Fine...paint the oceans rust, but while at it paint the roofs white RE: LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.
If we can not rally behind those two simple, high impact solutions, we are doomed.
Shane D.
Administrator
- Male
- from Pensacola Beach, Fl.
- Member since Jan 26th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Shane D.
-
-
That has to be stupidest comment about ivermectin yet. Chocolate ice cream is eaten millions of times a day. It has a well-known safety record. However, it does not cure COVID. There is little or no evidence that ivermectin cures COVID.
You have no problem with people eating ice cream, so why the apoplexy over the people wanting to ingest an equally benign IVM?
There is little or no evidence that ivermectin cures COVID. If it does, the effect is so marginal it is almost impossible to detect.
The one study you produced to prove how lame (unweighted) the studies on IVM were, actually showed a 2 day better recovery. Many prescription drug fortunes have been made over far more suspect evidence. Had that one study used the whole "medical kit", it would have shown even more efficacy.
Any doctor can prescribe a drug off label, and no confluence of anyone can stop that. So that is an imaginary question about an alternative universe.
Yeah right, but they know there will be consequences. You yourself have become part of the mob that will make them pay. Some can handle the threat to their livelihood, and reputations, most can not.
-
If they retracted it, that means it was an honest mistake. Only honest people retract things.
Well, what do you call it when they do not verify the story first before reporting on it?
-
Another IVM hit piece, another retraction:
AP Corrects Ivermectin ‘Fake News’ — It’s Only 2% Poison Control Calls, Not 70% as Earlier Published - NewsRescue.comby Adan Salazar, The Associated Press issued a correction to a story last month that claimed a hospital in Mississippi was inundated with patients who…newsrescue.com"AP Corrects Ivermectin ‘Fake News’ — It’s Only 2% Poison Control Calls, Not 70% as Earlier Published"
-
Seems I waited a bit to long and don't remember the dang thing..
If you can't get it to work, it could sell as a work of art.
-
Higher Ct means lower viral load.
Now how did I discover this fact? Funnily enough it was written in the first sentence below that 'figure 12' Wyttenbach was ranting about.I took a look at that Fig 12, and it seems to support what Wytten said. Patients with the Delta variant (All3P) who have had both jabs (more than 21 days before), are represented by the green line.
Patients with Delta (All3P) who are unvaccinated are the blue line.
The two graph lines merge in ~early June 2021, at a Ct (number of cycles run before the virus is detected) below 20. That means patients with Delta who are fully vaccinated, and those unvaccinated with Delta, now have equally low Ct's/high viral loads.
You said "Higher Ct means lower viral load" which is correct. But Wytten said "lower CT means higher viral loads" which is also correct..
Possibly, you may be looking at the red graph line? It represents patients with both jabs who had the Alpha variant (SGTF). It does show a higher Ct value/lower viral load, which means the vaccines are still doing well against the Alpha.
Note: UK data considers unvaccinated as anyone who has not had a jab yet, and also those who had the first jab...but 21 days has not yet passed since getting the shot. Those with the second jab are still considered single jabbed if 21 days has not yet passed. Here in the US, I believe it is 14 days.
-
Good article by Al Jazeera. I read them often now. Here they report on how the severe lockdown in Vietnam is not working as COVID is still spiraling out of control. People are starving yet the lockdown goes on unabated.
In Vietnam’s COVID epicentre, ‘everyone is struggling to survive’Overwhelmed hospitals and food shortages in Ho Chi Minh City as authorities extend total lockdown.www.aljazeera.com -
The AMA advises against using it.
No sensible person ignores the advice of the AMA, the CDC and the others
According to Mother Jones Magazine, the AMA represents ~16% of practicing US doctors. All the rest are members in their own specialties associations or colleges.
Here the Assoc of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) pushes back against the AMA's stance against IVM, and their calling on pharmacists to not fill IVM prescriptions:
AAPS Letter to AMA Re: Ivermectin and COVID - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and SurgeonsGerald E. Harmon, M.D. President, American Medical Association AMA Plaza 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 39300 Chicago, IL 60611-5885 Dear Dr. Harmon: The AMA has…aapsonline.orgAnd yes, the AAPS is known to be political and vocal, but so is the AMA.
-
Display More
U.S. Poison Control Ivermectin Data Analyzed by TrialSite – Some Surprises
https://trialsitenews.com/u-s-…trialsite-some-surprises/
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and prominent physician and pharmacy societies have stepped up and intensified warnings about the use of ivermectin across mass media. While a recent American Medical Association warning press release cites a huge rise in ivermectin prescriptions and a 3-Fold increase in calls to poison control centers associated with the misuse of the generic, generic drug no context or data is offered. All of the prescriptions reported are associated with physician prescriptions to consenting patients for the off-label use against ivermectin. An improper channel involves the procurement and inappropriate use of the animal version of the drug. Media messaging appears to often conflate these two distinct use cases. TrialSite recently reported that the American Medical Association (AMA), prominent pharmacy societies, and one of the makers of ivermectin, Merck declared war on the economical, generic drug that’s treated over 4 billion people in the tropics alone helping to manage diseases such as River Blindness. Mainstream media seemingly without any critical questioning merely parrots what the various government agencies like CDC have instructed them to report. In this case that happens to be that based on reports from the Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) calls to poison centers grew 3-fold over the pre-pandemic baseline. But what was the baseline used for the analysis? Not one media person asked the question. The FDA in the past issued warnings against the use of the drug while providing no data to the public backing up the warning. TrialSite has been on the record asking the question “what is the baseline” and thankfully we were able to secure the actual AAPCC data. The situation appears different from what authorities, medical societies, and mass media are proclaiming publicly, indicating a significant delta between the government-directed media messaging and the actual facts. Does this represent a gross exaggeration of the actual situation? Are perhaps other agendas now unfolding, such as scare campaigns to deter any use, including the legitimate off-label option?
Recently in TrialSite’s OpEd section, Ron Brown, Ph.D. wrote that growing media quotes conflated physician-prescribed use with dangerous abuses involving illicit use of the veterinary version of the drug. Brown asked about the media purposely confusing the two different versions of the drug and very different access scenarios asked the question “Do these sorts of suggestive comments hide a biased agenda against repurposing an inexpensive and readily available drug with the potential to undermine the return on investment of more contemporary pharmacotherapies?
What’s the Actual Data Indicate?
The data used for this analysis originates from the AAPCC and the National Poison Data System (NPDS) Bulletin. There were 1,143 ivermectin exposure cases reported from January-Aug 2021. This does represent a 163% increase in cases compared to the year prior or the “baseline” data of 435 such cases. Given the dramatic increase in prescriptions, 2,344%, this number could be expected.
But does the CDC claim of “reports of severe illness” hold up to the actual data? That data reveals the following:
Ivermectin Poison Control Calls by Category (total of 1,143 calls)
AAPCC Ivermectin Data #
Deaths 0
Major Effects 11
Moderate Effects 91
Minor Effect 148
Based on a review of the data only 22% of the total show any material effect as we will see below. But first, a chart depicting the data”:
Medical Outcome: Ivermectin Cases
The data herein indicates a different reality than what is projected to the public. The vast majority of the case calls (78%) fall under the category of “no problem” or an aggregate labeled herein as “not sure” and thus require no follow-up. Clearly, in these latter cases, any real threat to consumer safety would have been flagged for follow-up.
754 out of the 1,143 cases were classified as no effect, non-toxic or minimal. 137 of the calls were potentially toxic, with no follow-up. This latter category indicates nothing severe. Calls deemed severe equaled 1% or approximately 11 cases and not these were classified to the media as self-medication-based abuse of the veterinary drug.
This data must be compared to the magnitude of growth in the use of the product since the baseline. Overall ivermectin prescriptions have soared. Prescriptions rose from 3,600 per week pre-pandemic to 88,000 per week ending August 13, 2021, representing a 2,344% increase.
See the graph below for ivermectin prescription growth:
Hand Sanitizer more Dangerous
To provide further context poison control also fielded lots of hand-sanitizer calls from “pre-pandemic baseline.” Those increased 58% from Jan-Aug 2019 to Jan-Aug 2021. However, 3,320 of them were major, moderate, or minor effects while 4 people died according to a CDC report.
See below for more information for CDC information on cases of methanol poisoning in Arizona from people swallowing hand sanitizer:
An Agenda?
The FDA and CDC according to ivermectin proponents have “vilified” the drug by association with misuse of animal versions of the drug, such as horse paste. Importantly the rise in prescriptions — to 88,000 just last week — were all MD prescribed, non-animal, non-mail order ivermectin. In other words, the human version of the FDA-approved drug used off-label for the indication of COVID-19.
TrialSite’s ivermectin fact sheet should be referred to for a more balanced point of view. Although it’s acknowledged here that the CDC is the nation’s health agency and the FDA the nation’s food and drug regulatory and both should be referred to as well for comparison.
TrialSite emphasizes ivermectin is not a cure nor a silver bullet for COVID-19. Rather the result of mounting tension derives from what amounts to markedly different points of view on the clinical trials and real-world data to date behind the drug’s use during the pandemic.
Several countries including India for months authorized the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. TrialSite reported on the tremendous turnaround in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state with over 220 million people. There, a state-wide public health, home-based care program involved both frequent testing, home isolation where possible, and medicine kits including ivermectin. This effort was associated with a dramatic reduction in COVID-19 Delta variant-based cases. TrialSite is on record that it cannot prove that the ivermectin correlates to the dramatic reduction in cases there. But the effort certainly caught the attention of the World Health Organization (WHO) celebrating the effort. Of course WHO opted to not mention the use of ivermectin.
But a clash of points of view unfolds in real-time as from one vantage nearly all of the 63 clinical trials involving the drug reveal positive data attributes indicating a case for off-label use given the drug’s known high safety profile for the intended use.
The opposing view, which TrialSite acknowledges represents a great majority of the nation’s regulators, public health, and physician societies, resists the acceptance of the drug, emphasizing that out of the 63 such trials only a handful are worth reviewing, and the ones showing any positive data aren’t reliable due to study design, dose variation and the like. Thus this dominant point of view posits there just isn’t enough data to merit approved use. But off-label use is legal and that just may be what the latest intensified campaign seeks to change.
That is the daily messaging now via the mainstream news repeats over and over the 3-fold increase in calls to poison centers due to abusive self-medication yet appears to conflate this unfolding dynamic with the use of human ivermectin prescribed off label by a licensed doctor to a consenting patient and the misuse of the animal variety.
AAPCC Ivermectin Summary Data
Conclusion
Ivermectin prescriptions have skyrocketed during the pandemic, 2,344% over the previous year—the baseline. The FDA first warned about ivermectin use, conflating animal and the human versions of the drug while precluding any data; the agency also recommends ongoing the drug should only be used in clinical trials. The CDC issued a more recent warning based on data from AAPCC which aggregated calls to 55 poison centers purportedly involving ivermectin.
It’s this data that prominent medical and pharmacy societies declared war on ivermectin.
But the actual data could be interpreted quite differently than the urgent messaging now proclaimed daily in the media. That is the agencies’ reference to the 3-fold increase in poison center calls. The actual data from the AAPCC now reveals that the baseline number is in fact 435 case counts (calls to poison centers) in 2020; and that the total calls to date in the same reporting period this year are 1,143.
But this first must be understood in the context of ivermectin prescription growth, which has increased 2,344% for the reporting period. Moreover, a review of cases reveals the overwhelming majority (78%) fall in the category of no problem or not sure—and hence are not followed up. Of the total ivermectin cases thus far there have been no deaths reported and 1% of all calls involved any kind of major issue. There is no data as to whether that 1% required hospitalization.
Thus one could make the case that the safety profile differs markedly from what is currently reported in the mainstream media and the health agencies once the data is reviewed and understood.
But for comparison purposes poison control data implies that methanol-based hand sanitizer is far more dangerous than ivermectin based on the calls to the 55 poison control centers over the past year, given a handful of deaths.
TrialSite suggests a review of the ivermectin fact sheet. By no means is ivermectin a cure for COVID-19, there are no cures for COVID-19. Nor can ivermectin be considered a silver bullet for the pathogen. The basis for the rapid growth in prescriptions has been the interpretation of over six dozen studies including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series plus considerable real-world data from numerous countries around the world– mostly from low-and middle-income countries.
But the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as the WHO challenge the data from these clinical trials, suggesting that in most cases the studies are flawed, either due to design, dose variability, or other issues. Consequently, they only recommend the usage of ivermectin for COVID-19 in a controlled clinical trial.
TrialSite has posited throughout this pandemic that transcending the COVID-19 pandemic requires a holistic, comprehensive, and proactive approach involving not only safe and effective vaccines but also ambulatory and home care antiviral-like treatments for early-onset mild-to-moderate COVID-19—representing 90% of all cases worldwide. Of course, data-driven, risk-based approaches to public health remain instrumental as should health campaigns bolster people’s health and immune systems.
While the vaccines show incredible promise a number of issues are not fully addressed. The most recent Delta surge plus the revelation that the vaccine products’ effectiveness wane in a matter of months indicates that while important as a way to reduce the probability of hospitalization or worse, a vaccine-centric strategy alone is not sufficient to beat COVID-19.
The TrialSite reader: What do you think about the data herein? Is the intensity and heightened urgency of the FDA and CDC warnings rational given what is disclosed? This platform will continue to remain as open, objective, and unbiased as humanly possible.
IMO, the increased calls to Poison Control also coincide with the scare campaign against IVM use. Patient looks at the pills they have been taking for COVID, and see that their doctor gave them that horse paste/livestock dewormer stuff they heard about on the news. They freak out, and call the Poison Center to see if they will be OK.
The CDC, FDA, AMA and all the other alphabet soup of agencies/organizations lining up against IVM, then have another stat (a stat they played a role in skewing) they can use to scare the people even more.
-
This article does not say these results are from ivermectin, but I assume that is what you meant.
Yes, we have been keeping an eye on UP since they started using IVM a few months back.
If so, this not amazing. It is bogus. Impossible. There is zero chance ivermectin is this effective yet that has not been detected in a double-blind test.
Maybe so, but whatever it is that has led to their turnaround, it has been a remarkable story. No denying though that the turnaround started about the time IVM was incorporated into their preventive care program. Cause and effect?
Furthermore -- and I am sorry to say this -- you should not trust public health statistics from India. That is not my opinion, or a bias against India. That is what many experts in India say.
I thought so at first. THH has made that argument and until some of the latest news out of India came out with more details about the UP/IVM success, I thought it could explain away the difference between states. But after reading it does appear they have a much better handle on the stats than what we give them credit for.
Good example: in one of the India Times stories they wrote about how UP had an aggressive track/trace program. How could that be if they don't have good stats? They went on to say that whoever is infected, they go into their homes and get everyone to take the UVM+ kit.
Another was an India Times article with a comment from a local. He made it very clear that things were horrible before, and then soon after the health officials started the IVM protocol, things were fine and now they are back to normal.
At the least there is enough positive, or potentially so, IVM/Vit D/Zinc feedback science from around around the world such that the forces now aligning against IVM to block it from the people, should stop with their campaign against. It is ridiculous IMO and destroying what little credibility they have left. It is also embarrassing for me to see how stupid, unreasonable, and vicious we can be when politics rule over science.
-
Only 250 active cases in Uttar Pradesh; 19 new detected | Lucknow News - Times of IndiaWhile 19 new Covid cases and 20 recoveries were recorded in the past 24 hours, the state now just 250 active cases, said state health and family welfatimesofindia.indiatimes.com
"Officials said the policy of screening, proper treatment and aggressive vaccination has helped restrict numbers.
ACS health and family welfare Amit Mohan Prasad said 27 districts have become-Covid- free and 36 districts have less than five cases.
Despite decline in cases, it is important to follow Covid-19 prevention protocol.
The daily case positivity rate in Uttar Pradesh has dipped to 0.01% which had been hovering at 16.84% during the peak of the second wave."
Amazing numbers for the India state with 241 million population, ~13 million 50 and older.
Compare that to Kerala on the same date (2 Sept). Population 34 million, with ~8 million 50 and older:
Kerala continues to report surge in COVID cases as it confirmed 32,097 new cases - NewsOnAIR -Kerala continued to report surge in COVID cases as it confirmed 32,097 new positive cases on Thursday. The test positivity rate in Kerala is 18.41 per cent at…newsonair.com"Kerala continued to report surge in COVID cases as it confirmed 32,097 new positive cases on Thursday. The test positivity rate in Kerala is 18.41 per cent at present. Over one lakh total 74,000 samples were tested in the last 24 hours. One hundred eighty-eight deaths were also confirmed due to COVID today, taking the death toll to 21,149."
While here in the US IVM is under an all out FUD campaign by the FDA, CDC, media, American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), and as of today joined by the ACLU which announced a lawsuit being prepared by prisoners against the Arkansas sheriff who oversees the prison that the doctor prescribed IVM in.
-
No! Absolutely not. If the oximeter and fever tell me I am seriously ill, the last thing I want to do is "try something, anything." That is suicidal. What I want is expert treatment from experienced nurses and doctors. I do not want some drug that I know for a fact probably does not work, and if it does work, it is only marginal. You might as well try voodoo.
Good of you to have total trust in what the health care establishment tells you. Wish I were that way, life would be so simple if so, but am stubborn I guess.
-
Anyone who would take this instead the vaccine is an idiot. If you get vaccinated, you don't need this.
I can not speak for all people who want IVM to be made more readily available here in the US, but certainly not all want it INSTEAD of the vaccine. Those like myself are already vaccinated, but still want easy access to IVM (without my doctors being accused of medical malpractice, or medical experimentation, hounded by the media, investigated by a Medical Board, for prescribing it to me), because it is clear the vaccine has limited protection from variants as we are finding out with the Delta.
All it seems we see are stories about those unvaccinated "idiots" getting severely sick, and dying, but fact is the vaccinated are getting Delta (breakthroughs) AND are getting sick also. Some severely, and yes, some dying. I want something in my back pocket if that happens to me.
What may I ask are you going to do if, god forbid, you get symptomatic? You are already vaccinated. Don't you want to at least try something, anything, instead of waiting until your lips turn blue and then check into the ER?
The vaccines are great, and have saved many lives, reduced severity of breakthrough infections, but I want an anti-viral to have in the medicine chest as a Plan B. If I think it works, it is safe, and there are some studies backing it, I WANT it!
You, the FDA, and the WHO should just mind your own business if you disagree. Surely you have better battles to fight than dissuading people from using a safe drug in a pandemic?
-
I do not see a single story in the NYT that confuses this
I meant mostly the other media, not the NYT's, that morphed the FDA's warning about not using horse paste, into a more general message that all IVM was bad for you because it is only meant for horses. But the NYTs did put out this story on Aug 21:
:
Health officials warn people not to treat Covid with a drug meant for livestock.“You are not a horse,” the Food and Drug Administration said. “Stop it.”www.nytimes.comwith the headline:
"Health officials warn people not to treat Covid with a drug meant for livestock."
which I thought was purposely misleading, as later in the article they acknowledged IVM is also used for humans. It is an old cheap journalism trick to shape the readers opinion with the headline, and cover their arse with the truth buried later on in the article.
The rest of the legacy media usually follows the leader which is the Times, and they went on to "conflate" (as TrialSite puts it) horse paste and IVM into one and the same. .
-
If that happens you will a point. If it does not happen . . . will you admit you are wrong?
I promise
-
No, that is not even slightly true. We have known that masks work since the 1880s.
I agree...but only the right kind of mask, and then only if worn, and cleaned properly. You posted that "everyone" in your area is wearing masks again. Tell me...how many are really protected from what you see? I see the same thing here, but people for the most part are not using the N95 type masks, and most of what (including the N95's) I see look filthy.
And IMO, the reason few use the good masks is because they make it hard to breath. I have tried, and simply can't take it. I hyperventilate if walking around in one. Those that wear them often have them down below their nose so they can get enough oxygen, and are constantly adjusting them transporting viruses with every touch.
So that is why I contend the jury is still out on masks.
-
If the medical establishment is trying to suppress the use of ivermectin, or persecute doctors for using it, the establishment is not doing a very good job.
Well, they are trying their best to suppress, but when you get between symptomatic patients and a safe drug they believe might keep them out of the hospital, they can only do so much. And overall, IMO, they actually did a very good job of keeping an early treatment out of the hands of the unwashed masses. It was only recently (week ending Aug 13) that, according to the CDC, the number of prescriptions has risen to 88,000/week.
Taking into consideration that IVM has been adopted as the standard of care for early treatment in many countries, had the health care establishment not been so effective we would probably have weekly prescriptions in the millions. I know I would have been one of those had it been available. So 88,000 is a drop in the bucket. In India alone, the states that have adopted IVM packages are dwarfing that. The establishments wins IMO...yeah..
And it is remarkable to me that there are any physicians left brave enough to administer IVM. Just this past week we saw how the one doctor was treated for doing what is "legal". My guess is that many of those 88,000 prescriptions were written by the pill mills springing up on the internet to satisfy the demand. I linked to one a few weeks back. Also, the FLCCC has a list of brave doctors, and I am guessing they represented a large part of the uptick.
Those 88,000 prescriptions/week will probably go down dramatically though. Last Monday, the FDA launched their "you are not a horse, you are not a cow" campaign warning against using the livestock paste. Right on cue, the NYT's put out a story echoing the FDA, and now the legacy media has jumped on board. Most are totally mangling the actual details, as the FDA was clear they were talking about humans not using the livestock version, but the media have morphed that into any form of IVM can hurt you.
-
I will leave this thread for a while
While the cats away, the mice will play. Anti-vaxxers can come out now, and someone break out a tube of IVM horse paste.
-
I do not know any of the people doing that report; your statement above is a sort of subtle implication of bias on my part ?
I believe you try very hard not to be biased, but your politics get in the way of being totally so. Nothing wrong with having a political stance to the left/right (left in your case), but you express it so often, strongly, and at times personally...it is hard to imagine your conclusions are not at times more your politics talking, rather than your science.
We are all like that I guess, and to your credit you do better than most balancing it all out. That is why you have such a big following here.
-
Not sure if here you are deliberately being stupid, or it is the real article. I suspect deliberate
"Stupid" is a little uncomfortable, but yes...I was having a little fun. That is why the smiley.
Now, your 31 RCTs. Did you read carefully that nice paper that compared GRADE bias with results and showed that it was only the highly likley biased studies that overall gave ivermectin positive, and the (large number) of low bias studies showed it negative
Yes, yes I read the paper. I marveled when reading how human bias could be so scientifically quantified. I trust your friends doing these studies are confident their input (subject to personal bias), are confident their studies output/conclusions are unbiased.
It reminded me when back in the 90's some of the big Wall Street firms hired real life rocket scientists to exploit the market using sophisticated algorithms. Worked for a short time, but because their techniques became part of the complicated mix that makes the market unpredictable, the market adjusted, and they lost a lot of money.
They were fired and WS went back to ripping-off us little guys the old fashioned way.
