The Ivermectin discussion

is_that_so · 16-02-2022 2:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640682#Comment_118640682

Well, the EMA & FDA are the places to go for that rather than perpetually demanding proof of something or other from posters who just plain disagree with you. How does not approved suddenly become a ban? Quite a few so-called conspiracy theorists have a habit of not accepting Occam's Razor.

16-02-2022 3:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640682#Comment_118640682

According to this statement in Oklahoma, USA they have changed course allowing doctors to use their training and expertise to prescribe off label medicines like Ivermectin to treat Covid patients.

https://www.oag.ok.gov/articles/attorney-general-oconnor-assures-oklahoma-physicians-are-not-prohibited-prescribing-label

astrofool · 16-02-2022 4:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640625#Comment_118640625

So, Dexamethasone has been trialed for COVID patients that have Acute Respiratory Distress, are you implying it should go through trials as a general treatment as well? To what end? Please be specific rather than being dismissive or goalpost moving.

My feeling here was correct at the very least.

Are you also saying you want the bar for Ivermectin to be the same as the bar for Dexamethasone? If different, why, if the same, how and why will that be achieved for Ivermectin given it's lack of efficacy in properly run trials so far?

PureIsle · 17-02-2022 3:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640865#Comment_118640865

The way I read that it is more a clarification of the legal status and not so much an approval which would require those agencies who are reprimanding doctors for using it to change their attitude.

I think the doctors are still under threat of having their licences revoked, but maybe there is a glimmer of hope that if they challenge that legally there might be some help available. I doubt it though TBH.

PureIsle · 17-02-2022 3:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640730#Comment_118640730

I have NEVER demanded anything from other posters.

I have mostly posted information for others to read, and you have constantly jumped on those posts for some reason unknown to me. It is you who post in disagreement.

It is time to accept there is more than one opinion on the matter and give up your useless campaign.

PureIsle · 17-02-2022 3:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118641543#Comment_118641543

I did not imply anything.

I pointed out that you did not answer the question I asked.

I cannot make it more simple for you.

is_that_so · 17-02-2022 3:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118647107#Comment_118647107

I respond to posts I want to respond to, hardly a campaign by any standards. Your real beef is with the FDA, the EMA, Merck and quite probably a bit of big Pharma thrown in. I am none of these. Anyway will leave you to it but if it is ever approved as a treatment for COVID I'll celebrate with with you!

astrofool · 17-02-2022 3:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118647117#Comment_118647117

And I'm pointing out that without elaboration, your question makes absolutely zero sense, Dexamethasone has been through double blind trials for those with the symptoms which can be treated by Dexamethasone, it has not been through double blind trials for symptoms which cannot be treated by Dexamethasone. Ivermectin has failed any trials that use proper scientific process, it's standing isn't much above homeopathy at the moment.

Here's the clarifications needed before your question can be answered effectively:

Dexamethasone has been trialled for COVID patients that have Acute Respiratory Distress, are you implying it should go through trials as a general treatment as well? To what end?
Are you also saying you want the bar for Ivermectin to be the same as the bar for Dexamethasone? (as Ivermectin has nowhere near reached that bar)
If different, why, if the same, how and why will that be achieved for Ivermectin given it's lack of efficacy in properly run trials so far?

BruteStock · 17-02-2022 4:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118647353#Comment_118647353

Wheels & Arrows: The Daryl Dixon report.

The potential efficacy of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19

Héctor et al. conducted a prospective observational study in which they gave ivermectin and carrageenan daily to healthy volunteers for 28 days, comparing them to similarly healthy controls who did not take the drugs.

Of the 229 study participants, 131 were treated with 0.2 mg ivermectin drops taken by mouth five times a day. After 28 days, none of the participants receiving ivermectin prophylaxis tested positive for SARS-COV-2, compared to 11.2% of the participants in the control group who tested positive [64]. In line with other prophylaxis reports, a recently published Preprint Matching Case–Control 374 study on medRxiv, which analyzed several drugs experimentally used as COVID-19 375 prophylaxis, showed a 73% reduction in COVID-19 infections in health care workers after two doses of ivermectin (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.15–0.51) [65]. Remarkably, this study did not establish that a single dose of prophylaxis has a protective effect.

You're eyes have yet to open

https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-022-00645-8

is_that_so · 17-02-2022 7:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118647790#Comment_118647790

It doesn't matter what state people's eyes are in. If the FDA and the EMA, in our case, say no, no it is and they do say no.

astrofool · 17-02-2022 7:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118647790#Comment_118647790

Em, I'm sure you read it fully:

Based on the current data and the recommended dose of 150–200 µg/kg for COVID-19 treatment, ivermectin is probably safe; however, there is some serious doubt about its efficacy in treating COVID-19. Ivermectin has a better safety profile than other purposed and repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and colchicine [93] that lack efficacy and, in the case of hydroxychloroquine, has been shown to be harmful [33, 46, 82, 94]. Before initiating a patient on ivermectin therapy, clinicians need to be aware that ivermectin doses necessary to block SARS-COV-2, patients’ inflammatory status, other concurrent medications, and patients' potential genetic polymorphism for the p-glycoprotein mdr-1 gene may enhance ivermectin’s toxicity and serious side effects in humans.

Probably safe to take (which you'd expect as it's already prescribed for other treatments) but doubts about it's efficacy is pretty much where everyone is with it (bar a few who keep trying to blame big pharma even though it's off patent and can be produced by anyone).

But at the very least, the trumpoids who still insist on HCQ being effective might shut up as it's been shown to be harmful and ineffective (rather than just ineffective like IVM).

PureIsle · 17-02-2022 9:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118648465#Comment_118648465

I think that is a bit simplistic TBH.

Neither FDA nor EMA recommend or approve the substance as previously mentioned, but that of itself would not prevent doctors from prescribing it.

What has prevented doctors from prescribing it is the threats from their medical boards, that if they do they might be struck off the register and not allowed practice anymore.

Couple that with pharmacists not being willing to fullfill prescriptions for the substance and you have an effective ban on its use.

Who or what is behind this I do not know, but the doctors ability to treat their patients as the doctors determine is interfered with.

IMO that is a very serious situation.

astrofool · 17-02-2022 11:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118649204#Comment_118649204

If a treatment has been shown to be ineffective then a doctor should not be prescribing that treatment, the fact there is still ongoing trials (I'm guessing at this stage, have they completely given up on getting approval?) means there is no ban in place. If a patient presents with symptoms of a disease that IVM is effective for, it will be prescribed without any issues.

You don't see a problem with doctors being allowed to prescribe anything they want regardless of it being noted as ineffective?

I think you're letting your need for IVM to be effective cloud your judgement, that is a serious situation.

PureIsle · 17-02-2022 11:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118649843#Comment_118649843

You don't see a problem with doctors being allowed to prescribe anything they want regardless of it being noted as ineffective?

Doctors are allowed to prescribe medicines 'off label'. It is a common occurrence.

I see no reason to change the way doctors have worked for many decades.

astrofool · 18-02-2022 1:58am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118649890#Comment_118649890

You're too blinkered to see the difference between an off label prescription where there is efficacy vs. a scenario where no efficacy has been shown.

Doctors don't just prescribe everything in a hit and hope method for a multitude of reasons (not least that it can be dangerous and can be seen as extorting money from a patient for an ineffective treatment).

Even that safety study acknowledged that there wasn't any efficacy being shown and that's building on all previous studies.

It's a busted flush that only conspiracy theorists and trumpoids are still clinging to. The science has been done and passed it by and other actually effective treatments have been created, trialled and approved while IVM is still off patent, still available to anyone to produce and still not submitted for approval anywhere.

mcmoustache · 19-02-2022 4:21pm

A study from Malaysia finds Ivermectin to be no better than a placebo.

I don't know how many more studies will be needed before this quackery can be put to rest but that's another one for the pile anyway.

is_that_so · 20-02-2022 11:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118658895#Comment_118658895

That's a report on the study

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/ivermectin-ineffective-preventing-severe-covid-19-study-2022-02-18/

PureIsle · 26-02-2022 1:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118658895#Comment_118658895

I see no link to any study in your post ....... ?

YFlyer · 03-03-2022 8:52pm

Why did pub med publish this paper?

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

A.D. Santin, D.E. Scheim, [...], and T.J. Borody

Former Former Former · 04-03-2022 3:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118727827#Comment_118727827

PubMed doesn't publish, it's closer to a search engine for journals.

The actual journal, New Microbes New Infections, is not very well regarded in terms of its rigour or independence. See here; Publication by association: how the COVID-19 pandemic has shown relationships between authors and editorial board members in the field of infectious diseases | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

and here's some interesting info on one of the authors;

Doctor who advocated Covid-19 therapy including ivermectin applied for patent on same unproven treatment | Health | The Guardian

YFlyer · 04-03-2022 3:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118731525#Comment_118731525

Thanks for that. It is in Dolores Cahill realm.

PureIsle · 07-03-2022 4:09pm

This research on what lies behind the Ivermectin story makes compelling reading, and it is rather sickening to have confirmation of our worst fears about how pharma companies influence what medications we are given when ill.

https://philharper.substack.com/p/professor-tied-to-altered-andrew?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0NjI2MTAwMywicG9zdF9pZCI6NDk4NzMzODgsIl8iOiJNd3k4MCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NjY2MjkzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjQ2NjY2NTM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNzIyNjU2Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.WjFsYN5SaOrPm4_ayv6RWyHzJ_VmAtCWJBQMmvBkA5E&s=r

I don't know about how others regard these events, but for me it causes me to question just about everything related to 'approved medicines'.

I guess there is even more truth in the saying "follow the money" than I thought possible.

PureIsle · 08-03-2022 11:26am

This comparison table should be of interest - even to those who regard Ivermectin as useless

https://c19science.info/FDA_Drug_Approvals.htm

https://ibb.co/5krJCw1

PureIsle · 13-03-2022 1:12pm

Philly Harper on Uttar Pradesh and their early treatment programme, which according to some never happened or if it did never included Ivermectin or did not have the effect claimed and all sorts of other ridiculous claims.

https://philharper.substack.com/p/uttar-pradesh-put-covid-early-treatment?s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

odyssey06 · 13-03-2022 2:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118778158#Comment_118778158

This garbage again?

Can you list the entire contents of the pack and when it was distributed? Exactly? I dont mean some picture of unknown veracity some randomer found on twitter. When did it start when did it end.

Why have you singled out one from the list? There are multiple medicines listed...

And what else happened in Uttar Pradesh? Hint they didnt just send out a kit. They went door to door with testing, masks, and ran isolation programmes.

This is thoroughly discredited nonsense it is like whack a mole.

The only ridiculous claims come from you and the dregs of the internet you find it.

Apparently Ivermectin cures all known forms of death... based on the stats from UP

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/there-is-no-scientific-basis-for-claims-of-ivermectins-success-in-uttar-pradesh-india/

PureIsle · 13-03-2022 4:26pm

Thank you for responding as expected 😀

You should of course believe Jill Terreri Ramos, a staff writer for PolitiFact New York and the Buffalo News, and not the medical people on the ground in Uttar Pradesh, or anyone else.

The same old BS from you.

Former Former Former · 13-03-2022 9:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118749769#Comment_118749769

It's absolute bollocks. Utter bollocks from very bad people taking advantage of gullible conspiracy theorists like you. You and thousands like you are being used by these absolute bastards.

I'm sorry to be so blunt but you don't have any understanding of these issues and you just keep peddling this incredibly dangerous misinformation.

Stop it. You are putting yourself and others in danger.

PureIsle · 13-03-2022 11:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118780649#Comment_118780649

Would you care to specify what theory I have proposed?

To my recollection I have not proposed any theory.

14-03-2022 12:37am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118780649#Comment_118780649

Responding by calling what was posted as "bollocks" by "bastards" is really weak. Make a case or argument that disproves what was posted, then you might get others to see they are being mislead. But to just dismiss it gives you no credibility.

14-03-2022 9:05am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118781479#Comment_118781479

Your summary here is a bit skewed though and leaves out the history of this admittedly very very long thread.

The lack of credibility actually goes the other way. Why? Because Pradesh and what they did there has been brought up many many times in this thread already. Pretty much entirely by the same user over and over again.

And many of us - myself included - very much did "make a case and argument" each time. Over and over again.

What the single user has done in response to this is to pretty much ignore all of those concerns and rebuttals. Instead (s)he will simply leave the thread for a few days or longer. Then suddenly return with another link that does little more than mention Pradesh again. The link will contain no new data or information. It will simply be a link to some blog opinion piece of someone simply mentioning Pradesh again.

Worse the user has been asked multiple questions directly on the subject and has often simply dodged or ignored them entirely. Random example go look at post 1211 on the thread and then consider the users response to it. It was a sarky, dismissive non answer ending in a "I am not answering your question go look it up yourself" style cop out which is so common from that corner. But when someone here calls it "bollocks" you jump up and down? When the user refuses to answer questions with badly spelt cop out lines like "I am not hear to indulge your silliness" you say nothing? Check post 1189 as another great example here. The user is simply refusing over and over to answer the question asked and keeps throwing out dodge links that has no information on the questions asked. Evidence of this behavior right there in black and white.

The user has dodged that direct question multiple times from multiple users. How does this stack their "credibility" in your opinion then?

When you read post 1223 for example you see the user dodged the question by entirely changing the subject to another area entirely. Worse they then cited an article cherry picked to a particular time that looked good. But as PintOfView pointed out very well - the article came before a big spike in cases in that area too.

Again - lets check how credibility has been stacking over time here shall we?

So - take a look at the link above posted by that user just now then if you do not believe me. What is the actual content of the link? Very little. It is a personal opinion piece that does nothing more than merely mention - once again - that a "pack" of drugs was distributed. This has all been dealt with multiple times in the thread already.

Further consider what the user said while presenting that link. The claim was that "which according to some never happened or if it did never included Ivermectin". I have just gone back over the last 15 pages of this thread while constructing this post for you. I am really struggling to find any posts that fit that description? We have questioned many things on this thread related to Pradesh. But I am struggling deeply to find anyone who has claimed the program there either A) did not happen or B) did not contain Ivermectin at all? Am I missing something or is the user in question simply packing the straw in the strawman here??? Again - where does the credibility lie therefore???

As has been posted on this thread many times - including by me - Pradesh is not uninteresting. They did a lot of interesting things in response to the virus. It included things like door to door contact tracing and testing and distribution of masks as well as the home treatment kits. And also isolation of infected households.

The issue however is that _ this _ is specifically a thread about Ivermectin. And when an area implements a raft of measures - medical and procedural and so forth - then it is simply a nonsense to pick one tiny thing out of that collection of decisions and act like there is evidence that the efficacy of their approach has anything to do with that one tiny thing. As interesting as Pradesh is overall - pointing at it as some kind of evidence that Ivermectin is efficacious against Covid is simply a lay man error from someone who does not appear to have the first inkling of understanding - or a wish to gain any - of the processes and procedures of epidemiology.

So yes credibility would be a nice thing to see here. But not from the corner you suggest. The user has been dealt with multiple times over and over and I do not think someone getting frustrated and finally just shouting "bollocks" at him means they have lacked or lost any credibility in that moment.

I would suggest you read my own post 1099 on the thread too. Then return to me and tell me exactly which user(s) have established credibility in their approach here?

14-03-2022 11:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118781904#Comment_118781904

I would agree with you if PureIsle was just repeating the same thing with the same evidence from his point of view. But this does not seem to be the case. From what I can see PureIsle is his newer posts has brought new evidence from his point of view. So if he is to be responded to the new evidence should be addressed rather then just dismissing him.

15-03-2022 7:47am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118785965#Comment_118785965

You will have go help me find this "new Evidence" then as I am not seeing it. As I said already in my post - you can just look at his most recent link for starters. What "new evidence" is in that link? Or the post accompanying this link?

I can find none in either.

In the latter I find a comment about people who claimed it "never happened" or people who claimed ivermectin was not in the information packs. But I am struggling to find anyone who has been denying either of these things? Have you found any/many? Point me to them. So it would see the post itself is commenting on things that have happened little - if at all. Not a good start.

In the former all I can find nothing new either. It is once again just discussing the "pack" and what was in it. We have had the contents of the pack listed numerous times on this thread.

If you can find anything in the post or the link that has not been discussed and dealt with numerous times before - you will find me ready and willing to discuss and deal with it. I can see nothing. But I am not perfect. I can miss things. So by all means help me out here.

PureIsle · 20-03-2022 5:14pm

It appears the New Hampshire legislature is trying to level the playing field for access to Ivermectin.

New Hampshire House Bill 1022 proposes to allow pharmacists to dispense the drug ivermectin by means of a standing order, in an apparent attempt to allow doctors to prescribe this medicine without fear of retaliation from various entities.

https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1022/2022

The board of pharmacy shall not deny, revoke, suspend, or otherwise take disciplinary action against

a physician, an advanced practice registered nurse or pharmacist who is involved in dispensing Ivermectin under the provisions of the act.

24-03-2022 9:21pm

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/coronavirus/clive-palmer-refused-icu-treatment-while-battling-covid19-in-favour-of-taking-ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine/news-story/c6fc9735e2e93c2a2ebbc987198e2f9c

PureIsle · 25-03-2022 4:28pm

Now that both the House and Senate have passed HB 2280, per the new legislative process in Kansas the bill goes before the state’s governor, Laura Kelly ...

Senate Passes Medical Freedom Bill Allowing Ivermectin Use in Kansas

https://trialsitenews.com/senate-passes-medical-freedom-bill-allowing-ivermectin-use-in-kansas/

PeadarCo · 25-03-2022 7:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118834884#Comment_118834884

It is disappointing that doctors are allowed prescribe snake oil. The whole Ivermectin discussion is an unfortunate example of how dangerous medical misinformation can be. Based on all serious studies Ivermectin is at best a placebo when it comes to Covid treatment and for all practical purposes is at best useless. If people opt for this drug instead of something that actually works like vaccines or other proven treatments they are putting their lives in danger.

The decision by the Kanas state government is meaningless when it comes to how effective the drug actually is. If this is the best evidence Ivermectin advocates have for its effectiveness its admission that there is no scientific evidence to back up Ivermectin when it comes to Covid treatment. It's no different to when the Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy for promoting the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The Catholic Churchs decision didn't change scientific fact.

PureIsle · 26-03-2022 1:19pm

It is disappointing that doctors are allowed prescribe snake oil.

I find it very odd that you would think

'It is disappointing that doctors are allowed prescribe off-label medicines.'

Very odd indeed.

Contrary to what you posted, at best many lives would be saved by taking Ivermectin if it is effective and at worst the recipients would be worm free if it has no effect on a SARS-2 infection or Covid illness.

As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.

Also they introduce a risk for those who receive the injections, producing lots of side effects, some of which are serious and can lead to death.

The idea that doctors should be prevented from making their best effort for their patients is abhorrent to me. Of course this is most likely due to me believing that is what those doctors were trained for.

But maybe I am wrong and politicians are the ones who should make those medical decisions.

PeadarCo · 26-03-2022 2:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118838332#Comment_118838332

You haven't posted a single credible study that shows Ivermectin works when it comes to Covid not one. And given that science is built on people trying to prove each other wrong any effective treatment will have multiple studies demonstrating a treatment is effective. Calling Ivermectin snake oil when it comes to Covid treatment is calling it exactly what it is, it is as effective when it comes to Covid treatment as snake oil.

Vaccines work when it comes to Covid. A perfect example is Hong Kong who's health system is currently being overwhelmed by Covid. Their biggest issue is that a significant number of older individuals (for Covid the older you are the higher risk you have of severe complications) remain unvaccinated. And alot of those that are vaccinated opted for the China made vaccine which is less effective than the Pfzier vaccine which is also available there. Now take Ireland which has a vaccination rate of over 90% when it comes to Covid and we have no restrictions. While we have high cases only a fraction of those cases require hospital treatment and even less require ICU treatment. You can swap out Ireland for other countries with high vaccination levels you will see the same effect. To say that vaccines don't work you have to ignore all the clinical trials and real world examples over the last year plus at this stage.

And your reply demonstrates the exact issue with snake oil proponents like yourself. You are promoting a drug that does not work for Covid treatment while telling people that vaccines don't work. This is absolute rubbish putting things very mildly.

Ivermectin doesn't work when it comes to Covid. It's unfortunate for the people of Kansas that their politicians have fallen for this crazy conspiracy theory.

PeadarCo · 26-03-2022 3:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118838332#Comment_118838332

Just to add when it comes to approving what exact medicines doctors should be allowed prescribe politicians should have no direct involvement. Most politicians have no medical training and even fewer have the training and experience required to actually make an educated decision. The case of Kansas is a perfect example of what happens when politicians try to micro manage drug approval. Snake oil gets approved for treatment for conditions where they don't work. If people get treated with a useless drug, some of those people will die as by the time it's realised the treatment is useless it will be too late to put them on an effective drug. This goes for all treatments. It also allows scam artists to get scams approved by fooling people who have no real medical and pharmaceutical education.

PureIsle · 26-03-2022 8:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118838630#Comment_118838630

You are promoting a drug that does not work for Covid treatment while telling people that vaccines don't work.

You really do like to twist things to your own viewpoint - suit yourself.

I never said vaccines do not work ...... but if you think I did maybe you will quote where I said that? No? Cannot find it?

As for promoting Ivermectin .... not done that either ....... but in case I am mistaken maybe you will quote me telling others they should take this medicine in place of vaccines? No? Cannot find that either?

As I have posted previously, this is an Ivermectin thread and I post information I find in which I think others might have an interest.

I will continue to do so despite your long winded posts, so waste your time all you like.

PeadarCo · 26-03-2022 9:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118839934#Comment_118839934

You said in your post that vaccines are not an effective health measure. That basically saying don't get a vaccine. You said they don't prevent death from Covid. Thats saying vaccines don't work. That's flat out rubbish. They are the reason there is no need for restrictions despite the current wave of infection. Again compare Hong Kong to Ireland for a real world example of how good vaccines are.

You are promoting a conspiracy theory and spreading misinformation. If you are not promoting Ivermectin what is the purpose of your posts in a Covid forum. Invecterim is useless when it comes to Covid treatment and it's of no interest to anyone looking to treat Covid.

Your posts about Ivermectin are classic science denial. Pretend to be neutral. Cast doubt on vaccines, post "information" about some conspiracy theory. Yes you haven't outright said you should take Ivermectin instead of vaccines but you've done pretty much everything else. I think your message is obvious. For a classic example in another area take flat earthers. A lot of them will not say the earth is flat outright but will point out issues they believe the globe model has. When these issues are explained they will ignore the evidence presented and just change their problems and the whole process just repeats infinitely. Your posts follow the same pattern of standard science denial.

If you really thought vaccines were effective you wouldn't have said the opposite and you wouldn't be posting information about a drug that when it comes to Covid treatment at least is as effective as snake oil.

Also I realise you find my posts long winded but understand they are not aimed at yourself. They are aimed at people who may not be familiar with the tactics of science deniers and how they spread misinformation.

The problem with science denial and medicine is that people die when the listen to science deniers(in the case of Ivermectin at least I think/hope so) and scammers (ie people who actually sell treatments that don't work)

PureIsle · 27-03-2022 2:11pm

You said in your post that vaccines are not an effective health measure. That basically saying don't get a vaccine. You said they don't prevent death from Covid. Thats saying vaccines don't work. That's flat out rubbish.

Yet again putting your own interpretation on what was posted. You really should read and try to understand.

If you are not promoting Ivermectin what is the purpose of your posts in a Covid forum.

This is an IVERMECTIN thread. Failure to read and understand yet again?

For those still interested in this subject here is a very short video which should be of interest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUojXUraTBg

PeadarCo · 27-03-2022 5:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118842418#Comment_118842418

I'd advise you to read your own posts before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. See a copy of you quote about vaccines

"they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid"

Thats all rubbish. Again compare countries with high vaccination rates with low vaccination. Ie Ireland V Hong Kong at the moment. Don't get upset when you called out. Everyone reading this thread can read your posts.

Also so what conspiracy theorists and or science denialists are still interested in Ivermectin, so what? There is no scientific evidence to suggest Ivermectin is effective against Covid. At this stage there is no meaningful discussion about Ivermectin when it comes to Covid treatment. And unless there is some dramatic new evidence Ivermectin when it comes to Covid treatment is only of interest to Conspiracy theorists and people who reject actual proven Covid treatments and preventative measures.

The Raging Bile Duct · 28-03-2022 12:20pm

But, but... he's just linked a video from Gbeebies. That's all the proof you need!

PureIsle · 29-03-2022 2:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118843103#Comment_118843103

"they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid"

Thats all rubbish.

Tell that to all the vaccinated people in hospital with Covid and to the families of the vaccinated who died from Covid.

They are as likely to believe you as I am.

For those who might have forgotten what I wrote, I quote it here

As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.

Disagree all you wish, your attitude will not change the facts.

PeadarCo · 29-03-2022 11:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118851544#Comment_118851544

So you are saying practically the entire scientific community that vaccines don't work? Please understand the effectiveness of vaccines is verified by basically every major health organisation going. Again for a real world example compare Ireland and Hong Kong. Look at hospitaltions rares between vaccinated an unvaccinated groups, especially in high risk groups. There is plenty of evidence that unvaccinated people are overrepresented in hospital wards when it comes to dealing with Covid. I can keep going and start posting links if you want. What's your evidence that practically the entire scientific community and nearly every major health authority is wrong? And I mean evidence not a link to some random conspiracy theorist.

Based on what we know, Ivermectin is about as effective as tap water when it comes to Covid treatment. But this is the thing about the whole Ivermectin discussion is a nice camouflage for various types of anti vaxxers, Covid and science denialists in general. Pick a drug that has an actual proven medical use(not Covid related) and construct a conspiracy around it.

You mention people dying even though they got the vaccine remember vaccines are not 100% effective especially where people have preexisting conditions. 100% effectiveness was never promised. Please understand the misinformation you and other people are spreading about Ivermectin will and has caused needless deaths. That's the unfortunate thing about conspiracy theories and scams that relate to medicine. They are not cost free. Vulnerable people listen to them and die as result.

PureIsle · 30-03-2022 11:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118854145#Comment_118854145

You mention people dying even though they got the vaccine remember vaccines are not 100% effective ...

How effective are the vaccines against death from Covid (edit)?

How effective are they against development of Covid?

How effective are they against infection?

How effective are they against shredding of the virus?

What can you refer to, to support your claim of a percentage effectiveness?

Let us see what percentages you quote and what supporting evidence you have for your claims.

You do realise that what you just posted is in agreement with what I posted?

No? You fail to realise even that?

Read what I wrote yet again ...... and pay particular attention to what I wrote and not what you would like me to have written so that you might have some basis for attacking it.

You really do need to bring some comprehension to reading what is written.

Here it is again, so you do not have to go look back

As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.

odyssey06 · 30-03-2022 1:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855413#Comment_118855413

This is dangerous nonsense, utterly without merit or foundation. Anyone pushing the use of Ivermectin instead of vaccines is not doing so on the basis of scientific evidence, which is what you are now attempting to use this thread to do.

Anyone claiming vaccines do not prevent death has left the platform called science, and entered the territory called conspiracy theory. It was already skirting that territory already with some of the fake news posted about Ivermectin but now it has gone full blown.

The thread has been hijacked and turned into a anti vaccine platform.

PureIsle · 30-03-2022 4:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118855906#Comment_118855906

Anyone claiming vaccines do not prevent death has left the platform called science, and entered the territory called conspiracy theory.

Yet another one who does not wish to recognise facts.

On what basis do you claim that the vaccines prevent death from Covid?

How do you explain the death from Covid of those who were vaccinated?

The thread has been hijacked and turned into a anti vaccine platform.

Yes indeed and you have contributed to that. I suggest you take the matter up with the poster who introduced vaccines into this thread.

PeadarCo · 30-03-2022 5:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118857124#Comment_118857124

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-moderna-covid-19-mrna-1273-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-research-reinforces-the-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccines

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34800687/

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/ireland-s-four-covid-19-vaccines-supply-efficacy-and-side-effects-1.4545731

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious

Here's what a quick Google search turned up. 5 different links from a variety of sources. There is lots lots more stuff I could get. And realise no evidence has being supplied to back up Ivermectin effectiveness against Covid. Or at least any evidence that stood up to any remote scrutiny.

The issue with promoting snake oil is that vulnerable people believe it and die as a result of not following effective treatments and other effective preventative measures. And in the context of Covid treatment and prevention Ivermectin is snake oil based on current data.

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments

The potential efficacy of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19