-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
@lamb22 think it is wise we are sceptical of those who make statements where it helps their self interests.
Imagine it is massively in vaccine makers self interest to make a vaccine that needs a booster every year and at the same time to prevent a cheap alternative from entering the market.
It’s also a convenient angle to come up with a conspiracy theory on too and slips into the whole ‘WHO’ is getting paid by who to do what.
Appreciate those looking to research deeper in this space. It may be that the anti vaxxers become the remaining group of stakeholders that will be willing to trial alternative treatments and provide enough numbers to do a proper study on. Not sure I’d be willing to do a trial on something else when you know there is an effective vaccine….
Imagine it is massively in vaccine makers self interest to make a vaccine that needs a booster every year and at the same time to prevent a cheap alternative from entering the market.
It’s also a convenient angle to come up with a conspiracy theory on too and slips into the whole ‘WHO’ is getting paid by who to do what.
Appreciate those looking to research deeper in this space. It may be that the anti vaxxers become the remaining group of stakeholders that will be willing to trial alternative treatments and provide enough numbers to do a proper study on. Not sure I’d be willing to do a trial on something else when you know there is an effective vaccine….
Thanks Roar. The key point people are missing here because it is a binary discussion is that Ivermectin is not an alternative to vaccination. It is complementary. Vaccination is about prevention. Ivermectin can be about prevention but it's more about treatment. We need therapeutics. The US is throwing billions at the Drug companies to develop these anti virals. Everyone acknowledges that there are breakthrough infections even in vaccinated people. For those we need proper treatments
My real concern is that from Day 1 the Public Heath response has concentrated solely on transmission and the poor bastards that got Covid were told to go home until they turned blue. Viral load kills you. The greater the load the potential for a greater cytokine storm. I follow some of the most eminent critical care doctors in the world who say early treatment is vital. So if you have access to an anti viral which has shown to be effective in shedding viral load , reducing severity and death, is safe and is cheap why wouldn't you use it in a pandemic.
This argument on here about vax/anti vax is primarily relevant to transmission, If you have Covid the question of vaccination is mostly moot although antibodies will likely help mitigate viral load . What you want is the best treatment so that you don't go into hospital or get severe complications or die!
Deportation is the answer. Deport the AAT.
Zoran Radovanovic charged after travelling to Byron Bay (paywalled)
no worries Lamb. I'm not insulted by your statement that I don't have the inside knowledge you have, it's a typical conspiracy theory position - "if only you knew what I know". Yeah, I'm a sheeple because I critically examine your conspiracy theories. You sound exactly like the 9/11 theorists to be honest and we know what a joke they were and still are.
On Merck's statement on Ivermectin, it's almost as if you don't understand the concept of risk/side-effects/contraindications in medicines. Medicine carries risk - so they will not recommend a treatment for a condition that is under-researched. As they said, there were no genuine studies at the time that showed ivermectin was effective. (there still aren't - at least nothing conclusive that has been a genuine double blind/RAT/placebo trial)
Bizarrely you still claim that Merck said Ivermectin was not safe. They didn't say that. I even gave you the link of their press release and quoted it directly. They said here are the contraindications and risks based on their decades of research, and to date they have seen no benefit with regards to Covid, so they don't recommend it. To say they said their drug was not safe is clearly - I'm sorry to say it - a lie. But, that doesn't fit the conspiracy theory narrative so you have to hype it up by claiming they said things they never said. They said the studies didn't contain safety data, which is very different from claiming their own drug is unsafe.
Prove me wrong on that - I'll wait lamb. Someone of your knowledge and experience should have no problems with that right?
You said the WHO questions the safety profile of Ivermectin. Again, I call bullsh1t sir. Here - in March of this year they say Ivermectin should only be used against Covid19 in legitimate clinical trials. https://www.who.int/news-room/featu...used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials . They also reviewed the data on a range of studies and found that the evidence that Iv. benefits people with Covid19 is of "very low certainty". But nowhere did they question the "safety profile" of Iv. In fact they've recommended it for parasitic infections of livestock and humans for decades.
Challenge number two - show me where the WHO has said Ivermectin is unsafe. I'll wait.
The only thing they've said - which enrages the Ivermectin conspiracy crew - is that there is no demonstrated effectiveness in treating Covid 19, so they've recommended its use only in properly structured clinical trials.
As I say, bad faith arguments suck. They are weak. They undermine the credibility of those who make them. As soon as you start lying, stretching the truth and claiming things were said that were not said, you lose.
Last edited:
It's not binary at all, that's another fabrication.
If randomised, well-structured, double blind, placebo'd clinical trials prove Ivermectin is effective, then let's use it. It can be used in concert with vaccines, social distancing, masks, whatever works.
Unfortunately, the pro-Iv. argument is based on bad science and bad politics. You've demonstrated that yourself by inventing statements from Merck and the WHO that don't exist.
I have no researched view on what works or doesn’t work. I do think we should be investigating treatments that reduce the damage Covid does if you get it, or anything you can do preventatively before you get it….. especially because at some stage I think we all get it.
Absolutely, but let's do the science based on science, not on internet nuff-nuffs interrogating a press release from Merck and inventing BS that never happened.
My gut feel and the real science to date tells me that ivermectine treatments will go the way of the hydroxchloroquine miracle cures that no-one hears about any more. Because it doesn't work.
But yeah, lets do the real, randomized, double blind, placebo'd clinical trials and see what is what.
FMD, what do you think "A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies" means and why would it matter in a FDA approved drug with an established record of safety. Do you actually ever engage your brain before spouting the nonsense you post. I'd say people are now alive who might have been dead is probably good safety data anyway.
When Goa decided to mandate Ivermectin for use the WHO chief scientist sent them a tweet attaching Merck's statement. She then quickly deleted that tweet after a backlash. On the basis of that tweet the Indian Bar Association has started an action suing her for misrepresentation of medical facts. Goa's leaders said get stuffed to WHO we're using Ivermectin.
Day after Goa prescribes Ivermectin as prophylaxis for Covid-19, WHO chief scientist recommends against it
In March, too, the WHO had recommended that the drug ivermectin only be used within clinical trials.
indianexpress.com
Goa mandated the use of Ivermectin in early May 2021.
BTW
goa covid - Google Search
www.google.com
Just saying! That's the delta virus too!
Last edited:
Well thanks for alleging that I didn't "engage my brain", but here goes. Safety data relates to the methods and safeguards the researchers undertaking the studies take to ensure the safety of those patients as part of the trial or study. So they are saying that these trials/studies did not follow these safety procedures, or did not document these procedures. Essentially they are saying that the trials were poorly conducted with regards to patient safety. How's that for engaging my brain?
This article explains the ethics/procedures around safety data and monitoring in clinical trials.
Guidelines for Data and Safety Monitoring of Clinical Trials | National Eye Institute
The National Eye Institute (NEI) has established guidelines for the oversight and monitoring of clinical trials to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of data. Find out what this data and safety monitoring involves.
www.nei.nih.gov
Of course if you get your info from the Ivermectin crew on Twitter and Youtube I'm sure you know better. Ciao bello.
If only "Private" aged care workers weren't so poorly paid they wouldn't have to have 2 and 3 jobs to eke out a living.
There's been 820 deaths from Covid in Victoria.
"There has been 655 COVID-19 related deaths in Victorian private residential aged care."
After COVID-19 lesson Andrews Government puts private aged care ratios on the table: ANMF calls for one health system
The Andrews Government’s $40m kick start to implement ratios in private aged care has put much needed safe staffing firmly on the table.
Last edited:
Sure, they are in effect conducting their own non-clinical trial.
No comment on what safety data in clinical trials actually means? Here's a more succinct description.
PS you don't have to respond, feel free to keep banging your Ivermectin drum... I can't waste any more time on this.
I don't get why anyone is touting a drug when there looks to be no evidence it works, seems a waste of effort when we could be researching drugs which might work, or even doing some proper research on the drug being touted. I also don't get the criticism of those who are merely pointing out that there is no evidence it works, they seem to be simply stating what we know.
As for the safety data in studies quote, it is just that, a quote about safety data in studies. Extrapolating from that quote that someone is claiming the drug is unsafe, is also just that - extrapolating.
I'm sure there are plenty of companies looking for drugs which treat COVID. Once you vaccinate as many people as you can, some will still get sick - those vaccinated who get sick which looks to be a tiny proportion, along with those who can't, or are too selfish/stupid, to get vaccinated. There would be plenty of profit in gaining subsidies for the research and selling the drug once it is developed.
DS
As for the safety data in studies quote, it is just that, a quote about safety data in studies. Extrapolating from that quote that someone is claiming the drug is unsafe, is also just that - extrapolating.
I'm sure there are plenty of companies looking for drugs which treat COVID. Once you vaccinate as many people as you can, some will still get sick - those vaccinated who get sick which looks to be a tiny proportion, along with those who can't, or are too selfish/stupid, to get vaccinated. There would be plenty of profit in gaining subsidies for the research and selling the drug once it is developed.
DS
Lamb, TrialSite News?
Maybe you should check your sources.
They published this article: https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-get-vaccinated/
I didn't get very far as once I saw this paragraph:
I figured I didn't need to waste any more of my time.
A million people disabled, and no coverage of this? Really? Wow that is some conspiracy happening there . . . or maybe this is just BS.
DS
Maybe you should check your sources.
They published this article: https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-get-vaccinated/
I didn't get very far as once I saw this paragraph:
I figured I didn't need to waste any more of my time.
A million people disabled, and no coverage of this? Really? Wow that is some conspiracy happening there . . . or maybe this is just BS.
DS
