Posted on 10/18/2021 2:30:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
There are a great many unknowns and controversies associated with the COVID pandemic. Among the most urgent are those associated with appropriate therapeutic and prophylactic interventions. Some of the most intense disputes involve repurposed therapies — i.e., drugs that have been approved for treatment of some other condition being used as therapy for COVID. This is the case with the anti-parasitic agent ivermectin.
Much of the controversy regarding ivermectin involves "evidence" that the drug has a benefit in treatment of COVID. Detractors will often use the hyperbolic claim that there is no evidence that ivermectin is useful in this setting. The truth is that there is, in fact, some evidence. Ivermectin has been known since at least 2012 to have antiviral activity. It has been shown to have at least some antiviral activity against a number of viruses, including HIV-1, Zika, flaviviruses, and dengue. It is known to have in vitro activity against SARS CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID. It has been shown to have some efficacy in Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, a disease caused by a coronavirus with similarities to SARS CoV-2. There are plausible mechanisms proposed for why ivermectin might be useful against viral infections: it inhibits a class of proteins that are necessary for the virus to replicate within human cells.
These observations are evidence. They are not definitive evidence. They are probably not sufficient, or even persuasive evidence, but these assessments should not be confused with "no evidence."
Ideally, the efficacy of a pharmacologic intervention would be established by a valid, reproducible clinical trial. This would typically be a large, randomized trial, in which the population receiving the treatment is similar to that which is not. The trial would be double-blind and placebo-controlled,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
They would much rather have you on a ventilator for 50 grand
“no evidence” just means that something gets in the way of The Narrative.
The problem with large studies is that they may get the same results as the smaller studies, of which most of them strongly show that Ivermectin works to prevent the disease, works for early treatment, and helps even at later stages.
Hence, too much at stake to take that risk.
Now it is a matter of principle. Ivermectin does not work and that is that. Anyone caught contradicting the narrative will be punished.
India isn’t large enough………
**
“Not persuasive evidence”... sounds like a stealth slam against the obvious. I don’t care what else the article says.
No evidence other than India has a state Uttar Parish with 200 million people using it with 95% reduction in cases. Same thing with Indonesia. Wonder why the author never found that evidence?
“Not persuasive evidence”... sounds like a stealth slam against the obvious. I don’t care what else the article says.
And we’re not alone...
Bookmark
Most writers today have no idea what constitutes the scientific method, and what can stand as evidence for a hypothesis. This is due largely to simple ignorance, but also to lack of critical thinking about sources. Most of this article is based on politics, not empirical data; but he doesn’t know that, so how can he pretend to be informed, and informing us, about “the science.”
There are parasites in the vax. Ivermectin will kill parasites in the vax. They don’t want that.
Interesting angle. Those forced to take the jab could mitigate the effects with Ivermectin perhaps?
She obviously had a bias against Ivermectin and used the elephant as a snarky way of saying horse paste.
The problem with Ivermectin and HCQ is they are super cheap and cronies don’t make billions of dollars securing exclusive continuous contracts that must be updated every few months for the entire world population.
Nor is Africa.
Did you know that the goverment did house to house mandatory Covid testing in Uttar Paresh? ...and if you tested positive, they took you away to an isolation ward, no questions asked.
The same program also distributed Ivermectin, zinc and some other supplies and supplements to each family and was sponsored by the World Health Organization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.