Free Man Wrote:
> This thread is full of misinformation, and should
> be deleted.
Or we can discuss it and maybe someone will learn something.
> So some people use the wrong dose and you conclude
> Ivermectin is stupid?
No, it's stupid to use a medication, in a dosage, that has not been prescribed for you and your current condition by a qualified physician.
> And that it is only for
> animals? It has been used for decades in Africa
> for river blindness and other diseases in humans
> and is extremely safe at the right dose.
If you're obtaining the medicine from a vet and intend to use it on a human then yes, I'd say that source and supply and dosage are intended only for non-human animals.
It is used for certain conditions in humans when (1) diagnosed by a qualified physician who has examined and diagnosed the specific patient; (2) the Rx is prescribed by said physician; (3) the dosage is calculated by the physician; and (4) the medicine is dispensed for that particular patient by a qualified pharmacist.
That is how you safely consume medications.
It is never NEVER recommended that (1) people diagnose themselves; (2) people choose their own Rx; (3) people consume medications that have not been prescribed specifically for them by a treating physician (who has seen and examined them specifically).
> It is also assumed here that because it is used
> against parasites, it can have no other purposes.
Who has claimed this?
> Google ivermectin antiviral effects and do some
Yes, always good to do some reading. However, the science and process of testing substances for use in human medicine, interpreting results and making treatment recommendations, or not, are complex. There is a reason that those who are involved in medical research are highly trained, well qualified and experienced individuals.
Too, in the reading, it's crucial to ensure you know (1) the source of the information and (2) the credentials of the authors, researchers and other contributors.
> It is also assumed because it is not FDA approved,
> it shouldn't be used.
What Lot's Wife said.
People can't have it both ways.
The vaccinations in use against COVID-19 have FDA EUA status. We also have a great deal of experience world-wide in their use and beneficial effects. Still, people with no particular qualifications in the relevant areas refuse a proven treatment against a deadly virus. Sure, that's their choice. Except for the fact that they can transmit the virus to others, thereby negatively impacting the health of others, even unto death in many cases. That is the part all too many don't seem to realize or else don't care. What does the latter say about them?
> 20% of prescriptions are
> for off-label uses. That is why doctors go to
Yes, scientists, researchers, virologists, bacteriologists and physicians of all stripes DO go to school. The non-medic-person on-the-street does NOT (in these specialist fields). That is why it's ridiculous for people to shun a recommended medical treatment but yet choose to use, and recommend, a non-proven, potentially harmful remedy based not from a place of personal knowledge but from a place of ignorance.
What other illness and/or medication has ever caused such mass uprising against science and medicine (at least, in our lifetimes)?
> There is a total emphasis on vaccines and
> suppression of any talk of early treatment.
You missed a word: There is emphasis on LIFESAVING vaccines.
I don't understand what you're referring to by the phrase "talk of early treatment"???
> I guess I just don't worship church or government
> or the media like I used to.
Are you sure about that? Who are you 'worshipping' by siding with all the non-trained naysaying anti-vaxxer types who will disdain a tested and proven medical treatment for a disease yet tout the untested and frankly dangerous merits of a substance not only not recommended by the science/medical experts but actively not recommended by them?
Here's an article about using ivermectin (unproven to date) in the "treatment" (self-prescribed) of COVID-19:
Article: Ivermectin: why a potential COVID treatment isn’t recommended for use
by Gordon Dent, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacology, Keele University (UK)
April 19, 2021 10.12am EDThttps://theconversation.com/ivermectin-why-a-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-for-use-157904
“The European Medicines Agency and the United States National Institutes of Health have recently stated that one previously promising treatment – the antiparasitic drug, ivermectin – is not recommended for use in routine management of COVID-19 patients.
“Despite these decisions, support for ivermectin has been circulating on social media and in WhatsApp groups, with rumours abounding that the drug is being blocked on purpose. Some have dubbed it the “new hydroxycholoroquine”, after a treatment that received a significant amount of online support but was found in trials to be ineffective against COVID-19.
“In humans, ivermectin is currently prescribed in tablet form to treat certain roundworm infections that cause illnesses such as river blindness. It may also be applied as a cream to control the common inflammatory skin condition papulopustular rosacea.
“But ivermectin is most commonly used for veterinary parasitic diseases, especially gastrointestinal worm infestations.
“A controversy subsequently blew up over an article by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group of doctors and researchers that lobbies for the use of ivermectin.
“This article, summarising multiple small studies of the effects of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients, was provisionally accepted for publication in the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology in January 2021 but then rejected and removed from the journal’s website in March. The journal’s editor stated that the standard of evidence in the paper was insufficient and that the authors were inappropriately promoting their own ivermectin-based treatment.
“One larger randomised clinical trial was published in March 2021. This showed no effect of ivermectin on duration of symptoms of adults with mild COVID-19. The authors stated that the findings did not support the use of ivermectin in these patients, but again highlighted that larger trials were needed to determine whether the drug had other benefits.
“While some other studies did appear to show benefits of ivermectin, many did not. These were summarised by the National Institutes of Health, showing severe limitations arising from small sample sizes and problems with study design.
“Both the National Institutes of Health and the European Medicines Agency judged, on the basis of these studies, that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19.
“More studies are underway. A large, multicentre trial began in February to determine the effectiveness of ivermectin as well as metformin (an anti-diabetes medication) and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) in preventing COVID-19 disease progression.
“It would therefore be premature to conclude absolutely that ivermectin has no place in COVID-19 treatment. On the basis of current evidence, however, its use cannot be recommended.”
"On the basis of current evidence..."
"Its use cannot be recommended."