Quantcast

Incredible...

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Are you as perplexed as I have been about why the off-label use of very inexpensive drugs proven in multiple cases and studies to serve as incredibly effective prophylaxis and treatments has been officially ignored, censored and even prohibited?

This guy figured it out:

The Next Line Of Fraud AND DEATH: Covid Vaccine
15 Dec 2020


No, the title is not to state that the vaccine is a fraud. Nor does it state that the vaccine will kill you. It is, however to state that the claims made for it are unsupported by science at this point and thus are frauds and that the process by which the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] was issued was a prima-facia fraud and direct violation of existing law.

The very trial documents and endpoints say so themselves; all they demonstrated is alleged prevention of symptomatic disease. Unfortunately nobody cares if they cough; people care if they die. The trials do not provide any scientifically-defensible evidence of preventing death because the samples and time frames involved are insufficient to do so. In short we simply do not know and won’t know on a scientifically-defensible basis for a year or more.

Further the EUA was issued under fraudulent pretense by intentional and direct suppression of this document in consideration of said EUA and its adoption on a widespread basis along with the science behind it:



Why?

Because under the law an EUA can only be issued if there are no safe and effective treatments. If there are safe and effective treatments then under the law an EUA cannot issue; you must instead go through the entire procedure to get regular approval.

Let me be perfectly clear: Donald J. Trump knows this, as does Fauci, Birx, Azar and everyone else. They killed over 150,000 people by ignoring the manifest weight of the evidence on purpose in order to keep their “preferred” path — that of a vaccine for which they knew they could not hit the endpoints for regular order licensing for several years — on track.

That is both manslaughter and malpractice.


-----------

Want to get angry? Listen to this. Here's a member of a medical team that has collectively published 2,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers:

Dr. Pierre Kory, Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, testified December 8, 2020 at the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.


-----------

The Journal of Antibiotics (2020) 73:593–602
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen
Received: 21 April 2020 / Revised: 5 May 2020 / Accepted: 17 May 2020 / Published online: 12 June 2020


Study tracking site:

 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Better 'n nothing
Ivermectin is FAR better than nothing from the studies mentioned in that video and the linked paper and site which tracks study results. As the doctor said, there has been no official effort to discover effective prophylaxis or develop effective treatments using existing drugs. ZERO need to wonder why. They are cheap. His group has done so on their own. He called the results "miraculous."
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Here's where I learned about big pharma:

Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker


“Why are so many more people disabled by mental illness than ever before? Why are those so diagnosed dying 10-25 years earlier than others? In Anatomy of an Epidemic investigative reporter Robert Whitaker cuts through flawed science, greed and outright lies to reveal that the drugs hailed as the cure for mental disorders instead worsen them over the long term. But Whitaker’s investigation also offers hope for the future: solid science backs nature’s way of healing our mental ills through time and human relationships. Whitaker tenderly interviews children and adults who bear witness to the ravages of mental illness, and testify to their newly found “aliveness” when freed from the prison of mind-numbing drugs.” —Daniel Dorman, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA School of Medicine and author of Dante’s Cure: A Journey Out of Madness

“This is the most alarming book I’ve read in years. The approach is neither polemical nor ideologically slanted. Relying on medical evidence and historical documentation, Whitaker builds his case like a prosecuting attorney.” —Carl Elliott, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota and author of Better than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream

“Anatomy of an Epidemic investigates a profoundly troubling question: do psychiatric medications increase the likelihood that people taking them, far from being helped, are more likely to become chronically ill? In making a compelling case that our current psychotropic drugs are causing as much—if not more—harm than good, Robert Whitaker reviews the scientific literature thoroughly, demonstrating how much of the evidence is on his side. There is nothing unorthodox here—this case is solid and evidence-backed. If psychiatry wants to retain its credibility with the public, it will now have to engage with the scientific argument at the core of this cogently and elegantly written book.” —David Healy, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Cardiff University and author of The Antidepressant Era and Let Them Eat Prozac

“Every so often a book comes along that exposes a vast deceit. Robert Whitaker has written that sort of book. Drawing on a prodigious quantity of psychiatric literature as well as heart-rending stories of individual patients, he exposes a deeply disturbing fraud perpetrated by the drug industry and much of modern psychiatry—at horrendous human and financial cost to patients, their families, and society as a whole. Scrupulously reported and written in compelling but unemotional style, this book shreds the myth woven around today’s psychiatric drugs.” —Nils Bruzelius, former science editor for the Boston Globe and the Washington Post

“A devastating critique. . . . One day, we will look back at the way we think about and treat mental illness and wonder if we were all mad. Anatomy of an Epidemic should be required reading for both patients and physicians.” —Shannon Brownlee, senior research fellow, New America Foundation and author of Overtreated


---------

The author's CV:

Robert Whitaker (author)


---------

WARNING: Do not stop or alter the use of any prescription drug except under the direct supervision of the prescribing physician, especially with this category of drugs.

And here's what I watched that led me to buy and read that book. I got angry enough to get in touch with Science for the Public to get the right to burn this YouTube video to DVDs and send it to applicable physicians in my area. They tried, but got nowhere:

Robert Whitaker, author of Anatomy of an Epidemic, discusses the disturbing effects of psychotropic drugs prescribed for children. Such medications, used for ADHD, depression, and anxiety, for example, have become commonplace over the past 30 years. This practice profoundly alters the lives of the children, and so now we, as a society, urgently need to address this question: do the medications help the children thrive and grow up into healthy adults? Or does this practice do more harm than good over the long term. Robert Whitaker emphasizes two things: first, the need for an objective, evidence-based approach to evaluating these drugs; and second, the need for better public understanding of how these medications work.

 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
It's all about the money, just as described in Robert Whitaker's book.

Found this elsewhere:

Tests and hospitalizations are from covid tracking project.

I pulled the average costs from various sources on the web. Not sure how accurate they are.

As of 12/15/2020 Total tests in the US: 222,699,096
At an average cost per test of $115 = $25,610,396,040.00

As of 12/15/2020 Total hospitalizations in the US: 622,898
An an average cost per stay of $40,000 = $24,915,920,000.00

Grand total of $50,526,316,040.00


----------

I can't give the figures I used for this calculation because I didn't save them, but I recently read how many doses of monoclinal antibodies the fedgov bought and divided that into the stated cost. It came out to about $1,200 per dose or treatment, not sure which.

Here's a small quote from that video:

04:00 We have evidence that Ivermectin is effective not only in prophylaxis in the prevention... if you take it you will not get sick. We just came across a trial last night from Argentina by the lead investigator of Ivermectin in Argentina, Dr Hector Carvajal. They prophylaxised 800 health care workers. Not one got sick. In the 400 that they didn't prophylaxis with Ivermectin 58% got sick. 237 of those 400 got sick.

From the protocol recommended by the MD team represented in that video found in the PDF.

Ivermectin for pre-exposure prophylaxis (in HCW) and for prophylaxis in high-risk individuals
(> 60 years with co-morbidities, morbid obesity, long term care facilities, etc).

0.15–0.2 mg/kg Day 1, Day 3 and then weekly for 10 weeks, followed by biweekly dosing. See dosing Table below. NB. Ivermectin has a number of potentially serious drug-drug interactions. Please check for potential drug interaction at Ivermectin Drug Interactions - Drugs.com. The most important drug interactions occur with cyclosporin, tacrolimus, anti-retroviral drugs, and certain anti-fungal drugs.

Ivermectin dosing: 150-200 ug/kg or fixed dose of 12 mg (≤ 80kg) or 18 mg (≥ 80kg).[65] Depending on the manufacturer ivermectin is supplied as 3mg, 6 mg or 12 mg tablets.
50-64.9 kg - 12mg
65-79.9 kg - 15mg
80-94.9 kg - 18mg
95-109.9 kg - 21mg
≥ 110 kg - 24mg


My calculation of prophylaxis cost:

Ivermectin - 10ea 3mg tablets cost @ retail:


$2.20 per tablet. Worst case cost: for ≥ 110 kg patient - 24mg/3mg = 8 tablets per dose * 12 doses over ten weeks = 96 tablets * $2.20/ tablet = $211.20 total for the first 10 weeks regimen.

After 10 weeks, 8 tablets every other week = $4.40/week
 

manixFan

Not a rocket scientist
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
948
Location
TX
.....<snipped>....
I pulled the average costs from various sources on the web. Not sure how accurate they are.
.....<snipped>....
I can't give the figures I used for this calculation because I didn't save them, but I recently read how many doses of monoclinal antibodies the fedgov bought and divided that into the stated cost. It came out to about $1,200 per dose or treatment, not sure which.
.....<snipped>....
Pretty much says it all. Not sure... about anything.


Tony
 

Johnly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
778
Reaction score
122
My wife is a PhD. Cellurar Biologist/Virologist with a ABSA certification, as well as a horse owner (so we have Ivermectin on hand).
Even with Covid ravaging the area, I never heard her mention this as a possible mitigation possibility. However, I did hear plenty about hydroxychloroquine.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Pretty much says it all. Not sure... about anything.


Tony
The first quote was from someone else and the second uncertainty doesn't make much difference since the cost is at least $1,200 regardless if it was per dose or for an entire treatment. And making comments like that doesn't get my goat, it just gets you on my ignored list.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Vaccine cost isn't bad at all, but the long term effectiveness and safety is not known for a never before used vaccination mechanism:

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines


Here's How Much Each Coronavirus Vaccine Will Cost
There's a wide variance in per-dose cost for the four most-advanced COVID-19 vaccine candidates.


Pfizer/BioNTech: $39 total cost for treatment

Moderna: $50 to $74 total cost for treatment

AstraZeneca/Oxford: $6 to $8 total cost for treatment

Johnson & Johnson: $10 per dose
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
My wife is a PhD. Cellurar Biologist/Virologist with a ABSA certification, as well as a horse owner (so we have Ivermectin on hand).
Even with Covid ravaging the area, I never heard her mention this as a possible mitigation possibility. However, I did hear plenty about hydroxychloroquine.
Probably because the information has not gotten out for the reasons stated above and social media of ALL varieties are censoring anything that conflicts with the official guidance. One possible reason that 8 Dec 2020 video is still up and the channel not banned is because it was an MD giving Senate testimony and was posted by a Senator. But watch it on YouTube and take a look at what YouTube automatically places below it. As far as Ivermectin not meant for use in humans, I don't know what you may have in mind, but I wouldn't take it myself.
 

Dustin Lobner

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
359
Reaction score
208
Pretty sure mRNA's have been in the works for over a decade now, they just didn't have a huge impetus like a society disrupting pandemic to get them across the finish line.

Also - the mechanism behind mRNAs is...different. I'm not a bio/doctor anything, just an engineer taught to apply logic. Seems like getting your body to produce the spike protein, and the spike protein only, seems like a pretty slick way of doing it.
 

NateB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,454
Location
NE Indiana
Pretty sure mRNA's have been in the works for over a decade now, they just didn't have a huge impetus like a society disrupting pandemic to get them across the finish line.

Scientists have been studying mRNA therapies for 30 years. 2005 marked a major breakthrough by the German Physician who later founded BioNTech when she was able to encapsulate the mRNA to introduce it to the body without it being targeted by the immune system or otherwise breaking down. This has been used to train the immune system to target types of cancer cells. Some of the other applications are pretty neat too, if they end up working.

 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
He's referring to the stated to be "miraculous" Ivermectin prophylaxis effectiveness revealed by the MD in Senate testimony above. Since, as I said above, videos that very clearly aren't 100% in line with the official narrative are censored from YouTube and/or the channels banned, so even though he has a YouTube channel he posted his explanatory video on his web site. I cannot get it to maximize which he may have done to limit bandwidth use.

We Can Stop Covid In ONE WEEK
18 Dec 2020


I truly don't know how much more-clear I can make it than this. I understand people don't read any more, and they certainly don't do their own research. Damn near all I do is read when someone tells me something is true; I never take it at face value, especially when, if I'm wrong, I might be dead. [exactly the same as me - W] I don't care how many letters you have after your name; with 40 years of writing code for money under my belt I've known far too many PhDs who's degree had its best and highest use as birdcage liner.

Eight minutes is all I ask folks. All the government's data, not mine. A Medical School's (full of doctors, of course) protocol, not mine. Two dozen medical studies including ten random controlled trials, the gold standard of medicine with 100% positive results.

Do this and the entire Covid mess is literally over in one week.

No bull****.

Get your jackets, your posterboard, your big Sharpie Markers and picket the Hospital, picket the local doctor's office, picket their house, picket every damned politician you can find and light up their phones to the point that their voicemail is clogged and useless. Make every one of their lives insufferable just as they've made yours while they ghoulishly watched your loved ones die, clutching their pearls and clucking at you. The willful and intentional refusal to do basic elementary school math has killed over 150,000 Americans quite possibly including your grandmother. Why the hell are you not only letting them get away with it but willing to stand in line and take a not-fully-tested shot when a $2 alternative that does the same thing and has been proved safe over more than 30 years of time is available, and it also has a remarkable record of preventing serious disease and death. This has been known for months.

We can stop Covid-19 in ONE WEEK.

One. Not five, six, eight or ten as promised by Dr. Redfield with his "masks" who, I remind you, lied. Covid-19 did not stop even though he got what he wanted.

The science and the CDC's own data says this will work in ONE WEEK.

And the risk if it doesn't work as the science and math says it will?

STATISTICALLY NONE; the drug in question has had over 3.5 billion doses dispensed worldwide and, on the data, is safer than Tylenol and the number of pills you must take is two.

Not two per day.

Two.


------------

2ea 12mg Invemectin tablets in India= 48 rupees = $0.33ea @ retail. Both China and India do much of our drug manufacturing, so India being the source should not be of concern.


CONgress created the law banning the personal importation into the US of the same prescription drugs which are much more expensive here to allow the violation of this:

However, it has been a felony since the late 1800s -- more than 100 years. The Sherman and Clayton acts, known as 15 USC Chapter 1, declare such practices or any attempt to engage in them federal criminal offenses carrying 10 years in prison for each person so-involved. The number of criminal prosecutions in the medical and drug sector over these obvious, blatant criminal acts number zero. These firms appear to be nothing more than a racket -- and one that was tested in 1979 at the US Supreme Court with the drug firms losing their appeal.

And soooo, CONgress specifically exempted them... So, when "your" CONgress person cries about medical costs, ask them about that.
 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Scientists have been studying mRNA therapies for 30 years. 2005 marked a major breakthrough by the German Physician who later founded BioNTech when she was able to encapsulate the mRNA to introduce it to the body without it being targeted by the immune system or otherwise breaking down. This has been used to train the immune system to target types of cancer cells. Some of the other applications are pretty neat too, if they end up working.

And if you and the other poster had actually read my discussion of mRNA viruses that I linked to which included plenty of links to data you'd know that I know that as do the MDs I quoted who are nevertheless concerned. Amusingly and amazingly coincidentally, in a recent repeat of a House MD episode I watched, the use of a designer mRNA attack on the tumor in a cancer patient resulted in a serious auto-immune reaction.

Here's that link again:

 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
I rarely agree with everything this guy says, in this case including the title of this column. I've excerpted what I do agree with below:


They've all known for months that we can shut this virus off in one week.

The science is what it is. A pair of pills has an 80-100% effectiveness rate in preventing disease transmission. Two studies -- one in Egypt and one in Argentina -- demonstrate this. Both were highly statistically significant with "p" values of <0.0001. The latter is posted on the NIH's database and thus is known to all of these so-called "experts" and was reviewed by them for quality and accepted. It was prospective, not retrospective, and thus is an objective measure. It reported zero adverse events -- that is, side effects of materiality.

And it was also both 100% effective in preventing transmission of the virus and trivially replicated using nothing more than pills in the general population.

Yet last night -- not one word of this path forward.

Doctors today still refuse to intervene if you allegedly are "diagnosed" with Covid-19. They will send you home to eat chicken soup until you choke. They're doing that right here in my county and killing people through intentional refusal to treat. This is identical to detecting lung cancer but refusing to operate until there's a basketball-sized tumor in your chest. It's well beyond malpractice and into the realm of intentional homicide.

There are plenty of people who say well there aren't enough trials to prove it. What -- 2 dozen studies and ten random controlled trials, the gold standard of medicine, are insufficient? But more to the point in a pandemic is the balance of potential harms and potential benefits. We are not talking about a drug or treatment modality here that has a material set of risks. This is a drug that is safer, by far, than preparations sold over the counter for everyday use in America right here and now -- Aspirin, Tylenol, various antihistamines, Nyquil and more.

All are drugs. All require only a few dollars at the local store.

Ivermectin has a safety profile wildly superior to all of them. It has an effective-to-toxic ratio wildly in excess of any of those. It is considered an essential medication by the WHO. Over 3.5 billion doses have been dispensed and consumed over the last couple of decades and it's also widely used in veterinary practice including livestock, horses and dogs.

Yes, it has risks. Yes, it can do harm and very rarely does. So does Covid so if you know you're exposed (you live with someone who was just diagnosed) or you were just diagnosed why aren't you offered the choice?

May I remind you that if it was to not work, even though all of the studies and on-the-ground data says it does, it would kill statistically nobody (the record is something like a couple hundred deaths potentially chargeable to it across 3.5 billion doses dispensed, with an unknown percentage of those actually caused by parasites and other conditions in the persons treated) and, on the statistics, transient harm (adverse events that resolve) caused in far fewer than the virus harms. This is a cheap and widely-available drug with a 30+ year history of data and study; NOT some new concoction that was cooked up six months ago under emergency conditions.

If it does work, and the science says it both does and will, the pandemic would be under control and effectively over in one week.

We're talking about using this in people who are either sick or known exposed; household members of a confirmed case, not eating it like candy in the general population. The balance of risks and benefits is thus against the risk of doing nothing for those who are either very likely to be infected or who are known infected.

It's not complicated folks, as I pointed out in my last podcast. Instead of sending you home to eat chicken soup if you get the virus send you home with one package of two pills each for every person who lives in the house with the dose dependent on the weight of each person. Take one on day 1, and one on day 3. Include in the package Vitamin C, 1,000mg/person/day and Vitamin D, 4,000 IU/person/day, both for 14 days with instructions to take a double-dose of each on the first day and then once/day for each person in the house. Vitamin D has a wildly outsized correlation with severe Covid disease and Vitamin C has a known immune-boosting effect. Neither of those two vitamins are at risk of overdose or exposure effects in those amounts over that time and a large percentage of Americans are Vitamin D deficient.

No, this is not medical advice; I'm not a doctor and there are contraindications for Ivermectin; specifically if you are on Warfarin or anti-rejection drugs because you've had a transplant. And yeah, all drugs have risk including this one. But if you go to get tested you can be asked about such things by a physician and prescribed if appropriate. As with all drugs there will be people it does not work for, there are people who should not take it and very rarely an adverse event may occur. But we know who the elevated-risk people are and a few questions will ascertain whether they apply to you.

Not only will this likely prevent you from winding up in the hospital and thus you will not get seriously ill or die (median range in the studies of risk reduction is between 60-85%) but by the studies if your housemates take it somewhere between 80-100% of the time those who you live with will be protected from infection and will not get the disease as opposed to at least one other person in your household getting the disease.

That's as good as a vaccine, costs $2 and has less risk than the vaccine because at present about 3% of vaccine recipients are suffering significant side effects. The risk of significant side effects from taking Ivermectin are, by the literature, something under 1 in 10,000. That's wildly less risk than the vaccine presents.

If it works we'll know in days and the risk is basically zero. The most-important side effect is that if you are unknowingly infected with parasites they'll be killed off which is a good thing, not a bad one.
 

manixFan

Not a rocket scientist
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
948
Location
TX
Running tally of worldwide Ivermectin/COVD-19 study results:

Wow, quite the indictment of the (lack of) science behind it. Nearly all are retrospective or non-therapeutic. Total N is less than 7,000 in all studies, which is tiny for a something that is being suggested on an entire population. I could only find 2 prospective studies, one did not have a control group other than the population at large, and the other one said it had 100 patients and only showed a 15% decrease in hospitalization, and said nothing about deaths. That's it. Some of the studies included in the summary are on hamsters and mice, not exactly the gold standard for human drug studies.

Compare that to the phase three Pfizer study that had 40,000 subjects in a double blind study.


Tony
 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
January 15, 2021
NIH Revises Treatment Guidelines for Ivermectin for the Treatment of COVID-19
Ivermectin is Now a Therapeutic Option for Doctors & Prescribers


One week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory—founding members of the Front Line Covid-19
Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC)— along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the
World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines
Panel, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation on ivermectin, making it an option for use in
COVID-19.

This new designation upgraded the status of ivermectin from “against” to “neither for nor against”,
which is the same recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma,
both widely used across the nation.

By no longer recommending against ivermectin use, doctors should feel more open in prescribing
ivermectin as another therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19. This may clear its path
towards FDA emergency use approval.


-----------

Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory protocol:

EVMS COVID-19 MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL
Version: 27 Dec 2020


-----------

Of course, since there is no accountability at the highest levels, this won't happen:

GAME'S OVER: Indictments NOW - 15 Jan 2021


"NIH has upgraded their recommendation and now considers Ivermectin an option for use in COVID-19."

Which we knew likely worked starting in March.

Which we knew on the strength of scientific evidence THIS SUMMER.

Which, unlike masks, is an effective prophylaxis -- we knew that by the middle to late summer and into the fall.

WHICH WE KNEW BY EARLY FALL WAS AS EFFECTIVE IN PROPHYLAXIS AS A VACCINE YET WAS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, WAS APPROXIMATELY AS EXPENSIVE AS ASPIRIN AND HAD 30+ YEARS OF TESTING AND DATA BEHIND IT FOR SAFETY.

In addition unlike a vaccine which requires six to eight weeks for antibodies to build this is effective immediately and thus if given to all persons in a household when one got sick would cut off transmission and end the outbreak in one week, as I previously pointed out.

Which we did not use, intentionally, to "protect" the EUA process on said vaccines, because it is illegal to issue an EUA if there is a safe and effective alternative.

Which, in conclusion, is directly responsible for more than half of the total death count and about 3/4 of it in my county.

And by the way, since there is no profit in this drug it is the direct responsibility of public health agencies such as the NIH to fund and conduct studies on potential therapies of this sort since nobody has a financial incentive to do so. They intentionally did not and for this they should be disbanded and the "scientists" at same, including Fauci, should be criminally prosecuted.

I've been reporting on this since it started.

I appeared three times in sequence to point out the bull**** of "mask orders" in our county before our County Commission and have sent multiple letters to both commissioners and our Mayor. All have been ignored and now the NIH confirms I was and am right.

Indictments.

NOW.
 

manixFan

Not a rocket scientist
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
948
Location
TX
Excerpts from the NIH document:

.....
"The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data 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 for the treatment of COVID-19."
.....
"However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that ivermectin doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans would be required to achieve the plasma concentrations necessary to duplicate the drug’s antiviral efficacy in vitro."
......
"Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,11-14 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19"
......
"most of the studies reported to date had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations"
......
" the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions about the clinical efficacy or safety of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."

ZERO claim of efficacy, they are simply allowing its use. There is a big difference. And when your main source spews stuff like "I appeared three times in sequence to point out the bull**** of "mask orders" it's pretty easy to write him off as an anti-mask crank with an axe to grind.

So, what was your point again?


Tony

(emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Excerpts from the NIH document:

.....
"The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data 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 for the treatment of COVID-19."
.....
"However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that ivermectin doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans would be required to achieve the plasma concentrations necessary to duplicate the drug’s antiviral efficacy in vitro."
......
"Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,11-14 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19"
......
"most of the studies reported to date had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations"
......
" the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions about the clinical efficacy or safety of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."

ZERO claim of efficacy, they are simply allowing its use. There is a big difference. And when your main source spews stuff like "I appeared three times in sequence to point out the bull**** of "mask orders" it's pretty easy to write him off as an anti-mask crank with an axe to grind.

So, what was your point again?


Tony

(emphasis mine)
The efficacy is shown at the collective link to worldwide studies I linked to above and in the Senate testimony video linked above. And theirs is an ass covering act ("in vitro," ignoring the "miraculous" results in human trials not using straw man "in vitro" doses) to avoid what the cranky author I quoted describes - liability for deaths and suspicion of avoidance of EUA limitations.

I don't fully agree with him on masks because it is possible that initial virus dose and load can affect outcomes. Also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the preferred entry point is the nose and EYES, so if you ain't wearing a mask AND goggles you aren't really protected anyway by a mask from anything other than a large inhaled dose. Of course, the masks are intended to reduce droplet spread, but state by state comparative analysis of case and hospitalization rates don't seem to show a positive effect. As I've also mentioned elsewhere, because a used mask should always assumed to be contaminated and handled as such, according to a Vietnamese study unless cloth masks are regularly machine washed in 140F water, they can be worse than not wearing a mask at all. Heard any of the "experts" ever mention that? They should.

On mask effectiveness (remembering the earlier claims from our "experts" that masks do nothing and actually increase your chances of getting sick - remember that?), here are some comparisons. Ignore his political angle.


If you actually read all evidence I present instead of just picking and choosing information seemingly contradictory only because you don't know it's invalidated by evidence I've presented, you wouldn't be so successful in continuously putting your foot in your mouth.

Now. what exactly was your point?
 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
1,142
Once again, the video that started it all:

Dr. Pierre Kory Senate Testimony On Early COVID-19 Treatments

Dr. Pierre Kory, Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, testified December 8, 2020 at the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.


Excerpt:

I'm not speaking as an individual, I'm speaking on behalf of the organization that I'm a part of. We are a group of some of the most highly published physicians in the world. We have near 2000 peer-reviewed publications among us led by Dr Professor Paul Marrick who's our intellectual leader.

We came together early on in the pandemic and all we have sought is to review the world's literature on every facet of this disease trying to develop effective protocols. I was here in May and I recommended that it was critical that we use corticosteroids in this disease when all of the national and international healthcare organizations said we cannot use those. That turned out to be a life-saving recommendation. I am here again today with a new recommendation.

In the last nine months in our review of all of the literature as a group, again we are some of the most highly published physicians in our specialty and the world, we have done nothing but try to figure out how to identify a repurposed and available drug to treat this illness. We have now come to the conclusion after nine months and I have to point out I am severely troubled by the fact that the NIH, the FDA and the CDC, I do not know of any task force that was assigned or compiled to review repurposed drugs in an attempt to treat this disease. Everything has been about novel and or expensive pharmaceutically engineered drugs things like Tocilizumab and Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies and vaccines.


He then goes on to talk about Ivermectin.

Now, back to the cranky guy:

Meanwhile the overwhelming scientific evidence, which originally showed up in early spring of last year and has compiled a steady record of studies since, is that Ivermectin does work as both prophylaxis and treatment. It has not only been ignored it has been claimed to have not happened at all, which is a ******nable lie. There is no money in running a large random controlled trial for the drug since it's off patent and costs about as much as aspirin to make. This is the very situation where if anyone in so-called "public health" gave a single **** about the life of a single person said pubic health agencies would spend some of the tax money they extract from you and from their "foundations" and "endowments" on such a trial themselves with sufficient size and proper design to get an answer they can defend either way. They have not done so on purpose which is proof that they do not give a wet crap about the health of anyone and are simply political shills interested in shoving whatever their pre-decided "mandate" is into your body whenever it is ready -- in this case a not completely tested vaccine and they do not CARE how many tens or even hundreds of thousands of people die first.
 

manixFan

Not a rocket scientist
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
948
Location
TX
There is no 'overwhelming' evidence. Read my post #18 above, I actually looked at all the studies you linked to. They included mice and hamster studies! Only two were double blinded and were incredibly small. The same issues the NIH raises - I read the entire NIH document that allows the use of the drug and there was not a single shred of efficacy presented.

I'll make it bold, so you don't miss it: my point is there is not overwhelming evidence that your drug works, and the studies that purport to do so are not valid double-blind studies that meet the gold standard for medical studies in this country. The person you are quoting has a political agenda that has clouded his scientific reasoning.

That's my point. Please point to a single, double-blind study that has an N that approaches what has been done with the vaccines and can show the your drug has any kind of efficacy and safety. I even read the FLCCC 'preview' of what they say will prove their findings and here's what it says:

"Further, data showing impacts on population wide health outcomes have resulted from multiple, large “natural experiments” that occurred when various city mayors and regional health ministries within South American countries initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns to their citizen populations in the hopes the drug would prove effective."

HAH!!! Their 'science' is based on nothing more than observational post-hoc studies of cities in South America, not clinically controlled trials.


It's entirely possible that the drug in question may have some benefit, but the idea that there is some overwhelming proof out there is simply NOT TRUE. You keep providing links that I follow and read, and none have them have borne out your claims. The cranky guy can make all the claims he wants but none of them are backed up by actual science.


Tony

PS: Here are the issues raised in the NIH document that is in your links above:
  • The sample size of most of the trials was small.
  • Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
  • Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
  • In addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug, patients also received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids), confounding assessment of the true efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
  • The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
  • The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
 

manixFan

Not a rocket scientist
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
948
Location
TX
"Hill said he's encouraged by the findings, but further studies are needed, especially since several of those in the analysis were not peer-reviewed. FT also notes that meta-analyses, which look at many studies at once, can be prone to errors. Read more at the Financial Times."

Not a new study, just a study of studies, and including non-peer reviewed ones at that. This sums up pretty much all the evidence presented - nearly all of it is retrospective. Most of the few randomized trials aren't even blinded. The majority that I read through were only observational in which the medicine was only given to mildly sick patients, but the results were compared against all patients, which is why it looked like it had a lower death rate.

There is no real science to show one way or the other that it is effective. I challenge anyone to post a link to a peer-reivewed double-blind study with a N of significance.


Tony
 

rcktnut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
1,654
Reaction score
218
Location
Sheboygan WI
If there is really something out there that really works and is safe and cheap I am positively sure we will be able to get it and it would be widely available. Who in the hell would really hold back on something that's safe/ works great on eliminating this pandemic especially in one week? Too much bull circulating around.
 
Top