IVERMECTIN/PROPHYLACTIC DOCTOR FLORIDA

Hi; Anyone know a Doctor in Florida that prescribes Ivermectin as a Prophylactic? 

39replies Oldest first
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Active threads
  • Popular
  • Have not heard that Ivermectin is used for longevity. Have you seen a study on it?

    Like
  • Which do you have: worms or head lice?

    Like 1
  • I ordered mine from the same place I ordered my life extension drugs, overseas.

    Like 1
  • For those skeptical of Ivermectin as a treatment. This site with an analysis of 982 studies has been banned on FB, YouTube, etc: https://c19early.com/

    Like
  • Read the WP Article, which contains a link to the Brazilian study.

    Like
      • Jimmy2
      • Jimmy2
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      JGC There is a paywall.  That is why I asked you for a link to the study.  I'd rather have a link than read WP which is an interpretation of the actual study.

      Like 1
      • JGC
      • JGC
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view
      • Jimmy2
      • Jimmy2
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      JGC Ok, I read through the article.  There is only one sentence in it claiming a Brazil study equates ivermectin to a placebo.  And it also says the study has not "formally published it's findings" so there is no way to look for it.  So the WP article has no direct information whatsoever.

      Also, they quote Dr. Boulware who I believe is highly biased.  He was the researcher who did the "RCT" on Hydroxychloroquine and claimed it didn't work.  I read through his HCQ study and they way he collected data was very flawed.  He made an online form that asked people if they had symptoms of covid, and mailed either a placebo or HCQ to them.  By the time the  HCQ arrived it was 3+ days after the symptoms and would most likely be administered in the late phase.  This is like having an online survey and relying on it for medical advice.  Online surveys are notorious for having unreliable data.

      Like 1
      • Fred Cloud
      • Fred_Cloud
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      JGC This WP article is not accurate. I am not sure exactly why, but its obvious there is a clear effort in the media to hide the truth about ivermectin because it is very clear that it works. The only article I have seen by mainstream media was an op-ed in the wall street journal. 

      Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393

       

      Go straight to the studies and avoid opinion pieces. Watch doctors testimony that have used it. They will tell you the truth.

      https://ivmmeta.com/

      https://c19early.com/

      Like 1
  • The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

    Like
      • Jimmy2
      • Jimmy2
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Karl If you go through each of the references, there is only one reference that attempts to back up their claim that ivermectin is unreliable, which is #4.  #4 is a newspaper article that quotes the author of the editorial.  A newspaper article is not a reliable source of information.

      So, we have at least four scientific papers that is referenced in the article that supports the use of Ivermectin, and a letter to the editor that tries to refute it with a reference to a newspaper link to the Guardian?  If the editor is actually serious he should have a counter-paper of his own that counteracts the data.

      Look at the data.

      Like 1
      • Fred Cloud
      • Fred_Cloud
      • 1 mth ago
      • 2
      • Reported - view

      Karl So go watch the doctors testimonies that have used it. They will clearly tell you it works.

      Like 2
      • Karl
      • Karl.1
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      Fred Cloud don’t confuse coincidence with causation.

      Like
      • Fred Cloud
      • Fred_Cloud
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Karl I am not confusing anything. They used a control group. Did you read any of the studies?

      Like 1
      • Karl
      • Karl.1
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      Fred Cloud my apology. I thought you were referring to doctors in Florida giving their personal accounts.

       

      as for studies, show me a large randomized double blind study done in the U.S.  I don’t think any have been completed yet.

      Like
    • Karl you would only take it if you saw a large double blind in the US? Why?

      Like
      • Karl
      • Karl.1
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      Fred Cloud any treatment study needs to be randomized and double blind to be of significant value.

      Prefer US to avoid possibility that the Ivermectin is treating undiagnosed co-infection.

      With any illness with such a low mortality rate, the study needs to have very large number of patients to be statistically accurate.

      Like
    • Karl  Yeah with a larger study you will get something more statistically accurate but the need for that is only if you have a low enough response rate in these smaller studies compared to placebo that is casting doubt on efficacy. But if you look at the those studies, they show a very high rate of response, not just a tiny blip that could be noise that would justify needing a larger study sample size to flush out the noise and try to find a signal. The meta analysis takes those smaller studies and emulates a larger sample size and it confirms that is shows clear signal. So I am confused what you would want a larger study to show you.

      Like
      • David H
      • David_Hanson
      • 1 mth ago
      • 2
      • Reported - view

      Karl HaHa,- try getting large double blinded studies on humans done in the USA for a drug or supplement that can't be patented.  None have ever been done using rapamycin.   Big Pharma wasted loads of time to create everlimos (which just has a slight change in the rapamycin molecule) so it could be patented).  It makes me upset when a Doc complains about no double blinded study on a substance that can't be patented.  We as a people are being robbed of years of lives because of the FDA and Big PHARMA!   American citizens should throw the bums out of Congress.  Congress created the FDA and has become Big Pharma's laptop so they are to blame.

      Like 2
    • Please do not blame  the FDA or any government agency as they do only what the politicians want-- and this is what the lobbyists desire on behalf of their clients. Our government is bought and paid for by special interests.  Just check out climate change or insulin selling for $12 k/year. 

      Like 3
      • Karl
      • Karl.1
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      David H Respectable studies are underway in both The U.K. And U.S. to look at Ivermectin.  We’ll see if it works or is another Hydroxychloroquine?

      Like
      • David H
      • David_Hanson
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Karl "Respectable" studies or ones set up to fail so as not to harm Big Pharma? 

      Like 1
      • Fred Cloud
      • Fred_Cloud
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Karl So you are saying you absolutely wouldnt take ivermectin until there are studies that you consider "respectable" ?

      Meaning, If you were on your death bed with covid, you still wouldnt take it?

      Like 1
      • Karl
      • Karl.1
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      Fred Cloud a somewhat odd question.  I won’t be on my death bed from Covid because I have already received proven treatment. 3 doses of Pfizer vaccine.  And why take a medicine with no proven benefit and clear side effects?

      Like
      • Karl
      • Karl.1
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      David H a little chip on your shoulder?

      Like
      • David H
      • David_Hanson
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      Karl Yep, and with cause IMHO.  "Scientists" view on substances - Orange Man is bad - we will make the substance look bad also - testing substances that stop virus replication in the immunity storm phase of the virus for example.  And then declare it doesn't work.  You can't trust any of them.  Look at the FDA and CDA on the recent booster evaluation - they made it up to go along with the political doctor, Dr. Joe Biden, MD (false).  Everyone should have a chip on their shoulder about the CDC, FDA, Big Pharma, and Dr. Joe!!!!!

      Like
    • David H And don't forget Dr. Fauci, The Omnipotent.   But to the topic, to each his own, but here we are experimenting on ourselves with off-label therapies and we're worried about a few other drugs.  And, well, I won't go into the '60s experience!

      Like 2
      • David H
      • David_Hanson
      • 1 mth ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Dorian Gray yes, so glad that I can buy ivermectin, rapamycin, tadalafil, metformin, etc without having to get the permission of anyone.

      Like 1
    • David H You forgot in terms of your political tirade, you forgot to add  the political U. S. Supreme Court led by the Chief "Justice"  John Roberts . See his rejection of the 1964 Voting Rights  Act ( States do not have to get approval of Federal Government to change voting rights)  and 2014 decision striking down campaign contribution  limits.  Our government is bought and paid for by special interests.  Whatever statistic we throw out you will just disregard it. 85 % of the people in the  hospital due to covid are not vaccinated., This is  is the statistic. Vaccines are not 100 % effective, but they do minimize the risk.

      I get my Pfizer booster on the 17th of this month and can't wait. Thank you 

      Like
  • Peter H. Howe That's a whole different can of worms, Peter because it was not a matter of approval but election laws within the states on how they are conducted, if that's what you're referring to.  Similar to what happened in Philadelphia.  But, I "vote" in favor of keeping politics out of our common interest here.  Maybe start another thread on vaccines, as it is interesting what is appearing now regarding the booster shots.  You can't get Moderna booster (not FDA approved yet) and they won't give you the Pfizer booster if you have had the Moderna initially.  Anyone can subscribe to the JAMA newsletter which has constant covid research updates.  I review them weekly also.  Stay well, and be healthy!

    Like
    • Dorian Gray  The Roberts court did modify 1964 Voting rights act ( actually got rid of it ) by eliminating the the need for the Feds to concur with any voting changes made by the States. This was based on the assertion that there was no evidence of  voter discrimination and the law was not needed. .

      On vaccines, I am 81 and in the 1940's polio affected one child in my neighborhood. There were a number of other diseases such as whooping cough, measles for which there was no vaccine.. Our homes had red quarantine signs when this happened.  My sister caught the measles when she was pregnant in 1960 and has a mentally challenged child to show for it as the measles vaccine did not show up until latter. 

      I will get my Pfizer booster shot on the 17th. Will continue my long term use of DHEA, melatonin, Vit. D,, zinc, magnesium, selenium, NAC, whey protein, probiotics etc. 

      Agree with your proposal on politics, I just could not let David H's comments go unanswered-- at my age I should know better ( grow up ), but they were terribly misinformed and dangerous. 

      I think it is a tragedy that over 700k have perished due to covid. Many of of these deaths did not have to happen and can be attributed to misinformation. We are in my opinion past the need to study the issue.  There is, with all things scientific, room to become more precise. 

      Like 1
      • J Man
      • J_Man
      • 1 mth ago
      • Reported - view

      Peter H. Howe You make excellent points, especially about misinformation.  It can come from many directions and appear to be perfectly researched and legitimate.  It can be difficult to weed out lies from truth these days.  I never take what appears to be valid information at face value.  I'll do my own research if I feel it's important and try not to get locked into a single narrow point of view.  

      Like
    • Jay Orman It is important to distinguish between "lies" where the person saying something actually knows it is not true, and situations where people are completely clueless and talk garbage, but that's because they have no ability to work out what the truth is.   Human beings do tend to believe the first thing they are told and then stick to that come hell or high water.

      Like
    • John Hemming We also have the situation in which peer reviewed articles from two different and credible institutions make  different conclusions related to efficacy of a treatment. Cleveland Clinic says fish oil is of little value in terms of preventing heart attacks and Mayo says it does have value in this regard. Neither institutions are fully accurate as high dose fish oil will virtually eliminate ischemic heart attacks, especially with low dose statin. This latter statement is based on my personnel experience with high dose fish oil ( 5.5 grams EPA/DHA/ day) along with 10 mg/day lipitor. My treatment was prescribed by a Dr. Davis almost 30 years ago after an emergency bypass.  I will also add that in the past 2 years, two different cardiologists have told me that fish oil is of no value. 

      Like
    • Peter H. Howe it could be that the situation is different for different people. Science moves gradually to the truth. I personally take fish oil, but have no view on this issue.

      Like
Like Follow
  • 1 mth agoLast active
  • 39Replies
  • 159Views
  • 10 Following