Sidebar

What is?

Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to latest
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
ThxOne said:
Mask reduce the intake of oxygen. Common knowledge.
Click to expand...
35444
 
ThxOne said:
It's out of ignorance when people talk crap about Ivermectin.

"Ivermectin is a well-known medicine that is approved as an antiparasitic by the World Health Organization and the US Food and Drug Administration. It is widely used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to treat worm infections.2,3 Also used for the treatment of scabies and lice, it is one of the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines.4 With total doses of ivermectin distributed apparently equaling one-third of the present world population,5 ivermectin at the usual doses (0.2–0.4 mg/kg) is considered extremely safe for use in humans.6,7 In addition to its antiparasitic activity, it has been noted to have antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, leading to an increasing list of therapeutic indications.8


Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, both observational and randomized studies have evaluated ivermectin as a treatment for, and as prophylaxis against, COVID-19 infection. A review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin “demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy” against COVID-19.9 Another recent review found that ivermectin reduced deaths by 75%.10 Despite these findings, the National Institutes of Health in the United States recently stated that “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,”11 and the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials.12"

Weird how it's use in America is recommended against for treating COVID... you know what with all the money being traded in America for the current vaccines and all.
Click to expand...
www.medrxiv.org

Bias as a source of inconsistency in ivermectin trials for COVID-19: A systematic review

Background and purpose The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations...
www.medrxiv.org www.medrxiv.org
www.nature.com

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.
www.nature.com www.nature.com
retractionwatch.com

Ivermectin meta-analysis to be retracted, revised, say authors

Less than a month after the withdrawal of a widely touted preprint claiming that ivermectin could treat COVID-19, the authors of a meta-analysis that relied heavily on the preprint say they will re…
retractionwatch.com retractionwatch.com
www.medpagetoday.com

Large Ivermectin Study Retracted

Preprint publisher finds evidence of plagiarism, problems with raw data
www.medpagetoday.com www.medpagetoday.com
 
ThxOne said:
It's out of ignorance when people talk crap about Ivermectin.

"Ivermectin is a well-known medicine that is approved as an antiparasitic by the World Health Organization and the US Food and Drug Administration. It is widely used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to treat worm infections.2,3 Also used for the treatment of scabies and lice, it is one of the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines.4 With total doses of ivermectin distributed apparently equaling one-third of the present world population,5 ivermectin at the usual doses (0.2–0.4 mg/kg) is considered extremely safe for use in humans.6,7 In addition to its antiparasitic activity, it has been noted to have antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, leading to an increasing list of therapeutic indications.8


Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, both observational and randomized studies have evaluated ivermectin as a treatment for, and as prophylaxis against, COVID-19 infection. A review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin “demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy” against COVID-19.9 Another recent review found that ivermectin reduced deaths by 75%.10 Despite these findings, the National Institutes of Health in the United States recently stated that “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,”11 and the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials.12"

Weird how it's use in America is recommended against for treating COVID... you know what with all the money being traded in America for the current vaccines and all.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the FLCCA?
Not rally a crew that you should put more faith in than the likes of the CDC, WHO, NHI, and countless other legitimate groups.

"The FLCCC was started by eight medics and two former journalists in April 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.[3] According to its co-president, Paul E. Marik, the group has a shared interest in vitamin C.[2]
The group initially started promoting Marik's discredited sepsis treatment protocol as a treatment for COVID-19, and in April 2020 it circulated press releases promoting vitamin C, heparin, hydroxychloroquine and other drugs, before pivoting to ivermectin promotion in October 2020.[3]
In November 2021 the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted a paper written by Kory, Marik, and others. The retraction was triggered when it was found the paper misreported the mortality figures of people treated for COVID-19 with the FLCCC's "MATH+" protocol, falsely making it appear to be an effective treatment."
 
Not sure why either of you bothered to respond. I posted finding from WHO and NIH. Even when facts are presented you all STILL argue. They both said Yup, it works... But don't use it. Makes a lot of sense hmm?

Do you both sit around with a script on how to respond to EVERYONE?

Give us facts so we can then disprove them as well!!! I don't think either of you actually want to have a 2-way conversation with anyone.
 
ThxOne said:
Not sure why either of you bothered to respond. I posted finding from WHO and NIH. Even when facts are presented you all STILL argue. They both said Yup, it works... But don't use it. Makes a lot of sense hmm?

Do you both sit around with a script on how to respond to EVERYONE?

Give us facts so we can then disprove them as well!!! I don't think either of you actually want to have a 2-way conversation with anyone.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you bothered to respond, you didn't even read what we said.
 
ThxOne said:
Not sure why either of you bothered to respond. I posted finding from WHO and NIH. Even when facts are presented you all STILL argue. They both said Yup, it works... But don't use it. Makes a lot of sense hmm?

Do you both sit around with a script on how to respond to EVERYONE?

Give us facts so we can then disprove them as well!!! I don't think either of you actually want to have a 2-way conversation with anyone.
Click to expand...
"Despite these findings, the National Institutes of Health in the United States recently stated that “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,”11 and the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials."

The FLCCA is not an agency that has the authority nor the funding or capability to do proper clinical trials and make recommendations on whether Ivermectin or any other drug could or should be used to deal with COVID.

You (in the general term of anti-vaxers) don't trust the FDA, CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. to say that the existing COVID vaccinations are OK, but you think a group composed of med techs and a few reporters are a good source of info on what drug to take?
That makes no sense whatsoever.

That's like not trusting DOT when they say seatbelts are effective, and then relying on a group of mud racers who did a "study" that proves seatbelts are not effective.

You're putting your faith in the wrong places.
 
RobGMN said:
"Despite these findings, the National Institutes of Health in the United States recently stated that “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,”11 and the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials."

The FLCCA is not an agency that has the authority nor the funding or capability to do proper clinical trials and make recommendations on whether Ivermectin or any other drug could or should be used to deal with COVID.

You (in the general term of anti-vaxers) don't trust the FDA, CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. to say that the existing COVID vaccinations are OK, but you think a group composed of med techs and a few reporters are a good source of info on what drug to take?
That makes no sense whatsoever.

That's like not trusting DOT when they say seatbelts are effective, and then relying on a group of mud racers who did a "study" that proves seatbelts are not effective.

You're putting your faith in the wrong places.
Click to expand...
He's not even reading what we are saying. I am confident.
 
RobGMN said:
"Despite these findings, the National Institutes of Health in the United States recently stated that “there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,”11 and the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials."

The FLCCA is not an agency that has the authority nor the funding or capability to do proper clinical trials and make recommendations on whether Ivermectin or any other drug could or should be used to deal with COVID.

You (in the general term of anti-vaxers) don't trust the FDA, CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. to say that the existing COVID vaccinations are OK, but you think a group composed of med techs and a few reporters are a good source of info on what drug to take?
That makes no sense whatsoever.

That's like not trusting DOT when they say seatbelts are effective, and then relying on a group of mud racers who did a "study" that proves seatbelts are not effective.

You're putting your faith in the wrong places.
Click to expand...
As I have said before. You don't need to speak for me. I am not an "anti-vaxer" and I never said I don't trust these entities when it comes to the existing COVID vaccines. I never said I trust anyone else over them either. You really have to stop grouping everyone with opinions, facts or other all into the same group if they chose to not be democrats or liberals.

The NIH AND WHO state the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID... then say not to use it because there is not enough data. How do they know it's effective then? Either they do have data or they don't, which is it? They know WAAAAAYYYYYYY more about Ivermectin then they do the current vaccines as it has been used for a very long time alllllllllllllll around the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Previous thread Next thread

About this thread

Clifff150

Clifff150

10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
Thread starter
Clifff150
Joined
Location
Texas
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
19,273
Views
806,145
Last reply date
Last reply from
administrator
Share thread
IMG_20260516_193114554_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260516_192955471_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list