An even better option would be to have your loved one beaten on the head repeatedly with a dead salmon. The reason being that, unless I am mistaken, no one has yet subjected this treatment to scientific testing, and therefore there is least the possibility it could be effective. Whereas the other options you mention, as well as ivermectin, have been shown to be ineffective.
3 Likes
Did you know this was the first skit in the first episode of Monty Pythonâs Flying Circus? What a classic!
2 Likes
That is a highly problematic statement. The FDA may be slow and bureaucratic, but the people running it are highly competent, your opinion not withstanding.
Was it ethical to lockdown whole populations for a virus, SARS2 âŠ
Yes it was, in a Trolley Problem sort of way. Your shift to Whataboutism suggests you are more interested in arguing that in understanding. I was trying to help, but I canât make you understand.
2 Likes
Sure, just like if she really begged me to say a prayer for her I would bow my head and say some things that gave the impression I was praying. Doesnât mean it would do any good, but dying people deserve some leeway.
If she was a patient under my care, though, I woudnât do it. I would still be bound by my professional obligation to only administer treatments that I have reason to believe may be safe and effective.
3 Likes
Many competent medical doctors claim they had reason to believe that IVM would be safe and effective for their Covid19 patients. Yet this has not prevented them from being denied the right to prescribe it, thus blithely trampling on medical freedom.
On that basis, why not m&mâs?
Faced with such severe loss, anyone may become rationally unteathered. That really has no place in a discussion of the mechanism of action or effectiveness of Ivermectin generally.
4 Likes
Is the FDA devoid of conflicts of interest with the Pharma industry, knowing that the latter finances about 75 percent of the agencyâs drug division? Are FDA officials saints, are they so different in nature from all other human beings that they are immune to the corrupting effect of conflicts of interest?
The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration disagree with you. Health officials in Sweden too.
The same for me, with the same result, unfortunately.
Now you are just crank-ing. A fringe economics think-tank offering impractical suggestions is not any sort of medical authority.
Annars kan du alltid flytta till Sverige.
4 Likes
No, sorry mate. But you canât compare the IFR of SARS-Cov2 now when most people have either been vaccinated or already exposed and recovered multiple times, to the IFR of SARS-Cov2 when it first emerged and nobody had previous exposure.
The fact is we werenât seeing hospital intensive care wards overflowing with extremely sick and dying elderly people from flu-infections in the same way we did when the SARS2 pandemic first began. Things have changed along the way now.
2 Likes
Malpractice is banned, and for good reasons. Hopefully you donât need me to explain those reasons.
2 Likes
It is saddening to see you indulge in regurgitating the same insulting and misleading language as Fauci and Collins. But do you really know who the three main authors of the GDB are? Do you know that it has been signed by nearly one million health professionals from around the world? Is disagreeing with the official authorities now enough to be considered at the fringe ?
For the record, here are the 3 main authors of the Great Barrington Declaration:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
Thatâs a very nice complement. Whether you meant it that way or not, thank you.
Detta kan vara en bra idé med tanke pÄ att Sverige nu har den lÀgsta överdödligheten i vÀrlden sedan pandemins början.
False. Youâre not looking at the cons. Your behavior is unethical.
It would have been far more ethical for everyone to cooperate to shut down the world for three weeks, test and feed everyone, and quarantine infected people. We would have been done with this in March 2020.
It depends on the date and the vaccination status of the people depicted.
Many otherwise competent medical doctors simply donât understand how drug trials work. Luckily, they are a minority. The majority could see that it was ineffective.
Having a âreason to believeâ isnât science.
3 Likes
On what basis?
For example on the basis of fig 6 of the paper that initiated this thread.
Or on the basis of the meta analysis performed by Bryant & al (see below)
Or even on the basis of the first paper @evograd referred to at 13 to dispute the efficacy of IVM, since we read in the abstract the following : It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR â 0.67 [95% CI â 1.20 to â 0.13], I2 = 28.96%
Now, can you show me the track record of m&mâs for the treatment of Covid19 ?
You have this very fresh new also: MedinCell, a montpellier-based company announces an âencouragingâ study on a treatment with ivermectin.
Not sure you will find a biotech company investing in clinical trials for m&mâs in the treatment of Covid19 
Below is the translation in English of the above article:
Since April 2020, MedinCell has been working on the effects of this antiparasitic to prevent Covid-19 infection. The phase 2 clinical study reveals encouraging results, âa 72% reduction,â the company details.
When in April 2020, the Montpellier-based company MedinCell announced that it was working on ivermectin to prevent Covid-19 infection, there was a great deal of skepticism surrounding its communication. And for good reason, we were in the middle of a debate on chloroquine, a miracle product for some, a charlatanism for others. âNo, ivermectin is not the new hydroxychloroquine. We know that hydroxychloroquine doesnât work, we donât know about ivermectin,â defended Christophe Douat, chairman of the board of MedinCell, in the columns of Midi Libre.
Ivermectin VS placebo
That day, he revealed the launch of a clinical study. January 2023: phase 2, conducted in Bulgaria, is completed and the company reports âpositive resultsâ. âThe study, conducted on 399 participants, achieved its primary efficacy endpoint with a 72% reduction in Covid-19 infections in the group treated with daily oral administration of ivermectin, compared to the placebo group,â summarizes the release.
A 28-day treatment
That day, he revealed the launch of a clinical study. January 2023: phase 2, conducted in Bulgaria, is completed and the company reports âpositive resultsâ. âThe study, conducted on 399 participants, achieved its primary efficacy endpoint with a 72% reduction in Covid-19 infections in the group treated with daily oral administration of ivermectin, compared to the placebo group,â summarizes the release.
Towards âa long-acting injectionâ?
That day, he revealed the launch of a clinical study. January 2023: phase 2, conducted in Bulgaria, is completed and the company reports âpositive resultsâ. âThe study, conducted on 399 participants, achieved its primary efficacy endpoint with a 72% reduction in Covid-19 infections in the group treated with daily oral administration of ivermectin, compared to the placebo group,â summarizes the release.
An 11% jump in the stock market
In the meantime, according to Les Echos, MedinCellâs share price jumped 11% on Friday 6 January to âŹ8.44, even though the research is still at an early stage. The pharmaceutical company, which combines its BEPO technology with already known and marketed active ingredients in order to make treatments âmore effectiveâ, has a strong following, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Two of its products are in phase 3 clinical trials, one to treat female contraception, the other for malaria. And soon, one that could prevent Covid-19.
I see youâve dodged the actual question and answered about what they want to try, rather than about what you want them to try. In your original question, the patient wasnât begging for anything.
So try again:
If someone you loved had a very severe form of Covid19, with no hope of recovery, wouldnât you want her to try homeopathic remedies, colour therapy and crystal power, given that none of them have any effect at all so are even safer than IVM?
1 Like
ROFL!!!
Pass the M&Ms!
1 Like
On a related note, I know a woman who manages clinical studies of treatment for infectious diseases, including COVID-19. I made some joke about people taking horse de-wormer for COVID, and she asked me not to joke about that. Why? Well, because Ivermectin actually is a really, really useful medicine in people, in places where parasites are common. She felt that all of the bad publicity Ivermectin was getting as a consequence of being promoted by quacks was liable to discourage people from using it when it IS indicated.
3 Likes
What makes it better than the others, exactly?
What makes that better than the other meta-analyses? If IVM works, why would it work better for mortality than any of the other endpoints? Mechanistically.
Because thatâs extraordinarily weak. Please stop spreading misinformation, Gil.
1 Like