Ivermectin

[Josh]

A friend of mine is on ivermectin therapy along with a nebuliser (prescribed by a doctor, paid by insurance) and seems to be doing great.

[Valerie]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... user-share

[Valerie]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... user-share

Ivermectin wins in court

[Josh]

A friend of mine is on ivermectin therapy along with a nebuliser (prescribed by a doctor, paid by insurance) and seems to be doing great.

She’s doing amazing after a few days. Her doctor said it’s keeping patients from needing to go to the hospital.

[Josh]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... user-share

Ivermectin wins in court

Japan is also moving in this direction.

[GaryK]

A friend of mine is on ivermectin therapy along with a nebuliser (prescribed by a doctor, paid by insurance) and seems to be doing great.

She’s doing amazing after a few days. Her doctor said it’s keeping patients from needing to go to the hospital.

Great! This is in line with pretty much everything I've been researching about Ivermectin, including the peer-reviewed studies.

[Ken]

Do you all have the same rigorous standards for testing and Phase I through IV clinical trials of the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin as an anti-viral, as you do for the various Covid vaccines?

I don't have any particular opinion about Ivermectin one way or the other. If it turns out to be the miracle drug that ends the pandemic then that would be awesome. But what I actually see are lots of people who reject vaccines based on skepticism of the vaccine testing and review process, while at the same time uncritically cheerleading Ivermectin based on evidence that is sketchy at best and not remotely as rigorous as the clinical trials supporting the vaccines and all the other approved Covid therapies.

Upstream there was an article someone posted about a doctor who reported four Covid patients who were given Ivermectin came off ventilators and recovered. FOUR. In point of fact, more than 80% of all Covid ICU patients who are ventilators end up recovering. So you could walk through the average Covid ward, perform some voodoo rituals, sacrifice some chickens, and more than 4 out of 5 patients will recover and survive.

That is why we do large-scale, randomized, double-blind clinical trials.

[Josh]

Do you all have the same rigorous standards for testing and Phase I through IV clinical trials of the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin as an anti-viral, as you do for the various Covid vaccines?

I don't have any particular opinion about Ivermectin one way or the other. If it turns out to be the miracle drug that ends the pandemic then that would be awesome. But what I actually see are lots of people who reject vaccines based on skepticism of the vaccine testing and review process, while at the same time uncritically cheerleading Ivermectin based on evidence that is sketchy at best and not remotely as rigorous as the clinical trials supporting the vaccines and all the other approved Covid therapies.

Upstream there was an article someone posted about a doctor who reported four Covid patients who were given Ivermectin came off ventilators and recovered. FOUR. In point of fact, more than 80% of all Covid ICU patients who are ventilators end up recovering. So you could walk through the average Covid ward, perform some voodoo rituals, sacrifice some chickens, and more than 4 out of 5 patients will recover and survive.

That is why we do large-scale, randomized, double-blind clinical trials.

... except with mRNA vaccines, where that hasn’t happened. No control group!

Ivermectin already passed trials and tests for safety a long time ago. There’s no risk in taking it. mRNA vaccines are a complete unknown for safety.

[Ken]

Do you all have the same rigorous standards for testing and Phase I through IV clinical trials of the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin as an anti-viral, as you do for the various Covid vaccines?

I don't have any particular opinion about Ivermectin one way or the other. If it turns out to be the miracle drug that ends the pandemic then that would be awesome. But what I actually see are lots of people who reject vaccines based on skepticism of the vaccine testing and review process, while at the same time uncritically cheerleading Ivermectin based on evidence that is sketchy at best and not remotely as rigorous as the clinical trials supporting the vaccines and all the other approved Covid therapies.

Upstream there was an article someone posted about a doctor who reported four Covid patients who were given Ivermectin came off ventilators and recovered. FOUR. In point of fact, more than 80% of all Covid ICU patients who are ventilators end up recovering. So you could walk through the average Covid ward, perform some voodoo rituals, sacrifice some chickens, and more than 4 out of 5 patients will recover and survive.

That is why we do large-scale, randomized, double-blind clinical trials.

... except with mRNA vaccines, where that hasn’t happened. No control group!

Ivermectin already passed trials and tests for safety a long time ago. There’s no risk in taking it. mRNA vaccines are a complete unknown for safety.

That isn't true on either count.

All the vaccine trials for each of the various vaccines had very large randomized double-blind control groups during all of their phased-trials. What happened was that after the trials were completed and the vaccines were approved, those who had been given the placebo were informed of this and offered the vaccine along with everyone else. To do anything else would have been absolutely immoral and akin to the famous Tuskegee experiments where men with syphilis were left untreated for decades so scientists could study the course of the disease, while lying to their patients about the treatments they were getting (or not getting). But we still have many millions of Americans who are willing to be in the non-vaccine control group so science still has plenty of opportunity to compare the long-term effects of vaccination vs non-vaccination. The same thing happens with any drug trial. Would you favor a policy in which all drug trial participants who wind up in randomized control group are forever prohibited from taking the medication being tested just for the sake of long-term study? Even after the drug in question is fully approved?

Regarding Ivermectin. It has most definitely not been rigorously studied as an anti-viral agent. All the trials you are talking about are were testing its use as a one-time therapeutic on otherwise healthy people for various worm parasites. No systematic randomized double-blind studies have been conducted on the use of Ivermectin as an anti-viral to determine (1) ideal dosages or ideal treatment regimen for anti-viral use, (2) side effects on ill patients suffering from severe respiratory disease, (3) potential interactions with other drugs and therapies that are being simultaneously given to Covid patients, or (4) whether Ivermectin is a more effective or less effective therapy than other drugs already approved or in the pipeline.

Maybe it is indeed the best thing since sliced bread. But don't pretend that any of those four issues above have actually been studied in any kind of rigorous and systemic way.

[Josh]

There’s no control group for effects of the vaccine over any decent period of time. Normally, vaccines are studied over a multi year period.

Pregnant women normally can take vaccines once they’ve been taken for 8 years by others.