- 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: New study proves ivermectin works
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:22 am to TOSOV
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:22 am to TOSOV
quote:
Does it say how it works? Maybe a little illustration like the jap-flu killer?
The papers I have read say the main mechanism is blocking the corona virus from binding to the cell membrane. I've come across some other papers that show intracellular mechanisms for ivermectin but I do not recall exactly what those mechanisms were, however they are metabolic in nature and basically interrupts viral replication.
But here is the downside for ivermectin. It is more successful for prevention and early treatment. I can't stress this enough.
If COVID is allowed to get to the point that you have to go to the hospital the disease is a different beast all together. Once in the hospital you are not only trying to deal with COVID but you are likely fighting a bacterial infection too, pneumonia. Ivermectin will not help in this case.
Now, ivermectin helps but you have to understand its limitations. It should be one of the tools in the early treatment toolbox:
When you first test positive:
Ivermectin
HCQ
Famotidine
Monoclonals
If no improvement after Monoclonals (which is rare), add:
Spironolactone
Dutasteride
Fluvoxamine
Consider:
Corticosteroids and/or Colchicine
This is the FLCCC prevention and early treatment plan and I followed it for my wife who is 55 and dad who is 79 and they crushed COVID. I've been taking black cumin seed as they recommend and it seemed to work for me because I was surrounded by delta and did not test positive once. But I probably have antibodies from alpha from the year prior.
The medical establishment totally ignores early treatment so it really makes it difficult on people without resources to follow this or any early treatment plan. It really is criminal.
1
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:22 am to BamaAtl
quote:
This is not a reliable study and it only proves that it's not hard to manipulate numbers if you're committed to it and unconcerned with ethics, as these researchers were.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:25 am to CasualBystander
quote:
FLCCC is the Frontline Doctors, a group that has spread some ridiculous ideas.
Such as....
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:28 am to BamaAtl
quote:
This is not a reliable study and it only proves that it's not hard to manipulate numbers if you're committed to it and unconcerned with ethics, as these researchers were.
You don’t know anything about anything.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:29 am to smh4wg
One of the doctors speaking at Senator Ron Johnson's COVID19 event claims that ivermectin has reduced severe infection and hospitalization by over 50% in high risk patients.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:29 am to CasualBystander
quote:
My bias is to peer review. Legitimate journals rely on credibility.
Your head is up your arse for two years?
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:30 am to Revelator
quote:
My pastor’s wife got covid this week, and her doctor prescribed Ivermectin to her.
She couldn’t find a pharmacy that issued it and called my wife, a pharmacy tech, for help.
The wife found her a compound pharmacy named Floyd’s in Ponchatoula that made it, so she went there to get it.
It’s criminal that so many pharmacies won’t sell it.
Yea but you can literally go get it at tractor supply, same exact thing. Just know dosage
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:33 am to the808bass
quote:
the808bass
We both know this study is a joke and wouldn't be published by an actual journal without dozens if not hundreds of corrections.
If it's a good-faith attempt at research they're very poor researchers. Most likely it's a paid piece for the manufacturer of ivermectin. They don't even do a good job faking the statistics.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:34 am to CasualBystander
quote:
legitimate
Legitimate by whose definition? Mainstream science and the peer review process is magnificently corrupted by politicians and their grant money. NASA, IPCC, Novartis, MD Anderson, Harvard and countless university researchers have been caught manipulating data. There was even a whistle blower at Pfizer who alleged data integrity issues surrounding the mRNA vaccine. That should surprise no one since the vaccine never came close to living up to its clinical trial results.
This isn't even argued anymore.
If this study gets retracted, then come here and beat your little chest, but until then - dont shoot the messenger under the premise that other messengers arent just as shitty. They absolutely are.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:35 am to BamaAtl
quote:
We both know
You dont know shite. No one you take seriously regarding COVID19 has been right about anything.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:36 am to deathvalleytiger10
Not a comprehensive list of false claims, but a good start.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 1/25/22 at 9:38 am
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:37 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Vacherie Saint
I'm sorry that you feel you have to so publicly announce that you think this joke study is accurate.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:39 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Most likely it's a paid piece for the manufacturer of ivermectin.
Which one of 102 manufacturers do you think is paying?
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:45 am to the808bass
Maybe he means Merk? Who has moved on with an all knew patented COVID19 treatment that the federal government has ordered 1.2 BILLION dollars worth of already?
Yeah, I'm sure they are chomping at the bit to validate a generic they developed back in the 80's.
No one has a financial interest in falsely promoting the efficacy of this drug. Its the exact opposite.
Yeah, I'm sure they are chomping at the bit to validate a generic they developed back in the 80's.
No one has a financial interest in falsely promoting the efficacy of this drug. Its the exact opposite.
This post was edited on 1/25/22 at 9:46 am
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:45 am to CasualBystander
quote:
Not a comprehensive list of false claims, but a good start.
Did you even read that tripe you linked?
A dentist who supported the Frontline Physicians is a liar. That’s what you linked.
Then they went on to talk about how dangerous it was to reopen schools. What year is it?
You’re not ready for this board.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:47 am to Vacherie Saint
Wow. This is a discussion board. I wasn't beating my chest and did not even dismiss the study. I literally said: "Until then, file it away as interesting but not definitive."
I am opposed to vaccine mandates. I have little faith in public health. I think many on the left are perpetuating hysteria that is dangerous, and ideological misinformation is a problem from both sides.
My only point is this: do not accept as definitive a single study from a less-than-authoritative source. Hell, question a single study from an authoritative source.
I am opposed to vaccine mandates. I have little faith in public health. I think many on the left are perpetuating hysteria that is dangerous, and ideological misinformation is a problem from both sides.
My only point is this: do not accept as definitive a single study from a less-than-authoritative source. Hell, question a single study from an authoritative source.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:48 am to TigerStripes30
Think we should start a campaign to do just that and call it 1.6 Act of 2022
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:52 am to lsuoilengr
All while Fauci’s science comes from the vaccine makers and the “data” received from hospitals…
Hospitals that were given no standards to follow when reporting so it’s all Willy Nilly
Hospitals that were given no standards to follow when reporting so it’s all Willy Nilly
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:52 am to BamaAtl
quote:
We both know this study is a joke and wouldn't be published by an actual journal without dozens if not hundreds of corrections.
If it's a good-faith attempt at research they're very poor researchers. Most likely it's a paid piece for the manufacturer of ivermectin. They don't even do a good job faking the statistics.
Apart from an understandable skepticism of the group behind this study and a lack of true peer review, are there specific criticisms of the data and the study design you can point out that lead to the conclusions you are drawing? I agree that I would not accept their assertions uncritically, but I also would not automatically dismiss them out of hand without specific evidence of the unreliability of their findings. The fact that a group gets out ahead of the data does not forever preclude them from producing reasonable evidence. Again, it’s reason to view their findings with skepticism, but I would like to see counterarguments that are stronger than simply dismissing them out of hand.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 9:54 am to CasualBystander
My issue with you is, you wont acknowledge that your declaration of "what's an authoritative source" is based on a legacy that's been completely corrupted. Those sources are just as problematic as the ones you disagree with.
You link a hit piece on frontline doctors as if there arent articles EVERYWHERE about fraud and data manipulation from our most revered institutions. Your precious Lancet even published a paper about rampant data manipulation and grant chasing in science.
Believe whatever you want to believe and guzzle down whatever drugs you want to guzzle down. I can assure you, IDGAF. But dont come here and sneer at science you dont agree with as if there's such a thing as uncorrupted science.
You link a hit piece on frontline doctors as if there arent articles EVERYWHERE about fraud and data manipulation from our most revered institutions. Your precious Lancet even published a paper about rampant data manipulation and grant chasing in science.
Believe whatever you want to believe and guzzle down whatever drugs you want to guzzle down. I can assure you, IDGAF. But dont come here and sneer at science you dont agree with as if there's such a thing as uncorrupted science.
Page 3 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News