Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative
-
@frank said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
What is the reason YouTube has given for banning stuff concerning Ivermectin vs what you think is the reason.
Interested in the censorship argument more than science.Frank, I stumbled across a 4 minute video explaining what you asked.
The vid shows some links to fb and YouTube policies as well so you could check there if you wanted. It seems they specifically mention ivm.
Hope this is helpful, no worries if it ain't. Fast forward 1 minute for maximum efficiency.
The Weinsteins are talking about yt taking down footage of the senate hearing.
-
Here's a study done with ivm and health care workers in India conducted in October November 2020:
Watching the video is not necessary but the Dr summarises the findings in the description in an easily readable way. 10 seconds of reading.
Basically:
3000+ subjects, all health care workers2384 took ivm, 1147 non takers
2 oral doses ivm 300ug(micrograms = 21 mg for a 70 kg person)/kg 72 hours apart. Apparently ivm costs $183 per kilogram = less than 1 cent per dose
Developed covid symptoms: 331 workers
6% ivm takers 131 workers
15% non takers 200 workersTested positive: PCR test 201 workers
Ivm 2%
Non takers 11.7%Side effects: 1.8% reported adverse effects, mild and self limiting ( that means no medical intervention)
Conclusion
2 doses of ivm (300 ug/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophalyxis among health care workers reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.Earlier, at least 20 -25 HCWs were getting infected with virus daily. After the workers started taking ivm the infection rate is 1 or 2 per day.
Note: I'm just repeating information in case anyone is interested.
Worth noting ivm is recommended WITH and alongside a vaccine.
Nowhere have I found recommendations that ivm replaces a vaccine. It's a tool to help health effects of COVID-19
-
Based on what I've read/watched, it seems ivm was suppressed/ignored because if there is an effective COVID treatment, emergency use authorisation for a potential vaccine cannot be granted. So instead of 8 months to get a vaccine through trials and approved, it would've been 3yrs.
By the time the studies were done that showed ivm was remarkably effective (mid-2020), it was "too late" as the sunk cost fallacy applied to vaccine development.
-
@tewaio said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Based on what I've read/watched, it seems ivm was suppressed/ignored because if there is an effective COVID treatment, emergency use authorisation for a potential vaccine cannot be granted. So instead of 8 months to get a vaccine through trials and approved, it would've been 3yrs.
By the time the studies were done that showed ivm was remarkably effective (mid-2020), it was "too late" as the sunk cost fallacy applied to vaccine development.
very similar to what i have understood and i understand due to the processes they took the fastest route, what i cannot understand if it is proven it does work in the mean time, can we not just get this available for everyone....screw the bio tech companies, they will make it back elsewhere
-
The major curiosity with ivm is that it's been discovered as a bit of a gift to be used with other treatments.
An analogy used is your house is burning down but you're not allowed to use a bucket of water while you wait for the fire brigade.
The frustration comes with a proven safe, widespread medicine that has shown to be very effective at lowering transmission and death. Just what the doctor ordered...
The doctors working with ivm and patients everyday believe it could actually halt the pandemic and make the current virus extinct.
The dismissing of the studies and active, identifiable censoring and obfuscation by social media, AAP, Reuters and health authorities ( reports that doctors aren't allowed to prescribe it in the US), is incredibly alarming.
The communicated emphasis has been on people's health and death rates, yet we have a safe molecule with documented antiviral capabilities that is knowingly not being used.
Some suggest the EUA situation is being used to suppress ivm for profit. I.e. if ivm is present it's illegal to use emergency (scantily trialled) emergency solutions. Ivm costs less than 1 cent per dose. Remdisver, the current treatment drug costs $3000 per dose. A new wonder drug will be also patented. Basically the US government has granted 3.2 billion to the pharmaceutical industry to make a new ivm.
The people with knowledge of ivm hypothesise that profits are being put before health, and it's hard to disagree, and yet not hard to imagine.
Even a solution where the molecule could be slightly altered and patented for profit would still get the job done.
No one championing ivm will profit from it
If ivm is properly proven not to work or be less effective than remdesvir (not a great set of results thus far), then no harm. Currently covid treatment for the infected but not hospitalised in America is Tylenol and come back " if your lips turn blue".
I wonder what other treatment protocols non hospitalised but covid positive outpatients get?
Research with ivm treating long covid is now being undertaken with encouraging results, early doors though of course. Ivm binds to and nullifies the spike protein at the heart of the trouble and adverse vaccine effects. Keep this in mind as long covid becomes an issue.
The Ivermectin situation is very disconcerting and questions the ethics and motivations of our authorities. I'd have thought we'd be throwing the kitchen sink at this pandemic but widespread treatment solutions, 18 months on, are not readily evident.
I'd swell with pride if Jacinta gave kiwis the ivm option in a voluntary controlled prophylactic trial before covid hits. Now that would be leading the world!
-
@tewaio said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Based on what I've read/watched, it seems ivm was suppressed/ignored because if there is an effective COVID treatment, emergency use authorisation for a potential vaccine cannot be granted. So instead of 8 months to get a vaccine through trials and approved, it would've been 3yrs.
By the time the studies were done that showed ivm was remarkably effective (mid-2020), it was "too late" as the sunk cost fallacy applied to vaccine development.
Scandalous if actually true.
Govt and major vaccine companies having an implied understanding that if the biotech companies are going to go ahead, any therapy that may come along in the meantime will not be allowed. I would have thought the risk of this occurring should be the biotech's and their shareholders to bear.
Again....if true. -
I was quite ready to ignore this thread, but then thought why not take a look and challenge all that I know. A couple of questions jump out at me:
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
He says he, and many other Drs throughout the world have conducted randomized control trials on the use of ivm as both a prophylactic (preventative medicine - e.g. we'd all take a pill a week as of now) and an effective treatment for covid infections. He claims, among other things over 55 RCT studies administered to frontline covid health personnel with 800 subjects in one study. In the ivm administered group, no covid infections. In the control group 56 covid infections. For those with covid, a meta analysis (looking at many RCT's, very high on the evidence pyramid) he reports a 62% decrease in death (the UK could have gone from 138000 deaths to 40k with ivm in use).
so 62% decrease in deaths, if we'd all taken this right at the start. So lets be fair, thats not really likely. Assume it was ready to go at the end of wave one, and the infrastructure was there to get it into everybody, all are willing to take it & govt funding went into this instead of vaccine (is it realistic to think they'd fund both)? Latest estimate of vaccine saves is around 14k. So that means UK is 142k deaths with nothing, and hence your number is 40k + (142-40) * 0.38 = just under 80k. So 60k vs 14k with vaccine. Significant.
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Here's a study done with ivm and health care workers in India conducted in October November 2020:
Watching the video is not necessary but the Dr summarises the findings in the description in an easily readable way. 10 seconds of reading.
Basically:
3000+ subjects, all health care workers2384 took ivm, 1147 non takers
2 oral doses ivm 300ug(micrograms = 21 mg for a 70 kg person)/kg 72 hours apart. Apparently ivm costs $183 per kilogram = less than 1 cent per dose
Developed covid symptoms: 331 workers
6% ivm takers 131 workers
15% non takers 200 workersTested positive: PCR test 201 workers
Ivm 2%
Non takers 11.7%Was this done using official methods? Were each subject confined to exactly the same life and with the same demographics? I won't criticise you for being wary of MSM reporting, but standards apply to drug testing as well. An article I'll post below says it's untested. So perhaps it hasn't gone through the official channels for general population use. Remember it's all a game of probability. A virus which kills 1% and hospitalises 5% is much worse than a vaccine which kills 0.01% and hospitalises 0.1%. Where are the IVM stats on this?
Side effects: 1.8% reported adverse effects, mild and self limiting ( that means no medical intervention)
Conclusion
2 doses of ivm (300 ug/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophalyxis among health care workers reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.Earlier, at least 20 -25 HCWs were getting infected with virus daily. After the workers started taking ivm the infection rate is 1 or 2 per day.
No other factors have changed at all?
Worth noting ivm is recommended WITH and alongside a vaccine.
Nowhere have I found recommendations that ivm replaces a vaccine. It's a tool to help health effects of COVID-19
If the results above are spot on, why would you need a vaccine?
You'll note Ivermectin trials are now underway in Britain, sitting with Oxford scientists.
If it proves to be as effective as you research indicates, then it'll be fascinating to see the traction is gains as to whether or not this should have been the right process. The UK media may be a bunch of awful self serving fuckwits, but they do hold people to account & it's telling that there is very little available information on this.
-
@majorrage
If it DOES prove effective, and that is a massive if, it'll be absolutely fuckin scandalous if the general public cottons on to what Siam is implying may have happened.Personally, I agree with you for the moment, I'd want to see significant prove of efficacy b4 believing what Siam is implying.
-
I'm not sure that a clinical trial establishing a drug as effective to some degree in treating covid-19 would have much bearing on EUA status for vaccines. Firstly, it itself would only have EUA status, and there are already about 11 drugs that have been granted EUAs. Secondly, vaccines are in a different class, and there is no alternative to them in preventing infection by covid-19. I can't imagine taking everyone taking a prophylactic drug, no matter how effective, for extended periods. Indeed, the bar for comparable efficacy to vaccines in preventing death or hospitalisation is very high.
An analogy would be granting a new influenza vaccine an EUA when Tamiflu is already approved. I've seen a law professor (Jorge Contreras) make similar comments, but I don't have a good source I can find now.
Clinical trials generally fail, especially in large trials. Anti-virals have a history of being particularly difficult to develop (disrupting cellular processes or membranes is risky). There is a larger trial recruiting now (PRINCIPLE), but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
There was an interesting paper recently published on why many repurposed drugs, with in vitro antiviral activity, may have failed clinically.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/22/science.abi4708
-
@tewaio said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Based on what I've read/watched, it seems ivm was suppressed/ignored because if there is an effective COVID treatment, emergency use authorisation for a potential vaccine cannot be granted. So instead of 8 months to get a vaccine through trials and approved, it would've been 3yrs.
By the time the studies were done that showed ivm was remarkably effective (mid-2020), it was "too late" as the sunk cost fallacy applied to vaccine development.
Who does the authorising?
I.e., whose rules/laws are those?
-
@booboo pretty sure it comes down to each country to investigate/approve within their legal and health frameworks. So MedSafe in NZ, who have processes for pushing through emergency applications for use - pending whatever checks and balances are needed.
-
One thing I've struggled with is the ongoing debate around masks, which to me seemed like a fairly concept to grasp:
- If you are sick, wearing a mask is a good way to stop spreading it to others as a lot of your breath and/or coughing/sneezing is stopped by the mask.
- If you are not sick, they don't do a lot to stop you from catching the virus from other people, as if someone coughs on your mask it will stick to it and the virus will probably find its way through.
So good to wear if you are sick, not a lot of point if you are not sick. Have I missed something there? I think normalising the use of masks when you are sick is probably a good thing, pandemic or not, to stop bugs spreading through the population so easily.
-
@no-quarter the most obvious point to that is the idea of being asymptomatic, you might not know when you are sick
-
@kiwiwomble can we unpack that mate? There are a lot of variables in your most obvious point.
If it's clear then many people on here will know the answers, easily.
How infectious is an asymptomatic carrier?
Compared to a symptomatic carrier how infectious is the asymptomatic one?
Are the viral loads the same?
Where is the evidence that masks are effective?
The only randomized trial is the Danish one that i know of. You must know of others. The Danish trials dismissed cloth masks and had a higher but not statistically significant benefit for properly fitted high grade masks.
What materials should the mask be made of?
How should it be worn?
What are the studies that show covid is transmitted outdoors?
I only know of the US DARPA study of soldiers in enclosed settings showing transmission rates.I don't expect you to know the answers mate but at some point the people who told you your info must have referenced some science.
There are a lot of decisions being made with no science being cited.
What do you know about infections being spread by asymptomatic people and why do you believe what you know?
I haven't seen any trials about a vaccine tested for transmission. Have you?
To the original point, why mask when vaccinated? Why lock down when vaccinated?
I'm not badgering you mate, but your language suggests you know these things.
Is it that you've studied this or just repeating sound bites? By the way I'm just repeating too. But I'm repeating things i heard in long form from doctors.This thread is challenging the narrative. I'm challenging the narrative and I sense you know more than me. That should not be challenging to answer.
-
@tim said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Clinical trials generally fail, especially in large trials. Anti-virals have a history of being particularly difficult to develop (disrupting cellular processes or membranes is risky). There is a larger trial recruiting now (PRINCIPLE), but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
That's great news. Dr Kory has been banging on this for over 6 months, as of last week some action. Well done to the UK people involved. Kudos to them.
-
@majorrage said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
I was quite ready to ignore this thread, but then thought why not take a look and challenge all that I know. A couple of questions jump out at me:
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
He says he, and many other Drs throughout the world have conducted randomized control trials on the use of ivm as both a prophylactic (preventative medicine - e.g. we'd all take a pill a week as of now) and an effective treatment for covid infections. He claims, among other things over 55 RCT studies administered to frontline covid health personnel with 800 subjects in one study. In the ivm administered group, no covid infections. In the control group 56 covid infections. For those with covid, a meta analysis (looking at many RCT's, very high on the evidence pyramid) he reports a 62% decrease in death (the UK could have gone from 138000 deaths to 40k with ivm in use).
so 62% decrease in deaths, if we'd all taken this right at the start. So lets be fair, thats not really likely. Assume it was ready to go at the end of wave one, and the infrastructure was there to get it into everybody, all are willing to take it & govt funding went into this instead of vaccine (is it realistic to think they'd fund both)? Latest estimate of vaccine saves is around 14k. So that means UK is 142k deaths with nothing, and hence your number is 40k + (142-40) * 0.38 = just under 80k. So 60k vs 14k with vaccine. Significant.
@siam said in Alternative Covid - Challenging the Narrative:
Here's a study done with ivm and health care workers in India conducted in October November 2020:
Watching the video is not necessary but the Dr summarises the findings in the description in an easily readable way. 10 seconds of reading.
Basically:
3000+ subjects, all health care workers2384 took ivm, 1147 non takers
2 oral doses ivm 300ug(micrograms = 21 mg for a 70 kg person)/kg 72 hours apart. Apparently ivm costs $183 per kilogram = less than 1 cent per dose
Developed covid symptoms: 331 workers
6% ivm takers 131 workers
15% non takers 200 workersTested positive: PCR test 201 workers
Ivm 2%
Non takers 11.7%Was this done using official methods? Were each subject confined to exactly the same life and with the same demographics? I won't criticise you for being wary of MSM reporting, but standards apply to drug testing as well. An article I'll post below says it's untested. So perhaps it hasn't gone through the official channels for general population use. Remember it's all a game of probability. A virus which kills 1% and hospitalises 5% is much worse than a vaccine which kills 0.01% and hospitalises 0.1%. Where are the IVM stats on this?
Side effects: 1.8% reported adverse effects, mild and self limiting ( that means no medical intervention)
Conclusion
2 doses of ivm (300 ug/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophalyxis among health care workers reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.Earlier, at least 20 -25 HCWs were getting infected with virus daily. After the workers started taking ivm the infection rate is 1 or 2 per day.
No other factors have changed at all?
Worth noting ivm is recommended WITH and alongside a vaccine.
Nowhere have I found recommendations that ivm replaces a vaccine. It's a tool to help health effects of COVID-19
If the results above are spot on, why would you need a vaccine?
You'll note Ivermectin trials are now underway in Britain, sitting with Oxford scientists.
If it proves to be as effective as you research indicates, then it'll be fascinating to see the traction is gains as to whether or not this should have been the right process. The UK media may be a bunch of awful self serving fuckwits, but they do hold people to account & it's telling that there is very little available information on this.
Mate would like to reply in some depth, but...umm...arr...can you please tell me how to do the multi quote thing?😒
-
@siam I fucking hate masks. They are uncomfortable and feel dehumanising. And maybe there isn't enough studies around them being effective.
But I certainly haven't read anything that says they make things WORSE, and in reality, they really don't cause too much drama. I have no issue with being told to wear one when in close quarters with others - if it makes someone else feel safer, then whatever.
And personally, it keeps me from touching my own face which I'd typically do about 7,000 times per day without a mask on.
-
@voodoo I've read a bit where they make it harder to breathe, especially for old people. That's making things worse. Masks do dehumanise human interactions. That's making things worse. Old masks used everyday harbour other germs. That's making things worse. People being harassed and fined for a non proven garment. That's making things worse
My point mate is that government covid responses have been an affront and an assault on science and the scientific method. All it would take is a government spokesman or agency to explain the science of mask wearing, exactly like they did for seatbelts, bike helmets and cleanliness in restaurant kitchens, to name some comparable examples.
But they haven't.
As it stands, replace the word masks with rosary beads and look at your post.
I'm not having a go mate, but masks are a prime example of mixed messages from authorities. And with thousands of vaccinated people currently locked up in Australia, vaccines are another example of broken promises and substandard science communication.
I have absolutely no problem with masks ( or rosary beads) being voluntary. Fine when visiting hospitals and nursing homes too.
-
Ok. Stupid analogy time😀
Let's say covid strategies are like rugby tactics.
All our governments are playing Gatland style rugby.
(The current covid strategies - lockdowns, masks, vaccinations, etc)
We all know these strategies because we are living them and Gatling is trustworthy as a coach and his credentialsare perfectly proven and adequate.Well, here's Graham Henry, or better yet Wayne Smith. John Ioannidis is recognised as the world leader in epidemiology. Most cited, most published and a huge reputation and record. Like Henry and Smith.
Here are his thoughts on rugby tactics, I mean covid strategies.
Like Henry and Smith, this is the guy who should be running the show, not Scott Johnson, who is analogous to Ferguson and Hancock for example.
Challenging the narrative