When the government handed out billions to individual companies so they would start manufacturing a vaccine before most trail data was completed in order to cut red tape and speed up recovery it got political. I guess you can point to this company got this and this politician is bias but in the end that was inevitable to get through this as quickly as possible.

They might, but it would be to show that a therapeutic is needed because ivermectin hasn’t shown any clinical efficacy. It’s not the same thing.

There are plenty of clinical trials that show it’s effective. The only trials that don’t are all funded by drug companies and are less sophisticated than a 6 grade biology class project. There is also absolutely ZERO real world cases that show it’s ineffective. But millions if not billions of cases that show it does… specifically in Covid

Even if the FDA was willing to approve a drug without any testing it takes on average up to 3 years just to develop a drug. On average, 5 out of 5,000 drugs that enter preclinical testing ever make it to human testing. Out of those 5 only 1 on average makes it to the market. If you include the whole process it usually takes about 10 years for a drug to make it to the marketplace. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...rticlekey=9877

So the odds that Pfizer gets their Covid pill right on the first try is 1 in 5,000. And instead of 10 years, they’re going to beat those odds in 6 months. Both Pfizer and Merck are pretty certain theyll have approval in the next few months. How can they be so certain they’ll beat those odds in 95% less time if they have no other reference drug to base their applications or ingredients on?

Privately, The FDA and Pfizer both know Ivermectin works. That is why even after a year of use, the FDA can’t even put out a definitive answer either for or against. But they can tell you all about the horse version. I guarantee you Pfizer will use the more thorough clinical trials and peer reviewed studies when submitting their application and data for their final approval. All of which show it works.

Largest ivermectin trial to date

https://elemental.medium.com/ivermectin-for-covid-19-an-update-5e913bb49483

I'd tell you the results but they won't surprise anybody with a shred of critical thinking.

When the opening sentence states, “Ivermectin IS a horse dewormer…” I already know how it’s going to go.

It’s primary use in the US is in animals. If you have a large dog, you probably give it to them for heartworms.

That commentary aside, that research group is from a western country (Canada/US) and has a large trial. The commentary isn’t done by them. It’s strange how every trial done by a legitimate source comes up with no benefit, yet the University of Bangladesh studies you keep quoting are your bible. SMH

Other than a chart that only a medical professional would know how to read there’s no other details in the main article.

It does include 2 interesting links.
The first is to an overview of the study. In the “exclusion” section it lists anyone who has shown acute Covid requiring hospitalization. It also lists 20 other exclusions that mostly have to do with other comorbidities. So in other words, if you’re at risk at being hospitalized or have any other health issues… you’re not even allowed to be in this study. Wow, what a surprise. Another study on healthy people that wouldn’t even have a problem with Covid even if they did absolutely nothing.

The second link refers to another study that specifically says, “Secondly, the mean dose of ivermectin was 192.37 μg/kg/day (SD ± 24.56), which is below the doses proposed as probably effective”
So in other words, they gave the study participants less medication than it would take to show any signs of being effective. Holy I can’t believe they didn’t find it effective, Batman.

It’s hilarious how far people will go to show Ivermectin doesn’t work. It’s strange how every study you rely on is set up for failure before it even starts. An elementary special education class could put together a more comprehensive study.

Given that in the majority of your posts you don’t even know what you’re reading, it’s not surprising that you are wrong again.

https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sit...s-08-06-21.pdf

This reminds me of one of those pictures of a chimp with a rifle. Except you are the chimp and the rifle is the Internet. Can’t blame the chimp for having no idea what he’s looking looking at.

Yes, that’s the first link I was referring to. Read the exclusions section. While it does list a few health problems in the inclusion section it doesn’t say if any of those were actually selected for the trial. Acute Covid was an exclusion. Acute covid usually lasts up to 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms as referenced here… https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01283-z

So basically, anybody with an actual risk of covid hospitalization wasn’t tested unless it was already around 4 weeks after they had symptoms. So after 4 weeks the people tested would have already recovered orrrrr if they had serious problems they were too far gone to be saved anyway.

So while the inclusion section shows they included other health risks… if those people developed acute covid… they were excluded from the study.

Other than being used as a preventative, the main purpose of Ivermectin is treating Covid once infected…. which is basically acute Covid. So if you are showing signs of what Ivermectin is used for… you’re excluded from the study.

Being that this is apparently the most comprehensive study to date, it exposes the obvious motive.

I don't know if you honestly don't know what you're reading or this is a joke. The study is called "Early Treatment of COVID-19 with Repurposed Therapies: The TOGETHER Adaptive Platform Trial." You have to have had less than 7 days of symptoms, no supplemental O2, not on a ventilator AND comorbidities. It's not a deathbed study, it's to determine if any of the repurposed drugs... HCQ, Ivermectin, Flonase, etc. had an effect on outcomes when administered early after testing positive.

I just had another dose yesterday. No problems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34076901/

https://ivmmeta.com/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34076901/

https://jamaletter.com/

The drug is too cheap for mainstream to recommend. No "upside" to big pharma. Look at the list of the BOD for Phyzer. Something like over 40 of them are actually Chinese Communist Party members. Not a conspiracy theory, etc. You can google each name individually and see who they are. I won't post the link here, but it's all easily verifiable. You just gotta do the leg work. I took their vaccine, which has proven to be "ineffective". As a hedge against their poorly performing vaccine, I decided to protect myself to a higher degree. Too many "break through cases" . Be prudent, or be a statistic. I can't find a single person harmed by ivermectin. proper dose, under dose, or over dose. Seems very safe. I am no doctor, but i think I have done all I can do by taking the vaccine and ivermectin. if I do end up getting this crap, I will take Dr. advice, plus treat with whatever is working. That may be therapeutics, or it may be anti virials. We shall see., but in the mean time, I will do what I can to reduce my risk factors. Obesity is a big risk. So, we can all work on that if our BMI is too high. Do what you can. That's all you can do.

How comprehensive can it be if you’re not even allowed to have acute covid to participate. If you show any signs at all you are considered to have acute covid. So your only “early treatment” that’s included in the study are people that test positive, but basically have no symptoms at all. Ivermectin doesn’t matter to these people. If I get a fever of 98.7 how am I supposed to know that Advil brought it down to 98.6 or if it would have come back down anyway. That’s the kind of severity this “most comprehensive study” is testing.

Also, what makes you so certain that you know better than every single doctor that’s used it worldwide? I know close to a billion uses is a small sample size but it at least shows something.

Praise God that all the big pharmaceutical companies have rejected their former ways. Now rather than lying and defrauding the vulnerable for profit, they've joined hands in helping mankind. I'm so thankful they can be trusted during these perilous times. Ditto for our politicians, who actually put politics aside for science, and to help every one of us get vaccinated. I'll dwell on these things as Thanksgiving approaches.

So let me get this straight, you all are ****ed that they've created a life saving treatment that will save millions, meanwhile trying to say that antibody testing which costs 100 times more is the true viable alternative?

A successful, effective, globally popular vaccine... why shouldn't they make money?

What are you people? SOCIALISTS?

Did you skip the last few pages? The vaccines barely work. Even if it is significant it’s only for 6 months tops. No one knows the data beyond that. Even Pfizer only supplied the FDA with 6 months of data when they applied for full approval a few weeks ago. Even though they first started testing humans over a year ago. We’re not saying the vaccines don’t work at all. We’re saying there are other cheaper, more effective, and safer alternatives that have already existed. If there wasn’t, then why is Pfizer trying to capitalize on their version of it in the coming months? Ivermectin is a huge threat to a multi-billion dollar campaign.

I don’t understand how people stopped thinking big pharma stopped worrying about their profits all of the sudden. This is nothing new. This has been standard procedure for decades and everyone was in agreement with this opinion until 2020.

The last administration and this one says get vaccinated.

Again, this thread was about religious exemptions. It's become part two of a small but passionate drive to sell everyone on something that isn't approved by the very agency we need to sign meds off in prefer to remain employed.

So, do you have a religious reason to not get vaccinated? Or are you lost?

Who is we exactly? Are you speaking for a group of people? If so are they in the United States?

The last administration didn’t say take it or get fired. Huge difference. The last administration also used several of the drugs when infected that the drug companies are trying to suppress. Amazingly, like everyone else that’s taken it, they recovered quickly.

The vaccinated are still getting infected in large numbers. So rather than help them with proven cheap drugs we’d rather wait until Pfizer (and who knows who else) come out with their version of most likely the exact same thing.

You just spoke for others when you used the word “were” multiple times. Your credibility is more than done. Good luck from whatever Easter block county your in. I don’t hold this against anyone that is vaccination hesitant because imo there are legitimate reasons to feel that way but this guy has some weird agenda.

lol. Sorry for using the wrong pronouns. Didn’t realize that ruins someone’s credibility. I guess the data I provided is irrelevant since my grammar usage was not correct. I’ll start reading James Joyce to see his expertise on the matter. If it helps I identify as He/Him

That’s correct. Your credibility is ruined. It really was a long time ago. Way to many incorrect facts and false statements. If your going to mention something and it’s an opinion try to at least say that. Something like imo or I’m not 100% and it’s ok to be wrong sometimes.

Ok. Being that you can’t provide any data that shows Ivermectin doesn’t work other than using people with no symptoms as examples. “We” will assume you have no credibility as well.

good luck because I don’t post misinformation and false statements on a regular basis and if I’m not sure about something I always state as much.

It’s really not Your opinion on Ivermectin that I’m disputing or have a problem with. It’s more like all the other rants you make that are blatantly false to try and make a point. Spreading of misinformation is a problem in our society right now. It really bothers me when someone says something that is nowhere close to the truth and try’s to make it a fact. You do that regularly. I’m not even sure if your aware of that?

You realize that the study that kicked off your latest rant on how it was false had a requirement that you had symptoms, right? Why is it that every study by a western country from Stanford, Johns Hopkins, this latest one from a some college in Canada & WUSTL that show ivermectins ivermectin doesn’t work is fake, but in your mind, Bangladesh… those guys are spot on. Or every number that points to the unvaccinated getting hospitalized at 17x the rate as the vaccinated, you cry that those numbers are fake and falsified by “big Pharma” and “Joey Bribes.”

If you don’t want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, it would probably be best to go to the forums of whatever regional you fly for and spout your stuff there or if you’re not a pilot, rant wherever those people rant.

Political ideology and being PC has become the new religion in this country. Any view contrary to one’s narrative has to be demonized and destroyed. Both sides of the aisle claim the moral high ground while the vast majority of people are slightly left or right of center and get trapped in the middle.

Review of emerging evidence showing positive efficacy of Ivermectin to treat C19: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Ivermectin being studied in the UK: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57570377

Viral Load Treatment: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/e...464-8/fulltext

Lower Mortality Rates: https://journal.chestnet.org/article...898-4/fulltext

Front Line C19 Critical Care: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-c...f-COVID-19.pdf

Culture War: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuac...h=792363c5ce09

Evolving Evidence: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca...pid-review.pdf

Chinese Influence: https://nypost.com/2020/12/13/us-com...mmunist-party/

Pfizer BOD: https://www.reddit.com/r/CabalCrushe...ent_board_are/

Chinese Infiltration: https://www.wionews.com/world/two-mi...-report-349788

Global Public Good vs Chinese Public Good: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...accine-pfizer/

That's 1) anecdotal and 2) unverifiable.

Maybe you should enroll in a study?

I am not spring-loaded to be down on ivermectin, any treatments are great, just waiting for validated first-world data (if you want to go to the third world for medical care, that's your business).

But vaccines are a fire-and-forget weapon. Most people don't want to get covid and then quarantine a take drugs for treatment (it's the quarantine part that would really bother me), and they don't want to take daily pills for life like HIV patients in hopes of a prophylactic effect (assuming that's even safe).

No it's not a "no no."

My AME is fully briefed. Dosage, and usage schedule. He sees no reason why NOT to take Ivermectin as a prophylactical.

Merck doesn't say that. Merck acknowledges it's "ANTI VIRAL PROPERTIES." Many human dosing schedules out there, and many mainstream uses for Ivermectin both in the USA and beyond its borders.

Link: file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/02/02/9DACFD35-44C1-4101-88C2-57B716449694/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf

Link: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-c...ol-ENGLISH.pdf

Link: https://rumble.com/vft4c5--covid-19-...d-dr.-rya.html

Vaccines may be a fire and forget. But, we are seeing right now that in this case, they are NOT. Too many people getting Covid multiple times, and too many getting it that have been vaccinated.

I have been vaccinated, and I take Ivermectin. So, I am in the camp that says "be prepared" and "be prudent." My dosing schedule is NOT high. But, it's high enough to make use of the anti-virul properties of Ivermectin. I've taken it both PRE and POST vaccine. I've also taken it before a vaccine was available.

It's very hard to get right now. But I feel like I am doing all I can do to protect me and my family from this Chinese manufactured virus. If another Man made virus comes out from a laboratory, people will need anti-virals. Ivermectin is just one of those. There are others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33038449/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33227231/

I gave you the link to merck's website, where they DO say that.

I guess YMMV. My AME said the Regional Flight Surgeon's office had issued a memo stating that any off label drugs used for COVID require explicit approval and are grounding while using. That's just his word... I haven't seen it in writing, unlike the HCQ prohibition which you can find on the internet.