Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it has been shown to be effective, enough so that Japan, a highly educated scientifically oriented country, has made it part of its treatment profile. But that aside, it is cheap, it is not harmful, it is plentiful, and it might help. Based on your logic we shouldn’t be allowing people to take aspirin or Tylenol or steroids, either.
I don’t want Ivermectin available instead of other treatment. I want it available in addition to vaccines and other treatments. What is the harm in that?
Because anything less then 100% allegiance to the vaccines is, for some reason, considered a loss to them. All we want is that it be made available alongside the vaccines. Which position seems more reasonable?
Anyone who doesn't get the news and their feelings from FB/ Twitter/ YT or uses a search engine other than google was aware of this 18 months ago via valid peer reviewed studies that were that were suppressed and buried by the above mentioned.
More difficult will be pin-pointing the who, what, when, where (((we know why))) and bringing them to justice via rusty spike to the brain stem (unless that's too humane).
If you actually followed the information about ivermectin, instead of just googling stuff about it during debates, you'd already know that it's most effective as a prophylactic and in the first few days of symptoms. I could have told you that it doesn't do much after day 7. You didn't need to go find a study for that.
It's extremely frustrating trying to have sincere discussions about this, because people think that they can debate using a search engine to represent their position. "Here's a link which will tell you what I think because I don't actually know for myself" isn't honest and isn't productive.
No.... I didn't just "Google" IVM. Did you actually bother going to the site (which btw, is where all of the IVM studies are published) and READ any of them?
I have been trying to keep up with the studies on any possible solutions to COVID that are not the vaccine.
I don't have an "allegiance" to any one specific treatment. I do, however, have an issue when people want to say that X works better than Y without having anything to back it up. I think there is the potential for multiple solutions, or for a combination of solutions.
The entire anti vax movement is based on cherry picking data, poor comprehension and absurd conclusions. The most amazing part is that they think anyone who doesn't agree with them is stupid.
Their logic goes like this...everyone who survived covid drank water, therefore water cures covid. When you point out that everyone who died also drank water they will simply say that it's not 100% effective - same as the vaccine.
And omg, water won't give you enlarged testicles.
So..... you think that because I choose not to immediately run away with anecdotal evidence one way or another that I am an anti-vaxxer who is "cherry picking" data? I see that you cut out some of my post to only address the things that you wanted to.
I am vaccinated..... I also believe that there are likely other options out there ASIDE from just vaccination. I don't believe there is enough hard evidence yet that they work safely enough for folks to try them on their own, without a doctor's help.
You're proving my earlier point that I've made on CD a few times already. People pick a side and run with it regardless of whether or not the facts are there. I'm open to both arguments.
No.... I didn't just "Google" IVM. Did you actually bother going to the site (which btw, is where all of the IVM studies are published) and READ any of them?
I have been trying to keep up with the studies on any possible solutions to COVID that are not the vaccine.
I don't have an "allegiance" to any one specific treatment. I do, however, have an issue when people want to say that X works better than Y without having anything to back it up. I think there is the potential for multiple solutions, or for a combination of solutions.
Yes, I've read a number of them, and no, I didn't visit your specific link. Most of the studies I read are hosted on the CDC or NIH websites, because if they're found elsewhere, people flatly ignore them and there's no reason to bring them up. I'm not here to waste my time.
If you're as up to date as you claim, what was the reason you cited a study which talked about the efficacy after 7 days? That's a meaningless study, in the grand scheme. We already know that it's not terribly effective in later stages, just like we know that the antibody treatment is. If you already knew this, why did you bring up that study, and highlight that information? I don't understand the rationale for doing that, if you're as informed as you claim.
Yes, I've read a number of them, and no, I didn't visit your specific link. Most of the studies I read are hosted on the CDC or NIH websites, because if they're found elsewhere, people flatly ignore them and there's no reason to bring them up. I'm not here to waste my time.
If you're as up to date as you claim, what was the reason you cited a study which talked about the efficacy after 7 days? That's a meaningless study, in the grand scheme. We already know that it's not terribly effective in later stages, just like we know that the antibody treatment is. If you already knew this, why did you bring up that study, and highlight that information? I don't understand the rationale for doing that, if you're as informed as you claim.
I randomly pulled some of the studies primarily to show that not all of the data suggests that IVM is effective. Not to prove that it doesn't work and that the vaccines do, but to add some context that nothing has been proven as the be-all, end-all solution yet. There are hundreds of case studies at that link. If you don't want to waste your time back and forth, go read them.
Some of the studies linked there are from the NIH. However, in relation to your question as to the 7 day efficacy, there are many people on C-D and elsewhere that believe IVM is effective, period. They do not seem to understand that the studies show there is a timeframe in which IVM is believe to be the most effective. So, it's still valid.
I also went on to say that there does appear to be some promise to it, and that it might be effective in combination with other methods.
yes, another poster brought it to our attention and as usual the title of the thread is false and misleading. As already discussed the authors need to reanalyze and republish their meta-analysis to come to a new conclusion.
Yes, I've read a number of them, and no, I didn't visit your specific link. Most of the studies I read are hosted on the CDC or NIH websites, because if they're found elsewhere, people flatly ignore them and there's no reason to bring them up. I'm not here to waste my time.
If you're as up to date as you claim, what was the reason you cited a study which talked about the efficacy after 7 days? That's a meaningless study, in the grand scheme. We already know that it's not terribly effective in later stages, just like we know that the antibody treatment is. If you already knew this, why did you bring up that study, and highlight that information? I don't understand the rationale for doing that, if you're as informed as you claim.
We have addressed these studies multiple times and have addressed the many flaws and quality of studies in each occasion. Yet those that put faith in these flawed and low quality studies continue to ignore the plethora of high quality RCT's and Systematic Reviews that are present.
"MAY reduce numbers progressing to severe disease" isn't remotely close to a conclusive statement and it refers to those who've already contracted the disease. Personally, I prefer the vaccine and not getting the disease in the first place.
Every drug summary uses the word 'may' and not 'will'. That's because nothing works in 100% of the cases.
Every drug summary uses the word 'may' and not 'will'. That's because nothing works in 100% of the cases.
True statement. And to the poster you were quoting, the vaccine doesn't guarantee that you won't get COVID-19. You "may not", but you "may" still get infected. That's why it's important to keep an open mind as to what options are becoming available and not discount ANY of them completely (including the vaccines).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
