re: Glenna Dickinson, 65 home and off the Vent after Judge orders Ivermectin must be allowed.

There was a long list of Walgreens for me to choose from, I just picked the closest one.

This was called in 8/29, picked it up yesterday after testing positive.


Yesterday.

quote:

---

You are referring to FACT, not conclusion.

CV19 incidence and mortality rates are significantly lower among APOC countries vs non-APOC countries. PERIOD. It is a fact. There is nothing "muddy" about it.

Now one can draw conclusions from that as one sees fit. But one as of yet nondisproved hypothesis revolves around an ivermectin thesis.

---

The only reason to mention these observational studies in this thread is to give credence to the idea ivermectin is significantly a part of the difference. Without more rigorous studies it means nothing considering the huge number of confounding factors.

Pretrial positivity is something that causes researchers to make improper conclusions and it is far worse for the general public in that regard.

HCQ and/or ivermectin may indeed help but they have already been shown in practice to not be a silver bullet period.

quote:

---

I'm not against a drug at all. I'm merely saying it's a physician's decision on whether to prescribe. The fact that most don't is not evidence of any conspiracy.

---

Here is what I know:

Ivermectin was distributed in the slums of Brazil.

Those that received it were typically not getting Covid, even though their neighbors and friends, that used the same facilities, transit, markets, etc., were being hammered.

The WHO suggested redirecting funding from distributing Ivermectin to “combat“ Covid.

The cases of Covid began to climb exponentially.

The WHO said their decision had nothing to do with this spike and called the Ivermectin info anecdotal and dismissed any possible link to lower caseloads to its usage (ambulatory or prophylactic care).

The NIH plans a study. Unfortunately, DURING A PANDEMIC, they weren’t able to find any patients. As such, the study was pulled.

Central Africa seems relatively unbothered by Covid as compared to the rest of the world. This observation is totally ignored.

An Aussie team does a study, published it, gets shot for it, is discredited, pulls the study, then gets a shite ton of funding for other studies by the WHO set al. (because obviously shifty researchers deserved to be given money for stuff other than Covid research).

The NIH finally does a study. Shockingly, very sick people given Ivermectin still somehow died. They then tell doctors that they cannot use Ivermectin to treat Covid until more studies are done.

India gets hit with Covid (Delta). The areas using Ivermectin with doxycycline as a prophylactic seem spared of the worst cases of Covid. These observations are shite on because it was India.

The spike declines, and the comparable data is easy to see.

The WHO steps in and tells India to stop using Ivermectin to treat any future Covid outbreaks.

The NIH finally allows Covid for treatment. Their change in protocol was on page 17 of a report (basically buried). Most doctors seem unaware of the change in treatment protocol now available to them. As such, using “horse paste” is not a realistic option for many.

People use Ivermectin bought at tractor supply etc.

Poison control receives a bunch of calls (much like VAERS...something that is unsubstantiated and can easily manipulated).

The MSM and social media go full on a full court press to dismiss the drug.

Here we are, having people shite on any possible link to a positive outcome.




Again, I’m not saying that the drug is effective.
The anecdotal observations seem to give the drug some semblance of effectiveness as a prophylactic or when administered early on.

What I’m saying is that it makes no sense not to use it for ambulatory care...even if it is only as a placebo.

“Conspiracy theory“ or not, what I laid out above seems odd to me.

Lastly, I am not anti-vaxx. I would strongly suggest that if you are 60 or older, and / or have health issues, and have not previously had Covid, then you should be getting vaccinated. Everybody else should make a decision based on their own circumstances.

Just my .02.


TLDR

Doctors are basically going by what the NIH put forth first...don’t use Ivermectin to treat Covid. I would argue that most are unaware that the NIH has changed their stance.

No, they did. In fact, they wanted me to pay OOP $124 because "UHC won't cover this med for COVID"

UHC called them and I paid $15.

Interesting. There are a lot of people being turned away by them.

quote:

---

HCQ and/or ivermectin may indeed help but they have already been shown in practice to not be a silver bullet period.

---

Sounds like the "vaccine".

Riiiight . My brother was vaccinated and I fighting for his life on vent. So frick off with that narrative

quote:

---

The only reason to mention these observational studies in this thread is to give credence to the idea ivermectin is significantly a part of the difference.

---

Negative!
The reason to mention it is to lay out rationale for its consideration. There remains insufficient evidence for national recommendation either for or against the use of ivermectin for CV19 treatment.

Put another way. Ivermectin may help. It is cheap. It is safe (as long as rabid Covidians do not prevent folks from accessing the prescription form). Even if it's no more effective than a sugar pill, there is no harm no foul .... unless we have humans going to feed-and-grain stores to get an animal formulation because prescriptions aren't being filled.

If we’re vaccinating pets, where is the problem in humans taking small doses of medicine that is normally used for animals?