fishforfun

Didn’t the NIH do a study on the effectiveness of ivermectin?

JohnBurke

See post 18 above, in which the CDC is quoted as stating:

Bigpimppilot

I remember reading at some point that the reason why people were calling poison control in larger numbers (300% increase in 2 years etc) was not that people were dying after taking ivermectin but because they wanted to know what dose of horse dewormer to take because they couldn’t find Joe organs doctor to get a legit prescription. Side note, take a look at side effects to taking a horse dose of ivermectin. If you take too much: This is not likely because in many cases, you’ll take this drug one time only, as a single dose. However, if you take too much or your dose is too high, you could have dangerous levels of this drug in your body. Symptoms of an overdose of this drug can include:

• skin rash or itching
• swelling
• headache
• dizziness
• weakness or loss of energy
• nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea
• stomach pain
• shortness of breath
• tingling or a feeling of pins and needles
• inability to control your body movements
• seizures

here’s a great video about this unpublished study that’s being waved in the air as the truth.
Doubtful and black and white thinkers will take the time to get the nuance. https://youtu.be/YJszvhCNT_w
science changes with new/more information

Desdi

I remember seeing the same thing at the time when some paper was trying to score political points after an infamously “bleach comment” from a former president trying to make a direct correlation. Completely oblivious to the reality that the 330+ million inhabitants of this nation are using disinfectants, bleaches and whatnot exponentially more between 2019 and 2021, we were lucky poison control only had a 300% increase! Heck in April of 2020 people were spraying down their vegetables with Lysol. It’s all context!

skywatch

Quote:
NIH has also determined that there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19.

Wow, the NIH used such weak language warning of the dangers of taking ivermectin off label there; you would think with all the people dying and the overwhelming of the poison control centers, they would use much stronger words.

fishforfun

Oxford study also had insufficient data also I’m guessing?

Thedude86

There are actually numerous peer reviewed studies that show Ivermectin is effective as both a prophylaxis and treatment. I would be happy to supply you with several.

What the study posted by the OP fails to mention is the dosage given or how long the patients had Covid as the study hasn’t even been published. Not even Dr. Fauci knows how this study was conducted. The only thing we do know is that it was only tested for 3 days. Yea, I’m sure it was extremely in depth.

I still find it laughable that the only studies that show Ivermectin is ineffective are all funded by the very drug companies that have billions to lose to a competing drug. I wonder if that’s why NONE of these studies use the drug as intended. They all only test for 3 days or only give 10% of the normal dosage or test people who don’t even have Covid, etc. The peer reviewed studies that do show ivermectin being effective, almost all have no conflicts of interest listed. Before 2020, every sane person would agree this all seems a little fishy. Every doctor that has used Ivermectin advocates for it. But in todays world, we only give someone credit if theyre given airtime on TV channels that receive most of their ad revenue from drug companies.

Also, the Department of Defense and Eco Health Alliance (helped fund the Wuhan lab) acknowledged in April 2020 that Ivermectin was a curative for Covid. That is a fact. While not proven yet, Dr. Fauci was most likely aware of this fact as he worked with Eco Health Alliance while these discussions were taking place with the DoD.

JamesNoBrakes

Could it be delivered via chemtrails? Asking for a friend.

JohnBurke

That was a CDC link. Not NIH. You have a reading comprehension problem. One would think you'd learn to read more closely, but it's not really up to you to put words in the mouth of CDC or NIH, is it? It's not up to you.

It's up to you to listen, or fail to do so, at your peril. Clearly, you failed to do so. Listen more closely. Had you done so, you might have noticed that the CDC document linked was listed as a health advisory; the language of the link itself is "emergency." If you can't actually read it and follow it, it may not matter how "strong" the wording. It's quite plain, but if you're a conspiracy adherent and listening to talking heads like alex jones and the russian prophet tucker carleson, then nothing will satisfy you but information provided without evidence, secret reports that are only known to conspiracy theorists, and other claptrap. You hear, it seems, what you want to hear. The CDC advisory is, however, quite clear.

skywatch

I will try to defend myself again, but none of my posts seem to make it past the moderator.

I have a reading comprehension problem? You literally reprinted these words - “NIH has also determined that there are currently insufficient data…”

The focus is on what NIH said. I was responding directly to “what NIH said”.

Also, please don’t assume things about me to fuel your attacks. because I choose think critically and explore explanations outside the official COVID-19 dogma (which is of course ever changing as the “science changes ie politics”, cause that is apparently part of the dogma now), and because I remember when we used to value dissenting opinions as part of the scientific process, yeh, I don’t blindly accept the official position on COVID as dictated by those with a political and/or financial stake in it.

This is my fourth try at posting; hopefully this makes it unless we flat out aren’t allowed to post in support of dissenting opinions and free thought.