- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Facts about Ivermectin from an ICU Nurse
Posted on 8/14/21 at 9:44 pm to bamadontcare
Posted on 8/14/21 at 9:44 pm to bamadontcare
quote:
Ivermectin, HCQ and Zinc plus D3 are knocking Covid on its arse.
Covid is a mild disease for the majority of patients. This makes it hard to determine if treatments are helping.
I’m open to all of these therapies and I would probably use them myself because there aren’t really any side effects.
But to say there is definitive evidence that they are working and at the same time say the vaccine isn’t working? That’s just patently false
3
Posted on 8/14/21 at 9:46 pm to 2Yutes
quote:
What is the difference between the ivermectin doctors prescribe & the ivermectin paste sold for horses at the feed stores?
Probably not much.
But I'm thinking it's more prudent to take it under a doctor's supervision, especially if one has a tendency to screw up things up on their own.
This post was edited on 8/14/21 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 8/14/21 at 9:52 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
May introduces Ivermectin to the "mix".
Thanks for the link
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:03 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
But to say there is definitive evidence that they are working and at the same time say the vaccine isn’t working? That’s just patently false
Ok. Great. The vaccine is kicking arse. We both know
that’s not true but let’s pretend that there is no vaccine.
Why wouldn’t every DR be investigating these drugs?
They are both on the FCA safest Drugs list and they
work against Covid.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:03 pm to bayoumuscle21
quote:
The infusion was what seemed to be the best thing for everyone.
Yes. Ivermectin and HCQ work best early on. Many are already very symptomatic. I have they immediately start the oral agents and send them straight to one day for the infusion. Have seen numerous people that I thought would be goners. One called me two days later and asked me what the hell was in it cause he felt better than he had in years. 78 yo with moderate to severe COPD, HTN and CAD. Said he was bringing me a case of the really good whiskey he brought me when my dad passed. And asked if I needed any help splitting firewood.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:04 pm to bamadontcare
quote:
Tell me why you aren’t prescribing these safe meds?
Did a bit for a while. Didn’t see a difference in outcomes. Our group lost one this week that had gotten all of them. I’m not totally opposed to them. I haven’t been impressed based on personal experience, unfortunately. I wish I knew a cocktail that kept the sick ones out of the hospital and got them better. I’m using a lot of the mAb lately. Partners seem more impressed with them (lots of “I was better the next day” stories from them). I haven’t really seen those. I think they are probably beneficial. But I still see folks get them and get sick enough to go in. I still see people who qualify for them refuse them and do fine. I also think we, in general, have a relatively poor ability to predict who specifically is going to get really sick- there are BMI 40+ diabetic octagenarians that don’t get that sick, and there’s 50-somethings that are healthy and only show up for wellness that have 2 and 4 week stints of requiring oxygen. I don’t know anyone who is able to really predict who’s going to do poorly, and we (my group) haven’t found a real good “preventative” measure despite having tried many.
quote:
Is it a personal thing or are you getting instructions not to prescribe this treatment?
We don’t really “get instructions,” generally speaking. About the only unusual thing I’ve seen that carried any sort of “warning” was the LSBME warned against the use of steroids without a known steroid-responsive condition (like COPD with active exacerbation) or hypoxemia, generally in the hospitalized. They, and no other governing bodies that I’ve seen, have recommended for or against the use of it. Colchicine is another old, albeit not exactly cheap, medication that has some data supporting its use early on, though preliminary data suggests it increases the risk of clotting.
Most people who practice like to rely on data and experience. Most data and experience for viral illnesses is that the list of supportive measures is generally quite long but and usually points to something near futility.
Some worry about liability. Off-label therapies aren’t so scary, but when they’re in active clinical trials that you aren’t participating in, some folks feel uncomfortable doing what more or less looks like experimental care and defending that in the event of a bad outcome, however unlikely that may be.
Another thing is just the amount of bias in research in general. Neutral and negative studies don’t often get funded or published. Fudging numbers for positive outcomes happens and does get published. Sometimes you pour through data and try to figure out how to apply it to your patient population. Sometimes when you do that, you find the control group event rates are way higher or lower than what they are in other trials for similar things, so you question if the group in the study is really anything like your patients.
quote:
As a layman it sounds insane to me. ?
Sort of as above, there’s a lot more to it than, “oh, yeah. It works. You should do it.” If it were that simple, it would be done. The Rivers Trial is an example of something that had very widespread popularity and later went on to be somewhere between heavily-doctored and intentionally fabricated. Just because a medication is old and cheap doesn’t mean whoever is pushing the published data isn’t trying to sell you something. Just about no one writes to publish without expecting money or fame in return.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:05 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
That’s a study of one nursing home.
I posted one link, wow.. you are sharp
So when I ask why we aren’t seeing nursing homes get wrecked like they were before we had vaccines… your hypothesis is that everyone in nursing homes has already been infected?
You are paraphrasing, but to challenge the known effects of the communal high risk setting of NH/LTC in regards to IR/IFR and it's effects as a catalyst to spread rates tells me you should be reading & not posting in this thread.
How is it that the least mobile, most isolated segment of our population reached herd immunity before 20 and 30 year olds who have been partying the entire pandemic?
You've answered your own question, but since you seem contrarian if not slow...
see above/common sense/medical journals/clinical studies/empirical data
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:05 pm to bamadontcare
quote:
We both know
that’s not true but let’s pretend that there is no vaccine.
No one can explain to me why the nursing homes still aren’t getting crushed.
quote:
Why wouldn’t every DR be investigating these drugs? They are both on the FCA safest Drugs list and they work against Covid.
I agree there need to be more studies. I think there is an early outpatient ivermectin study going on in the UK right now.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:07 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
He’s not full of shite. He’s just trusting his own anecdotal experience over the cumulative data.
I’m a little skeptical of the data but it would have to be so extremely falsified for the vaccines not to work that I just don’t think that big of a conspiracy is possible.
If you guys didn't just ignore all the EXTREMELY contradictory data coming from overseas we would believe you to.
But you just talk over said reports and kept touting obvious lies, like the 98% bull shite.
That's why people with common sense question you.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:11 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
You are paraphrasing, but to challenge the known effects of the communal high risk setting of NH/LTC in regards to IR/IFR and it's effects as a catalyst to spread rates tells me you should be reading & not posting in this thread.
That’s nonsense.
We knew from early on that nursing homes were high risk. In most places other than New York they were locked down, constantly tested, etc.
You can’t tell me you honestly believe the nursing home community is at herd immunity and that’s why they aren’t getting hit hard by delta
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:13 pm to bamadontcare
quote:
Ok. Great. The vaccine is kicking arse. We both know
that’s not true but let’s pretend that there is no vaccine.
Why wouldn’t every DR be investigating these drugs?
They are both on the FCA safest Drugs list and they
work against Covid.
For the most part, doctors are the teachers pet, hall monitor types. They want to please and be favored by those in charge. They are scared of being labeled kooks or quacks by those in academia. I don't give a single shite. I'll put my academic credentials and board scores up against anyone. But I also have real world clinical knowledge and am a critical thinker. I don't just believe shite because I'm told to. And when shite don't jive with what I'm seeing, I ask questions. When I get bullshite answers or no answers, I know the source is full of shite. The CDC and WHO has, and always will be, full of shite. They do some good work, but when they set a narrative they stick to it despite overwhelming evidence against it.
The drugs are relatively benign. The shot is not. The medicines work when used appropriately and with the vitamins. I also hit them with steroids. The biggest issue is the inflammation. I think approaching it more as an auto-immune disease works much better than not doing shite.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:13 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Covid is a mild disease for the majority of patients. This makes it hard to determine if treatments are helping.
That’s the real problem here. The argument of early treatment to prevent worsening in an illness that is often mild makes it quite difficult to tease out what is actually working when
1) identifying who will really get ill is very difficult
2) most of the data is super prone to bias in many different forms
On top of that, the illness can be very severe in some instances, and predicting that can be tough. So doing nothing isn’t really a great option, either.
Here’s one attempt to identify who’s going to get sick.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:13 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:
ignore all the EXTREMELY contradictory data coming from overseas
What data?
quote:
like the 98% bull shite.
I’ve never once endorsed that number. I question the accuracy of that but there has clearly been a change with this wave and people who are vaccinated who usually have the highest risks are not dying like the previous waves.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:14 pm to RiverCityTider
for the doc rumble.our first hand ICU story
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:17 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
You can’t tell me you honestly believe the nursing home community is at herd immunity and that’s why they aren’t getting hit hard by delta
I checked all of ours for antibodies. 75 out of 85. 10 I have no idea about. Not involved in their care in anyway. No infections in months. Got hit last May/June/July. Used HCQ, zinc, z-pack etc had four die with COVID not of COVID. Hospice patients that had no symptoms, just swabbed positive. One that died 8 weeks later of MI declared COVID related. So yes, I think many nursing homes have herd immunity.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:17 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
Did a bit for a while. Didn’t see a difference in outcomes. Our group lost one this week that had gotten all of them. I’m not totally opposed to them. I haven’t been impressed based on personal experience, unfortunately. I wish I knew a cocktail that kept the sick ones out of the hospital and got them better. I’m using a lot of the mAb lately. Partners seem more impressed with them (lots of “I was better the next day” stories from them). I haven’t really seen those. I think they are probably beneficial. But I still see folks get them and get sick enough to go in. I still see people who qualify for them refuse them and do fine. I also think we, in general, have a relatively poor ability to predict who specifically is going to get really sick- there are BMI 40+ diabetic octagenarians that don’t get that sick, and there’s 50-somethings that are healthy and only show up for wellness that have 2 and 4 week stints of requiring oxygen. I don’t know anyone who is able to really predict who’s going to do poorly, and we (my group) haven’t found a real good “preventative” measure despite having tried many. quote: Is it a personal thing or are you getting instructions not to prescribe this treatment? We don’t really “get instructions,” generally speaking. About the only unusual thing I’ve seen that carried any sort of “warning” was the LSBME warned against the use of steroids without a known steroid-responsive condition (like COPD with active exacerbation) or hypoxemia, generally in the hospitalized. They, and no other governing bodies that I’ve seen, have recommended for or against the use of it. Colchicine is another old, albeit not exactly cheap, medication that has some data supporting its use early on, though preliminary data suggests it increases the risk of clotting. Most people who practice like to rely on data and experience. Most data and experience for viral illnesses is that the list of supportive measures is generally quite long but and usually points to something near futility. Some worry about liability. Off-label therapies aren’t so scary, but when they’re in active clinical trials that you aren’t participating in, some folks feel uncomfortable doing what more or less looks like experimental care and defending that in the event of a bad outcome, however unlikely that may be. Another thing is just the amount of bias in research in general. Neutral and negative studies don’t often get funded or published. Fudging numbers for positive outcomes happens and does get published. Sometimes you pour through data and try to figure out how to apply it to your patient population. Sometimes when you do that, you find the control group event rates are way higher or lower than what they are in other trials for similar things, so you question if the group in the study is really anything like your patients. quote: As a layman it sounds insane to me. ? Sort of as above, there’s a lot more to it than, “oh, yeah. It works. You should do it.” If it were that simple, it would be done. The Rivers Trial is an example of something that had very widespread popularity and later went on to be somewhere between heavily-doctored and intentionally fabricated. Just because a medication is old and cheap doesn’t mean whoever is pushing the published data isn’t trying to sell you something. Just about no one writes to publish without expecting money or fame in retu
I appreciate your response.
I have to wonder what the Nationwide response would be if every
citizen had access to HCQ Iveremectin and Zinc.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:20 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I think there is an early outpatient ivermectin study going on in the UK right now.
I’m going to make a prediction. It will either have the plug pulled prior to completion, be rescinded and / of retracted once complete, be dismissed for some reason or another, or simply be buried and not reported on.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:20 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
e the highest risks are not dying like the previous waves.
Ummm....cause they already died.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:20 pm to bamadontcare
quote:
The vaccine is kicking arse.
At keeping people alive out of the hospital and not getting seriously sick it absolutely is.
Posted on 8/14/21 at 10:26 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
What data?
Point made;
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News