Tennessee legalizes Ivermectin over-the-counter
(uncoverdc.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
I'd like to see a pro-ivermectin anti-ivermectin take. We're split between insane anti-ivermectin takes and 'ivermectin might as well be poured from the holy grail'.
Alternatively, I'd be okay with #2 being real, and dropping by Tennessee.
Ivermectin may be available in many states over the counter in the near future. Several bills have gone through state legislatures in one form or another.
I am not against a public forum or debate on ivermectin. I would be interested on what people have to say against it (other than saying horse-dewormer).
I wish the same could happen for the experimental injections.
The opinions not motivated by immediate financial profit range between "useless" and "poison", so not very positive.
The Dark Horse podcast covered the debate in great detail. They've pointed out that a lot of the anti studies and observations are complaining about how "noisy" the data is for Ivermectin, but if you actually pay attention to which way the data trends, there's still a SIGNIFICANT benefit to treating patients with it versus not treating them at all.
it's a well known medicine for decades, any pro or con should've been settled long time ago
Apparently Ivermectin works on viruses only at the very earliest symptoms, or maybe even only before symptoms, probably because at the concentrations used it's only reducing replication a small amount - which matters when you have 100 virus particles, but not when you have 100 billion being kept in check by other things like inflammation and not replication.
So you're not going to see any real discussion because people against it will point to randomized controlled studies that take place only after infection and say it doesn't work at all, and proponents will look at elective studies of people choosing to take it beforehand and say it works great but won't have the "gold standard" of proof because that would be absurdly expensive.
This is how the drug companies lie. They know from the many dozens of prophylactic studies that it works when taken ahead of time, but all they have to do is fund proper studies after infection to make as much 'proof' as it takes to kill the drug.
It only works close to symptoms onset for the same reason Tamiflu only works against influenza at symptoms onset.
By the time symptoms show, for the near-totality of people, the immune system is very close to effectively neutralize the virus as it pops out of the bloated infected cells. Viral load is close to peak too. Alot of damage is already comited no matter what. Tons of infected cells will die no matter what, causing a cascade effect that will make you feel bad, maby very bad, possibly do lasting damage or kill someone vulnerable.
However, there is a still a considerable amount of damage that isn't comited yet at symptom onset, but not much a few days after symptoms started.
By that time, your immune system is not letting many new cells getting infected. The reason why the patient keeps deteriorating is from damage already comited. Cells that are already infected will die anyway, and the sludge of dead cells all over the place is causing damage itself.
The virus that is left is floating in a neutralizing soup. It's on its way out. Of course the PCR tests will detect alot of ( deactivated ) virus, but it can't do anything. A week after symptoms, it's near impossible to culture SARS-2 virus from a patient's sample, regardless of what the PCR test says or improving vs degrading health.
Studies "proving" Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine "don't work" are all based on witholding treatment untill the patient is deteriorating, usually over a week after symptoms onset.
Using Tamiflu like that would also show it to be "useless" against influenza.
The other problem is that a lot of the randomized controlled studies USE THE WRONG PROTOCOL for Ivermectin. Most of them use some absurdly low dose, and the FrontLine COVID protocol guys have specifically said if you're going to treat someone with Ivermectin you are also required to include stuff like Zinc as kind of a kitchen sink approach to stopping it.
So these studies are purposefully built to achieve the outcome they desire.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/
See page 2 under "Early Treatment"
Dose used in vitro to kill covid was supposedly equivalent of 7 mg/kg. So at this level of 0.2 mg/kg you're at like 3%. And people saying, well if only you had it at 5% it would have worked!!
Yeah I don't think the dose really matters much. The higher the better, sure, but all the studies used doses that are way too low to do anything other than slow down replication even the ones that showed a huge benefit.
Example, large Brazilian study of 250,000 people used 0.2 mg/kg/day, which is about halfway between ccc prevention and early treatment amounts and found 70% reduction in death.
The Brazilian one MSM plastered everywhere was using 0.4 mg/kg for 3 days whereas ccc says 0.4 mg/kg for 5 days -- not a huge difference -- and found possibly a slight effect but not statistically relevant.
The difference is the former study gave ivermectin before getting sick and the latter only after being sick for several days. This is why I believe what matters is whether you have even low levels of ivermectin in you when you have only an initial small amount of virus.
Ivermectin could be dangerous in some instances, like a severe tapeworm infestation. Killing off all of the cysts throughout the body at once can send a person into shock! In less severe cases, the parasitic die off can still be very unpleasant, including diarrhea. Ivermectin could also be completely ineffective for a given condition, potentially delaying necessary treatment.
There, that's the anti-Ivermectin take.