for their joint ventures with commercial companies.
The problem is with govt agencies for whom the existence of big pharma interest in a clinical trial is the benchmark for something being useful - things have gone on so long that they have stopped thinking from first principles (that a commercial enterprise will not fund a generic - why should they?) - but are trying to continue the same practices for a little bit longer - even during a pandemic.
So you are right - big pharma should not be blamed - they are commercial entities.
The problem is they have participated in a culture where govt agencies have become tied at the umbilical cord to the commercial companies.
If the govt agencies don't listen to the public, the public then looks to where the purse strings are - and that look not surprisingly moves towards the commercial entities.
So by participating in a culture of neutering of govt agencies - so that govt agencies look to big pharma for everything - that expectedly directs public's ire that was originally against govt agencies towards a target that the public thinks has spoiled the govt agencies.
Perhaps in a way the public feels they have more ability to change how big pharma behaves than their own govt agencies ?
[-] No-Look-3001 | 1 points
We can be mad at anyone we want
[-] blindpew23 | 2 points
You are intelligent but blind. Do not be so quick to release guilt from those two entities you spoke of. It is evil. Think deep Sir.
[-] Till-Midnight | 2 points
It's not the fault of Big Pharma? Merck is the 5th largest manufacturer of vaccines yet they decided not to jump in during a pandemic? For inquiring minds, a google search of 30-2021-01182274-CU-PL-CJC may be of interest. You are correct Doctor, it is a profit driven industry (at the expense of many)..and yes, I am angry.
[-] No-Look-3001 | 2 points
I take Ivermectin for Lyme and had near death heroes for months. Powerful killer of viruses and parasites, including the Lyme virus. Christ it kills the Aids virus
It sounds like you really feel that ivermectin works for you, and that's great. When friends/family came to me asking for advice regarding what medications to try as a prophylaxis, i shared with them the studies I had come across and many of them decided to take ivermectin.
Nobody in my family or friend group got seriously ill. That being said, this is anecdotal evidence and I would never use this experience as a sole body of evidence to make treatment recommendations to people. It is certainly something to take into consideration, but is not without a myriad of confounding factors.
Are you equating your very limited experience with ivermectin (when used with your family and friends) to the myriad of studies which have already been completed on ivermectin for use as prophylaxis and treatment? Look here: https://c19ivermectin.com/
Here is my "sole body of evidence":
52 separate trials, 27 separate randomized control trials, 426 separate researchers, 17,562 patients involved. Ivermectin shows significant benefit for prophylaxis as well as in ALL stages of Covid-19 infection. And yet the FDA, the NIH, the CDC, WHO, and Merck Pharmaceutical all say there is no evidence that it works. They really want us to believe that all those trials and all those researchers and all those patients were all involved in seriously flawed studies which mean what.....NOTHING?
Oh no, that was not the intent of my reply. I just wanted to share how I personally approached the issue when I am unable by law to make recommendations about specific healthcare choices.
I personally took ivermectin before receiving my vaccine and it worked well for me. I personally believe in the face of the evidence that taking ivermectin was within my own personal risk tolerance. But I cannot, by law, make a formal recommendation to someone to take the medication as it is not standard of care for my institution. My decision to not be more vocal is because I think I could make a larger impact by remaining employed and eventually changing our institution's doctrine from within. This unfortunately takes time.
Sorry but I believe it is a total cop-out for you to say that you "...cannot, by law, make a formal recommendation to someone to take a medication...." I do not think there is such a law. In point of fact, just the opposite is true. It is my understanding that the FDA does not regulate the medical profession. The agency has NO control over how doctors prescribe approved drugs to patients. So once a medication is on the market, it is up to physicians to determine the medically appropriate use of the drug. I have read that it is common knowledge that about 20% of ALL pharmaceutical prescriptions written by doctors are for OFF-LABEL use of a medication....a medication specifically NOT approved by the FDA for use for the condition the prescription is written for. Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug in the U.S......not for Covid-19, but that is beside the point. It has even been prescribed for and given to eighty to ninety year old people in nursing homes....for scabies (off-label, of course) As a physician you CAN prescribe it for a patient. That you choose NOT to do so is your absolute right, but please do not hide behind some non-existent "law". If it makes you feel better to say that---as you watch people die before your eyes who could have been helped with ivermectin---then you just go on saying it. Meanwhile there are, thank the good Lord, many other doctors (and more every day) in this country who have looked at the evidence and looked at the superb safety record for ivermectin and prescribed this potentially life-saving drug.
That being
[-] Pearlfire720 | 2 points
Can you please detail ACTUAL evidence and ACTUAL cases that iv has caused harm. The mainstream media uses fear tactics to ensure people wont use ceratain things. For example DMSO has saved me I could barely walk from plantar fasciitis. Upon applying the DMSO the pain is almost entirely gome within 5 minutes and it lasts al day. I am nearly cured from it. From what i have read DMSO is used in preserving organs for transplanting. Please correct me on this if i am wrong. Yet plastered all over the internet is how incredibly dangerous it is to use and only people who are conspiracy theorists would use it. So dont be crazy just trust your doctors. If i did that i would go to the doctor and possibly be put on some sort of pain killer, prednisone, shots into the foot and you would probably know what else. Studies cant and wont be done because there is no money to be made on a natural substance. But plenty of money can be made by my chronic illness if i go into the doctor. See the inherent conflict of interest within the system? Yet i can buy it easily for my horse and it’s perfectly safe for her. Back to iv. It has been around since 1970 and is on the WHO list of essential medicines. In most third world countries you can walk into any store and just buy it over the counter. The safety data seems to me to be irrefutable. Yet one study with animals showed that eye problems were associated with it . But if you look at the study the animals were given incredibly high amounts. Can you honestly tell me the early studies done on hydroxychoroquin for the current pandemic were intellectually honest and without (hidden) conflicts of interest AND done well? Because if it was effective there would be NO basis for emergency use authorization for the major companies who brought in the current program to deal with the pandemic.
So Honestly please explain how anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. The first person in our rural area to get sick lived with his mother to take care of her who was on Hydroxychloroquin. He was admitted into intensive care. The person in the room next to him died. His own organs were shutting down and the doctor said as a desperate effort he gave him the hydroxychloroquin, zink and antibiotics. He got better and was out of the hospital in 3 days. This is a true story all the details about HQ were in multiple articles now inexplicably gone without a trace. Here is one article where he details how wrong he was about not taking Cvd seriously.
http://pueblomag.com/good-news-clint-johnson-who-took-flight-for-life-to-pueblo-released-from-hospital/
I spoke with him in detail about his ordeal interestingly enough his 80 year old mother who lived with him did not get sick.
Anoter anectdotal story is my own. I was getting sick with it as well as my daughter. We were getting the extreme weakness as well as loss of taste and smell. I was able to get some ivermectin and my daughter and I were over it in 3 days upon taking it. I know of another family who tooknit and they also were over it in 3 days.
So I was on a reletively high dose and experienced no side effects. Again can you please find even one case where iv harmed or killed someone. Because VAERS and the CDC have admitted thousands who have died from theVC. Not to mention what may be permanent injuries that may result from it. Not to mention no one has a crystal ball to know long term problems may result.
And I’m the crazy one??
I don't believe anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, I certainly think it should factor into an individual's decision-making. That being said, one needs to synthesize all the available data and draw their own conclusion.
My conclusion on IVM is that it, when taken with appropriate weight-based dosing, is very unlikely to cause harm. I firmly believed and still do that from a national response standpoint that it, at the worst, is an oral, safer, cheaper alternative to remdesivir (in that it also worked in the early stages). This was based off of a prior RCT looking at repurposing IVM for Dengue that suggested it reduced hospital duration but did not have a statistically significant reduction in mortality. This was the same conclusion that was seen in Remdesivir, thus I felt my assumption was relatively fair to make.
That being said, I cannot prescribe ivermectin to patients because it is not authorized and directly going against institutional guidance is not possible in the current society we live in.
Also, I will make a point to read up on DMSO. I am only familiar with its use in a laboratory setting. I always keep in the back of my mind that the placebo effect, even when the person knows it is a placebo, is an effective therapy 30% of the time. That is a massively high percentage. That being said, if it works for you that is great and I am happy for you.
[-] No-Look-3001 | 1 points
You would never believe something like this could be organized? Wow. Of course it is!!!!!
[-] No-Look-3001 | 1 points
The next generation will be screwed of this keeps up.
[-] No-Look-3001 | 1 points
Of course. Remdesivir is more expensive.
[-] iResistDe4iAm | 1 points
"This pandemic has simply brought to light a number of flaws within our scientific, medical, and pharmaceutical industries that I have explained above. These sort of systemic flaws take YEARS to fix."
These flaws are not flaws, they're a feature. The system was deliberately designed to work this way and it has taken decades to put all the pieces into place. It won't take years to fix, it will take DECADES to unravel/reform/fix.
It may be easier to boycott & ignore the conflicted health regulatory agencies, and start new ones (maybe using medical humanitarian organisations as a springboard, e.g. Medecins Sans Frontieres).
[-] No-Look-3001 | 0 points
For the next generation? Are you f'n kidding me? So they can talk about the genocide that was Covid 19. Wonderful. God you're as ass.
[-] Pearlfire720 | 1 points
Many experts are saying this will cause infertility problems for people who took the vc.
[-] No-Look-3001 | 1 points
I heard from a reliable source that this is possible
[-] johnFvr | 19 points | Apr 21 2021 16:34:48
Of course there is a organized conspiracy to keep Ivermectin out of the hands of the public. You can call it whatever you want, conspiracy, falsity and prejudice, whatever. The final result is the same. Deaths and suffering.
Not only that, but others drugs as well, like Fluvoxamine. And this is already being ongoing for years. The same with Vitamin D. Making flawed studies about Vitamin D. The same with Niacin.
That's so obvious, that there is a conspiracy to keep cheap drugs out, that it's criminal. Living in a capital society is of no excuse. We cannot justify our evils with others behaviours.
permalink
[-] No-Look-3001 | 13 points | Apr 21 2021 17:04:49
Absolutely being kept from the public. Not even entertaining trials. Why? No money in ivermectin. I agree that it's a conspiracy. And people are dying because of it. And they are letting it happen. You can explain all you want. Its a conspiracy through and through. And you doctors are being punished for trying to treat your patients with covid. I dont believe that it's " no ones fault " .it most certainly is.
permalink
[-] No-Look-3001 | 5 points | Apr 21 2021 17:10:07
Who are you kidding here? We are not stupid! So many studies. None here. It's so clear. Its genocide.
permalink