Covid-19 Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 4 - Ivermectin doesn't work either.

[Chief]

Continued in Part 5:

Covid-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 5 - Get vaccinated.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/in-focus/covid-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[SaintsSeptember]

IF Ivermectin is effective, it is as a treatment for covid or a preventive if you have it immediately after you contact Covid.
It is safe for parasite treatment, you have 1 dose a year.
Trials for Covid have been along the lines of a dose every day.
If you were taking it as a preventative you would need a dose every day.
If you were taking it as a treatment, you should not be near a GP.

Is it safe to take a dose every day?
If you don't know, please don't say its safe.

It is of limited availability, and is tricky to produce. ( grown from culture i think ).
If demand outweighed production it would not be cheap.
If everyone were to suddenly have a dose every day it would not be cheap.

Not Safe.
Not Cheap.

 

[owen87]

No. Like these.

Once again general practice is considered the lowest common denominator of medicine, and our competence and objectivity to treat our patients appropriately is questioned. Presumably the TGA took their advice from other specialties. What is RACGP doing about this and other ridiculous limitations such as restrictions on requesting MRIs? I’m getting pretty tired of being the joke specialty.​

​

There are 2 issues here of concerns to me: TGA-and RACGP by proxy- have accepted that GPs are inferior to other medical specialists: we are robots and can no longer be trusted to prescribe even Ivermetin- off label. This is a drug with safe profile better than any current drugs used in this pandemics. The last issues is our wrong approach to this COVID pandemics. It is a common knowledge that vaccination alone is not the only approach to manage pandemics. Being vaccinated does not make anyone a superhuman to COVID infection. If our goal is to keep Australian safe from dying, shouldn't we give alternatives to those who for whatever reasons will rather die than take the vaccines. Two or three people died in their homes in NSW recently and they were reportedly positive posthumously. India saved their nation with Ivermectin . Do we want people to die in their homes in the name of promoting vaccination? GPs should stand up for choice. I am in no way against vaccination. please.​

​

We should never accept such restrictions on our practice, especially ones as contentious as this. If you don't believe it's contentious then you haven't looked hard enough. I'm not aware of a single study where mortality increased with ivermectin therapy., so I'd love to see the data supporting the "it's not safe" advice. The metanalysis conducted by Prof Tess Lawrie shows about a 49 - 84% reduction in mortality. Even if you remove the disputed Elgazzar study, you're still left with a 49% reduction in mortality. So...? "is not effective in treating Covid-19" seems a little inaccurate. And what happened to the principle of autonomy? Either we as Drs are capable of determining risk vs benefit or we're not. If its the latter folks, as the TGA are now essentially asserting, then it's all over.​

Oh so only the comments that support your ideological position then. Got it.

You're a joke at this point, your constant championing of dubious sources in favour of Ivermectin whilst denying you have any position on it is quite funny.

 

[Total Power]

I hope this answers one of sorted queries, you deserve what you get.

Internet Vigilantes Are Fighting Ivermectin Misinformation With Memes And Explicit Horse Cartoons

Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic commonly used in the U.S. to deworm horses, has been touted as a Covid-19 miracle cure without proof and despite warnings from the FDA not to take it for this purpose.

www.forbes.com

 

[Total Power]

Oh so only the comments that support your ideological position then. Got it.

You're a joke at this point, your constant championing of dubious sources in favour of Ivermectin whilst denying you have any position on it is quite funny.

He just doesn't understand science. I have always been skeptical of the pre-print process - mostly because it allows poor studies that wouldn't pass peer review to get public attention and influence medical and public health policy in determental ways. His reply to the peer review (or failed study) of a study from Elgazzar was to show more pre-print.

Despite this, this study has been incorporated into several systematic reviews (most recently Hill et al) which appraise the paper as 'low bias' apparently. Whats concerning is it has taken 7 months to peer review study, which has been viewed 150,000 and included in many so called 'studies'.

 

[Borough Blood]

LOL. Insta supported by AAP fruit salad.

Wow, you really got nothing here. You know the article was debunking something posted on Instagram?

 

[Deaneus!]

 

[CD Xbow]

A nasty piece of work dies because of stupidity Bob Enyart, anti-vaxxer pastor and homophobic anti-abortion radio host, dies of COVID - Orlando Sentinel

 

[BEaston]

A nasty piece of work dies because of stupidity Bob Enyart, anti-vaxxer pastor and homophobic anti-abortion radio host, dies of COVID - Orlando Sentinel

Inevitable.

 

[Hornberger]

Their heads will explode when someone tells them that the government mandates that bakers add iodine to bread.

Your daily bread, now with iodine - Health & Wellbeing

www.abc.net.au

 

[Present Not Past]

He just doesn't understand science. I have always been skeptical of the pre-print process - mostly because it allows poor studies that wouldn't pass peer review to get public attention and influence medical and public health policy in determental ways. His reply to the peer review (or failed study) of a study from Elgazzar was to show more pre-print.

Despite this, this study has been incorporated into several systematic reviews (most recently Hill et al) which appraise the paper as 'low bias' apparently. Whats concerning is it has taken 7 months to peer review study, which has been viewed 150,000 and included in many so called 'studies'.

They just want to be enraged at something and if they're not allowed to take Ivermectin for their own good then to them it reinforces their misguided belief that the world is against them and everything is out of their control.

 

[owen87]

Their heads will explode when someone tells them that the government mandates that bakers add iodine to bread.

Your daily bread, now with iodine - Health & Wellbeing

www.abc.net.au

I don't think the point was that iodine is inherently bad.

 

[Chief]

Discussion about Covid reasoning.

I like the stuff on different heuristics as it validates my process

I do not have the time to devote a full working week to reading all of the information and papers and opinions on, say, Ivermectin as a treatment or prophylactic for Covid.

So I listen to people who do. The calm, rational voices mostly. I have my own non-calm, irrational voice



Evidence for Ivermectin is terrible. It goes in all sorts of directions. It's full of holes, sometimes fraudulent, and shows no coherent results. We should not adjust our views on Ivermectin based on the available evidence.

Using it prophylactically over a long period of time will leave your whole digestive system ravaged.

Using it as a treatment at hospitalisation is just screwing with other treatments.

It does not work.

 

[Hornberger]

I don't think the point was that iodine is inherently bad.

My point was that you have conspiracy theorists that automatically distrust anything the government tells them who are willing to try any miracle covid cures that being promoted on facebook, while refusing to accept vaccines because if it is coming from the government it must be bad. The same conspiracy theorists tend to believe that water fluoridation is the government attempts at mind control,create infertility, turn people gay, etc.

If the conspiracy theorists knew the government mandates iodised bread, would they still trust iodine as miracle covid cure?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

My point was that you have conspiracy theorists that automatically distrust anything the government tells them who are willing to try any miracle covid cures that being promoted on facebook, while refusing to accept vaccines because if it is coming from the government it must be. The same conspiracy theorists tend to believe that water fluoridation is the government attempts at mind control,create infertility, turn people gay, etc.

If the conspiracy theorists knew the government mandates iodised bread, would they still trust iodine as miracle covid cure?

SANDWICHES CURE COVID

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I recommend substituting strong booze for iodine.
I've been doing secret trials and so far have not caught Covid. So it clearly works.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Pre-print, not peer reviewed. Bogus in other words. Im sure we'll be seeing the inevitable "cxpression of concern" from the journal and ultimately a retraction for this article. Basically every paper that relied upon Elgazzar et al., will end up retracted because its large number of participants and effect size caused it to have a significant weight in these meta-analyses.

You claimed the author was sure of his conclusion before excluding the Elgazzar paper. That was patently false.

You have now shifted the goalposts to tag all pre-print research as 'bogus', which is about as nutbaggery as it comes.

You didn't even begin to address the re-evaluation of the research after removal of the Elgazzar study that showed the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Reanalysis-of-the-data.pdf

 

[owen87]

You claimed the author was sure of his conclusion before excluding the Elgazzar paper. That was patently false.

You have now shifted the goalposts to tag all pre-print research as 'bogus', which is about as nutbaggery as it comes.

You didn't even begin to address the re-evaluation of the research after removal of the Elgazzar study that showed the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Reanalysis-of-the-data.pdf

Oh look the FLCCC again.

They're the ones opposing the Oxford study in to the benefits of Ivermectin right?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You claimed the author was sure of his conclusion before excluding the Elgazzar paper. That was patently false.

You have now shifted the goalposts to tag all pre-print research as 'bogus', which is about as nutbaggery as it comes.

You didn't even begin to address the re-evaluation of the research after removal of the Elgazzar study that showed the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Reanalysis-of-the-data.pdf

Two sandwiches taken four weeks apart is more effective than Ivermectin.

 

[Frank Bunn]

You are obviously invested in this more than i have seen anyone invested in anything in a forum.

Your rhetoric doesn't add to your argument.

We are on a forum where the site owner has changed the thread title to frame the argument.​

The FDA is gaslighting Ivermectin by photos of horses.​

There's a massive global hoax media campaign targeted against Ivermectin, falsely claiming mass poisoning.​

The TGA has blocked off-label use for any Australian doctor wishing to prescribe Ivermectin. I believe this is unprecedented.​

The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia PSA) designated that local chemists can block prescriptions of Ivermectin by doctors if they suspect the drug is being used for treatment or prevention of COVID-19. I believe this is unprecedented.​

And I'm the one who is invested?

 

[Chief]

Your rhetoric doesn't add to your argument.

You actually believe all of that?

 

[Chief]

Ivermectin is not banned. Off-label prescription is just restricted to specialists.

Because of:

* People asking for it as a substitue to vaccination.
* Higher, unsafe doses being recommended (by grifters and cranks) on social media.
* 3-4 fold increase in off-label subscriptions leading to shortages for those who actually need it.

Full announcement:

Today, the TGA, acting on the advice of the Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling, has placed new restrictions on the prescribing of oral ivermectin. General practitioners are now only able to prescribe ivermectin for TGA-approved conditions (indications) - scabies and certain parasitic infections. Certain specialists including infectious disease physicians, dermatologists, gastroenterologists and hepatologists (liver disease specialists) will be permitted to prescribe ivermectin for other unapproved indications if they believe it is appropriate for a particular patient.

These changes have been introduced because of concerns with the prescribing of oral ivermectin for the claimed prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Ivermectin is not approved for use in COVID-19 in Australia or in other developed countries, and its use by the general public for COVID-19 is currently strongly discouraged by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce, the World Health Organisation and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Firstly, there are a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection rather than getting vaccinated. Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms. Doing so has the potential to spread the risk of COVID-19 infection throughout the community.

Secondly, the doses of ivermectin that are being advocated for use in unreliable social media posts and other sources for COVID-19 are significantly higher than those approved and found safe for scabies or parasite treatment. These higher doses can be associated with serious adverse effects, including severe nausea, vomiting, dizziness, neurological effects such as dizziness, seizures and coma.

Finally, there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months, leading to national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections. It is believed that this is due to recent prescribing and dispensing for unapproved uses, such as COVID-19. Such shortages can disproportionately impact vulnerable people, including those in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

There is only one TGA approved oral ivermectin product, Stromectol ivermectin 3mg tablet blister pack which is indicated for the treatment of river blindness (onchocerciasis), threadworm of the intestines (intestinal strongyloidiasis) and scabies.

All medical practitioners can continue to prescribe oral ivermectin for the approved indications. However, prescribing of oral ivermectin for indications that are not approved is now limited to certain specialists.

 

[Frank Bunn]

You actually believe all of that?

Change the thread title so as not to frame the argument then we can have a chat.

 

[Total Power]

You claimed the author was sure of his conclusion before excluding the Elgazzar paper. That was patently false.

You have now shifted the goalposts to tag all pre-print research as 'bogus', which is about as nutbaggery as it comes.

You didn't even begin to address the re-evaluation of the research after removal of the Elgazzar study that showed the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Reanalysis-of-the-data.pdf

When the article was printed on nature the author (and his colleagues in Bryant) said he was sure nothing will change. The pre-print written at a LATER DATE confirmed this from your above link. On top of that this is still pre-print, your link literally has as much value as a climate change paper from Anthony Watts. This is called confirmation bias, anything posted by this fraud is literally irrelevant.

You are in struggle town, but do tell, are you the exclusive dealer of Ivermectin in Australia? If so then we can assist you.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Ros has the most soothing voice in the entire Ivermectin ASMR genre.

 

[Chief]

Change the thread title so as not to frame the argument then we can have a chat.

But the title is true.

The evidence for ivermectin is all over the shop.

It does not do what you think it does.

There are no aliens flying around our skies, either.