Doctors can and do decide what to prescribe in the best interests of their patients based on studies demonstrating the effectiveness of different therapies.
Of course Merck says that! They have a competing interest!airway wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 11:08 pmaltiplano wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:34 pm
There have been successful ivermectin covid trials.
WHO lists it as one of the most important medications in the world and called it a wonder drug. Yet "you people" are so quick to dismiss it as a "horse dewormer" this drug that is approved and proven safe and has already been demonstrated in trials as effective and continues in other ongoing trials with positive results.
Why are you still negative about that? Should you not be happy? More treatments and alternatives to the marginally effective ARR vaccines that have also causes so much harm.
MARCH 31, 2021
WHO joins Europe, Merck in recommending against ivermectin for COVID-19
By Reuters Staff
3 MIN READ
ZURICH (Reuters) - The World Health Organization (WHO) on Wednesday recommended against using generic anti-parasite drug ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except for clinical trials, because of a lack of data demonstrating its benefits.
The recommendation follows the European Medicines Agency’s warning last week against the drug. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also recommended it not be used for COVID-19.
Officials in the Bolivian city of Trinidad launched a campaign in May last year to give out free doses of ivermectin to combat the coronavirus, although the South American country’s health ministry noted the lack of evidence for it as a treatment.
Ivermectin tablets have been approved for treating some worm infestations and for veterinary use in animals for parasites. Merck, an ivermectin manufacturer, has also said its analysis did not support the drug’s safety and efficacy for COVID-19.
“This applies to patients with COVID-19 of any disease severity,” Janet Diaz, a top WHO official for clinical care response, told reporters of the WHO recommendation, saying it was “based on very low certainty of evidence” that ivermectin helps.
The WHO’s review was based on a survey of 16 trials of ivermectin involving 2,400 people, including those comparing it with hydroxychloroquine, an older malaria medicine that has been discredited as a COVID-19 treatment. There were very few placebo-controlled studies of ivermectin.
“We certainly need more data in order to make informed decisions,” said Bram Rochwerg, an associate professor at Canada’s McMaster University and a co-chair of the WHO panel that reviewed ivermectin.
He said the data available was sparse and likely based on chance, though he said “high quality, trustworthy trials” were still merited.
“We did see an increase in adverse effects in patients that were randomised to ivermectin,” he said, citing gastrointestinal upsets and headaches.
Worldwide, he said, there are 66 trials of ivermectin registered, with 60,000 participants, so more data on its impact on the pandemic could be coming.
“We are fighting this overuse of unproven therapies - especially some of these repurposed drugs - in various parts of world without evidence of efficacy,” Diaz said. “There can be more harm than any good.”
Reporting by John Miller in Zurich and Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva; Editing by Nick Macfie
Is it not a horse dewormer? If it is, then how is that label misinformation? Anti-vaxxers lie about everything.
When the company that manufactures it, says don’t use it, I mean come on! If it’s about money, how much would they make if they simply made no statement for or against?HO Driver wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:26 pm Ivermectin is not just for horses! FFS the media is demonizing a potential tool in the fight to control this virus.
Most of us can agree that vaccines seem to work fairly well, but why are they the ONLY option recommended by the "experts"? Why are doctors not allowed to explore, or even f**king talk about, complimentary/alternative treatments? Why cant doctors decide what's in the best interest of their patients and prescribe medications accordingly? This relentless "vaccine only" propaganda is what makes me skeptical of the information we are being force fed by the mainstream media.
BTW, I did watch the Dr.Weinstien podcast with Dr.Kory. It's very informative and if you have some spare time I highly suggest watching it, if for nothing else, to hear another expert's perspective.
The absolute tragedy in all of this is how horribly divided that we as a society have become.
https://www.webmd.com/drug-medication/w ... ivermectin
I guess they aren’t making enough from Moderna!altiplano wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:18 amOf course Merck says that! They have a competing interest!airway wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 11:08 pmaltiplano wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:34 pm
There have been successful ivermectin covid trials.
WHO lists it as one of the most important medications in the world and called it a wonder drug. Yet "you people" are so quick to dismiss it as a "horse dewormer" this drug that is approved and proven safe and has already been demonstrated in trials as effective and continues in other ongoing trials with positive results.
Why are you still negative about that? Should you not be happy? More treatments and alternatives to the marginally effective ARR vaccines that have also causes so much harm.
MARCH 31, 2021
WHO joins Europe, Merck in recommending against ivermectin for COVID-19
By Reuters Staff
3 MIN READ
ZURICH (Reuters) - The World Health Organization (WHO) on Wednesday recommended against using generic anti-parasite drug ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except for clinical trials, because of a lack of data demonstrating its benefits.
The recommendation follows the European Medicines Agency’s warning last week against the drug. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also recommended it not be used for COVID-19.
Officials in the Bolivian city of Trinidad launched a campaign in May last year to give out free doses of ivermectin to combat the coronavirus, although the South American country’s health ministry noted the lack of evidence for it as a treatment.
Ivermectin tablets have been approved for treating some worm infestations and for veterinary use in animals for parasites. Merck, an ivermectin manufacturer, has also said its analysis did not support the drug’s safety and efficacy for COVID-19.
“This applies to patients with COVID-19 of any disease severity,” Janet Diaz, a top WHO official for clinical care response, told reporters of the WHO recommendation, saying it was “based on very low certainty of evidence” that ivermectin helps.
The WHO’s review was based on a survey of 16 trials of ivermectin involving 2,400 people, including those comparing it with hydroxychloroquine, an older malaria medicine that has been discredited as a COVID-19 treatment. There were very few placebo-controlled studies of ivermectin.
“We certainly need more data in order to make informed decisions,” said Bram Rochwerg, an associate professor at Canada’s McMaster University and a co-chair of the WHO panel that reviewed ivermectin.
He said the data available was sparse and likely based on chance, though he said “high quality, trustworthy trials” were still merited.
“We did see an increase in adverse effects in patients that were randomised to ivermectin,” he said, citing gastrointestinal upsets and headaches.
Worldwide, he said, there are 66 trials of ivermectin registered, with 60,000 participants, so more data on its impact on the pandemic could be coming.
“We are fighting this overuse of unproven therapies - especially some of these repurposed drugs - in various parts of world without evidence of efficacy,” Diaz said. “There can be more harm than any good.”
Reporting by John Miller in Zurich and Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva; Editing by Nick Macfie
They are partners with Moderna where they are making a ton of money!
All I'm saying is I have an open mind that there are alternatives.
Ongoing trials have shown success with ivermectin as both a treatment for and prophylactic against the virus.
Fact is that it's cheap, it's widely available, it's safe, and be l based on the trials and wide usage of it, it looks like it's effective.
So why does the narrative seek to shut it down with misinformation like calling it a "horse dewormer"? Why don't we hear anything about promising off label treatments?
We all have open minds.
That may be true, but if the trials are ongoing, they aren't complete. When there are supportable results - even interim results - we'll all be interested in them.
Ongoing trials have shown success with ivermectin as both a treatment for and prophylactic against the virus.
Because stupid people are buying and swallowing horse deworming tablets.So why does the narrative seek to shut it down with misinformation like calling it a "horse dewormer"?
We hear a great deal about off-label treatments. (Isn't that what we're doing in this thread?) But we wait for evidence that they work, and take them when manufactured in controlled facilities, for human consumption, in appropriate doses.Why don't we hear anything about promising off label treatments?
You mean, based on what you heard on youtube. That doesn't count. You are not qualified to say what's effective. Nor is youtube or "the internet". Clinical trials are required.Fact is that it's cheap, it's widely available, it's safe, and be l based on the trials and wide usage of it, it looks like it's effective.
Ivermectin isn't a patented drug and is widely produced making it cheap and available.cdnavater wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:30 amWhen the company that manufactures it, says don’t use it, I mean come on! If it’s about money, how much would they make if they simply made no statement for or against?HO Driver wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:26 pm Ivermectin is not just for horses! FFS the media is demonizing a potential tool in the fight to control this virus.
Most of us can agree that vaccines seem to work fairly well, but why are they the ONLY option recommended by the "experts"? Why are doctors not allowed to explore, or even f**king talk about, complimentary/alternative treatments? Why cant doctors decide what's in the best interest of their patients and prescribe medications accordingly? This relentless "vaccine only" propaganda is what makes me skeptical of the information we are being force fed by the mainstream media.
BTW, I did watch the Dr.Weinstien podcast with Dr.Kory. It's very informative and if you have some spare time I highly suggest watching it, if for nothing else, to hear another expert's perspective.
The absolute tragedy in all of this is how horribly divided that we as a society have become.
https://www.webmd.com/drug-medication/w ... ivermectin
No update since, however they are moving ahead with phase 3 of a new study to prevent the spread of Covid in a household.
After reading the possible side effects of ivermectin, wtf, I’ll gladly roll up my sleeve for the booster shot and the annual vaccine but I’m a sheep.
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-ri ... infection/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohe ... a9d6d9ce09
“So, ivermectin has proven human uses, but Covid-19 is not one of them. And, the company that manufactures ivermectin, Merck, has explicitly stated this. There are several ongoing clinical trials involving ivermectin as a possible treatment of Covid-19. But, at present there aren’t any validated data on ivermectin’s efficacy against Covid-19 in people”
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statem ... -pandemic/
“KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies“
Search ivermectin covid trials on Google and you will find them quickly. Registered and peer reviewed work using ivermectin as a treatment and preventative agent.photofly wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:52 amWe all have open minds.That may be true, but if the trials are ongoing, they aren't complete. When there are supportable results, we'll all be interested in them.
Ongoing trials have shown success with ivermectin as both a treatment for and prophylactic against the virus.Because stupid people are buying and swallowing horse deworming tablets.So why does the narrative seek to shut it down with misinformation like calling it a "horse dewormer"?
We hear a great deal about off-label treatments. (Isn't that what we're doing in this thread?) But we wait for evidence that they work, and take them when manufactured in controlled facilities, for human consumption, in appropriate doses.Why don't we hear anything about promising off label treatments?
You mean, based on what you heard on youtube. That doesn't count. You are not qualified to say what's effective. Nor is youtube or "the internet". Clinical trials are required.Fact is that it's cheap, it's widely available, it's safe, and be l based on the trials and wide usage of it, it looks like it's effective.
Googling is not research.
photofly wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 7:55 am Merck is not the only player. Lots or organizations can and do carry out clinical trials on patent-expired drugs. I promise you that if a cheap actually effective treatment or prophylactic for COVID turns up, the whole world will hear about it, and through "mainstream media", health organizaitons, and national governments. Everybody wants that.
Searching out and reading registered clinical trials qualifies as becoming informed on the issue in my world. What have you read? The media?photofly wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:00 amGoogling is not research.
I don't consider myself qualified to interpret clinical trial data, nor to decide which "peer-reviewed" work is trustworthy, and which isn't. In fact I pay taxes to have a entire medical establishment consisting of dozens of government agencies and organizations full of professionals who have dedicated their lives to relevant fields at my disposal to advise me what works and what doesn't, and a bunch of very capable physicians with decades of medical education and experience to prescribe them to me.
Why would I want to circumvent that system that's worked well to keep me healthy since birth?
I like to read lots of things, but that makes me an informed and interested layperson, and doesn't qualify me to make decisions in fields in which I have no expertise or experience.
I see that the link comes from “FLCCC Alliance” (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance) a 1’ minutes Google search shows that it was founded by Pierre Kory, critical care physician and big promoter of fringe ideas about COVID-19.2R wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:19 am https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Double wrap your head in tin foil
A dollar a day treatment . No wonder they want it banned as those patent holders will go broke if they approve a drug used in India to slow the pandemic . Or heaven forbid a drug that is available over the counter in half the world for decades might work ?
You like to not question or challenge authority. You want to be told what to do, what's best for you.photofly wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:11 amI like to read lots of things, but that makes me an informed and interested layperson, and doesn't qualify me to make decisions in fields in which I have no expertise or experience.
I don't let people who have read things on the internet tell me how to fly my airplane.
I like to read court judgments on relevant issues but when it comes to it, I take the advice of my lawyer.
I might enjoy reading medical papers too, but again, when it comes to it, I let the decisions as to what is an appropriate treatment be made by qualified doctors. I'm not one.
I understand that your base level of paranoia means you feel the only people who you can trust are those that tell you "the establishment" is lying to you. You see that as affirmation of the truth of everything else they tell you. I see it as convincing evidence of the untrustworthiness of everything they (and you) say.
On the facts, you might be right - but I'll wait for what I consider to be the sane universe - the people I trust - the establishment - to confirm it, using the methods and procedures that have worked well enough for modern medicine for the last hundred or so years.
Right. Fringe ideas as on not accepted by the mainstream big pharma, big government, big media...TG wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:28 amI see that the link comes from “FLCCC Alliance” (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance) a 1’ minutes Google search shows that it was founded by Pierre Kory, critical care physician and big promoter of fringe ideas about COVID-19.2R wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:19 am https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Double wrap your head in tin foil
A dollar a day treatment . No wonder they want it banned as those patent holders will go broke if they approve a drug used in India to slow the pandemic . Or heaven forbid a drug that is available over the counter in half the world for decades might work ?
So yes, sure….. (I’m being sarcastic there)
In fields like medicine, law, aviation, engineering, I believe relevant experience and qualifications are required to recommend medical therapy, pilot airplanes, advise on the law for money, build bridges that people are allowed to drive over and buildings that people are allowed to live in, wire my house, drill my teeth, yes. I can then take their advice, or reject it. I can't substitute my advice for theirs, and I absolutely refuse to allow you to substitute your advice for theirs.
|
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
