However, it has been used widely in humans for years and heralded as an extremely safe drug. Yet, the media blitz regarding it consistently refers to it as a "horse/livestock/etc. dewormer" rather than accurately talking about the drug.
Regardless of it's effectiveness/ineffectiveness in treating Covid (and yes, there were several studies showing its effectiveness against Covid, as well as some studies showing lack of effectiveness), it's apparent that there's an active media campaign to attack it's use more than just "it's ineffective", but to demonize doctors who have supported its use and try to equate it with taking medicine for livestock.
From 2011, well before Ivermectin became political:
Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world. Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it kills a wide range of internal and external parasites in commercial livestock and companion animals. It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. This paper looks in depth at the events surrounding ivermectin’s passage from being a huge success in Animal Health into its widespread use in humans, a development which has led many to describe it as a “wonder” drug.
There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. Several extensive reports, including reviews authored by us, have been published detailing the events behind the discovery, development and commercialization of the avermectins and ivermectin (22,23-dihydroavermectin B), as well as the donation of ivermectin and its use in combating Onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis.1–6) However, none have concentrated in detail on the interacting sequence of events involved in the passage of the drug into human use.
...
Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose). It is used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, including Onchocerciasis, Strongyloidiasis, Ascariasis, cutaneous larva migrans, filariases, Gnathostomiasis and Trichuriasis, as well as for oral treatment of ectoparasitic infections, such as Pediculosis (lice infestation) and scabies (mite infestation).14) Ivermectin is the essential mainstay of two global disease elimination campaigns that should soon rid the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases, Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis, which blight the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics.
Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective (nih.gov)
One side has a huge level of state coercion to be injected with something that has no long term trials data, and massive profits to be made from tax payers.
And why are you talking about 'put all your faith in the pro-Ivermectin studies being bonafide'? We're continually told that this is an emergency, so why aren't we handing out Ivermectin, given that it's well-tolerated, cheap, and relatively risk free? There's almost nothing to lose, and yet the authorities are determined to stop people even having the free choice to try it, even with their own money.
I think there is in-vitro evidence that Ivermectin has some measurable effect on the SARS-CoV/2 virus, which is how the whole thing got started. However the dosage levels in these in-vitro tests were above the levels that would be safe to use in human bodies, which is why clinical trials are needed. And indeed clinical trials are being conducted (at a safe dose). But there have been no results from those trials yet. One thing we can say is that if there is a beneficial effect, it is small. Otherwise it would have shown up much earlier in these trials.That en
As far as I can tell that entire paper touts Ivermectin as a wonder drug due to its sole function as an antiparasitic. I am tired and may have missed it, but please quote anywhere in that article that indicates it should be used for anything except parasites.
As far as I know governments haven't made Ivermectin illegal.We're continually told that this is an emergency, so why aren't we handing out Ivermectin, given that it's well-tolerated, cheap, and relatively risk free? There's almost nothing to lose, and yet the authorities are determined to stop people even having the free choice to try it, even with their own money.
Try these studies.That en
As far as I can tell that entire paper touts Ivermectin as a wonder drug due to its sole function as an antiparasitic. I am tired and may have missed it, but please quote anywhere in that article that indicates it should be used for anything except parasites.
Safety trials are not required for Ivermectin. It is well tolerated, relatively risk free, and has been used safely in humans for around 30-40 years. If it doesn't work, it's unlikely to harm anyone. And it costs next to nothing, so it makes sense to make it available to anyone who wants to try it.Where are the long term trials for Ivermectin being used against covid?
No. I'm pro-choice. I believe people should be able to choose, and give informed consent. I don't mind if people want to try the covid vaccines, Ivermectin, or neither. That's what bodily autonomy means.But your side isn't even arguing for that. You're arguing that it should be handed out in place of the vaccine.
More people need to read this, because it exposes how easy the PCR test is to manipulate. I suspect that inappropriately high cycle numbers for PCR tests is how health authorities were able to push the bogus concept of asymptomatic infection.
Sadly the inventor of the PCR test died not long before COVID kicked off. I've no doubt that he would have condemned the way that his test was used and abused.
I've never denied that COVID exists. I've never denied that COVID can make people seriously unwell. I've never denied that COVID can kill people. What I'm saying about the PCR test isn't COVID denialism, it's PCR test science and PCR test realism.Hmm, haven't seen this sort of covid denialism before. I wonder if it is a sign that anti-vaxx messaging about the dangers or effectiveness is losing, so there's a need to retreat to the idea that covid isn't a problem.
The inventor of the PCR test told people not to use it as a diagnostic tool in healthcare settings. There are videos showing him saying that. It's a fact.The dead rarely complain when people put words in their mouth.
Why don't you read some of them yourself? Surely you want to know both sides of the argument, don't you?Which particular study do you find convincing and why?
But it is at least possible. That’s a pretty steep and immediate plummet. Even if the plummet is ultimately linked to something else, at least looking into the possibility that it was thanks to ivermectin seems reasonable.Yeah, the numbers were dropping when vaccinations were increasingly given so any incidental use of ivermectin can't be proven in any way.
People are so hell-bent on parroting the media, experts, published data, and published stats in an effort to appear smart, with it, or rational that even if data appears which seems to point in one direction clearly, it can not be considered if it runs contrary to media-approved information.I've never denied that COVID exists. I've never denied that COVID can make people seriously unwell. I've never denied that COVID can kill people. What I'm saying about the PCR test isn't COVID denialism, it's PCR test science and PCR test realism.
And I don't know why some people get so accusatory when someone posts some valuable information about the PCR test, and someone else comments on that information. It's almost as if they don't like being slapped in the face by scientific facts and reality.
The inventor of the PCR test told people not to use it as a diagnostic tool in healthcare settings. There are videos showing him saying that. It's a fact.
Why don't you read some of them yourself? Surely you want to know both sides of the argument, don't you?
But for there to be a direct link, shouldn’t cases have started plummeting starting when and as the vaccines began to be administered? I’m seeing a more likely connection between ivermectin and falling rates than vaccinations and falling rates. Not that vaccinations aren’t likely helping too, but the data looks more like ivermectin is the cause than vaccination, if we’re just comparing chart forms.Yep. see No evidence that the fall in COVID-19 cases in Indonesia is linked to the use of ivermectin
Interesting to compare when vaccinations started increasing in number to the fall of covid as seen in these two graphs:
View attachment 307913
View attachment 307914
Apart from the company that makes it stating clearly that it should NOT be used to treat Covid. How do you explain that?Everything points towards money and profits.
We've already been there.Apart from the company that makes it stating clearly that it should NOT be used to treat Covid. How do you explain that?
Merck have their own reasons for not wanting Ivermectin, a cheap, out-of-patent drug, to be the answer to COVID.
Merck’s COVID-19 pill could bring in up to $7 billion in sales next year
The usual rules apply. Everyone wants a slice of the covid pie. Follow the money, and you'll find out what's really going on.
Spoken with true Christian compassion.That's easy. It will never be banned because people suffering from dementia absolutely love ice cream. And as an added bonus, when they're busy licking an ice cream, they can't put their foot in their mouth.
Compassion is not putting dementia sufferers in situations that may confuse and bewilder them.Spoken with true Christian compassion.
Compassion is not putting dementia sufferers in situations that may confuse and bewilder them.
That’s molnupiravir. What does that have to do with ivermectin? One’s an anti viral (possibly useful as it interferes with RNA replication) and one is for endo parasites (acknowledged by the formulators to be ineffective as it affects the ion channels in the cells of the endo parasite).We've already been there.
I've never denied that COVID exists. I've never denied that COVID can make people seriously unwell. I've never denied that COVID can kill people. What I'm saying about the PCR test isn't COVID denialism, it's PCR test science and PCR test realism.
And I don't know why some people get so accusatory when someone posts some valuable information about the PCR testand someone else comments on that information. It's almost as if they don't like being slapped in the face by scientific facts and reality.
The inventor of the PCR test told people not to use it as a diagnostic tool in healthcare settings. There are videos showing him saying that. It's a fact.
Hey look, an attempt to shift the burden of proof. That's not a good sign.Why don't you read some of them yourself? Surely you want to know both sides of the argument, don't you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?