Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid miracle drug

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
I feel this article is of particular use to some of the members here who have been attempting to peddle this particular drug using bunk science - whilst the drug itself might not be particularly dangerous in of itself, this deliberate misuse and misreading of science to try and further queer political goals is unacceptable imo. Not least when people who are trying to peddle this garbage are also the ones who tried to do the same to all the other random drugs that have nothing to do with Covid. Its almost like theyre simply going through the pharmacists books of drugs and picking out random meds to put forth, one after the other.

alas, i doubt said people will ever actually be convinced theyre talking claptrap and will continue to believe in utter quackery for the sake of it but hope springs eternal. Then again, if even the manufacturer is telling them theyre wrong...


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
2
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
Agreed. The sad thing is that those pedalling anti-science ideas are making an absolute fortune out of it and I would guess that not only do they know they are spreading bunk, they also don't care as long as the dollars keep flowing. It is the very worst of humanity.

Seems very quiet here. I wonder where they usual suspects are hiding?
Last edited by hotpud; 1 week ago
1
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by Napp)
I feel this article is of particular use to some of the members here who have been attempting to peddle this particular drug using bunk science - whilst the drug itself might not be particularly dangerous in of itself, this deliberate misuse and misreading of science to try and further queer political goals is unacceptable imo. Not least when people who are trying to peddle this garbage are also the ones who tried to do the same to all the other random drugs that have nothing to do with Covid. Its almost like theyre simply going through the pharmacists books of drugs and picking out random meds to put forth, one after the other.

alas, i doubt said people will ever actually be convinced theyre talking claptrap and will continue to believe in utter quackery for the sake of it but hope springs eternal. Then again, if even the manufacturer is telling them theyre wrong...


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
You might find this review interesting:

2
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by hotpud)
Agreed. The sad thing is that those pedalling anti-science ideas are making an absolute fortune out of it and I would guess that not only do they know they are spreading bunk, they also don't care as long as the dollars keep flowing. It is the very worst of humanity.

Seems very quiet here. I wonder where they usual suspects are hiding?
Good question, PilgrimOfTruth where are your thoughts?
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
I think the big tech censorship doesn’t help. If you talk about Ivermectin, you will be deplatformed immediately. All this does is arouse suspicion and make people wonder why the establishment is so scared. The correct approach would be to provide a counter-argument and bring facts to the table so observers could make up their mind. If Ivermectin is so ineffective it should be easy to argue against it, but this censorship has got to go
0
xxKittyxx
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Made in the USA)
I think the big tech censorship doesn’t help. If you talk about Ivermectin, you will be deplatformed immediately.
And yet people are very loudly talking about ivermectin on the internet.

All this does is arouse suspicion and make people wonder why the establishment is so scared.
You haven't thought this through. Why would this establishment want you to be sitting in hospital with a respiratory infection when you could be treated with a cheap drug and be back in your workplace creating wealth for them?

The correct approach would be to provide a counter-argument and bring facts to the table so observers could make up their mind. If Ivermectin is so ineffective it should be easy to argue against it, but this censorship has got to go
There are no shortage of articles, many aimed at the non-scientist, explaining the flaws in the ivermectin data. However, if individuals are not receptive to perspectives that challenge their world view, there is not much anyone can do.
0
debunkr
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7


He tears apart this bbc article

bad journalism

there is no money to be made in ivermectin

herp de derp ivermectin is dangerous drug > been used billions of times as an anti-parasitic
Last edited by debunkr; 1 week ago
1
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by xxKittyxx)
And yet people are very loudly talking aboutivermectin on the internet.



You haven't thought this through. Why would this establishment want you to be sitting in hospital with a respiratory infection when you could be treated with a cheap drug and be back in your workplace creating wealth for them?



There are no shortage of articles, many aimed at the non-scientist, explaining the flaws in the ivermectin data. However, if individuals are not receptive to perspectives that challenge their world view, there is not much anyone can do.
Big tech and big pharmaceutical are in bed together. They don’t want you talking about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine or any other cheap drug that could jeopardize their investments.

You haven’t seen the videos of bill gates bragging about how much wealth he has made from vaccine stocks? Wake up man
1
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
Pointless thread TBH

The studies for Ivermectin use are numerous and compelling imo. Add to that it's REAL LIFE use in Paraguay, in Peru, in Mexico and in India which saw imo extremely positive results then one see's how criminal it is to not be using it and recommending it worldwide.

There are only 2 relevant lines of discussion regarding Ivermectin imo

One is why it hasn't been granted EUA in the fight against Covid given that it's imo a totally safe drug, that has been in use for over 50 years and administered to millions of people.

The second is why has Remsdevir been approved when imo it has only a tiny number of studies, many of which imo didn't show any benefit for its use against Covid and when imo it's safety profile isn't nearly as long standing as that of Ivermectin.

Those 2 lines of discussion underpin the whole Ivermectin suppression issue imo
Last edited by PilgrimOfTruth; 1 week ago
0
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Made in the USA)
I think the big tech censorship doesn’t help. If you talk about Ivermectin, you will be deplatformed immediately. All this does is arouse suspicion and make people wonder why the establishment is so scared. The correct approach would be to provide a counter-argument and bring facts to the table so observers could make up their mind. If Ivermectin is so ineffective it should be easy to argue against it, but this censorship has got to go
Oh hang on a second. If Ivermectin was such a wonder drug, it would be easy to prove its effectiveness and thereby convince health professionals like your GP, regulating bodies like the FDA, NICE and WHO and governments who manage robust healthcare providers alike. None of that is happening in any Western country. So either it is a gigantic conspiracy (I am yet to find a conspiracy that actually turned out to be true) or else the reality is it is just the latest of a long list of cures that have no basis in science.

The only places around the world where Ivermectin has taken hold are poorer countries with dubious governments desperate to cover up their mismanagement of the covid crisis by being seen to be doing something.

https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...linical-trials
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consum...event-covid-19
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n747
Last edited by hotpud; 1 week ago
0
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
One is why it hasn't been granted EUA in the fight against Covid given that it's imo a totally safe drug, that has been in use for over 50 years and administered to millions of people.
So why not take Paracetamol or aspirin or anti-histamine? All safe with many years of being administered?

I posted a rebuttal of a selection of studies from the link you posted
https://c19ivermectin.com/

Is there a particular study from this list you would like to suggest gives overwhelming evidence of effectiveness? I would be curious to see it because all the studies I looked at were either news articles, had very small sample sizes, did not use double blinding or didn't actually show effectiveness of treatment. I couldn't find a study that showed ivermectin as effective. Can you help?
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by debunkr)

He tears apart this bbc article

bad journalism

there is no money to be made in ivermectin

herp de derp ivermectin is dangerous drug > been used billions of times as an anti-parasitic
Random guy on youtube, yeah very convincing :lol:
I take it, you being a troll given this is a new account, you didnt bother to even read the article given the lie in your post.
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
Pointless thread TBH

The studies for Ivermectin use are numerous and compelling imo. Add to that it's REAL LIFE use in Paraguay, in Peru, in Mexico and in India which saw imo extremely positive results then one see's how criminal it is to not be using it and recommending it worldwide.

There are only 2 relevant lines of discussion regarding Ivermectin imo

One is why it hasn't been granted EUA in the fight against Covid given that it's imo a totally safe drug, that has been in use for over 50 years and administered to millions of people.

The second is why has Remsdevir been approved when imo it has only a tiny number of studies, many of which imo didn't show any benefit for its use against Covid and when imo it's safety profile isn't nearly as long standing as that of Ivermectin.

Those 2 lines of discussion underpin the whole Ivermectin suppression issue imo
Its pointless because it shows you're wrong, again? You could just admit you dont know anything about this given your previous support for quack medicine that was also shown to be wrong.

'numerous and compelling', perhaps you should actually reads the article then or would you rather believe in fraudulent studies out of 3rd world states?

No drug is safe and one used to kill things certainly isnt :rolleyes:. Even if it were 'totally safe' that is not a good reason for giving random drugs to people when they dont work for that purpose. You may aswell just pump someone full of saline, thats totally safe after all.

There is no suppression, as you well know if youd stop making things up, if it was 'being suppressed' it wouldnt be on the front pages of news outlets across the globe. It's just the scientifically illiterate who like to grasp at invisible straws who seem to think this. There is 0 reason to think this drug is effective against covid yet you cling to this baseless belief for some reason ?
0
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by hotpud)
Is there a particular study from this list you would like to suggest gives overwhelming evidence of effectiveness? I would be curious to see it because all the studies I looked at were either news articles, had very small sample sizes, did not use double blinding or didn't actually show
effectiveness of treatment. I couldn't find a study that showed ivermectin as effective. Can you help?
The situation was even worse for the drug Remsdevir. Less studies, poor evidence of benefit, plus it doesn't have anything like the 50 year proven safety record that Ivermectin has. So could you explain to readers here how the FDA managed to approve its use for Covid when it doesn't do the same for Ivermectin?
0
TCA2b
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by NJA)
You might find this review interesting:

Good vid, thanks - for those who haven't watched it, he is going into the papers underlying the article and how its claims don't really stack up to its title.
Last edited by TCA2b; 1 week ago
0
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
I wonder if the official verdict on Ivermectin would be different if Patrick Vallance had £650k invested in that instead of vaccines?
2
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
The situation was even worse for the drug Remsdevir. Less studies, poor evidence of benefit, plus it doesn't have anything like the 50 year proven safety record that Ivermectin has. So could you explain to readers here how the FDA managed to approve its use for Covid when it doesn't do the same for Ivermectin?
Perhaps it was based on studies that were double blinded and with randomised controls like this? Also, the criteria was days to recovery, not cure. Perhaps 1000 test patients is quite small but is certainly better than 30 as shown in some of the Ivermectin studies.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2007764

So what was your point again?
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Megacent)
I wonder if the official verdict on Ivermectin would be different if Patrick Vallance had £650k invested in that instead of vaccines?
Why do you think everything is not but a giant conspiracy? Or that Vallance has anything at all to do with this when he doesnt? Talk about spreading misinformation...
0
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Napp)
Talk about spreading misinformation...
I was just asking a question, how on earth can that be "misinformation" when I wasn't even asserting anything? Patrick Vallance has lots of money invested in vaccines, and he's also encouraging people to get vaccinated. I think that's a conflict of interest. And I wonder if he had lots of money invested in Ivermectin, would he be encouraging people to take that as well?

As for the rest of your post, I don't think everything is a giant conspiracy. Covid is real and I'm reasonably confident the vaccine will turn out to be safe, but you have to admit the scientists have been misleading us quite a bit throughout the pandemic. They may have done so with the best of intentions, but who put them in charge of deciding what the greater good is? What gave them the right to do that? Nobody voted for Whitty or Michie but they seem to think they are entitled to play god with our lives. Nobody voted for a year and a half of restrictions. We were told it was just going to be 3 weeks. These scientists had absolutely no democratic mandate and no right whatsoever to put the country through all this.
0
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 days ago
#19
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies

https://ivmmeta.com/ivm-meta.pdf

"Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%]improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis (which excludes all of the GMK/BBC team studies) and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials"

"FDA Analysis"

"The US FDA recommended against ivermectin on March 5, 2021, however they stated that "The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19". There is still no indication that the FDA has reviewed the clinical trials 221 days later.The FDA notes that they "received multiple reports of patients who have required medical suppor tand been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses". The number of reports was 4 [Pfeiffer]. For comparison, acetaminophen overdose results in ~33,000 yearly hospitalizations in the USA (~12,000 unintentional) [Charilaou]. The FDA's recommendation may increase cases of self-medication with animal ivermectin, because it reduces the percentage of prescribing physicians.They state that "Ivermectin is not an anti-viral", however many studies contradict this [Ahmed, Aref,Babalola, Biber, Bukhari, Buonfrate, Caly, Chowdhury, Elalfy, Espitia-Hernandez, Khan, Mahmud,Mohan, Mourya, Okumuş], including 10 RCTs. They note that "some initial research is underway", however there had been many studies completed and published prior to the FDA recommendation [Afsar, Ahmed, Alam, Babalola, Behera, Bernigaud,Biber, Budhiraja, Bukhari, Cadegiani, Camprubí, Carvallo (C), Chaccour, Chachar, Chahla (B),Chowdhury, Elalfy, Espitia-Hernandez, Gonzalez, Gorial, Hashim, Hellwig, Khan, Lima-Morales,López-Medina, Mahmud, Mohan, Niaee, Okumuş, Podder, Rajter, Ravikirti, Shouman, Spoorthi],including 18 RCTs.

Sep 3, 2021: The FDA revised their statement slightly. They removed the false claim that invermectinis not an antiviral, and they removed the statement that they have not reviewed the data. However,there is still nothing to indicate that they have reviewed the clinical trials. Indeed, they state "currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19" and "ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications", which are both false."

Conclusion

"Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Treatment is more effective when used early. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52‑76%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials."

"Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission,
hospitalisation, recovery, cases and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant
improvements."

"Improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission,hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant
improvements in isolation. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of
heterogeneous studies is remarkable, with 91% of the 64 studies reporting positive effects"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The above study and commentary highlights for me the appalling situation of Ivermectin suppression. The evidence for it's use is compelling but Pharma and FDA continue imo to suppress it. Ivermectin is now off patent meaning that lots of manufacturers can produce it cheaply as a generic drug thus making it hard for big Pharmaceuticals to compete.

IVERMECTIN FOR THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19
So WHO is telling the Truth?


https://www.thecompleteguidetohealth...the-truth.html

also

https://reinkefaceslife.com/2021/05/...f-patent-drug/
Last edited by PilgrimOfTruth; 6 days ago
0
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 days ago
#20
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
Ivermectin is now off patent meaning that lots of manufacturers can produce it cheaply as a generic drug thus making it hard for big Pharmaceuticals to compete.
People just don't seem willing to consider that there may be another agenda. We are told that we should just blindly "trust the science". I do trust science itself, but I don't trust certain scientists like Whitty and Vallance who have been caught lying to us in the past.
1
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (120)
57.97%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (23)
11.11%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (25)
12.08%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (17)
8.21%
I haven't started researching yet (11)
5.31%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (11)
5.31%

Watched Threads

View All