Redux
-
Posts
21,501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Redux
-
-
1 minute ago, knapplc said:
Try a link from Merck, the manufacturer, not these purveyors of misinformation.
I find it really sad and concerning you're so against a harmless treatment option. But then again you were calling it horse medicine so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but actual science is misinformation because it doesn't fit your narrative.
1 minute ago, knapplc said:"Gish gallop" isn't an ivermectin/horse reference.
And for the record, @ZRod I don't think he's engaging in gish gallop. That takes a level of rhetorical skill we're not working with.
It was a joke you curmudgeon
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, ZRod said:
And who reviews clinical trials and gives their approval for the public? The FDA isn't perfect and has made mistakes in the past (see oxy), but they generally do a good job keeping the public interest protected. If they didn't exist it would be back to the days of snake oil salesmen.
People can ask their doctor for it all they want, and they can choose to prescribe it or not. I really don't care. But there is no definitive proof of it's efficacy fighting COVID.
The vaccines have been tested and proven on hundreds of millions around the world. The concept of mRNA vaccines is decades old and proven. The trials were rushed due to the urgent need, but they were conducted and showed promising results. Similar trials for Iver have not shown promising results.
Your gish gallup is tiring. Now you're switching to saying that iver is for "treating", ok fine. It's not proven. You know what is? Remdsevir for kids and adults. Paxlovid. Monoclonal antibodies. Those are all approved or authorized by the FDA and have some really really good results. Better than 3% which could be the error of the test method itself
Yeah, the FDA wouldn't be selective in choosing what gets touted and what gets villainized..........
No, that's ridiculous. People should be able to ask for and receive a harmless people medecine as a treatment option. Hence why it's being adopted as an option like I showed yesterday.
Wait, if the trials were rushed.....that would mean any Ivermectin trials would have been rushed too and...oh wait I think I'm seeing an obvious pattern here.
Enough with the Horse stigma, I already debunked that lunacy.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, knapplc said:
This information is incomplete and outdated. Note the hedging:
Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response. In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9
Why did they say "suggest" and "may" here? Because they weren't conducting actual factual studies, but getting reports from doctors trying 1,000 things to help with Covid. When they conducted actual studies, those studies showed Ivermectin is ineffective in treating Covid.
Here's the studyNote the dates on your misinformation and the NEJM study.
And you conveniently, and laughably and (sadly) predictably left off the last portion OF THE VERY PARAGRAPH YOU QUOTED:
Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12
Super, super weird that you wouldn't include that part.
Oh, wait. No it isn't.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, knapplc said:
It really is. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic, not an antiviral.
QuoteReports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.
-
26 minutes ago, knapplc said:
The manufacturer says it's not designed to treat a virus. They stand to benefit most from sales of Ivermectin. Why aren't they pushing it as a treatment?
Because it wasn't designed to treat a virus, that's quite obvious. Again, off label use is not a new concept. If it works for some that's great, if it doesn't and there are no real risks why not use it?
12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:No, it won't be proven to treat Covid because it doesn't treat Covid.
It's pretty simple actually.
Expect for when it does but we ignore that because the media called it horsey medecine right?
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, ZRod said:
Thanks for correcting my autocorrect.
If you ever read you would know that study you posted had horrible conflicts of interest. Iver is not a proven COVID treatment and is not approved by the FDA. I've no idea why all the sudden you've gotten in a twist about it when we have extremely effective vaccines out there that are proven, and have been available for a long time now.
The media is a bunch of morons and it was absolutely lazy journalism to label it as horse dewormer but that doesn't change the efficacy, or lack there of, of the drug.
Welcome to most clinical trials. Also, those conflicts of interest are coming from the side that doesn't want to find a successful treatment. Again we're talking about a non harmful people medecine, so if it doesn't work for everyone as a treatment it's not a big deal. So why would there be so much "conflict?
No, it's not proven yet to treat Covid. Probably never will be because, vaccines. Again it's non harmu, and off label use is not a new concept.
Vaccines are preventative, medecine is treatment. Why wouldn't we want both to help fight a pandemic? You hear how ridiculous that sentiment you make is right? And that effectiveness you're touting has as much time being tested as Ivermectin does as a treatment.
It wasn't lazy, it was intentional misinformation to deter people from seeking out Ivermectin. Last time, a non harmful people drug that has been tested and used successfully as a treatment medecine. The only reason you or anyone else is so against a non harmful people medecine as a treatment is because you've been indoctrinated to so so.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:
What the f#&% are you talking about? Seriously. You have made absolutely no point that can stand on two legs.
Are you going to tell me that the people advocating for Ivermectin and Hydroxychlorine are not simultaneously undermining everything vaccine and Fauci related? Just science-minded folk trying to champion sensible alternatives?
Talk about an echo chamber.......
I guess resort to desperation? Whatever works for ya
Fauci contradicts himself constantly. He's not THE authority on science, you know that right? A lot of what he predicted was wrong, a lot of the guidelines weren't perfect because we were all guessing, you know that right?
I'm advocating for treating Covid if someone gets it, and getting vaccinated beforehand if it isn't a health risk. And by treatment I mean harmless medicines that I've debunked in the last day or so that people were calling horse dewormer. If it works amazing and if it doesn't no harm no foul.
Echo chamber with who, myself?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Scarlet said:
I literally post a peer reviewed, double blind study from a month ago that states Ivermectin is not effective in preventing or curing Covid and you post this from over a year ago?
You literally like your article more than I like mine. LITERALLY
this is why "CITE YOUR SOURCE" is moronic in most cases
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, ZRod said:
*your
If you followed the money you'd know WHY any harmless treatments were cast as nonsense like Horse Dewormer in favor of vaccination.
-
1
-
-
Quote
“Ivermectin has the same antiviral effect” on all mutant strains, including Alpha, Delta, and Omicron. Kowa added that ivermectin suppresses invasion of the virus and inhibits its replication.”
-
3
-
-
Quote
Due to the well-established, long-term safety profile of ivermectin, with rare adverse effects, the absence of proven therapeutic options to prevent death caused by COVID-19, and lack of effectiveness of vaccines in real-life all-cause mortality analyses to date, we recommend that ivermectin be considered as a preventive strategy, in particular for those at a higher risk of complications from COVID-19 or at higher risk of contracting the illness, not as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccines, but as an additional tool, particularly during periods of high transmission rates.
Trust the science
-
3
-
-
34 minutes ago, commando said:
if some people want to ignore medical advice and use ivermectine instead of vaccine....i say let them. let darwin sort it out.
Why shouldn't they do both? Why would you be against potential treatment, wish death?
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:
I think the problem is that there is no documented scientific proof that it actually does work on Covid. I don’t think there is any harm except in the disinformation of pushing it as a viable treatment. I think people call it horse medicine etc. because that is the more well known and proven use. The claims for efficacy on Covid are lacking and unfortunately there are way too many stupid people who hear Ivermectin and won’t differentiate between the human form and the veterinary form. Even if that’s not dangerous it doesn’t mean it’s helpful.
No the problem is that the documentation was canceled mid trial in some instances, and only clinical studies where Ivermectin could not be determined as having any effects were released to where people can find them. The reason being that if people hear "horse medecine" and "not enough information that it's beneficial" they'll instead seek out a vaccine. Which, by the way, are also not 100% effective regardless of variant.
Suppressing information, which happened just ask the quacks (lol), is sickening. I would urge listening to McCullough and Malone about why Ivermectin and Quinine were smeared. I want a working vaccine and treatment. I also want political tribalism to go away from anything pandemic related.
-
2
-
-
Why are you anti treatment? I'll wait.
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
The article is about the efficacy of ivermechtin in treating covid, so that's not the intent of the study. But every drug has side effects and risks associated with it.
And that's missing the forest for the trees. I literally pasted the conclusions from the study. Individuals also showed signs of improvement while taking the placebo. Cherrypicking the results you want out of the data is the opposite of how to do evidence-based reasoning.
Did you read that article? It's actually the reverse of what you're trying to argue. Here's the doctor in the article:
I did
Quote“This is securing that right for an individual to make, with consultation with their health care provider, the best decision for their health care plan,” Ferguson said.
This bill comes after a woman sued a Cincinnati hospital for refusing to give her husband ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in 2021. The judge sided with the hospital, saying there was no evidence ivermectin was proven to work. Now, lawmakers in Ohio want to make that option readily available for everyone.
“More options, better health care,” Ferguson said. “That's what people are always looking for in the healthcare space.”
You're focusing on quotes from pro vaccine only Doctors cited in the article. I coule pull up favorable quotes for Ivermectin and you'd ignore it. So what's your point? If it works, it works. Even if it's on a smaller scale. Why are you anti treatment?
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:
So this discussion is shifting from Ivermectin is useful to treat Covid to simply it’s not harmful to humans? I don’t think there will be any pushback on that. Not much of an endorsement for it’s use for Covid though.
And that link supports nothing except that some Republican lawmakers in Ohio are pushing for it to be used. That’s how we got here in the first place. People that don’t know jack s#!t about science or medicine getting involved politically. Next thing ya know someone will be claiming we should listen to what Trump has to say about it. I’ve got my bleach ready.
So if there is no harm and people have had success in using it as a treatment, what's the problem? What's the harm? Why continue to lie about it being veterinarian?
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:
That doesn't answer the question. Hyrdroxycholoquine was also a wonder drug, a genuine lifesaver for people with Lupus. Ivermectin does a swell job treating infections caused by skin parasites in humans (I used it when I had scabies as a kid). Reasonable scientists were willing to learn from anything in the fight against COVID, and neither medication proved particularly helpful in any phase of prevention or treatment. That's just a fact.
So now there's a massive global effort to find a vaccine. Tons of accelerated testing and shared research and they succeed. The success is pretty much right there in the percentage of COVID hospitalizations and deaths among the unvaccinated.
But for some reason you want to traipse back to Ivermectin, as if it was a preferable options that was undermined by liberals unfairly mocking it as horse pills.
The answer, of course, is that some people had already declared COVID a partisan issue, and Dr. Anthony Fauci an enemy. Therefore, Hydroxy, Ivermectin, bleach, and homeopathics were preferable because they showed resistance to the State and thus did not need to clear the research bar demanded of Covid vaccines.
Nope. We should be looking for treatment AND a vaccine. Ignoring and smearing potential treatment is ridiculous.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
Took me 3 seconds to find one from the last month: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35353979/#:~:text=Conclusions%3A Treatment with ivermectin did,early diagnosis of Covid-19.
I'm sorry, where does it say that Ivermectin is harmful? And nobody from that study showed any signs of improvement? Sure...
From 2 days ago:
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
From that page:
Since that was all you read, I'll offer some cliff notes that haven't changed since 2021
QuoteReports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12
Quote- There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Or just click this:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381884?term=Ivermectin&cond=COVID-19&draw=2&rank=1
QuoteBrief Summary:In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, a report on ivermectin suppression of SARS-CoV-2 viral replication in cell cultures has been published, and the use of this medication seems to be potentially useful for the therapy. IVM safety profile and IVM wide spectrum enables to move forward with the investigation in patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 as a proof-of-concept of its possible use in the management of patients with COVID-19, given the current pandemic situation.-
2
-
3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:
From that page:
Yup, now try to pretend for a second you don't already have your mind made up and look for any and I do mean ANY objective article or study about Ivermectin. Good luck, don't use Google FYI.
Because if it's really about science, shouldn't we all want to know if there is a safe treatment with decades of use? Why supress that? We already know Ivermectin is a safe medecine.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Scarlet said:
Nah, a ridiculous thing to say is that something prevents or cures an illness without any scientific evidence whatsoever for such claim. It's even more ridiculous when the most recent studies show that it's entirely ineffective. Then even more ridiculous is to double down when asked to provide any studies you may have been getting your information from and you present..... nothing.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
So do you have anything?
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
Yes, if you read, there is not enough information (wonder why) to encourage or discourage the usage of Ivermectin as a treatment (not a cure, don't be dense).
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:
My question is why do the people who don't trust the research on COVID vaccines so quickly adopt optional treatments with vastly less research and sketchy endorsements?
I mean, I know the answer. It's just bizarre to think about.
That's putting it pretty open ended. Ivermectin has been around since the 70's and won a nobel prize, has had research out the wazzu and until 2020 was heralded as a wonder drug (yes, the human form). Now if you Google Ivermectin, you are only really going to see how It's NOT intended for usage against Covid. Nevermind that off label use of drugs and medecine is not a new practice by any stretch of the imagination, but why would that be? Spoiler Alert, not because countless morons died from horse pills.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:
That's not how science works my man. You can't prove negatives.
I can prove that gullible people were dumb enough to believe that mass amounts of people took Horse Dewormer for Covid. I can prove that they are conducting studies to see how effective Ivermectin is in treatment of Covid. I can listen to Doctors who promote treatment over fear mongering.
"4 out of 5 Dentists approve of this toothpaste!" Does that mean 5th Dentist is a quack? Nope. But that was the narrative, and now people scream Horse medecine and point to favorable articles that proclaim misinformation because it's convenient. This world sucks lol, whatever happened to objectivity and free thought.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:
I believe Scotch and a cigar kills Covid. I can't find any research saying it doesn't. So....it must be true.
Scotch might
The Right-Wing Disinformation Machine
in Politics & Religion
Posted
Why would they unless there is enough collective data to back up a claim? And there won't be enough data, not any time soon.