IVERMECTIN/PROPHYLACTIC DOCTOR FLORIDA

Jimmy2 

    This LINK is what the Washington Post has to say about the misguided use of Ivermectin.  The best work, done in Brazil, indicates that it works about as well as a placeo.

JGC Which Brazilian study are you referring to?  This study from Brazil says it reduces viral load: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7942165/#__ffn_sectitle

This study is also included in the https://c19early.com/ website with 800+ studies.

JGC John, Ivermectin works extremely well for covid. Peer reviewed meta analysis published in a medical journal shows it works very well. But there is a large amount of disinformation trying to discourage its use. So you have to ignore the opinion pieces in newspapers and go right to the source of the studies otherwise you will be misled.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

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.

Jimmy2 

Here's a .pdf of the article: 

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.

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/

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.

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

Fred Cloud don’t confuse coincidence with causation.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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?

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