Ivermectin & Aducanumab: Do They Work?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Sure, best not to do research (aka "pull something out of the internet's ass"), it's much better to keep your nose buried in the FDA's ass.

LOL

originally posted by: underpass61

Sure, best not to do research (aka "pull something out of the internet's ass"), it's much better to keep your nose buried in the FDA's ass.

LOL

People do not research, they cherry-pick whatever fits their narrative. 15 mins of the video slams the FDA, so why do you think I got my nose up their ass? You keep trying to label me and you keep missing...

a reply to: underpass61

I understand and I really didn't know it came in another form other than liquid. But if a doctor says it's good, it must be good right (hint of sarcasm there) but to each their own.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Well, they have had people who took the pet medicine and have died from it. They probably took the amount a Horse takes to treat worms. When taking any med you need the dosage to be known, and the dosage is different for different animals when figuring weight of the animal for the dosage. Humans might just need a small amount to fight the covid, way less than needed to fight off parasite infections.

I do not know how to dose it or if I have risk factors. It would be nice if they approved it and the doctors got dosing information on how to use it properly. I see no reason why they don't approve this and I would go to a doctor to get it prescribed if I had covid. Right now, not much is approved, and I am not going to take Rendezivar after seeing the number of people who got bad side effects. I can treat myself with food chemistry that keeps this virus at bay, but if I got a glitch in my immunity temporarily it would be nice to be able to get Ivermectin prescribed by a doctor because if I am sick as SHI I won't feel like getting out and finding it or trying to evaluate a dose.

a reply to: Xtrozero

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
You can find all the info you want
270 article on ivermectin for covid
preventing helping dosage
Have fun reading there a lot that is covered

a reply to: Xtrozero

Hmm, let's see. Your OP is one "cherry picked" video that fits your narrative.
How's that?

originally posted by: underpass61

Hmm, let's see. Your OP is one "cherry picked" video that fits your narrative.
How's that?

Now you are just being stupid and annoying. I didn't make a claim whether Ivermectin worked or not. That was for some reason yours and a few others main point in an OP that wasn't about it. So the only thing I can assume is people didn't care to watch the video or read my foot notes on it and decided to jump in with two feet with their "it works" narrative.

I hope it does work as the other drugs being pushed as having good affect. I hope mRNA is the beginning of a new direction in medicine to cure many things.

BTW what was my narrative outside what they discuss is interesting and that Big Pharma can suck?

originally posted by: damitt
a reply to: Xtrozero

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
You can find all the info you want
270 article on ivermectin for covid
preventing helping dosage
Have fun reading there a lot that is covered

I have a feeling you didn't. Go read the abstracts...

Examples:

They want to do this, not a completed study.

To assess the efficacy of ivermectin in addition to standard treatment compared to standard treatment alone in reducing hospitalizations in the COVID-19 patient population.

Here is the next one....

In summary, the likelihood of a successful clinical trial using the approved dose of ivermectin is low. Combination therapy should be evaluated in vitro.

This next one is pretty good study and looks to be registering their clinical study of 24 patients, this isn't saying they done it yet.

The SARS-CoV-2 Ivermectin Navarra-ISGlobal Trial (SAINT) to Evaluate the Potential of Ivermectin to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in low risk, non-severe COVID-19 patients in the first 48 hours after symptoms onset: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized control pilot trial

You can't say here is 240 documents have fun reading, drop the mic, and walk out if you haven't really read any yourself...lol geez

I looked at another 5 or 6 more...no mic drops noted.....

My understanding is that, in theory, ivermectin works. But to be effective, you need to take enough to kill you .....

originally posted by: bigsnowman
The vaccines are free and effective.

Umm... no. They're not.

Just because you don't pay for it yourself out of pocket doesn't mean its free.

If you're worried about COVID-19 to the point of taking dewormers as a preventative measure, I highly recommend looking into it.

Good try at dissing something you apparently don't know much if anything about.

Ivermectin is much more than just a 'dewormer'.

Not only does it have an extremely well established safety record, its efficacy against the vid is also now well established by the FLCCC.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"It works. Amazingly well. It works so well that those who fought and continue to fight it's use are guilty of criminal mass murder."

Hopefully when the studies are done we will all know that.

I guess that depends on if these 'studies' you refer to are honest, or manipulated piles of steaming dog # like many/most are.

But you go ahead and wait for your 'studies' - I'll take the word of those front line Doctors that have been using it for well over a year with almost 100% success, in the real world - saving lives, as opposed to paying government 'scientist' salaries.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I wish we knew the truth about anything.
So many people pushing the vaccines and dissing ivermectin.

But the vaunted vaccines don't prevent a person from contracting COVID or spreading it... so their arguments don't mean much to me.

We do know the truth about many things.

We know that the virus was engineered for gain of function, and we know the virus has a survival rate of 99%.

We know that mainstream media suppresses any discussion of truthful statements by whistleblowers within the healthcare industry.

Even though MSM won't talk about it, we know that the clot shots are dangerous to all and fatal to many.

We know that natural immunity is far superior to what the shots deliver.

We know that all men holding power ought to be mistrusted.

Still, people are sufficiently scared of a virus that they are willing to have toxic substances injected into their bodies.

Life goes on....

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
My understanding is that, in theory, ivermectin works. But to be effective, you need to take enough to kill you .....

Its funny I started this OP and on the local news last night they had a story of people buy and using animal ivermectin and ending up calling poison control for help. They might be taking what is suggested on the bottle for a horse, who knows.

In the video they talked about 5 on going major studies to find out, so the good news is we will know soon. I really hope it works as people suggest.

a reply to: Salander

Lots of assumptions in the "we know".....

a reply to: Xtrozero

This first I didn't just hit an run I do have life, I can not sit around and what on Some one to reply. second I didn't say there was 240 documents I said there 270 articles. Now For the reason I posted what I did. So people on this post could have what they might need to discuss with your op.
I am not going to tell any one what they should do as far Ivermectin goes. If they want use it or not it's up to then.

Third I wouldn't have posted something that I have not went over.
Fourth you went to the site and cherry pick only what benefits your argument.

The end have good day my friend

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Not only does it have an extremely well established safety record, its efficacy against the vid is also now well established by the FLCCC.

So the FLCCC is basically a private organization started by 3 doctors March 2020. They used what they called "natural studies" in different countries, so no real clinical studies just their observations and their own conclusion with no peer review and no registering etc. etc. So they just did things on their own and came to these broad conclusions all on their own.

This is a good reason why it is very important for honest clinical trials. Are these guys cutting edge or quacks...who knows...and that is the problem, but I wouldn't use them in my post as some gold standard agency as it seems you have done.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So the FLCCC is basically a private organization started by 3 doctors March 2020.

Yes. All physicians, Medical Doctors who actually cared enough about their patients to be willing to try things that are at least very safe, and potentially effective.

It is called 'practicing' medicine for a reason.

They used what they called "natural studies" in different countries, so no real clinical studies just their observations and their own conclusion with no peer review and no registering etc. etc. So they just did things on their own and came to these broad conclusions all on their own.

Yes. Contrary to your apparent attempt to denigrate the practice of 'observational' medicine, it is actually an ancient and very, very relevant and effective way to 'practice' medicine, and their primary focus being 'safety first', it is also in direct pursuit of their Hippocratic oath to first 'do no harm'.

This is a good reason why it is very important for honest clinical trials.

Yes. Too bad 99.9% of so-called clinical trials are about as far from honest as you can get.

Are these guys cutting edge or quacks...who knows.

The answer is obvious except to those who are oblivious.

but I wouldn't use them in my post as some gold standard agency as it seems you have done.

They've save hundreds if not thousands of lives, while 99% of doctors and hospitals in our country have stood by their official policy to simply 'not treat' until someone gets really sick, with their only interventional treatments at that point being oxygen and ultimately, the death sentence (putting them on a ventilator). It is murder, pure and simple.

originally posted by: damitt

This first I didn't just hit an run I do have life, I can not sit around and what on Some one to reply. second I didn't say there was 240 documents I said there 270 articles. Now For the reason I posted what I did. So people on this post could have what they might need to discuss with your op.
I am not going to tell any one what they should do as far Ivermectin goes. If they want use it or not it's up to then.

Third I wouldn't have posted something that I have not went over.
Fourth you went to the site and cherry pick only what benefits your argument.

The end have good day my friend

Your tone in your post was like pushing proof into my face and walking away. I actually just looked at the first 3 or 4 in a row. I too have a life... Then I scrolled a couple of pages and read a few more abstracts, so I really didn't invest any time to find just the right ones...Overall most are abstracts of what some group wants to do... No real final data or findings in them, just explaining what the study is about or will be about.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Yes. All physicians, Medical Doctors who actually cared enough about their patients to be willing to try things that are at least very safe, and potentially effective.

It is called 'practicing' medicine for a reason.

I understand your point, but they are not some golden standard as you suggest and they didn't do clinical trials just observations. I'm not sure why I feel you are fighting me on something within this thread.

I do think it is interesting how people accept whatever about these drugs and slam the vaccine...lol I guess it is just confirmation bias mostly.

Yes. Contrary to your apparent attempt to denigrate the practice of 'observational' medicine, it is actually an ancient and very, very relevant and effective way to 'practice' medicine, and their primary focus being 'safety first', it is also in direct pursuit of their Hippocratic oath to first 'do no harm'.

I don't think I used any derogatory terms towards it. Its not 1200AD its 2021 and we have better ways to do it. I think observations is a start, but not the de facto proof as some suggest it is. To you it looks great...all you need, and its you they kind of prey on, but to the trained eye it is far from good.

Yes. Too bad 99.9% of so-called clinical trials are about as far from honest as you can get.

An assumption to support people just WAGing it???

They've save hundreds if not thousands of lives, while 99% of doctors and hospitals in our country have stood by their official policy to simply 'not treat' until someone gets really sick, with their only interventional treatments at that point being oxygen and ultimately, the death sentence (putting them on a ventilator). It is murder, pure and simple.

So 99.99% of all other doctors are inept, evil, bad?????

The bottom-line is even if they are 100% correct we still need clinical trials to validate... Can you at least agree to that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I understand your point, but they are not some golden standard as you suggest

I never used anything like that term.

and they didn't do clinical trials just observations.

'Just' observations. Yes. It is called practicing medicine like has been done for millennia.

I'm not sure why I feel you are fighting me on something within this thread.

Because you keep saying dumb things like "studies are the gold standard" when you know (or should know) that most studies are bull# wrapped in a pretty bow, while dissing Doctors who use tried and true 'observational medicine' to actually save lives.

Stop dissing them and worshiping fake science, and I'll stop fighting with you... deal?

I do think it is interesting how people accept whatever about these drugs and slam the vaccine...lol I guess it is just confirmation bias mostly.

That is where you are wrong. I am not blindly accepting anything about these drugs. I am reading the actual proven long term scientific track record of the drugs involved, reading the Doctors reasoning for trying them, and reading their reported results - no, not studies, but far far from purely anecdotal reports of random isolated individuals, these are reports by Medical Doctors who keep meticulous records and observations of their usage of these drugs, documenting the huge successes they are having - I'll say it again 'a little bit louder now'... SAVING LIVES. So, on that basis, I say - a little bit louder now... TO HELL WITH YOUR DAMNED STUDIES - if it works, it works, feel free to study away later to figure out why it works, but you don't allow people to die just because there is no 'golden study' to prove it works.

Its not 1200AD its 2021 and we have better ways to do it (practice medicine). I think observations is a start, but not the de facto proof as some suggest it is.

I never said it was a 'defacto proof'. I said it is an extremely valuable and respectable way to practice medicine, and, especially in a plandemic, an invaluable tool to determine what works when it comes to therapeutics without having to wait for years for real trials.

To you it looks great...all you need, and its you they kind of prey on, but to the trained eye it is far from good.

Prey on? Once again... THEY ARE SAVING LIVES, so, yeah, they're sure preying on those poor dumb bastards.

So 99.99% of all other doctors are inept, evil, bad?????

The only evil ones are at the top and upper middle management, pushing the agenda. There are literally thousands of Doctors fighting this madness, but they are attacked, vilified, and canceled by their superiors.

The bottom-line is even if they are 100% correct we still need clinical trials to validate... Can you at least agree to that.

It depends on what you actually mean...

Can you at least agree that if there is even a small chance that these extremely safe and extremely cheap medicines with very long and well established safety track records can save lives, that they should be used anywhere and everywhere by anyone who wants to use them (but not forced on anyone, unlike the jab-pushers)?

You can validate all you want later, what we need right now is to save lives and eliminate the mass psychosis being shoved down our throats by the fear-doom-porn-mongers.