Ivermectin and Covid-19: SA drug regulator allows controlled, compassionate access

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
So I wonder when our lot will start reality sing that vaccines are NOT the only way forward.
Even FLCCC's co-founder Marik has stated that Ivermectin is not an alternative on the way forward but a bridge to vaccination. Marik himself was vaccinated months ago. The "lot" as you refer has simply wanted better quality data to be available supporting long term safety and efficacy to the same standard that is expected of vaccine options.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,454
The point is we are months behind with our silver bullet solutions. And in the meantime, we could be providing a very effective treatment of the sick and possibly keeping numbers down while we patiently wait for the vaccines to be administered.
And for those that cannot be safely vaccinated, it is currently the only alternative.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
The point is we are months behind with our silver bullet solutions. And in the meantime, we could be providing a very effective treatment of the sick and possibly keeping numbers down while we patiently wait for the vaccines to be administered.
And for those that cannot be safely vaccinated, it is currently the only alternative.
The point is that the data will reveal what is being claimed or it won't however all options on the table should be evaluated and held to the same scientific standards. I won't comment on who can and who cannot be safely vaccinated as that's what the very same standards and evaluations are there for.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,454
92.5% effective in preventing people being infected by Covid. As good as the best vaccine!
A simple tablet that the entire population can be given!
Now there is a thing. Such a simple solution.
Obviously, it must be useless!
No complicated roll out required, just make it an over the counter medication.
A simple course given to everyone.
Now why use it while we all wait for the silver bullet?
Must be because it is not approved by SAHPRA who is just a stooge of the the WHO.
 
Last edited:

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
92.5% effective in preventing people being infected by Covid. As good as the best vaccine!
A simple tablet that the entire population can be given!
Now there is a thing. Such a simple solution.
Obviously, it must be useless!
No complicated roll out required, just make an over the counter medication.
A simple course given to everyone.
Now why use it while we all wait for the silver bullet?
Must be because it is not approved by SAHPRA who is just a stooge of the the WHO.
Go read the trials that relate to the 92.5% efficacy quoted and apply your mind.
 

Norrad

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,733
92.5% effective in preventing people being infected by Covid. As good as the best vaccine!
A simple tablet that the entire population can be given!
Now there is a thing. Such a simple solution.
Obviously, it must be useless!
No complicated roll out required, just make an over the counter medication.
A simple course given to everyone.
Now why use it while we all wait for the silver bullet?
Must be because it is not approved by SAHPRA who is just a stooge of the the WHO.
Yeah, no, nah. He cherry-picked the 92.5% efficiency trials which weren't carried out using any actually approved methods. Why are people not rushing to it in countries where it is available OTC and extremely affordable? I can get 100 5mg tablets for R32 through my ex due to it being available almost everywhere where she lives, but no one there will take it even though their daily cases are increasing.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,454
Yeah, no, nah. He cherry-picked the 92.5% efficiency trials which weren't carried out using any actually approved methods. Why are people not rushing to it in countries where it is available OTC and extremely affordable? I can get 100 5mg tablets for R32 through my ex due to it being available almost everywhere where she lives, but no one there will take it even though their daily cases are increasing.
Not what the article says. You are quoting selectively what suits your views.
And besides, the mg dosage is already proven to be too low.
 

TeMoeg

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
54
Why are people not rushing to it in countries where it is available OTC and extremely affordable?
Obviously due to the huge amount of negative propaganda, censorship, and blatant lies spread by mass media, social media and other websites, sponsored by those driving a specific agenda.

If you get told a lie often enough, you will soon start believing it as the truth.
 

Norrad

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,733
Obviously due to the huge amount of negative propaganda, censorship, and blatant lies spread by mass media, social media and other websites, sponsored by those driving a specific agenda.

If you get told a lie often enough, you will soon start believing it as the truth.
In her country? There is zero mention of it at all and you can take it if you want to. It's the same place that said they found a cure for COVID-19 right at the start of the pandemic by using strong flu medication and ARVs :ROFL: They are literally the first place that starts experimenting with medication if there is even a slight possibility that it might be effective.
 

Brian_G

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
5,117
In her country? There is zero mention of it at all and you can take it if you want to. It's the same place that said they found a cure for COVID-19 right at the start of the pandemic by using strong flu medication and ARVs :ROFL: They are literally the first place that starts experimenting with medication if there is even a slight possibility that it might be effective.
Sound like a case of once bitten, twice shy, not necessarily anything more than that...
 

diapason

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
3,109

The journal, worth a read:
Seems that second article has been removed!
 

RonSwanson

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
5,855
Seems that second article has been removed!
Yep.

Looks like it was "moved".

Edit: Eureka. I have both .pdf and epub formats locally, if you cannot access it, msg me.
 
Last edited:

TeMoeg

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
54

Another study (in pre-print stage) in India confirming the efficacy of IVM preventing Covid-19 among health care workers.

Two groups took part in the study. One group took 2 IVM doses of 0.3 mg/kg body mass, 72 hours apart. The other group took nothing.
Those in both groups who had Covid-19-like symptoms after one month, were PCR-tested:
- The Non-IVM group tested 11.7% PCR+.
- The IVM group tested 2% PCR+. This is quite a good improvement.

I read somewhere on the Internet that the half-life of IVM in your body ranges from 18-30 hours depending on your metabolic rate. IVM is metabolised in the liver, and is mostly excreted in the stool, with <1% in the urine. As I understand it, the residual IVM stored in the body will be reduced by about 50% after each day for the average person. This means that after two weeks (14 days), you will have practically zero IVM left in the body to protect against infection. Health care workers in the IVM group would be running the same infection risk as the Non-IVM group in the last week or two. By reducing the dosage period from 1 month to bi-weekly, the infection rate in the IVM group could thus have been reduced from 2% to 0%.

The recommended protocol for the prevention of Covid-19 on the flccc-website is bi-weekly dosages. I was wondering why nobody undertook studies with dosage intervals of one week, with reduced dosages IVM. Is this maybe to allow the body to completely detox? The effects of long term usage of IVM is unknown at this stage. Do you agree?
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
Another study (in pre-print stage)
I think my criticism of this study and as indicated in the study itself is the lack of testing of all participants as a follow-up and also any history of prior exposure testing to ensure a baseline (unless this hospital had zero positive cases amongst their staff prior to the commencement which is unlikely). Also and as you alluded to in your post the other concern is the metabolism of Ivermectin and duration which the efficacy is suggested from dosage to the time at which a positive PCR confirmation occurred - it would've been great if this data was included.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,454
There will always be things not covered in a study. There will always be those so desperate to try and invalidate a study to the latch on and criticise. The metabolism of IVM is well known, so it does not really need to be studied over and over again. The researchers can simply look it up as an example.
And besides, do you think those that were sick with Covid care squat for all the nit picking? All they care about is that they got better faster.
 
Last edited:

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
There will always be things not covered in a study. There will always be those so desperate to try and invalidate a study to the latch on and criticise. The metabolism of IVM is well known, so it does not really need to be studied over and over again. The researchers can simply look it up as an example.
And besides, do you think those that were sick with Covid care squat for all the nit picking? All they care about is that they got better faster.
Ok Geoff. Thanks for that contribution based on your feelings but you miss the point again.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,454
Ok Geoff. Thanks for that contribution based on your feelings but you miss the point again.
I missed nothing. You are many weeks behind in researching IVM. Been there done all of that. The exercise most of you are busy with is to continue with the narrative that IVM has not been tested for use in treating or even preventing virus infections.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
I missed nothing. You are many weeks behind in researching IVM. Been there done all of that. The exercise most of you are busy with is to continue with the narrative that IVM has not been tested for use in treating or even preventing virus infections.
Lol. No, as stated before it would be nice if the evidence backing efficacy and safety was held to the same standard as other options. Simple as that. If you’ve ever been remotely involved in clinical trial work you’d know that there’s far more involved and a much higher bar to acceptance than simply handing out medication and following up a month later.

My criticism of the quoted study is valid.
 
Top