that was literally dr kory? (the dude on the podcast)

It's certainly not definitive evidence, but it is FACTUAL that there is better/more evidence for ivermectin than essentially every treatment we have and/or continue to use for COVID. Really opened my eyes to what a bunch of BS "follow the science" is. More like "follow the money".

Already seeing some exceptionally stupid posts ITT. "Dangerous in large amounts". LMAO, yeah that goes for every substance in existence - at least we actually know the safety profile of ivermectin unlike half the useless crap we've been pumping into people.

https://ivmmeta.comhere's some data for the low IQ shills who can't help but parrot the talking points of their favorite Leftist **** hole news source.

meanwhile, everyone jumping ship at Gates foundation, but the media doesn't want to explainwhy

lmao!

No conclusive evidence yet, but trials are underway.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/oxf...nt-2021-06-22/

I'm not sure what you are implying about the money being negligible.

No, it isn't more profitable to reuse an existing drug because once patent protection expires the drug can be manufactured cheaply by any pharmaceutical manufacturer.

One of the men who was on Bret's podcast, Dr. Robert Malone, actually started a company that was specifically trying to research the re-purposing of existing drugs to treat conditions other than what they were approved for. He said the process was ridiculously onerous [FDA requiring that years of research be repeated] and his company went BK.ETA: Providers are just human. Most will be conservative and stick to the standard of care for liability reasons if nothing else.

If you just go to see a physician and don't actively ask about other options or alternatives then odds are you will get the standard boiler plate level of care. Not all doctors are like this, but a lot are.

I wish I had been able to keep my prior GP. She was the first really good GP I had encountered in years. Actually listened and asked follow up questions; wasn't afraid to order labs or imaging.

It isn't all the fault of physicians either. Many are constrained by the business model of the practice where they work and the way that insurance compensates doctors. They get paid for visits and the more people they churn through in a day the more money their practice can bill for vs. some type of compensation based on results that the physician can influence. Not an easy problem to fix though since the patient has to do their part and different things work for different people. The physician can't control that.

Yeah bre? If I told you the details about some of the research chemicals they’d used on me and the flurry of other **** in unison? You’d prolly be a little bit freaked out. Not matter...

They’ll be dealt with one way or another, hopefully that happens in courtrooms...

Not cool but ugh? Just cool tj keep my distance from those involved just for a minute unles they handle it? Guess we shall see, there is always other avenues for me...

I understand you're a lowly lawyer so you probably don't realize you need to do a randomized double blind controlled trial to show a treatment works for a specific disease. Many drugs are often thought to work for other applications. They still require proper trials to determine that they work. The evidence I was talking about was that Ivermectin is effective for covid therapy, you buffoon.

It's kinda suspicious that no studies were done earlier. They somehow managed to discover a new type of vaccine before discovering whether this one existing drug can be used for treatment.

It doesn't mean there was any foul play but it really shines a light on the way studies are funded and how scientific research stopped working for the benefit of mankind.

If there were any adverse effects (like the covid vaxxes) to worry about, I would wait for trials before jumping on the Ivermectin bandwagon...but since almost 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been administered with no adverse effects reported, I see no reason not to try it out at proper doses (0.3mg / kg of bodyweight).

Ok tv commercial brah

The question isn't about safety for such an old drug, but more likely if it really works.

Look at what doctors have been saying about D3 and NAC all 2020 as it pertains to COVID-19 on YT. If it was BS then the vids would be deleted, that is how YT deals with doctors talking about COVID voodoo.

The media, crickets.......

At this point, the fact that every doctor that has prescribed it have yet to see an instance where it didn't work says enough. My own doctor has indicated to me that they have been banned from providing ivermectin for prophylactic doses, but they are still allowed to prescribe it in very serious cases also tells me all I need to know.

There were some studies done, but they were mainly of low quality and had some flaws, and weren't conclusively showing it worked one way or another. I believe the main reason for low trials was that Dexamethasone and Remdesevir showed more promise so people stuck with those. We'll see what the UK trial says. If it works, it is always good to have more options, but one of the complaints leveled against Ivermectin is that a higher than normal dose is theoretically estimated to be required to see substantial antiviral behavior.No it doesn't say enough. Remember the overwhelming majority of people who get covid eventually get better. You really need to look at the statistics on this. They are banned from using unapproved drugs outside of clinical trials unless the patient is expected to die and requests to try the drug. That shouldn't tell you all you need to know. You need more information than that to know anything. You're going by belief rather than logic.

See what the trials show. The UK is doing a decent clinical trial.

Cool story OP. But I wanna know what a 22 yr old intern at buzzfeed with a journalism degree has to say on the topic, cause Ima follow the science.

It tells me that when all else fails, the doctors prescribe the one thing that will work...Ivermectin.

Considering that with proper dosage, it is less harmful than tylenol, there is zero reason to ban its use. Saying that it hasn't been tested against covid is far, far away from banning it. It has been banned. That is a calculated move.

From what I've seen, Ivermectin seems like good stuff for COVID. If was sick with the virus I'd want it offered to me as treatment.

Won't be taking anything for ****gy ass covid but if I did, I'd trust that more than big pharma cash money blood clot vaccine

No they can prescribe anything at that point because of right to try. It isn't uniquely banned though. All unapproved FDA treatments for any particular disease are banned outside of clinical trials unless the patient is terminally ill.

[QUOTE=katya422;1641508943]

There is a lot of money being paid/made on the vaccines. Global sales kind of money. To pretend that there isn't a vested financial interest in the vaccines "paying off" would be pretty foolish.
]

Isn't there multiples more $$$ in having a hospital packed with sick and dying people

My doctor indicated to me that he received specific written instruction in July 2020 to not prescribe Ivermectin for anything other than parasitic infection. He did not receive instruction on any other medications. This would indicate that the medical establishment knew at least from July 2020 of ivermectin as a potential treatment. We are at (almost) July 2021...what do the trials on ivermectin indicate?? The cost of ivermectin (in July 2020 anyway) was pennies compared to the vaxxes (therefore no money to be made).

Do you feel that the medical establishment were quick enough to jump on to the study of ivermectin, or do you feel they should have started testing it sooner?

Yes, which is why this argument is bs. The pharma companies are making money, but there is a ton of regulation in the medical industry. This isn't gouging or exploitation. The push for vaccination is coming on behalf of governments trying to save lives (and yes, it is absolutely in the govt's best interest to keep you alive and healthy and get cases down by reaching herd immunity quickly so they can reopen).

Ivermectin is as safe as Tylenol. I’ve ingested tubes of it (adjusted for body weight) sold for horses. No Rx needed. No side effects, no nausea, nothing.

That was probably a specific warning because people were frantically trying Ivermectin without approval. You're leaping to conclusions. The hospital likely didn't want to get sued if something went wrong since it wasn't approved for use outside of clinical trials. I think the case for Ivermectin was pretty weak. You have pointed out an interesting financial incentive, but that's all it is (assuming what you're saying about cost is true, which I would guess it would be). It doesn't mean there was any wrongdoing. The medical establishment was pretty aggressively trying everything until they found a promising lead. I don't think there was any innate bias against Ivermectin.

lol'd at this bit

If people became infected with covid, and then treated with ivermectin, they would then have safely survived with natural antibodies present. herd immunity could be reached that way.

Given the choice between ivermectin and the vax, every covid-vaccine hesitant person would go for the ivermectin. I would guess that probably over 50% of the vaxxed people would have chosen ivermectin instead of vax if that choice was made available to them.

Yep. Which is why this trial is a good idea. We will see if it works. If it does, it will be an alternative option for treatment at least to minimize lives lost. However, the nonvaxxers still present an issue in that if enough are not vaccinating, the virus retains hosts to spread and mutate.

I'll also present one theoretical drawback to the treatment approach rather than vaccination. You treat after infection, so the virus has time to multiply and spread. This allows for mutation and the emergence of novel strains, as I said before. But it also presents a new issue. The novel strains could become resistant to your treatment. Something to consider when weighing vaccines vs treatments. If enough get vaccinated, you reach herd immunity safely, and there is no longer a reservoir for mutation for the virus in humans, at least. (It would still be present for bats, etc, but then the selection pressures would be different.)

Regardless on your thoughts on it. I do find it strange that people will come up with any excuse possible to say something doesn't work definitively as if they know the answer to that, and also in light of preliminary studies showing it's safety and effectiveness as well as testimony from actual doctors out there treating patients. It should be a good thing that there are alternative treatments that could potentially save lives.

It's not like we're taking some unknown drug that's never been studied before and don't know the safety profile for. Almost any drug in existence you can overdose on. Hell, you can die from taking over-the-counter non-prescription drugs. Doctors are extremely risk-averse to the point where you have to ask them about certain drugs/treatments for them to give them to you and not all of them are up to date and even know all the research and the treatments available. A lot of them just religiously follow whatever the few higher-ups have to say rather than just treating the patient.

Ivermectin as far as I know is more of a preventative treatment, which has shown effectiveness if prescribed early on. And it has a relatively high safety profile.

Better late than never? Is this our standard now?