Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

1. Sorry, I posted a link to over 100 studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin. https://c19ivermectin.com/. I didn't leave you without breadcrumbs. Each of those describe specific cases of IVM usage and its efficacy from scientists/doctors etc. It's being used throughout the country to treat covid effectively. 

Well. Just skipping through this took some time.
If you are going by the information in the link. Only 65 of the mentioned studies gave results that apply for the specific use of IVM in the scenario you just described. Not to mention that they are including retracted studies. Not to mention quit a few that most likely will be retracted in the future (Carvallo, Elgazzar).
The Elgazzar case was so bad that they actually removed it from the meta-analysis (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w)
Sadly that seems to be a trend. Especially when we are looking at the studies from south america.

Also excluding quit a few studies that can be found in the links I posted or the second link you posted. I wonder why. Outside of that I am seeing a lot of support for the FLCCC and meta-analysis of selected studies and sample sizes. I guess that´s why the "unbiased" work is standing outside the scientific process. Has nothing to do with the fact that methods and data selection wouldn´t survive a peer review. That´s by the way not the case when it comes to the mentioned cochrane link.

I actually support more research and don´t have any bias when it comes to any kind of treatment but if you look past the fancy numbers it is easy to understand why Ivermectin isn´t included in the COVID treatment guidelines.

Thing is that cult like support or rejection of a given treatment aren´t helping.  It actually hurts and politicizes the process. I actually agree that the current political climate is hurting the reputation of Ivermectin. It´s not like a drug like this can be good or evil.

Second, Ivermectin has been used in humans for decades. Guess I was lying there. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/. Want to keep calling it horse de-wormer? Go ahead. it's your credibility you're attacking. Calling it such without realizing the full spectrum of uses for it only shows how limited your knowledge of it is--and I'm not claiming to be a IVM but I'd stop calling it something it isn't. This is where you're wrong. 

Not sure where I disputed that or called you a liar. I am aware of off-label use of drugs. I am aware of the role it can play as a antiparasitic drug for humans. I guess I should have mentioned that in my post. The important part that I wanted to highlight still applies. Looking at the mentioned data about poisoning calls it needed to be said. The dosis of the often used and openly available animal drug is potentially toxic for humans. Do not take it.
As of now the "human dosis" is not available. You might not like it but I really hope that we can agree that self medication with animal drugs is not an option. Even for supporters of Ivermectin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

Another good database. Make sure to look through all available Ivermectin research. Not just the one that supports your opinion.

As shown, there's plenty of reason to believe it's use is effective but the FDA isn’t just not-approving, it’s aggressively disapproving, and its acting head has said there is “no evidence” of ivermectin’s efficacy. This is extremist behavior.  It’s saying that ivermectin should not be prescribed, but only be used in clinical trials (oh and the Cochrane library isn't a source I'd be posting considering how iffy their research is). I find it hilarious that the use of a drug off label requires such high standards, when all standards were inexplicably removed/modified to push through this "vaccine". 

Well. As I stated in my first post today. What I am seeing is a lack of data and sample size. And to go back to my prefered meta-analysis a trend that suggests no positive impact on the treatment or preventation. I guess the FDA is coming to a similar conclusion. You obviously don´t agree. I can agree that we need more research. And that includes all potential treatments.

To adress the wariness when it comes to decisions from the FDA or CDC and your complains about off-label use vs the vaccine approval. One of the reasons for the high standards for off-label use is actually related to one of your main complains. The drug price. To many examples of off-label use of a cheaper drug instead of the "best option" that lead to complications. To many examples of big pharma trying to promote their product. Ignoring potential risks or actively hidding them. Both examples lead to numerous law suits.