I don't understand what the feck are you annoyed at exactly? Are you trying to say that Ivermectin (for humans) is dangerous - because it is clearly not and there are literally hundreds of articles, data and studies you can find on that.
So are you saying that over one third of the planet or more have had worms since the 1980s?
It has many uses. Maybe google because I can't be arsed anymore to convince people who've already made up their mind that it's a medicine for horses.
Ah ok so you don't understand the difference between prescriptions and patients. Fair enough, because it's patently ludicrous to suggest that there have been that many people who have been treated with the drug.
Again, sometimes it's okay to admit that you were wrong. The figure spans over 40 fecking years so it's not ludicrous. 300 million people are given Ivermectin annually just in the merck program. It is also one of the preferred treatment for scabbies which affects millions every year. It is used for a plethora of other diseases as well.Dude. I have worked with Merck on multiple projects. I have a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology and have been a consultant in the pharmaceutical industry for several years now. You are just wrong. I know more about this than you do - it doesn't matter how much googling you do. You are incorrect.
Do you know that people are born every day? Do you know that people die as well? It's 40 years. 2-3 billion different people in 40 years is not unthinkable. I am literally mentioning official sources.
Also, the feck is that bank article? I was just tagging the sources which say that Ivermectin has been used by billions of people - not the content of the article.
Of course if you take it yourself in extreme high doses, it's idiotic. But to discredit the medicine and label it just a horse dewormer is just fecking moronic as well.
It needs to be studied/trialed as a possible treatment without any sort of bias.
None....not one national medical body is advising ivermetctin usage for COVID, and your disingenuous and moralising posting over "a wonderful drug being besmirched" is in complete bad faith.
The discussion was in the Joe Rogan thread because someone posted an image with Joe Rogan morphing into a horse.
It doesn't though, because there is no basis for it being trialed in the first place. If you put enough of almost anything into a dish of cells you will inhibit viral growth. Ivermectin had an effect only at levels toxic to humans - at physiological doses it had no effect whatsoever.
Not always true. I once dosed a cell culture with 10 cans of spinach and it somehow grew an arm with an anchor tattoo and punched me.
Well of course, gotta always exercise the utmost care when it comes to S. oleracea - obviously only 9 cans can be dumped per petri dish, duh!
True. And if you mix it with an extract from O. europaea? Forget about it.
It's funny because it is literally being trialed in Oxford University. I guess you know more than the people there as well.
Again, your assumption that it is only beneficial in large doses may or may not be correct. We don't know for certain yet.
And what exactly is your source for that? That you worked at Merck?
Yep, guess I do then. Its antiviral properties have only been displayed in in vitro studies at dosages incompatible with human life. Those small pilot studies are worthless.It's funny because it is literally being trialed in Oxford University. I guess you know more than the people there as well.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-2...e-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial
"With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19."
Again, your assumption that it is only beneficial in large doses may or may not be correct. We don't know for certain yet.
And what exactly is your source for that? That you worked at Merck?
Again, sometimes it's okay to admit you're wrong. Also, even if tens of millions have taken it and not billions, what difference does it make?
The drug is safe and needs to be assessed without bias is my entire point.
Why is there no middle ground these days? Why the feck is everything so polarized.
Oh the irony.Yep, guess I do then. Its antiviral properties have only been displayed in in vitro studies at dosages incompatible with human life. Those small pilot studies are worthless.
My source for that is literally in the abstract of one of the papers you posted:
"It has been used by millions of people around the world exhibiting a wide margin of clinical safety." Also simply common sense? Statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in the world at about 200 million per year. But yes, a horse dewormer is taken by 300 million per year
You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Treatments being distributed has very little to do with treatments actually going into people - time for you to try to learn what a supply chain is.
It's a safe and widely used drug supplied for specific purposes - in particular as a one off treatment used against parasites. It can be used annually in locations with high infestation risk, sometimes at a shorter interval in an individual prone to stubborn reinfection.Oh the irony.
I have literally posted so many sources verifying that it is used by millions every year.
Supply chain? How the feck do you know how many of those have actually went to/were used by people? again the original point was that it is a safe and widely used drug - and not just a horse dewormer.
But apparently facts, statements and links from your arse are the only correct source of information.
That's me done in this thread.
Honestly, thank feck.Oh the irony.
I have literally posted so many sources verifying that it is used by millions every year.
Supply chain? How the feck do you know how many of those have actually went to/were used by people? again the original point was that it is a safe and widely used drug - and not just a horse dewormer.
But apparently facts, statements and links from your arse are the only correct source of information.
That's me done in this thread.
Doesn't work either. But the one you linked before that does. This one has a b at the end of the actual link, for some reason.
If you look in the URL, a B is being added at the end, cut it off and it works. This is really weird. Have you ever heard of a link that adds an extra character that causes the link to fail?
Once you remove the big positive trial in there which has been rejected subsequently as faulty and possibly even fabricated, it has a different result. As Wolverine says there are two trials, Principle (UK) and Together (Canada/South America) currently trialling it as part of a series of trials looking at possible repurposed drugs - so we'll know more when they report. Early news from Together is that they've already seen better results from fluvoxamine, and no statistically significant impact from Ivermectin.
That's great news! Are they affordable?
You suggesting tens of millions and several billions are even in the same fcuking ballpark tells me all I need to know.
Is there a link to that info in here, I haven't heard one of the trials was rejected, that would be very interesting.
Dex and the inhaler are both cheap. Widely available.
A good starting point is:https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602
I'll have to look into it more, the claims are complicated, but I do take exception with this:
