Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

As I say there are no long term data on Invermectin but from the few uncontrolled trials to date the WHO, FDA, Union ministry of health and family welfare, Indian Council of Medical Research, European Medicine's Agency and the UK Medicines and Health Care Agency say it's been shown to be unsafe to use. 

GOA however has been using Invermectin for the treatment of Covid for everyone over 18yrs old has seen a surge in cases as has Peru.  Maybe it's not the Silver bullet. 

Each to their own if they want to risk it but as a gambling man I'll put my money on a vaccine that has had billions of dollars spent on it, millions of human lab rats being closely monitored and fully backed by science.  Even the so called new mrna vaccines have been used previously since 2011 in the treatment of cancers and to-date no serious adverse effects reported. 

Do not think anyone is claiming its a silver bullet Snowy, how ever there has been some interesting studies done on low 2 day doses.  Doc Campbell points out some very interesting points, note he does not recommend it just gives results of various studies. Without doubt many medical professionals do recommend its use. Not Big Pharma of course.

Kinda interesting how main stream medical experts have not commented on same. Slightly different point I was sent a video this am by Doc Jane Ruby Re Myocarditis......again found it interesting. I like to think I am open minded certainly not a Conspiracy theorist.

I do believe Big Pharma  have vested interests and from my own experience Re Cholesterol and research I  have proven this....Another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RBM said:

Do not think anyone is claiming its a silver bullet Snowy, how ever there has been some interesting studies done on low 2 day doses.  Doc Campbell points out some very interesting points, note he does not recommend it just gives results of various studies. Without doubt many medical professionals do recommend its use. Not Big Pharma of course.

Kinda interesting how main stream medical experts have not commented on same. Slightly different point I was sent a video this am by Doc Jane Ruby Re Myocarditis......again found it interesting. I like to think I am open minded certainly not a Conspiracy theorist.

I do believe Big Pharma  have vested interests and from my own experience Re Cholesterol and research I  have proven this....Another story.

I follow most publications on things that come from the experts but do rely on other experts to guide me. Big pharma does have the benefit of finances, expensive test equipment, laboratories and access to thousands of volunteers though. 

Unfortuntely most of the sceptics tend to have doctors practices or knows a friend who knows a friend who was treating his patients with X and none died. They then list the way they carried out the trials again usually open to ripping apart by their peers .

The initial trials I read about that were carried out by the so called big pharma companies pretty much said that in vitro it showed promise to reduce mild covid but to kill it would require a dose that is lethal to humans. They also highlighted in preliminary trials on severe covid it showed no benefits and could even make the condition worse. Added to this no long term use of Invermectin has been carried out due to it accumulating in the body which can cause serious reactions and that they decided as the vaccines have already passed stringent tests and have been proven to be highly successful why waste further time on it and also introduce another cure that could have long term negative effects?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydroxy Chloroquin is now an [edit] no longer approved Wuhan Flu treatment. I remember back when the powers that be said it didn't work. However;

Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients ...

"Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1% in the entire cohort, 13.5% in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1% among those receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 22.4% among the...
Edited by robert k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Support
6 minutes ago, robert k said:

Hydroxy Chloroquin is now an approved Wuhan Flu treatment. I remember back when the powers that be said it didn't work.

Source?  Which countries?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, robert k said:

Hydroxy Chloroquin is now an [edit] no longer approved Wuhan Flu treatment. I remember back when the powers that be said it didn't work. However;

Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients ...

"Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1% in the entire cohort, 13.5% in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1% among those receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 22.4% among the...

A good example of how some people can over look certain parts of a report depending on whether they are for or against a form of treatment. A quick read of the report made this paragraph stick out to me:   

It's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald President touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects. 

Or the link to another study using 4 times as many patients saying it's no benefit. 

The UK trial, run by the University of Oxford, enrolled more than 11,000 patients.

"We have concluded that there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19," the Oxford doctors concluded. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

A good example of how some people can over look certain parts of a report depending on whether they are for or against a form of treatment. A quick read of the report made this paragraph stick out to me.

It looks like you did not follow your own advice because a quick read of the report YOU quoted made this paragraph stick out to me...

"The RECOVERY Trial is a large, randomised controlled trial of possible treatments for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Over 11,000 patients have been randomised to the following treatment arms, or no additional treatment".

It is already known for months that Hydroxy Chloroquin and Ivermectin are mostly effective in the early stage of covid infection, once hospitalized it is too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Explorer said:

It looks like you did not follow your own advice because a quick read of the report YOU quoted made this paragraph stick out to me...

"The RECOVERY Trial is a large, randomised controlled trial of possible treatments for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Over 11,000 patients have been randomised to the following treatment arms, or no additional treatment".

It is already known for months that Hydroxy Chloroquin and Ivermectin are mostly effective in the early stage of covid infection, once hospitalized it is too late.

The other two paragraphs stated why randomised is better : Researchers not involved with the study were critical. They noted that the Henry Ford team did not randomly treat patients but selected them for various treatments based on certain criteria. 

 Considered the gold standard in medicine, patients in a clinical trial are randomly assigned to take either the drug or a placebo, which is a treatment that does nothing. Doctors then follow the patients to see how they fare.

I'm reading this as the Gold Standard is randomised controlled as carried out by the UK trial as opposed to selected in the US trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...