For The Conservative Sheeple

As my friend David would say >> Click Here << for the 100% unvarnished truth. 

Highlight, then click.

For anyone interested in the science, there is a recent peer reviewed meta-analysis in the August American Journal of Therapuetics.  

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infectio... : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

Their conclusion?

"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

I'd say that's 'promising'.  But it's not your grandpappy's horse dewormer they tested in these randomized controlled trials or double blind trials.  Of course it's not nearly enough for FDA approval as those large studies are ongoing and take a lot of time.  You all do know there are active large scale clinical trials for Ivermectin including Vanderbilt University Medical Center's 15,000 person clinical trial?  Those large trials take time.  It won't be completed until at least December.  In the meantime, listen to your Doctor.  Don't get your meds at Tractor Supply....but don't let your medical decisions be controlled by internet parody videos either.

For anyone interested in facts there is a recent fact-check on the "review" Charles cites.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/

• The study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use, and they did not declare that affiliation in their study. Experts said ivermectin trials on which the review is based were not high quality.

• The FDA warns against taking ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Even PJ's linked 'fact check' states:"Assuming the meta-analysis is correct, ivermectin "would seem to merit further study," said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center. "  Which is exactly why there is an active large scale clinical trial.  I think I may have mentioned that.

What's especially rich about PJ's Politico article is it's written by a non scientist who cherry picks some key non scientific sources like 'Facebook'  their own publication and the Wall Street Journal. And then if you really look at the medical sources, none of them state Ivermectin is ineffective.  Just that it's unproven....Yet.  Note that there are plenty of treatments that are being used in emergency rooms for Covid that are not FDA approved for that use.  Including Zinc, Vitamin D3, B Complex, Melatonin, Famotidine, Enoxaparin, Methylprednisolone.  Where's the uproar?

But for anyone interested in real facts, the current guidance from the NIH states:

"There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."  Which is kind of what I stated.  I wonder how in the world Politico neglected to mention this and the current large scale clinical trials.

Would I take it?  Yes.  Absolutely if my doctor who I trust completely recommended it.  Would I go to Horsey-Mart and buy horse treatment?  Nope.  And neither should you.  Nor should you dismiss out of hand a promising treatment currently under large scale clinical trial and accepted as a standard treatment in many countries.

The fact remains that three of the four highest-volume advertisers on prime-time Fox News are and have been for years companies touting "supplements" and "vitamins," usually with outlandish claims about what they can do for you.

So any connection between the horsie pill manufacturers and conservative media should be investigated. I'm sure there's a smoking gun here, because really, why would this bizarre "remedy" even be mentioned, let alone considered, by anyone, including the raving propagandists of Fox News?

Note that the company that makes the stuff has seen a 2000% increase in orders.

I fully support any product that is legitimately found to be effective against any illness - presuming it has been officially approved for that purpose as well as a detailed outline of side effects.      The study Charles cites falsely disguises itself as such by people who have cash in the game for the product they are promoting.   And thats sleazy.   And thats not a medical study.

And its really a faulted discussion anyway, isn't it?    I mean given the fact that there is an approved deterrant readily available at every drugstore in the country at no cost to anyone.    Its called the vaccine.  Its been approved by the FDA and administered to over a billion people worldwide - with the same risk and side effects as your average flu shot.  ANd its efficacy is near 90%

So what is the verdict on media outlets who sell uncertainty, fear, and government conspiracy in regards to the proven effective solution.....while they simultaneously tout the unproven treatment as held up by a false study and a myriad of snake oil salesmen?       I'd say thats pretty sleazy too.   Especially when the purveyors of that propoganda have been vaccinated themselves.

Have a COVID free day.

Oh, Charles.....when you say this   

"And then if you really look at the medical sources, none of them state Ivermectin is ineffective."     

Thats a big, nothing.   Thats demanding someone prove a negative.    There is no study that shows dog shit is not effective against COVID 19 either.   That does not constitute evidence that dog shit is effective.

But let me ask you a question.    If you were unvaccinated...would you wait around until your "study" is complete to use Ivermectin....or would you go ahead and get vaccinated today?

1.  i am vaccinated.

2.  The prominant ER specialists and scientists you attack as biased state "While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection" so the choice is not one or the other.

3.  Now let me ask you a question.  If you're fully vaccinated and you get a severe case of Covid and your doctor suggests Ivermectin MIGHT help you with very little risk but it hasn't been approved by the FDA, would you take the pill or tell him "I ain't takin' no damn horse dewormer"?

And as to no Federal Health agency stating the Ivermectin is ineffective against Covid, that is absolutely not 'demanding someone prove a negative'.  That's exactly what these (now 100 plus) studies are trying to determine.  That's why there are multiple large scale clinical trials.  They will either prove or disprove its effectiveness.  As far as I know no one is testing dog shit as a Covid medication.

Thanks for asking....no, I'd tell my doctor to eat shit. 

There's an approved antibody and immune boosting treatments that are readily available at every neighborhood hospital.      Ask our former president who utilized them .... Note - he was not treated with an  unapproved treatment promoted by doctors who have skin in the game for that products' profitablity.

This was a worthy conversation to have in April 2020.   But Why on earth would any sane person dabble with unproven treatments when there are proven treatments readily available?    I dont have a sane answer.   And neither does Charles.