Ivermectin treatment caused 'amazing improvement': Melbourne COVID patients

The whole argument of the anti-vaxxer movement is that the FDA and CDC are lying. What do you think of the info I linked to in my last post?

What do you think of this info?
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-lies-furiously.583345/page-3#post-1072886629
https://thecovidblog.com/category/ivermectin/

 

a lot of these Anecdotal reports also forget to mention things like this

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033485152/joe-rogan-covid-ivermectin

"Rogan added that his treatments also included monoclonal antibodies, Z-pack antibiotics and a vitamin drip for "three days in a row.""

Rogan could have added distilled water to his treatment, and would that mean it was what cured him? or would it most likely be the above?

 

If you would prefer to "guess" and supply your own self-serving answers rather than ask and be informed otherwise, that is your choice, of course.

If you need to cling to such political websites for medical data, that would explain it.

Ivermectin, currently being hyped by ideologues, is being treated more cautiously and analytically by the legitimate experts in medicine:

Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19...
https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf​

 

More Medical Industrial Complex propaganda by Natty.

The Oklahoma hospital quoted in numerous similar stories misrepresenting Ivermectin has gone on record saying no such thing happened at their hospital. The doctor making the claims had not worked there in 2 months.

Disinformation works well for Natty, not so much for those seeking the truth.

 

The media entertainer, in the thralls of a delirious episode, may have engaged in a febrile tarantella until he voided.

Would the ideological hucksters now be touting that ritual as a panacea?

 

That applied to this post how?

but the answer to you question is "No", see how easy that was to answer, now your turn

 

Given the choice between experienced, knowledgable specialists in public health, epidemiology, and virology vs ideological entertainers, I am inclined to respect the former. When there are legitimate clinical trials underway, I am disposed to await the vital data they provide.

I confess that, if I have a cardiological problem, I am very apt to eschew the advise of media performers, but I understand that there are some who would choose differently.

 

Nonsensical statements by you are returned in kind by me.

 

you just did not want to answer the questions, I get it

 

What about career bureaucrats that have sold their soul to the Devil? Do you give them credence too?

I don't. I guess that is what separates you and me.

 

not sure I would call Trump the devil, but the answer is "No"

 

The dogma that compels one to declare, "I BELIEVE! Empirical data shall not impact my adamantine conviction!" is baffling for those who are not zealots.

What is wrong with withholding declarations of blind faith pending ongoing legitimate clinical studies? At that point, if the article of faith is challenged by the results, specific concerns can be cited.

 

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/

 

Legitimate clinical trials are ongoing for those who bring a more critical standard than blind faith in ideological dogma to their assessment.

​

 

Ah, so it is not about the science for you.

 

No Natty, the dogma compels one to declare "I will place all my hope and faith in the pronouncements of Anthony Fauci, High Priest of my cult".

 

Sure. It's in the clinical stages across the World which tells me it shows promise. I haven't see any thing about it being ineffective and I've been looking up scholar articles. If you have a link showing its ineffectiveness I'm interested in viewing it.
There is a lot of talk about "misinformation" but it seems to me the misinformation is coming from mainstream drive by media that wants to shelve any positive information that is actually real into the mocked Crack pot category. In other words some of your sources are spreading misinformation to control the masses.

What makes it worse is that once the mainstream decides misinformation is best to control the masses, it turns into a political situation and not science driven.

 

Everything I post is based on hard data and empirical evidence gathered using the scientific method.


I have no agenda. I only care about correct information being available so people can make good decisions about their health. I loathe misinformation from anti vaxxers, the CDC, or anyone peddling it. It’s all bad. I have no political agenda. I’m basically a political atheist. LOL

No. My source on this one is….me. I’ve accumulated a bit of knowledge on these subjects over the years I’ve been using ivermectin and marveling at the miracle it is. But I’ve looked it all up for you. Here is the number of horses that exist.
https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/7676/17/khadka_r_150305.pdf

Based on slightly increasing populations since the last full “census” there are about 60 million horses.

Now stats on ivermectin use in Africa.
https://www.cell.com/trends/parasitology/pdf/S1471-4922(14)00126-3.pdf

As you can see going off memory I’ve underestimated (which is my custom so I can’t be accused of exaggeration). We would be well over 5 times as many human recipients in Africa as there are horses today.

My posts are always based on evidence. Here you go.

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/omura-lecture.pdf

Isn’t it interesting how I can back up my claims but your CDC folks can’t? Does that concern you at all that I’m either more knowledgeable or more honest (or both) than those you are taking advice from on life and death matters? It should.

Of course. Everything I post on Covid is based on evidence, not uninformed or unsubstantiated opinion.

People are self medicating. That is the problem. It’s not the drug itself. Here is some more educational material you sorely need.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

And…

The reason we are seeing poisoning is because bad-mouthing and making false claims about ivermectin is driving people away from seeking ivermectin from medical professionals and towards self medication.

Why are people interested? Because of facts like this.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33795896/

To be crystal clear, I’m not advocating for self medication or recommendation for widespread use on the data we have. I’m simply educating you on facts you will not hear from your sources of information. I like everyone to know all the facts—not just politically expedient facts.

 

Good for parasitic worms in cows and horses. That's about all.

 

You're ignoring all the positive stuff that's been posted on this thread.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-covid-patients.584669/page-6#post-1072915576

Let's hear your opinion of that.

 

Yep, it works great: 1. If you believe hokey anti big pharmacy tripe
2. If you contracted worms by eating horse feces.
3. If you have stock in Tractor Supply

 

Wow. You just debunked everything this doctor said about her experience with ivermectin.
https://medicalupdateonline.com/202...n't begin shortly, try restarting your device

You should join a debating team.

 

An untrue statement, as other posters have demonstrated.

I know 2 (including a doctor) who were successfully treated with Ivermectin.

Hoping, but not holding my breath, that you will start posting some true and accurate claims.

 

You are confusing me with you. You may wish to emulate, instead.

Merck, the manufacturer of Ivermectin, whose profit motive would compel it to promote the parasite elixir, unambiguously denies the efficacy of their drug to treat covid that quacks and crackpots falsely claim.

According to Merck,

• There is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 in preclinical studies;
• There is no significant evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 and;
• There is a worrying lack of safety data in most studies

Ivermectin maker sees no effectiveness against Covid - Olhar Digital - Ruetir

The German pharmaceutical Merck, one of the largest in the world and manufacturer of ivermectin, published on Thursday (4) a statement with a warning against the indiscriminate use of vermifuge in the fight against Covid-19. The statement says its scientists are analyzing all scientific studies...
www.ruetir.com

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge using systematic methodologies based on evidence. Science is slow and methodical, and it aims to create knowledge that is generalizable, beyond the individual interpreting it...

[E]xpert knowledge, derived from rigorous methods, should guide policy and practice. Vaccines against the coronavirus, for example, were systematically tested in tens of thousands of volunteers, and they’re trustworthy because of the processes by which they were evaluated. Some clinical trials of vaccines failed to show efficacy, making the ones that succeeded compelling. All are continually monitored with ongoing data analysis of vaccine safety and efficacy. For those who trust science, the systems work...

Overwhelmingly, there is consensus among scientists that ivermectin does not cure covid.

“Following the science” leads to the conclusion that the drug should not be taken to treat covid.
Opinions | Why vaccine skeptics are all in on ivermectin​

 

I understand you pledge fealty to Pharma that cannot make money off of a generic drug but then there are the facts.

Database of Ivermectin studies.

https://c19ivermectin.com