Clinical trials starting for Ivermectin, Flonase, fluvoxamine for CV-19 treatment (government, state)
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.
Ivermectin has a history of being safe. If you go to be PubMed, you'll see peer-reviewed abstracts going back years proving it's been successful in treating different viruses.
Sometimes it's good to listen to doctors who are actually treating patients and have positive outcomes instead of waiting for researchers to catch up and claim there's a treatment. Virologists, immunologists, cardiologists have all been part of treatment plans and they've successfully used Ivermectin.
Why they're being ignored really isn't a mystery.
No reasonable person is arguing that taking Ivermectin under the care of a doctor is unsafe, in and of itself.
It might be "unsafe" as a treatment for COVID, in that it doesn't actually help reduce symptoms or progression of disease. That is yet to be determined.
No reasonable person is arguing that taking Ivermectin under the care of a doctor is unsafe, in and of itself.
It might be "unsafe" as a treatment for COVID, in that it doesn't actually help reduce symptoms or progression of disease. That is yet to be determined.
Context matters.
I framed my initial post in the context of doctors treating Covid patients. The context had already been established.
And when a number of doctors across the world are saying the same thing, it bears attention. When there are already peer-reviewed published papers of Ivermectin being successful in treating viruses, it gives credence to those doctors.
I framed my initial post in the context of doctors treating Covid patients. The context had already been established.
Re-read my post and maybe you'll see the contextual difference I'm referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
And when a number of doctors across the world are saying the same thing, it bears attention. When there are already peer-reviewed published papers of Ivermectin being successful in treating viruses, it gives credence to those doctors.
I gave credence to the hypothesis - I fully recognized that Ivermectin might work. It simply hasn't been demonstrated to do so using the best methods of study/trial, yet.
Legitimate clinical trials demonstrating efficacy, for starters.
The vaccines were rolled out under EUA from efficacy data given to us by the manufacturers. That efficacy has never been replicated in the real world. Israel is seeing 39% efficacy, a far cry from Pfizer's 90+% it reported.
Gilead own studies showed Remdesivir as being an effective treatment, as a result the FDA gave it EUA for treatment. Meanwhile no third party could reproduce that data, and the WHO recommends against its use, yet in the USA it's still in use?
Ivermectin has been studied by many countries, and third parties and almost all have found efficacy. It's currently the common treatment protocol in Japan, Mexico, and India with success.
The NIH silently modulated their wording on Ivermectin this year from "against" to "neutral".
In Italy, Turkey HCQ + Zinc is used to treat COVID19, and if you look at their curves, they're a lot better than ours. HCQ had EUA at the beginning when it was pulled because of a Lancet study that was later RETRACTED.
Ivermectin is already tainted. I wouldn't trust that study at this point. If they hadn't already gone positively unhinged over it that would be different.
Why wouldn't you trust it? If it's a well designed study with no limitations I see no issues.
Re-read my post and maybe you'll see the contextual difference I'm referring to.
I gave credence to the hypothesis - I fully recognized that Ivermectin might work. It simply hasn't been demonstrated to do so using the best methods of study/trial, yet.
And the vaccine might work. Then again, it might not. And we don't know the long-term risks of the vaccine.
So, personally, I wish a large-scale trial would be done using Ivermectin so it would be an approved protocol once and for all, but this trial has been set up to fail, which happens when big pharma dollars might be at risk.
The vaccines were rolled out under EUA from efficacy data given to us by the manufacturers. That efficacy has never been replicated in the real world. Israel is seeing 39% efficacy, a far cry from Pfizer's 90+% it reported.
Gilead own studies showed Remdesivir as being an effective treatment, as a result the FDA gave it EUA for treatment. Meanwhile no third party could reproduce that data, and the WHO recommends against its use, yet in the USA it's still in use?
Ivermectin has been studied by many countries, and third parties and almost all have found efficacy. It's currently the common treatment protocol in Japan, Mexico, and India with success.
The NIH silently modulated their wording on Ivermectin this year from "against" to "neutral".
In Italy, Turkey HCQ + Zinc is used to treat COVID19, and if you look at their curves, they're a lot better than ours. HCQ had EUA at the beginning when it was pulled because of a Lancet study that was later RETRACTED.
The Japanese government has not authorized Ivermectin as a COVID treatment.
I don't care enough to look up Mexico or India.
In some parts of the world, Ivermectin might be your best option. Here in the US, it's almost certainly not.
What you (and others) have said is we should wait for peer reviewed, triple blind, randomized clinical trials to be conducted before we even consider an otherwise approved, safe, nearly side effect free drug that has saved thousands of lives. Then you say there have already been studies you don't consider valid so we should not conduct any more.
Did I miss something?
Yes, you missed the fact that we've already conducted a dozen RCT's showing no benefits of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID.
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.
