Arthur Vandelay

Can you give me an example of what a credible website would be? FDA's, CDC's, NIH?

These studies are from several different websites. There are 116 of them. I guarantee you haven't looked at a single one. The links to their PDF's and sources are all there.

There will never be a double blinded, placebo controlled study on the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID, because it is off patent and there is $0 to be made.

sailingfun

Just show me one of the 116 where they conducted human trials. I produced one and posted the results. I do see this kind of statement over and over again.

Shouting through my N95 mask and the noise of the HEPA filter, I introduced myself. I calmly asked him why he decided not to get vaccinated.

“Well, I’m not an anti-vaxxer or anything. I was just waiting for the FDA to approve the vaccine first. I didn’t want to take anything experimental. I didn’t want to be the government’s guinea pig, and I don’t trust that it’s safe,” he said.

“Well,” I said, “I can pretty much guarantee we would have never met had you gotten vaccinated, because you would have never been hospitalized. All of our COVID units are full and every single patient in them is unvaccinated. Numbers don’t lie. The vaccines work.”

Arthur Vandelay

If you spent half the time looking at any of the 116 studies I posted as you did replying with some bizarre quote, you would have spotted SEVERAL. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you only for you to tell me some obscure reason why it doesn't meet your credibility standard.

I agree with you that vaccines reduce hospitalization and death. I am vaccinated.

sailingfun

So you can’t find even one.

Arthur Vandelay

Ok I'll play your stupid game. This is a retrospective study including 3100 patients. One of the 116 I provided. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/...h-clinical.pdf

Queue your BS response on why this is not credible.

Honesty, if you're interested in the future of your career you should be interested in ending the pandemic and have an open mind. You should look at things objectively and not adhere to dogmatic political BS.

hoover

Nicely done. Thanks for posting. Also check out www.flccc.net

Thedude86

Having family members who are doctors doesn’t disprove math. That’s how science works. Doesn’t matter what your opinion is. If Dr. Fauci tells me 2+2=7…. Well, I’m going to default to math. Sorry.

23% of serious cases in June in the U.S. were of the vaccinated. This has been increasing every month since January. June was also the last month of data given and before Dr. Fauci admitted that the vaccines wear off much faster than anticipated. If they didn’t… then what’s the point of boosters? Given the rate up to June, and in addition a study published by left leaning “The Atlantic” shows that up to 50% of unvaccinated hospitalizations are hospitalized for something completely unrelated to covid…. that 23% is probably closer to 40% if not 50% now of covid patients being vaccinated.

It doesn’t matter what your doctor family says. It matters what the numbers say. It also doesn’t matter what the death rate is, every restriction we’ve put in place have all been based on cases. How else can you explain Israel having the highest covid case per capita than anywhere in entire world? How else can you also explain why any of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world are doing the worst with covid? Again, doesn’t matter what your doctor families opinions are unless they can back it up with data or numbers. And right now they can’t. Unless they use outdated numbers from several months ago. You can’t tell me 99% of deaths are unvaccinated and then in the same breath justify the need for boosters. Please provide recent data. And also account for about half of the unvaccinated covid hospitalizations being admitted to the hospital for non covid related issues.

Thedude86

In regards to the Jama study…

First, in the “limitations” section it admits the study group was relatively young. The median age of the study group was 37. In this age group you’re most likely to have extremely minor if any symptoms at all even if you just stay home and do nothing. If Ivermectin turns nothing into nothing you’re not going to be able to measure that. It even said that most of the study participants stayed home and just participated via phone and were able to continue to accomplish normal activities.

Second, also in the “limitations” section, it says virological assessments were not included. In other words, the study participants were not given actual tests to determine when they were officially negative. Their improvements were determined by characteristics that for most of the participants were self assessments and not accomplished by an actual doctor or nurse.

Quoted from earlier in the report…
“However, the relatively young and healthy study population rarely developed complications, rendering the study underpowered to detect such effects. Therefore, the ability of ivermectin to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 to more severe stages would need to be assessed in larger trials.”

Third, the biggest one and in my opinion makes this study meaningless… in the “conflict of interest” section it says grants and personal fees were received from Merck. While Merck makes Ivermectin, Ivermectin is extremely cheap and Merck is in the process of helping J&J with their vaccines. Merck is also currently testing their own new version of an oral drug for Ivermectin. Although, it will still be most likely identical to Ivermectin. I’m sure Merck was completely unbiased when it came to developing this trial. Especially, since the success was done mostly by self assessments by young people who barely show any symptoms anyway.

I haven’t see one study that says it’s unclear if Ivermectin works that isn’t funded by a drug company. This would be like if there was a study to determine the best airline and United was the one that funded it.

Thedude86

Why would you use such high doses that are toxic to humans when you can just use normal doses that have virtually no side effects? Are they trying to purposefully give them side effects?

Thedude86

For antiviral properties, this is an article from the Journal of Antibiotics on Nature.com in 2017. It specifically mentions RNA viruses which is what covid is. It says Ivermectin has demonstrated to be a potent inhibitor of RNA viruses
https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711

I like how the other article acts like there’s only one study that supports Ivermectin. There’s hundreds now. Peer reviewed, hospitals, universities, thousands of doctors using it in millions of patients around the world, countries advocating for it, and they all show success. There isn’t ONE unbiased study that shows Ivermectin doesn’t work. Yet, there are now hundreds of studies and millions of real world examples that show it does.

The people trying to discredit Ivermectin make me laugh. You guys are going to be taking Pfizer’s version of it and Merck’s new version of it in several months anyway. Why are you guys trying so hard to discredit something that’s going to be shoved down our throats later this year or early next year? They’ve already been testing it for several months already. Emergency authorization is just around the corner. I posted the article a few pages back.

Trying to discredit all the millions of successful cases of Ivermectin use is like if the 1996 basketball Olympic Dream Team played a high school team a million times and kicked their butts every single time. You guys would claim, “well according to the FDA there’s no evidence the dream team will win again if they play one more game”.