Anyone ever heard of the COVID treatment Ivermectin?

[basehibby]

I've been following the story on this very promising treatment for about 9 months now and it's been subject to some outrageous censorship. So was wondering what level of awareness there is among the Hibs.net cognoscenti .....

[Rocky]

Where have you been following the story?

[Stairway 2 7]

I've been following the story on this very promising treatment for about 9 months now and it's been subject to some outrageous censorship. So was wondering what level of awareness there is among the Hibs.net cognoscenti .....

Probably should be on the covid thread but.. it been pushed by a lot of right wing media, many shares were purchased last year by big hitters with hope's it worked.

Every study has shown it doesn't help. Well except one trial that said it worked like a charm. The study was done in Egypt and has been shared in media including fox news. Turns out the study was a fraud the numbers literally didn't add up. Also paragraphs of the study were copied and pasted from other studies

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

[Santa Cruz]

I've been following the story on this very promising treatment for about 9 months now and it's been subject to some outrageous censorship. So was wondering what level of awareness there is among the Hibs.net cognoscenti .....

I read about it not that long ago. It's being studied in the UK as a treatment. Wasn't aware of any censorship.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57570377

[Stairway 2 7]

The makers of the drug with the most to gain downplay it, so I don't think there is any conspiracy

The drug’s manufacturer, pharma giant MSD, also warned that its analysis of ivermectin identified “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 from pre-clinical studies”, “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease” and “a concerning lack of safety data” in most studies.

[basehibby]

Probably should be on the covid thread but.. it been pushed by a lot of right wing media, many shares were purchased last year by big hitters with hope's it worked.

Every study has shown it doesn't help. Well except one trial that said it worked like a charm. The study was done in Egypt and has been shared in media including fox news. Turns out the study was a fraud the numbers literally didn't add up. Also paragraphs of the study were copied and pasted from other studies

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

I'm afraid you've been misinformed. There have been 60 studies done on Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID - 39 of them peer reviewed - and the overwhelming bulk have indicated it's efficacy with perhaps one or two bucking that trend. One of the big problems with it appears to be it's non-profitability - given that it's patent has long since expired and it is extremely cheap to make.

The study which was recently withdrawn was not at all huge but was the largest of a small group of (about 15) studies which conform to certain criteria which the likes of the WHO like to see (eg. not including observational studies). Contrary to the contents of the Guardian article, it's withdrawal does not alter the conclusion of the meta-analyses that it was included in - the conclusions of these meta-analyses are still starkly positive.

It's regretful that certain parties are politicising what is a drug which could already have saved the lives of 100s of thousands of people. It's noteable that the far-right wing government in Westminster was given full information about this drug by a reputable scientific source in January - but completely ignored it.

NB - for your refernce, here is a summary of ALL the studies to date on Ivermectin - including those drawing both positive and negative conclusions ....

https://ivmmeta.com/

[Rocky]

I'm afraid you've been misinformed. There have been 60 studies done on Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID - 39 of them peer reviewed - and the overwhelming bulk have indicated it's efficacy with perhaps one or two bucking that trend. One of the big problems with it appears to be it's non-profitability - given that it's patent has long since expired and it is extremely cheap to make.

The study which was recently withdrawn was not at all huge but was the largest of a small group of (about 15) studies which conform to certain criteria which the likes of the WHO like to see (eg. not including observational studies). Contrary to the contents of the Guardian article, it's withdrawal does not alter the conclusion of the meta-analyses that it was included in - the conclusions of these meta-analyses are still starkly positive.

It's regretful that certain parties are politicising what is a drug which could already have saved the lives of 100s of thousands of people. It's noteable that the far-right wing government in Westminster was given full information about this drug by a reputable scientific source in January - but completely ignored it.

NB - for your refernce, here is a summary of ALL the studies to date on Ivermectin - including those drawing both positive and negative conclusions ....
If you can answer the questions of what sources you're using to follow the story, who you believe is being censored and by whom I'll take a look. Otherwise I'll assume you've fallen hook, line and sinker down a YouTube / Facebook rabbit hole.

[basehibby]

Where have you been following the story?

The two major sources of info for me have been Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Aliance (FLCCC) and British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD). The big tech giants such as Google, FB, Twitter have all largely supressed it - as have the traditional MSM.

[Rocky]

The two major sources of info for me have been Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Aliance (FLCCC) and British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD). The big tech giants such as Google, FB, Twitter have all largely supressed it - as have the traditional MSM.
Lol

[basehibby]

The makers of the drug with the most to gain downplay it, so I don't think there is any conspiracy

The drug’s manufacturer, pharma giant MSD, also warned that its analysis of ivermectin identified “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 from pre-clinical studies”, “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease” and “a concerning lack of safety data” in most studies.

You're right that Merc have said something along the lines of <it's not proven to be effective>. This should be balanced against the fact they are trying to gain an Emergency Use Authorisation for a new anti-viral which WILL be under patent (and hence profitable).

NB - in order for an Emergency Use Authorisation to be granted there must be no effective treatment available.

[basehibby]

Lol

You find this funny why?

[Santa Cruz]

You're right that Merc have said something along the lines of <it's not proven to be effective>. This should be balanced against the fact they are trying to gain an Emergency Use Authorisation for a new anti-viral which WILL be under patent (and hence profitable).

NB - in order for an Emergency Use Authorisation to be granted there must be no effective treatment available.

AZ is not for profit....

[Stairway 2 7]

The two major sources of info for me have been Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Aliance (FLCCC) and British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD). The big tech giants such as Google, FB, Twitter have all largely supressed it - as have the traditional MSM.

One of your main arguments is profit and that its cheap to make, trying to insinuate they want profit from vaccines. The problem is dexamephasone blows that theory away. A team from the UK tried hundreds of drugs already in use to see if any worked. Thankfully dexamephasone did and its saved tens of thousands of lives and its pennies. If a drug worked it would be used.

BBC News - Coronavirus: Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53061281

[Rocky]

You find this funny why?

Nearly as funny as this:

"Everyone in medicine will yell and scream that this paper is not a randomized controlled trial," or RCT, said the third FLCCC leader, Pierre Kory, MD, a critical care physician who worked most recently at Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center in Milwaukee (more on that below). "We didn't believe in an RCT. We believe we're supposed to doctor and use our expertise. If you've been doing this for decades, and you trust your assessment of the disease and your knowledge of medicine, it's OK to doctor."

This clown is working on a hunch and is your main source of information? Doesn't believe in randomised controlled trials, jeezo.

[basehibby]

I read about it not that long ago. It's being studied in the UK as a treatment. Wasn't aware of any censorship.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57570377

The initial study that discovered Ivermectin can "kill" SARS-COV2 was carried out in Australia in March 2020. This was an enormous story but it took the BBC over a year to "notice".

Similarly, Oxford University (who, by the way have obvious conflicting interests) have only just started doing a study over a year after the event. It almost makes you wonder if they realise there is a pandemic going on.

[Santa Cruz]

The initial study that discovered Ivermectin can "kill" SARS-COV2 was carried out in Australia in March 2020. This was an enormous story but it took the BBC over a year to "notice".

Similarly, Oxford University (who, by the way have obvious conflicting interests) have only just started doing a study over a year after the event. It almost makes you wonder if they realise there is a pandemic going on.

It was discovered in Australia, so are they using it now as a treatment?

[Stairway 2 7]

The initial study that discovered Ivermectin can "kill" SARS-COV2 was carried out in Australia in March 2020. This was an enormous story but it took the BBC over a year to "notice".

Similarly, Oxford University (who, by the way have obvious conflicting interests) have only just started doing a study over a year after the event. It almost makes you wonder if they realise there is a pandemic going on.

Sarah Gilbert from Oxfords team also championed dexamephasone. That's also a conflict. It's cheap readily available and was shown to work its now saving lives.

Your information is faulty and from nutjobs. Thank God for the vaccines

[basehibby]

AZ is not for profit....

INITIALLY not for profit - although their share price has done remarkably well considering the altruistic urges apparently guiding this corporation.

[Santa Cruz]

It was discovered in Australia, so are they using it now as a treatment?

Why are they not using it if it was discovered there? They are tanking their economy with cycles of lockdowns. You'd think with poor vaccination rates this would be a game changer for them, no?

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/covid-19-treatments

[Stairway 2 7]

Tocilizumab is another cheap drug used against covid it was originally for rheumatic problems.Baricitinib and Remdesivir another antiviral, cheap also. Blood thinners are usually used also.

hydroxychloroquine unfortunately didn't work. Antibodie drugs are being much studied just now. There are some available but expensive so looking to bring down price and ease of use, pill rather than drip

[basehibby]

It was discovered in Australia, so are they using it now as a treatment?

It was discovered in Japan and developed for human use about 40 years ago to treat parasitical infections (for which a Nobel Prize was awarded due to it's success and excellent sfaety record). The discovery in Australia was that it is effective against SARS-COV2 - and YES the doctors there are allowed to prescribe it - from an article I found online in the Spectator (and yes some may not like that since it leans to the right - but at least they are writing about the story and not ignoring it) ....
"federal Health Minister Greg Hunt wrote to one of the doctors in Australia who prescribes ivermectin confirming that he was aware that some physicians are prescribing ivermectin off-label for Covid and that they were quite within their rights as the practice of prescribing registered medicines outside of their approved indications is not regulated or controlled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), it is at the discretion of the prescribing physician."

Source: https://spectator.com.au/2021/07/hunt-goes-off-script-with-ivermectin/

[basehibby]

Why are they not using it if it was discovered there? They are tanking their economy with cycles of lockdowns. You'd think with poor vaccination rates this would be a game changer for them, no?

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/covid-19-treatments

Given that Drs in Australia ARE allowed to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 (albeit it's not recommended at national level as a treatment protocol), perhaps that might be one reason why they have such ridiculously low rates of death from the disease? NB - that's speculation on my part - I'm sure the all year round sunshine and consequent good levels of Vit D will be playing a big part.

[Rocky]

It was discovered in Japan and developed for human use about 40 years ago to treat parasitical infections (for which a Nobel Prize was awarded due to it's success and excellent sfaety record). The discovery in Australia was that it is effective against SARS-COV2 - and YES the doctors there are allowed to prescribe it - from an article I found online in the Spectator (and yes some may not like that since it leans to the right - but at least they are writing about the story and not ignoring it) ....
"federal Health Minister Greg Hunt wrote to one of the doctors in Australia who prescribes ivermectin confirming that he was aware that some physicians are prescribing ivermectin off-label for Covid and that they were quite within their rights as the practice of prescribing registered medicines outside of their approved indications is not regulated or controlled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), it is at the discretion of the prescribing physician."

Source: https://spectator.com.au/2021/07/hunt-goes-off-script-with-ivermectin/

That article is hysterical. Making a comment about deaths per million in Indonesia increasing five fold as if that's linked to the withdrawal of the drug. They had 7,000 cases on 12 June and 49,000 on 23 July - wonder if that might be an alternative explanation?

[basehibby]

Nearly as funny as this:

"Everyone in medicine will yell and scream that this paper is not a randomized controlled trial," or RCT, said the third FLCCC leader, Pierre Kory, MD, a critical care physician who worked most recently at Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center in Milwaukee (more on that below). "We didn't believe in an RCT. We believe we're supposed to doctor and use our expertise. If you've been doing this for decades, and you trust your assessment of the disease and your knowledge of medicine, it's OK to doctor."

This clown is working on a hunch and is your main source of information? Doesn't believe in randomised controlled trials, jeezo.

The guy your calling a clown has treated more COVID patients than you have had hot dinners. And, contrary to the current WHO recommendation, he works to what you would obviously consider the bizzare concept of a Doctor attempting to treat ill people and make them better. He has achieved considerable success with his approach which has lead to his passionate advocacy for the drug Ivermectin, which is central to his strategy to treat COVID.

He also managed to convince a senate comitee sufficiently to change the stance of their National Institute for Health from a negative to a neutral stance on the drug.

He is one of the leading pulmonary specialists in the US - and your branding him a clown is the sort of unfounded and ill informed guff I would expect of the Daily Record rather than the esteemed pages of Hibs.net's Holy Ground. Why so agressive?

[basehibby]

That article is hysterical. Making a comment about deaths per million in Indonesia increasing five fold as if that's linked to the withdrawal of the drug. They had 7,000 cases on 12 June and 49,000 on 23 July - wonder if that might be an alternative explanation?

The question I was asked related to whether Ivermectin is allowed as a treatment in Australia - where the first study took place that discovered the drug kills SARS-COV2 - I found the answer to that question in that article. If the Spectator needs any extra lessons in being hysterical can I forward them your address?

[Santa Cruz]

Given that Drs in Australia ARE allowed to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 (albeit it's not recommended at national level as a treatment protocol), perhaps that might be one reason why they have such ridiculously low rates of death from the disease? NB - that's speculation on my part - I'm sure the all year round sunshine and consequent good levels of Vit D will be playing a big part.

That'd be closed international borders.

We will find out if the treatment is effective once the studies are complete.

[Rocky]

The guy your calling a clown has treated more COVID patients than you have had hot dinners. And, contrary to the current WHO recommendation, he works to what you would obviously consider the bizzare concept of a Doctor attempting to treat ill people and make them better. He has achieved considerable success with his approach which has lead to his passionate advocacy for the drug Ivermectin, which is central to his strategy to treat COVID.

He also managed to convince a senate comitee sufficiently to change the stance of their National Institute for Health from a negative to a neutral stance on the drug.

He is one of the leading pulmonary specialists in the US - and your branding him a clown is the sort of unfounded and ill informed guff I would expect of the Daily Record rather than the esteemed pages of Hibs.net's Holy Ground. Why so agressive?

I only called him a clown because of the clowny thing he said. How do you know he's had success? If his method is so good why's he afraid of an RCT? Unless he's treated thousands of patients with ivermectin and also, crucially, thousands of patients without it he doesn't have data, he has anecdotes.

Can you justify the "we don't believe in RCT" statement? Absolute quackery if he's afraid to submit his methods to scientific analysis.

[Rocky]

The question I was asked related to whether Ivermectin is allowed as a treatment in Australia - where the first study took place that discovered the drug kills SARS-COV2 - I found the answer to that question in that article. If the Spectator needs any extra lessons in being hysterical can I forward them your address?
If an article is going to quote a five fold increase in deaths without mentioning a seven fold increase in infections then quite simply it's out to manipulate opinion, not to inform and none of it can be trusted.

[basehibby]

Sarah Gilbert from Oxfords team also championed dexamephasone. That's also a conflict. It's cheap readily available and was shown to work its now saving lives.

Your information is faulty and from nutjobs. Thank God for the vaccines

That's a fair point and Sarah Gilbert should also be applauded - however, it still doesn't explain the consistent procrastination and obfuscation shown by the medical-scientific community at large towards the introduction of Ivermectin as a treatment. The evidence is mounting and has been for the last year, and it's only because of this mounting pressure that some movement has been shown recently at an institutional level.

The novel patented vaccines now on the market were pushed through accelerated trials (which have still not finished) and granted Emergency Use Authorisations - the reason being given, with some justification, that this was an emergency situation.

Compare and contrast to a re-purposed drug that has been around for 40 years, has been prescribed around 4 billion times (with only 20 deaths reported - evidently several thousand times safer per dose than any of the novel vaccine treatments), is cheap as chips and out of patent - so can be manufactured anywhere - and displays similar levels of efficacy to the novel vaccines in the 60-odd trials conducted so far (by and large conducted by clinicians - institutions such as Oxford only just getting round to it a year later).

I'm glad for vaccines as well but that doesn't mean I believe rapacious corporations well known for corruption, bribery and many other kinds of malfeasance have suddenly become saints overnight.

[basehibby]

I only called him a clown because of the clowny thing he said. How do you know he's had success? If his method is so good why's he afraid of an RCT? Unless he's treated thousands of patients with ivermectin and also, crucially, thousands of patients without it he doesn't have data, he has anecdotes.

Can you justify the "we don't believe in RCT" statement? Absolute quackery if he's afraid to submit his methods to scientific analysis.

He's not afraid of them - just aware of the fact that there is a level of scrutiny being applied to this drug which is far in excess of normality and meanwhile lives are being lost, economies trashed etc.

There is an abundance of evidence in favour of Ivermectin efficacy against COVID-19 although not much if anything in the way of large RCTs which generally need institutional level resources to conduct them properly. There is a pandemic happening and as a pulmonary specialist Cory is treating lots of COVID patients. He has produced a paper which has been peer reviewed but it is not, as far as I know, an RCT - which is probably what he is refering to with some frustration in the quote you have cited.

Are you aware that an NHS Doctor would have no problem and experience no difficulty in prescribing Ivermectin to a 95 year old with multiple co-morbidities who presented with Scabies (a very unpleasant but non-life threatening skin condition) but would have great difficulty and possibly put their career at risk by attempting to prescribe the same for COVID-19? This makes absolutely no sense at all from a clinical perspective. Hence the frustration of a leading clinician such as Pierre Cory.

Here is a comparison which illustrates the point I have made above:
24919
Also - here is a discussion on Reddit shedding some light on the process Cory had to go through to get his paper published ....
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/n1v3gm/flccc_paper_was_published_by_american_journal_of/

[CapitalGreen]

INITIALLY not for profit - although their share price has done remarkably well considering the altruistic urges apparently guiding this corporation.

Since global stock markets bottomed out in March 2020 we have been through an incredible bull market. AZ share price over that time has actually underperformed the stock market (FTSE All Share) by about 8%.

[CapitalGreen]

He's not afraid of them - just aware of the fact that there is a level of scrutiny being applied to this drug which is far in excess of normality and meanwhile lives are being lost, economies trashed etc.

There is an abundance of evidence in favour of Ivermectin efficacy against COVID-19 although not much if anything in the way of large RCTs which generally need institutional level resources to conduct them properly. There is a pandemic happening and as a pulmonary specialist Cory is treating lots of COVID patients. He has produced a paper which has been peer reviewed but it is not, as far as I know, an RCT - which is probably what he is refering to with some frustration in the quote you have cited.

Are you aware that an NHS Doctor would have no problem and experience no difficulty in prescribing Ivermectin to a 95 year old with multiple co-morbidities who presented with Scabies (a very unpleasant but non-life threatening skin condition) but would have great difficulty and possibly put their career at risk by attempting to prescribe the same for COVID-19? This makes absolutely no sense at all from a clinical perspective. Hence the frustration of a leading clinician such as Pierre Cory.

Here is a comparison which illustrates the point I have made above:
24919
Also - here is a discussion on Reddit shedding some light on the process Cory had to go through to get his paper published ....
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/n1v3gm/flccc_paper_was_published_by_american_journal_of/

Can you provide non-anecdotal evidence for the part in bold?

[Stairway 2 7]

It's just a nonsense I've named half a dozen cheap drugs being used. If it worked it would be used. There is no conspiracy of lizards holding back this one drug but allowing others. Facebook might say it's true but there you go, I've no much more to say on the nonsense

[Rocky]

Can you provide non-anecdotal evidence for the part in bold?

That part is true surely? I certainly wouldn't want a doctor pumping a drug into me for a condition it wasn't approved for. Rules like that are there to protect us from the kind of quack who'd experiment on us based on a hunch and because they "know how to doctor".

[Rocky]

It's just a nonsense I've named half a dozen cheap drugs being used. If it worked it would be used. There is no conspiracy of lizards holding back this one drug but allowing others. Facebook might say it's true but there you go, I've no much more to say on the nonsense
The thing is I'm not even averse to believing big pharma conspiracy theories. I could absolutely believe that Pfizer / Moderna have used some shady practices to undermine the credibility of AZ vaccine and therefore protect their own vaccine profits. Haven't seen any actual evidence of it but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned up. This conspiracy theory just lacks any credibility.

[Stairway 2 7]

The thing is I'm not even averse to believing big pharma conspiracy theories. I could absolutely believe that Pfizer / Moderna have used some shady practices to undermine the credibility of AZ vaccine and therefore protect their own vaccine profits. Haven't seen any actual evidence of it but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned up. This conspiracy theory just lacks any credibility.
I agree that az was deliberately attacked by pfizer and eu at the beginning, the 14% effective protection in over 60s for example. It's cost thousands of lives and is hurting Australia and South Africa now.

But yeah this is a nonsense. The uk medical community were desperate for cheap easily accessible drugs. The fact dexamephasone is pennies and the info rolled out around the instantly blows the theory out the water. They now use lots of different cheap drugs which are all for after catching covid as ivermectin would be. Vaccines are to prevent it so they are different needs

[Hibrandenburg]

It's just a nonsense I've named half a dozen cheap drugs being used. If it worked it would be used. There is no conspiracy of lizards holding back this one drug but allowing others. Facebook might say it's true but there you go, I've no much more to say on the nonsense

I'm surprised none of the big pharma cabals haven't released any of the thousands of patents for the common cold or cancer that they've got locked away in a dungeon. They'd make billions, but I suppose it might have a negative effect on their Lemsip sales.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm surprised none of the big pharma cabals haven't released any of the thousands of patents for the common cold or cancer that they've got locked away in a dungeon. They'd make billions, but I suppose it might have a negative effect on their Lemsip sales.

😆

[basehibby]

It's just a nonsense I've named half a dozen cheap drugs being used. If it worked it would be used. There is no conspiracy of lizards holding back this one drug but allowing others. Facebook might say it's true but there you go, I've no much more to say on the nonsense

OK - there are never any conspiracies, everyone is nice and we'll all live happilly ever after. Thanks for your contribution.

[Rocky]

OK - there are never any conspiracies, everyone is nice and we'll all live happilly ever after. Thanks for your contribution.
Do you think this response makes sense when S27 and I have both just posted that we believe there could well be a big pharma conspiracy to discredit AZ?

[HibsGW]

This thread is a mess. I’m not really sure why so many conspiracies have took off that somewhere out there, this pandemic is all planned or that it can easily be stopped but some all powerful place doesn’t want to stop it and so doesn’t use Ivermectin etc.

[basehibby]

This thread is a mess. I’m not really sure why so many conspiracies have took off that somewhere out there, this pandemic is all planned or that it can easily be stopped but some all powerful place doesn’t want to stop it and so doesn’t use Ivermectin etc.

Why is it a mess? I was interested to guage awareness of what I see as a massive story. And it's interesting that awareness is still minimal more than a year after the initial breakthrough identifying an existing cheap and widely available drug which "kills" SARS-COV2 in vitro. Some have been very dismissive - insisting that just because they have barely heard of it, it simply cannot be true - even if the WHO, MHRA, EMA, CDC take a different line - they don't state that it doesn't work but that there is insufficient evidence to use it outside of trials - but considering the growing mass of evidence and the excellent safety record of the drug in question (40 years, 4 billion doses resulting in only 20 deaths - basically safer than aspirin), I'm of the opinion this stance has been the result of deliberate obfuscation and procrastination - the motives of which we can speculate on.
My take on the widespread lack of awareness of such a big story is deliberate censorship, but some don't seem to be able to accept that - so we've argued our points back and forth - so what's messy about that? Isn't that what the Holy Ground is supposed to be about?

[HibsGW]

Why is it a mess? I was interested to guage awareness of what I see as a massive story. And it's interesting that awareness is still minimal more than a year after the initial breakthrough identifying an existing cheap and widely available drug which "kills" SARS-COV2 in vitro. Some have been very dismissive - insisting that just because they have barely heard of it, it simply cannot be true - even if the WHO, MHRA, EMA, CDC take a different line - they don't state that it doesn't work but that there is insufficient evidence to use it outside of trials - but considering the growing mass of evidence and the excellent safety record of the drug in question (40 years, 4 billion doses resulting in only 20 deaths - basically safer than aspirin), I'm of the opinion this stance has been the result of deliberate obfuscation and procrastination - the motives of which we can speculate on.
My take on the widespread lack of awareness of such a big story is deliberate censorship, but some don't seem to be able to accept that - so we've argued our points back and forth - so what's messy about that? Isn't that what the Holy Ground is supposed to be about?

So why hasn’t it been used on all the people who have died? Who’s behind the big cover up? What do ‘they’ have to gain from it?

There isn’t any strong studies yet that actually suggest it’s any good at beating Covid anyway, it’s basically one highly questionable one.

[Callum_62]

I've got a tube of ivermectic topical cream in the cupboard

I'm not gonna eat it.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

Is this the same stuff that treats sarcoptic mangemenites & hopping warbles?

[Hibrandenburg]

Is this the same stuff that treats sarcoptic mangemenites & hopping warbles?


Applied correctly and it will cure spattergroit and succorbentis too. Magic stuff.

[AltheHibby]

A view from down under.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-22/melbourne-doctors-under-review-hydroxychloroquine/13179248

[AltheHibby]

And from across the pond.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/05/health/ivermectin-covid-19-fda-statement-wellness/index.html

[Santa Cruz]

I've got a tube of ivermectic topical cream in the cupboard

I'm not gonna eat it.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Seriously though I'd be more interested in knowing we could get the proven effective treatment for managing symptoms at home. It was mentioned in the BBC article I posted earlier in the thread, I think it was a specific type of a steroid inhaler.

[Skol]

Why is it a mess? I was interested to guage awareness of what I see as a massive story. And it's interesting that awareness is still minimal more than a year after the initial breakthrough identifying an existing cheap and widely available drug which "kills" SARS-COV2 in vitro. Some have been very dismissive - insisting that just because they have barely heard of it, it simply cannot be true - even if the WHO, MHRA, EMA, CDC take a different line - they don't state that it doesn't work but that there is insufficient evidence to use it outside of trials - but considering the growing mass of evidence and the excellent safety record of the drug in question (40 years, 4 billion doses resulting in only 20 deaths - basically safer than aspirin), I'm of the opinion this stance has been the result of deliberate obfuscation and procrastination - the motives of which we can speculate on.
My take on the widespread lack of awareness of such a big story is deliberate censorship, but some don't seem to be able to accept that - so we've argued our points back and forth - so what's messy about that? Isn't that what the Holy Ground is supposed to be about?

This is the bit I struggle with. I just dont see why there would be some cover up, Even if there was it would take a massive across the globe conspiracy to achieve that and thats just not a plausible thing to happen.

[Peevemor]

There were reports in the French papers earlier in the year which basically said that, much like hydroxychloroquine, there was no evidence as to ivermectin's effectiveness against Covid. I seem to remember them saying something about one inconclusive trial using something like 100 times the normal human dosage.

I don't believe for a minute they there's any conspiracy on this front.

[basehibby]

Seriously though I'd be more interested in knowing we could get the proven effective treatment for managing symptoms at home. It was mentioned in the BBC article I posted earlier in the thread, I think it was a specific type of a steroid inhaler.
The steroid inhaler has been shown to be most effective on ICU patients. I think that's because of the anti-inflammatory properties.
IVM has been shown to be effective at ALL stages. Very effective as a prophylactic. Good early stage out patient treatment. Also working to a lesser extent on very Ill people - eg. Intubated. Early reports also indicate it helps clear up Long COVID (although obviously not organ damage) - studies at a very early stage on the latter though.
It appears to have multiple modes of action: anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, blood thinning and, perhaps most significant - blocking viral replication.

[Santa Cruz]

The steroid inhaler has been shown to be most effective on ICU patients. I think that's because of the anti-inflammatory properties.
IVM has been shown to be effective at ALL stages. Very effective as a prophylactic. Good early stage out patient treatment. Also working to a lesser extent on very Ill people - eg. Intubated. Early reports also indicate it helps clear up Long COVID (although obviously not organ damage) - studies at a very early stage on the latter though.
It appears to have multiple modes of action: anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, blood thinning and, perhaps most significant - blocking viral replication.

Like I posted earlier I will wait to hear what the outcome on the UK Study ongoing just now is with the effectiveness of IVM.

Cheers for the info on the inhaler, I wrongly assumed it was an at home treatment.

I'm sure they will find really effective treatments in the near future, I think we're all hoping for that.

[basehibby]

There were reports in the French papers earlier in the year which basically said that, much like hydroxychloroquine, there was no evidence as to ivermectin's effectiveness against Covid. I seem to remember them saying something about one inconclusive trial using something like 100 times the normal human dosage.

I don't believe for a minute they there's any conspiracy on this front.

This is exactly the kind of scientific obfuscation I am talking about. The in vitro (ie in a test tube) Australian trials that first demonstrated Ivermectin kills SARS-COV2 utilised high concentrations of the drug and this is constantly dug up by naysayers who ignore the dozens of clinical trials carried out since demonstrating significant efficacy at standard safe doses. This high dosage myth appears to assume the drug only acts as an anti-viral - ignoring the multiple nodes of action referenced in my post above.

[basehibby]

So why hasn’t it been used on all the people who have died? Who’s behind the big cover up? What do ‘they’ have to gain from it?

There isn’t any strong studies yet that actually suggest it’s any good at beating Covid anyway, it’s basically one highly questionable one.
There are plenty of studies - just no large RCTs - which generally need institutional backing to carry out effectively (and therein lies the rub - just WTF have the large institutions been doing for the last 16 months?!?). Most studies so far have been carried out by clinicians on the ground - often self funded. Have a look at the site I linked near the top of this thread to link to all existing studies.

[basehibby]

I've got a tube of ivermectic topical cream in the cupboard

I'm not gonna eat it.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Definitely dont do that!

[basehibby]

This is the bit I struggle with. I just dont see why there would be some cover up, Even if there was it would take a massive across the globe conspiracy to achieve that and thats just not a plausible thing to happen.
We could speculate re motives. The obvious one is money although some have speculated on more sinister angles like implementing electronic social credit infrastructure (like China's) by the back door. I prefer to focus on the evidence - which has become more and more compelling to my eyes the more I've looked at it. This seems to be an exceedingly cheap, exceedingly safe and easy to manufacture drug which could save a great many lives, ease a hell of a lot of suffering and help us get back to living our lives again. The reasons given for holding back on it do not hold water - , especially when the fast track of the (more expensive and evidentlty less safe) vaccines has shown what is possible.

[Santa Cruz]

We could speculate re motives. The obvious one is money although some have speculated on more sinister angles like implementing electronic social credit infrastructure (like China's) by the back door. I prefer to focus on the evidence - which has become more and more compelling to my eyes the more I've looked at it. This seems to be an exceedingly cheap, exceedingly safe and easy to manufacture drug which could save a great many lives, ease a hell of a lot of suffering and help us get back to living our lives again. The reasons given for holding back on it do not hold water - , especially when the fast track of the (more expensive and evidentlty less safe) vaccines has shown what is possible.

Can you give me an example of this please? I don't know what it means.

[Rocky]

There are plenty of studies - just no large RCTs - which generally need institutional backing to carry out effectively (and therein lies the rub - just WTF have the large institutions been doing for the last 16 months?!?). Most studies so far have been carried out by clinicians on the ground - often self funded. Have a look at the site I linked near the top of this thread to link to all existing studies.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates."

Can you point out what the selection criteria were for selecting studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis and where they were recorded in advance of conducting the analysis? There's a good reason why these things need to follow strict protocols, and clearly define their methodology in advance. Otherwise they're wide open to being selective about what they include and no-one can be any the wiser.

[basehibby]

Can you give me an example of this please? I don't know what it means.

It means vaccine passports - or vaccine status certification - as a means of allowing you to go to gigs, go to the pub, the library, work in certain jobs, go to the football etc etc....

[Stairway 2 7]

It means vaccine passports - or vaccine status certification - as a means of allowing you to go to gigs, go to the pub, the library, work in certain jobs, go to the football etc etc....

Your right down the rabbit hole my man. On a tangent do you believe the world is flat or bill Gates is apart of an elite empire tracking us?

[basehibby]

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates."

Can you point out what the selection criteria were for selecting studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis and where they were recorded in advance of conducting the analysis? There's a good reason why these things need to follow strict protocols, and clearly define their methodology in advance. Otherwise they're wide open to being selective about what they include and no-one can be any the wiser.

The selection criteria for the site I linked is described here https://ivmmeta.com/#appendix_methods
(https://ivmmeta.com/#appendix_methods)The article you've quoted sets a very haughty and presumptious tone - implying that we, the public, are merely a collection of gormless dullards to be dazzled with "colourful forest plots" and appointing themselves by default a lofty status as the sole arbiters of what is and is not relevant.All studies included in the site I linked are hyperlinked so you can delve into them for yourself - interestingly, nothing included re Ivermectin from the BMJ - they don't appear to have published a single study, although a quick search shows up quite a lot of features, comments and opinion.

[basehibby]

Your right down the rabbit hole my man. On a tangent do you believe the world is flat or bill Gates is apart of an elite empire tracking us?

Mate - your patronising drivel deserves to be treated with contempt although I'll contain myself and not let this develop into a slagging match.

[Stairway 2 7]

Mate - your patronising drivel deserves to be treated with contempt although I'll contain myself and not let this develop into a slagging match.

Well just answer this as you've ignored it 5 times. If it's about profit why have they approved about 8 drugs that cost pennies and have saved thousands of lives. If some cabal stopped one cheap drug they would stop them all. The cabal would also have to involve thousands of scientists and medical officers from countries that are politically divided, Russians British Norwegians all working together.

Vaccines will end this put your efforts into that because your theory is bat **** crazy

[Rocky]

The selection criteria for the site I linked is described here https://ivmmeta.com/#appendix_methods
(https://ivmmeta.com/#appendix_methods)The article you've quoted sets a very haughty and presumptious tone - implying that we, the public, are merely a collection of gormless dullards to be dazzled with "colourful forest plots" and appointing themselves by default a lofty status as the sole arbiters of what is and is not relevant.All studies included in the site I linked are hyperlinked so you can delve into them for yourself - interestingly, nothing included re Ivermectin from the BMJ - they don't appear to have published a single study, although a quick search shows up quite a lot of features, comments and opinion.
You may well consider it to be haughty, I consider that the reason that the whole peer review and pre-submitted methodology exists is precisely because it's very easy to make a study tell whatever story you want without it. Therefore experts in their field form the peer group responsible for reviewing methodologies and analysis. Quite simply, the general public may not be dullards, but they certainly don't have the knowledge to fully understand and challenge these analyses. Apparently you believe you do though, I'm sure you have the appropriate qualifications and education to back that up. After all you've got a single issue biased research site, a Spectator article and a Reddit thread as evidence. And a fella who thinks he doesn't need to do full clinical studies because he's been at this for decades, has treated more Covid patients than I've had hot dinners, and thinks that he should just be free to "doctor" based on whatever he thinks is a good idea.

I'll leave you to it because if the past year has taught me anything it's that people who get sucked into conspiracy theories via YouTube and Facebook are in no way interested in challenging their own assumptions and beliefs. They're simply looking for opportunities to act as amplifiers for whatever messages they've been fed in whatever community rabbit hole they've fallen into.

I wish you well and I hope Ivermectin does turn out to be an effective treatment. If it does it'll be a real shame that the unprofessionalism of the FLCCC and their ilk has held back its clinical approval.

[SChibs]

Your right down the rabbit hole my man. On a tangent do you believe the world is flat or bill Gates is apart of an elite empire tracking us?

Hate to break it to you but if you have te likes of Facebook, Chrome, Instagram or Twitter on your phone you are being tracked to some extent. The companies use this data and sell/share it on for profit.


America were caught listening to all the phone conversations in the country a while back and I would be surprised if it was still going on over there and potentially here

[Stairway 2 7]

Hate to break it to you but if you have te likes of Facebook, Chrome, Instagram or Twitter on your phone you are being tracked to some extent. The companies use this data and sell/share it on for profit.


America were caught listening to all the phone conversations in the country a while back and I would be surprised if it was still going on over there and potentially here

Which is my point, why do people think they would go to the effort of putting implants in our arms. We're all being tracked as a group on our phones, it's pretty open and known

[Hibrandenburg]

Hate to break it to you but if you have te likes of Facebook, Chrome, Instagram or Twitter on your phone you are being tracked to some extent. The companies use this data and sell/share it on for profit.


America were caught listening to all the phone conversations in the country a while back and I would be surprised if it was still going on over there and potentially here

Listening in to all phone conversations?

[Stairway 2 7]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinLandray/status/1420309545209970688

Recovery trial the UK body used to trial medicines in use that could fight covid, have today added Empagliflozin. It will be trialed on 40,000 in 148 hospitals. The cheap diabetes drug stoped 1/5 of organ failures associated with covid

[SChibs]

Listening in to all phone conversations?

Yes. Edward Snowden made this information public.

[SChibs]

Which is my point, why do people think they would go to the effort of putting implants in our arms. We're all being tracked as a group on our phones, it's pretty open and known

I was just making the point as you appeared to group it in with flat earth. Flat earth is based on a lie whereas surveillance culture is true so its unfair to group them together.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yes. Edward Snowden made this information public.

With 327 million cell phones alone in the US, I doubt that every call is either monitored or recorded. I'll buy into the idea of metadata being available for all calls but there's no way all calls will be listened to.

[Stairway 2 7]

I was just making the point as you appeared to group it in with flat earth. Flat earth is based on a lie whereas surveillance culture is true so its unfair to group them together.

No it's more the theory that bill Gates is the lead of an empire, when it's the governments we vote for. The qanon theory goes further and its gates and Clinton are the head of a pedophile empire or some pish

[Stairway 2 7]

With 327 million cell phones alone in the US, I doubt that every call is either monitored or recorded. I'll buy into the idea of metadata being available for all calls but there's no way all calls will be listened to.

Yeah it was in a snowdon documentary I seen that it's along those lines. Not people in a call centre going right he's going to asda to get mince. Buying and selling what's typed into Google by the population. If it was precise and individual, crime would plummet and people wouldn't be able to go on the run

[Stairway 2 7]

https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartjdneil/status/1420358100876505093

Stuart Neil
@stuartjdneil
Gold standard meta-review of Ivermectin treatment for COVID19 studies shows no robust evidence that it does anything

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

[basehibby]

https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartjdneil/status/1420358100876505093

Stuart Neil
@stuartjdneil
Gold standard meta-review of Ivermectin treatment for COVID19 studies shows no robust evidence that it does anything

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

That's interesting as we KNOW it destroys SARSCOV2 In Vitro. We know it has blood thinning properties. We KNOW it is anti-inflammatory. We KNOW it has anti-viral properties. We KNOW its use resulted in sharp drop offs in COVID fatalities in Peru, Mexico City, and far better outcomes in Uttar Pradesh.
I'll check out the link when I've got time but it's going against all the other meta-analysis so far so got to wonder what it's actually looking at.

[Stairway 2 7]

That's interesting as we KNOW it destroys SARSCOV2 In Vitro. We know it has blood thinning properties. We KNOW it is anti-inflammatory. We KNOW it has anti-viral properties. We KNOW its use resulted in sharp drop offs in COVID fatalities in Peru, Mexico City, and far better outcomes in Uttar Pradesh.
I'll check out the link when I've got time but it's going against all the other meta-analysis so far so got to wonder what it's actually looking at.

We don't know though 😂 obviously it did hopeless in the thorough tests with either blind testing or placebo.

Your admirable efforts could be used for something like vaccine uptake, that is the silver bullet. Well that and the other 8 drugs approved to fight covid

We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID‐19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID‐19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Eight studies had an open‐label design, six were double‐blind and placebo‐controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's interesting as we KNOW it destroys SARSCOV2 In Vitro. We know it has blood thinning properties. We KNOW it is anti-inflammatory. We KNOW it has anti-viral properties. We KNOW its use resulted in sharp drop offs in COVID fatalities in Peru, Mexico City, and far better outcomes in Uttar Pradesh.
I'll check out the link when I've got time but it's going against all the other meta-analysis so far so got to wonder what it's actually looking at.

There are all sorts of things that could destroy a virus in vitro - domestos for instance.

We also know that ivermectin is an effective treatment for parasites. Could be that people in Peru, Mexico, etc had better outcomes vs covid because they weren't simultaneously weakened by parasites?

Anyway, there's a large scale UK properly conducted trial underway, so we'll know one way or the other soon enough.

[Santa Cruz]

There are all sorts of things that could destroy a virus in vitro - domestos for instance.

We also know that ivermectin is an effective treatment for parasites. Could be that people in Peru, Mexico, etc had better outcomes vs covid because they weren't simultaneously weakened by parasites?

Anyway, there's a large scale UK properly conducted trial underway, so we'll know one way or the other soon enough.

People who take part in trials are amazing. I was asked years ago to take part in a trial that potentially could have benefitted me and others, but I bottled it for fear of any negative impact.

Has anyone on here been involved in any medical trials?

[JeMeSouviens]

People who take part in trials are amazing. I was asked years ago to take part in a trial that potentially could have benefitted me and others, but I bottled it for fear of any negative impact.

Has anyone on here been involved in any medical trials?

Yes, I did 2 of them when I was a student. Iirc both were for existing prescribed drugs being trialled as treatments for different conditions. Not going to claim any noble motive, they paid me! :greengrin

[LongJohnBanger]

Yes, I did 2 of them when I was a student. Iirc both were for existing prescribed drugs being trialled as treatments for different conditions. Not going to claim any noble motive, they paid me! :greengrin

I only give blood for the free teacakes

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Yes. Edward Snowden made this information public.

🍿

[Santa Cruz]

I only give blood for the free teacakes

No bad, luxury bic/cake, pretty sure it used to be a bourbon or custard cream.

[stu in nottingham]

People who take part in trials are amazing. I was asked years ago to take part in a trial that potentially could have benefitted me and others, but I bottled it for fear of any negative impact.

Has anyone on here been involved in any medical trials?

Taken part as a researcher working on a project for University of Nottingham responsible for recruiting participants for a trial on Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). TMS is a procedure that uses magnetic fields to stimulate nerve cells in the brain to lessen depressive symptoms.

An electronic coil is placed on the scalp and close to the forehead. The electomagnetic pulses stimulate nerve cells that control depression and mood control.

It wasn't a particularly easy task engaging participants as I recall!

[CropleyWasGod]

Taken part as a researcher working on a project for University of Nottingham responsible for recruiting participants for a trial on Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). TMS is a procedure that uses magnetic fields to stimulate nerve cells in the brain to lessen depressive symptoms.

An electronic coil is placed on the scalp and close to the forehead. The electomagnetic pulses stimulate nerve cells that control depression and mood control.

It wasn't a particularly easy task engaging participants as I recall!

Interesting stuff. How does that differ from ECT?

[stu in nottingham]

Interesting stuff. How does that differ from ECT?

I thought so too. The trial was a few years ago and I didn't stay with it to its consclusion but I recall there was evidence of a lot of potential for the treatment. At that particular time, good results were being achieved from its use but these were not long-lasting and indeed fairly brief, maybe only a few hours of relief. The research was around how to develop it as a more long-lasting treatment for depression and other neurological and mental health issues.

A fundamental difference between TMS and ECT was in the creation of a magnetic field by the former. A generator gives a changing electric pulse which induces the magnetic field to a coil attached to the patient's head which then inducts into the brain.

By comparison, and I should state this isn't in my field of competencies generally, ECT passes a direct current into the brain, as we know.

It seemed to me at that time that TMS had less potential adverse effects and was considered as safer than ECT. Rare examples of adverse effects were fainting and very rarely, seizures. This compared well with ECT's potential amnesia, heart problems and brain damage, although I don't think the latter is supported by evidence.

It was termed as a lot less controversial and invasive compared to ECT, it's current being about equal to that of an MRI scan.

[Santa Cruz]

I thought so too. The trial was a few years ago and I didn't stay with it to its consclusion but I recall there was evidence of a lot of potential for the treatment. At that particular time, good results were being achieved from its use but these were not long-lasting and indeed fairly brief, maybe only a few hours of relief. The research was around how to develop it as a more long-lasting treatment for depression and other neurological and mental health issues.

A fundamental difference between TMS and ECT was in the creation of a magnetic field by the former. A generator gives a changing electric pulse which induces the magnetic field to a coil attached to the patient's head which then inducts into the brain.

By comparison, and I should state this isn't in my field of competencies generally, ECT passes a direct current into the brain, as we know.

It seemed to me at that time that TMS had less potential adverse effects and was considered as safer than ECT. Rare examples of adverse effects were fainting and very rarely, seizures. This compared well with ECT's potential amnesia, heart problems and brain damage, although I don't think the latter is supported by evidence.

It was termed as a lot less controversial and invasive compared to ECT, it's current being about equal to that of an MRI scan.

That's really interesting. I find general medical studies fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[basehibby]

People who take part in trials are amazing. I was asked years ago to take part in a trial that potentially could have benefitted me and others, but I bottled it for fear of any negative impact.

Has anyone on here been involved in any medical trials?
Everyone that's taken one of the COVID jabs is taking part in a trial.

[Santa Cruz]

Everyone that's taken one of the COVID jabs is taking part in a trial.

Talk about state the obvious.

Do you think people don't realise that?

That's why they are classed as authorised for emergency use for the next 2 years. They have passed the standard vaccine safety checks, they are being studied for longer term effects as you would rightly expect with a brand new vaccine for a novel virus.

[basehibby]

We don't know though 😂 obviously it did hopeless in the thorough tests with either blind testing or placebo.

Your admirable efforts could be used for something like vaccine uptake, that is the silver bullet. Well that and the other 8 drugs approved to fight covid

We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID‐19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID‐19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Eight studies had an open‐label design, six were double‐blind and placebo‐controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.

WRONG - That Ivermectin has anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and blood thinning properties are all 100% proven scientific facts. The same goes for its ability to kill SARS-COV2 in-vitro. That the infection, hospitalisation and death rates all dropped off sharply in Peru and Mexico City shortly after its widespread introduction was also fully documented in observational studies. Blinkered naysayers like yourself may claim this is due to some other as yet unknown factor, but insistent denial of these facts does come across as something akin to quasi-religious delusion. Of course these facts dont seem to be very well known so I'll cut you some slack - but that's why I started this thread - to gauge awareness among the Hibees massif and general football community. It's not very high but that reflects society at large.

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought so too. The trial was a few years ago and I didn't stay with it to its consclusion but I recall there was evidence of a lot of potential for the treatment. At that particular time, good results were being achieved from its use but these were not long-lasting and indeed fairly brief, maybe only a few hours of relief. The research was around how to develop it as a more long-lasting treatment for depression and other neurological and mental health issues.

A fundamental difference between TMS and ECT was in the creation of a magnetic field by the former. A generator gives a changing electric pulse which induces the magnetic field to a coil attached to the patient's head which then inducts into the brain.

By comparison, and I should state this isn't in my field of competencies generally, ECT passes a direct current into the brain, as we know.

It seemed to me at that time that TMS had less potential adverse effects and was considered as safer than ECT. Rare examples of adverse effects were fainting and very rarely, seizures. This compared well with ECT's potential amnesia, heart problems and brain damage, although I don't think the latter is supported by evidence.

It was termed as a lot less controversial and invasive compared to ECT, it's current being about equal to that of an MRI scan.

Cheers for that.

My own non-scientific instinct tells me that there is definitely something about electrical impulses being a contributor to positive and negative (excuse the pun) mental health. I've experienced the negatives, where an electrical charge in my brain triggered "something " quite nasty.

The issue, of course, is how the treatment is delivered. The old-school ECT is too controversial, as you say.

[JeMeSouviens]

WRONG - That Ivermectin has anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and blood thinning properties are all 100% proven scientific facts. The same goes for its ability to kill SARS-COV2 in-vitro. That the infection, hospitalisation and death rates all dropped off sharply in Peru and Mexico City shortly after its widespread introduction was also fully documented in observational studies. Blinkered naysayers like yourself may claim this is due to some other as yet unknown factor, but insistent denial of these facts does come across as something akin to quasi-religious delusion. Of course these facts dont seem to be very well known so I'll cut you some slack - but that's why I started this thread - to gauge awareness among the Hibees massif and general football community. It's not very high but that reflects society at large.

Proper randomised double blind trials are underway, so this is all moot really. If it works in those, it works.

[basehibby]

Proper randomised double blind trials are underway, so this is all moot really. If it works in those, it works.

That is of course dependant on the RCTs being properly conducted. Oxford Uni based scientists provoked controversy last year by carrying out a bogus trial on HCQ in which they appear to have deliberately poisoned trial participants. I live in hope that the recently commenced Oxford Uni trial into IVM will be conducted in a spirit of honest and objective scientific investigation. Story here ...
https://principia-scientific.com/is-this-murder-uk-hcq-trials-deliberately-overdosed-patients/

[Kato]

Principa Scientific are known for climate change denial and seem pretty fringe like, i.e. they had an article claiming some vaccines contain "cancer causing viruses". Sounds like bunk.

Is there a more reputable website link for more information on HCQ trials deliberately overdosing patients?




Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[stu in nottingham]

Cheers for that.

My own non-scientific instinct tells me that there is definitely something about electrical impulses being a contributor to positive and negative (excuse the pun) mental health. I've experienced the negatives, where an electrical charge in my brain triggered "something " quite nasty.

The issue, of course, is how the treatment is delivered. The old-school ECT is too controversial, as you say.

I think the effects of electrical impulses on the brain and mood are well-charted aren't they. Without defending its use personally, proponenents will point to the fact that in it's earlier days much larger voltages were applied to patients and it's this that gave the treatment such a bad reputation, one that it has struggled to shake off even if in modern practice trial after trial shows little ill-affect.

I wouldn't personally consent to it though. I recall asking the opinion of a colleague who was a psychoanalyst as to its virtues and his response was, 'sure - if you don't mind your brain being fried!'.

[JeMeSouviens]

Principa Scientific are known for climate change denial and seem pretty fringe like, i.e. they had an article claiming some vaccines contain "cancer causing viruses". Sounds like bunk.

Is there a more reputable website link for more information on HCQ trials deliberately overdosing patients?




Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Or, given this took place over a year ago, to the criminal trials of those involved?

[Hibrandenburg]

Everyone that's taken one of the COVID jabs is taking part in a trial.

And everyone who hasn't have inadvertently become part of the control group in that trial.

[CapitalGreen]

WRONG - That Ivermectin has anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and blood thinning properties are all 100% proven scientific facts. The same goes for its ability to kill SARS-COV2 in-vitro. That the infection, hospitalisation and death rates all dropped off sharply in Peru and Mexico City shortly after its widespread introduction was also fully documented in observational studies. Blinkered naysayers like yourself may claim this is due to some other as yet unknown factor, but insistent denial of these facts does come across as something akin to quasi-religious delusion. Of course these facts dont seem to be very well known so I'll cut you some slack - but that's why I started this thread - to gauge awareness among the Hibees massif and general football community. It's not very high but that reflects society at large.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[Sergio sledge]

People who take part in trials are amazing. I was asked years ago to take part in a trial that potentially could have benefitted me and others, but I bottled it for fear of any negative impact.

Has anyone on here been involved in any medical trials?Nothing as important as a trial for a new medical treatment but I took part in a medical study when at university in Nottingham which involved them taking a sample from my thigh muscle then feeding me a very strict diet for a month then taking another sample at the end of the month to see what difference it had made.

I got paid per sample and free food for a month which was the deciding factor for me as a poor student.

One of my friends was paid to stay awake playing video games for as long as he could undertaking cognitive tests every couple of hours. I think he lasted 31 or 32 hours.

There were drug trials, but I wasn't brave enough to do that to be honest.

[basehibby]

Principa Scientific are known for climate change denial and seem pretty fringe like, i.e. they had an article claiming some vaccines contain "cancer causing viruses". Sounds like bunk.

Is there a more reputable website link for more information on HCQ trials deliberately overdosing patients?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Why not just go to the horse's mouth? The trial referenced was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and is linked here ..... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926
(https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926)
The dosage administered is detailed in the abstract, near the bottom of the section titled "Randomization and Treatment". Here it describes how very ill patients (the trial was for treatment of late stage COVID-19) were dosed with 2000mg of Hydroxychloroquine Sulphate over the first 24 hours - with more to come thereafter.

The British National Formulary's entry for Hydroxychloroquine Sulphate is linked here: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/hydroxychloroquine-sulfate.html
Quoting from their entry:
"200–400 mg daily, daily maximum dose to be based on ideal body-weight; maximum 6.5 mg/kg per day."
.. and further down the page ....
"Hydroxychloroquine is very toxic in overdosage; overdosage is extremely hazardous and difficult to treat. Urgent advice from the National Poisons Information Service is essential. Life-threatening features include arrhythmias (which can have a very rapid onset) and convulsions (which can be intractable)."

That seems pretty damning to me. During the course of this trial, between 5 and 10 times the recommended maximum dosage was given of a drug known to cause severe and sometimes fatal side effects in overdose. Hardly surprising then that they found more of the treatment group dying than the control group. Failure by design would be a reasonable accusation to level at the designers of this trial going by their own published figures, so the article linked from Principa Scientific seems to be on pretty solid ground to me.

[goosano]

Why not just go to the horse's mouth? The trial referenced was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and is linked here ..... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926
(https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926)
The dosage administered is detailed in the abstract, near the bottom of the section titled "Randomization and Treatment". Here it describes how very ill patients (the trial was for treatment of late stage COVID-19) were dosed with 2000mg of Hydroxychloroquine Sulphate over the first 24 hours - with more to come thereafter.

The British National Formulary's entry for Hydroxychloroquine Sulphate is linked here: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/hydroxychloroquine-sulfate.html
Quoting from their entry:
"200–400 mg daily, daily maximum dose to be based on ideal body-weight; maximum 6.5 mg/kg per day."
.. and further down the page ....
"Hydroxychloroquine is very toxic in overdosage; overdosage is extremely hazardous and difficult to treat. Urgent advice from the National Poisons Information Service is essential. Life-threatening features include arrhythmias (which can have a very rapid onset) and convulsions (which can be intractable)."

That seems pretty damning to me. During the course of this trial, between 5 and 10 times the recommended maximum dosage was given of a drug known to cause severe and sometimes fatal side effects in overdose. Hardly surprising then that they found more of the treatment group dying than the control group. Failure by design would be a reasonable accusation to level at the designers of this trial going by their own published figures, so the article linked from Principa Scientific seems to be on pretty solid ground to me.

You are quite right about the doses used of HCQ used in the Recovery trial. They seemed very high and as you correctly say the drug has a narrow therapeutic window. However the results of a randomised controlled trial using HCQ in therapeutic doses was published in hhe respected JAMA and showed no clinical benefit in an in patient setting.

I've not read through this thread but can't see why any health care organisation or government would not welcome a cheap effectice drug if proven to work. Some of the new potential remediws are cripplingly expensive.

Invermectin is an interesting drug with many potential benefits seen in in vitro work. It is a great shame that there have been very few good quality clinical trials that have helped us know if it works or not. Let's hope the PRINCIPLE trial and others give us good quality robust data. I'm very much keeping an open mind on this drug.

[basehibby]

Well just answer this as you've ignored it 5 times. If it's about profit why have they approved about 8 drugs that cost pennies and have saved thousands of lives. If some cabal stopped one cheap drug they would stop them all. The cabal would also have to involve thousands of scientists and medical officers from countries that are politically divided, Russians British Norwegians all working together.

Vaccines will end this put your efforts into that because your theory is bat **** crazy

Sorry it's taken me ages to get round to answering this - European ties to watch and stuff - sure you understand...

You'd have to enlighten me re the 8 drugs that have been approved for COVID treatment in the UK.

I'm aware of dexamethasone - a steroid spray which has proven to be successfull in treating hospitalised patients by working as an anti-inflamatory much as it does for asthmatics - cuts death rates in hospitalised patients by about 25% - magic!

I'm also aware of Remdesivir - an anti-viral which was favoured for a while but withdrawn due to side effects casting doubt over the net benefit.

I've also heard of monoclonal antibody treatments - newish cancer treatments which have shown some promise for hospitalised patients - but from what I can gather it's not cheap.

I can't say I've heard of anything else for in patients.

As far as I'm aware, the recomendation for outpatient treatment and/or prophylaxis, with the exception of Vitamin D supplements (good) is ...... NADA - basically sit at home and hope it doesn't turn nasty. Would you agree with that synopsis or am I missing something?

The supposedly "controversial" drug Hydroxychloroquine when used with Zinc, was touted as a possible outpatient treatment last year having shown reduction in hospitalisations of around 75% when used early on. This early stage efficacy was never tested in the genuinely controversial RECOVERY trials which focused purely on hospitalised patients and utilised unsafe dosages known to cause dangerous side effects.

Now Ivermectin - much safer than hydroxychloroquine - or remdesivir for that matter - and cheap as chips to boot, is showing strong results in observational trials around the world at ALL stages - including outpatient, prophylaxis and Long COVID. There have even been court cases in New York where relatives of severely ill intubated patients have forced hospitals to prescribe Ivermectin - and happilly the elderly patients have recovered in all cases. You would think this would be all over the news with scientists clamouring for fast tracked trials in similar manner as happened with the vaccines. But most people have barely heard of it - or spout flippant soundbites about curing headlice at the mere mention of it. I blame the media for this as they seem to have burried the story with the able assistance of YouTube, FB, Twitter etc who will ban and censor at the mere mention of the word. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like - but something isn't right about this.

[Stairway 2 7]

As someone I read said only fools and horses take ivermectin. Right wing and qanon groups pushing it has caused an explosion of people going to hospital poison control units.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-poison-control-reports-uptick-in-ivermectin-calls-12803662


Emily Porter, M.D.
@dremilyportermd
Ivermectin: My husband is a board certified medical toxicologist. There are reports that it inhibits replication of RNA viruses in vitro, it takes ~150 TIMES the recommended dose to achieve that. Most people become comatose at 10 times the recommended dose, incl many this year.

Andrew L. Croxford
@andrew_croxford
If you have experience with small molecules, this has been clear from the start. I think the chance of this drug ever working for COVID is now very, very small (generous) and if a difference will be seen in a decent trial, it won’t be because of this proposed mechanism.

[Rocky]

I was just looking for this thread as this popped up on my Twitter feed and made me chuckle:

Got into a private ivermectin (horse dewormer) group, and everyone is pooping their pants

https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1430914726444339200?t=9EvHpOP7INx4aSqLINKW-w&s=19

Thought I'd take a look to see how the trials are going too. Not so well it seems:

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

[JeMeSouviens]

Cui bono?

Some possible clues:

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1431040456364810242

... and a longer article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-drives-trump-telemedicine-website-rcna1791

... some lols included. :greengrin

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9wZuIiWYAAyqqQ?format=png&name=900x900

[Stairway 2 7]

Cui bono?

Some possible clues:

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1431040456364810242

... and a longer article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-drives-trump-telemedicine-website-rcna1791

... some lols included. :greengrin

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9wZuIiWYAAyqqQ?format=png&name=900x900

That is ****ing bizarre and scary. Shove something for horses up your Kevin Carter, rather than take a vaccine taken safely by billions

[JeMeSouviens]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9_Ymt-XoAg0iYd?format=jpg&name=medium

[SChibs]

I listened to a podcast with Vincent Racaniello, a virologist who said they are using Ivermectin in hospitals to treat Covid in America. He didn't have an issue with doctors prescribing it off label as it's an extremely safe medicine when dosed correctly for humans. It's effectiveness is still in question however.

[Moulin Yarns]

I listened to a podcast with Vincent Racaniello, a virologist who said they are using Ivermectin in hospitals to treat Covid in America. He didn't have an issue with doctors prescribing it off label as it's an extremely safe medicine when dosed correctly for humans. It's effectiveness is still in question however.

Yet some people don't want the vaccine because it hasn't been tested properly!! 🙄

[Stairway 2 7]

Yet some people don't want the vaccine because it hasn't been tested properly!! 🙄

It's bizarre that there is an overlap in these people too. I won't take a vaccine that has been studied by thousands of people now and pretty much taken safely by billions. But will a drug fox news says could work even though every thorough trails says it doesn't work. Added to that thousands are going to hospital after taking it.

I was reading they have been trying it for years on other things like Ebola. It kills virus in a lab but in the level it's safe for humans it's useless. Gunshot victims in oklahoma were having to wait for er beds because they are overwhelmed with people taking ivermectin

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/amp/

[Skol]

I've been following the story on this very promising treatment for about 9 months now and it's been subject to some outrageous censorship. So was wondering what level of awareness there is among the Hibs.net cognoscenti .....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/oklahoma-doctor-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58449876

[Rocky]

It'd be interesting to know if the OP still believes it's a media conspiracy. I mean that sincerely.

[CloudSquall]

Joe Rogan (popular podcaster and UFC commentator) said he is taking this (including what seems to be a cocktail of medication) after contracting Covid.

He had to backtrack a little earlier this year after suggesting that young healthy adults wouldn't need to vaccinate.

[hibeedc]

It'd be interesting to know if the OP still believes it's a media conspiracy. I mean that sincerely.https://www.facebook.com/NHSSequoyah/

[Hiber-nation]

I still keep thinking it's a mis-spelt village on the banks of Loch Ness.

[SChibs]

I was watching Lex Fridman's podcast with virologist Vincent Racaniello and he was talking about how his friend was given Ivermectin in an American hospital to treat his covid. If anyone wants to listen its at 2:33:40.

He also goes on to say he has nothing against doctors prescribing ivermectin off label as it an extremely safe medicine and it is FDA approved.

I'm not saying its effective against covid or a cure but it's not all daft folk on Facebook supporting it. Racaniello is qualified in the field and it's worth taking his opinion on board.

[Stairway 2 7]

I was watching Lex Fridman's podcast with virologist Vincent Racaniello and he was talking about how his friend was given Ivermectin in an American hospital to treat his covid. If anyone wants to listen its at 2:33:40.

He also goes on to say he has nothing against doctors prescribing ivermectin off label as it an extremely safe medicine and it is FDA approved.

I'm not saying its effective against covid or a cure but it's not all daft folk on Facebook supporting it. Racaniello is qualified in the field and it's worth taking his opinion on board.

The amount its safe to take is proving useless to fight covid in anyway. The problem is unless given by a Dr at a safe tiny measure its extremely dangerous

[SChibs]

The amount its safe to take is proving useless to fight covid in anyway. The problem is unless given by a Dr at a safe tiny measure its extremely dangerous

I think in some cases it will help Covid, but I don't think it's a medication that will help every case. There must be something behind it if qualified doctors across India are using it and hospitals in USA are giving it to their Covid patients. There basically no harm in trying it at human doses due to its exceptional safety profile.

[Skol]

I was watching Lex Fridman's podcast with virologist Vincent Racaniello and he was talking about how his friend was given Ivermectin in an American hospital to treat his covid. If anyone wants to listen its at 2:33:40.

He also goes on to say he has nothing against doctors prescribing ivermectin off label as it an extremely safe medicine and it is FDA approved.

I'm not saying its effective against covid or a cure but it's not all daft folk on Facebook supporting it. Racaniello is qualified in the field and it's worth taking his opinion on board.

If a doctor gave me it I would take it and trust he knows his stuff (or she or they).

The problem is people thinking its a magical cure and demanding we get it, or sourcing and taking it themselves

[SChibs]

If a doctor gave me it I would take it and trust he knows his stuff (or she or they).

The problem is people thinking its a magical cure and demanding we get it, or sourcing and taking it themselves

I agree completely.

[Stairway 2 7]

As was put on this thread it's stopped being used in India as it wasn't successful. Here's an article, half way down is about the conmen doctors happy to give prescriptions for profit. Just like you can get harmful opiods easily from thousands of unscrupulous doctors in the US when they are not needed

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/08/30/no-ivermectin-cannot-treat-covid-19/?sh=729418ff3c03

[007]

There are several cases in the US of people not getting vaccinated because the vaccine wasn't fully approved by the FDA. They unsurprisingly caught Covid and then took Ivermectin they'd bought from animal feed stores and ended up in hospital due to poisoning themselves.

Vaccine developed by the world's greatest experts in the field but on emergency use and not yet fully approved - no thanks.

Horse de-worming medication promoted by self appointed pseudo-experts on Facebook who could be anyone - yes please.

[Hibrandenburg]

There are several cases in the US of people not getting vaccinated because the vaccine wasn't fully approved by the FDA. They unsurprisingly caught Covid and then took Ivermectin they'd bought from animal feed stores and ended up in hospital due to poisoning themselves.

Vaccine developed by the world's greatest experts in the field but on emergency use and not yet fully approved - no thanks.

Horse de-worming medication promoted by self appointed pseudo-experts on Facebook who could be anyone - yes please.

People are ****ing stupid. I get stick for repeating this but they are.

[SChibs]

There are several cases in the US of people not getting vaccinated because the vaccine wasn't fully approved by the FDA. They unsurprisingly caught Covid and then took Ivermectin they'd bought from animal feed stores and ended up in hospital due to poisoning themselves.

Vaccine developed by the world's greatest experts in the field but on emergency use and not yet fully approved - no thanks.

Horse de-worming medication promoted by self appointed pseudo-experts on Facebook who could be anyone - yes please.

Nobody was promoting 'horse dewormer'. People were promoting Ivemectin (some scientists too not just people on facebook). There were idiots that went out and bought the veterinary kind of Ivermectin rather than asking their doctor to prescribe them a human dose though.

[007]

Nobody was promoting 'horse dewormer'. People were promoting Ivemectin (some scientists too not just people on facebook). There were idiots that went out and bought the veterinary kind of Ivermectin rather than asking their doctor to prescribe them a human dose though.

You sure about that?

Nearly 50 Facebook Groups Promote Livestock Drug Ivermectin, Watchdog Group Says

Facebook hosts almost 50 groups dedicated to promoting, buying and selling livestock deworming medication for use by humans despite the platform’s policy against it, a new Media Matters for America investigation found.

Facebook has policies in place against the spread of medical misinformation, but those seeking tips on buying and using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 are able to do so on the social media platform, the watchdog found.

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have both spoken out against the use of the deworming medication in relation to COVID-19 in humans and Facebook has previously*said*it removes ads for the drug.

In the 47 groups identified by Media Matters, there are about 65,000 members, some of whom share information on procuring and using ivermectin.

Caleb Wallace, the organizer of the anti-mask “Freedom Rally,” died last week*after taking Ivermectin*and other unproven remedies to treat his COVID. He was 30 years old.

A representative for Facebook did not immediately return a request for comment on the Media Matters findings, which you can find — with screenshots —*here.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nearly-50-facebook-groups-promote-142428573.html

[AltheHibby]

Selfishly, the thing that saddens me most is that I have realised that I really don't care if these idiots die.

I wish I could be more gracious, but I've had it with them. And it makes me sad that I've become so hard hearted.

[Stairway 2 7]

Selfishly, the thing that saddens me most is that I have realised that I really don't care if these idiots die.

I wish I could be more gracious, but I've had it with them. And it makes me sad that I've become so hard hearted.

It's not there fault they were easily manipulated and death is beyond heavy 😆

[The_Exile]

Selfishly, the thing that saddens me most is that I have realised that I really don't care if these idiots die.

I wish I could be more gracious, but I've had it with them. And it makes me sad that I've become so hard hearted.

Honestly mate, I was just coming on this thread to post the exact same thing. I’ve worryingly lost all empathy for these folk and I increasingly see myself thinking “less idiots in the gene pool”. I’ve never been like this, and it is concerning me a bit that all this of complete lunacy has changed my outlook on people.

[lapsedhibee]

Honestly mate, I was just coming on this thread to post the exact same thing. I’ve worryingly lost all empathy for these folk and I increasingly see myself thinking “less idiots in the gene pool”. I’ve never been like this, and it is concerning me a bit that all this of complete lunacy has changed my outlook on people.

In the UK, Gove has got off surprisingly lightly for his 'People have had enough of experts' crack. I'm not saying I hope he dies, but when he does I hope there's a special place in hell for him.

[One Day Soon]

Honestly mate, I was just coming on this thread to post the exact same thing. I’ve worryingly lost all empathy for these folk and I increasingly see myself thinking “less idiots in the gene pool”. I’ve never been like this, and it is concerning me a bit that all this of complete lunacy has changed my outlook on people.


There were always plenty of people like that but pandemic has just given them the opportunity to show themselves more obviously. In the same way that power magnifies and makes clearer the strengths and weaknesses of politicians when in office, crisis reveals the character of people.

If this was a disease where actions had more direct personal consequences these people might be taking a different view. Only 'might' mind you.

[MyJo]

Honestly mate, I was just coming on this thread to post the exact same thing. I’ve worryingly lost all empathy for these folk and I increasingly see myself thinking “less idiots in the gene pool”. I’ve never been like this, and it is concerning me a bit that all this of complete lunacy has changed my outlook on people.

Its tempting to chalk up the whole anti-vaxxer, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, horse dewormer eating brigade up to natural selection and being comfortable with the fact that these people will live and die (literally) by thier choices but it isnt as simple as that because despite anti-everything, the minute they get Covid they are more than happy to take up hospital beds and ventilators and medical resources to be treated while others who need treatment for things that are not easily preventable or that there is a free, readily available vaccine for aren’t able to get the treatment they need because of it.

Its unfortunately likely that a number of good people like that will be lost, through no fault of thier own, while the selfish covidiots recover and go back to being general skidmarks on society.

[SChibs]

Its tempting to chalk up the whole anti-vaxxer, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, horse dewormer eating brigade up to natural selection and being comfortable with the fact that these people will live and die (literally) by thier choices but it isnt as simple as that because despite anti-everything, the minute they get Covid they are more than happy to take up hospital beds and ventilators and medical resources to be treated while others who need treatment for things that are not easily preventable or that there is a free, readily available vaccine for aren’t able to get the treatment they need because of it.

Its unfortunately likely that a number of good people like that will be lost, through no fault of thier own, while the selfish covidiots recover and go back to being general skidmarks on society.

You could say the same thing about people who make poor life choices and are obese and/or smoke. Plenty people make an effort to keep themselves healthy whereas a large % of the population don't. Should someone who doesn't smoke be treated for lung cancer ahead of someone who does?

I completely understand your point but it's never been the way our society works, everyone is treated equally by the NHS and rightfully so.

[Hiber-nation]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/13/how-my-ivermectin-research-led-to-twitter-death-threats?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

This is what we're up against.