Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,722
So this is fine. But heaven forbid someone on Twitter have the audacity to ask a scientist for his data with regards to an IVM study. That is harassing and hounding according to people on this forum
Well, those who know what Twitter is and how to use it.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,990
So this is fine. But heaven forbid someone on Twitter have the audacity to ask a scientist for his data with regards to an IVM study. That is harassing and hounding according to people on this forum
If a researcher or anyone is seriously interested in the data, they would approach the authors of a research document at the contact details provided in the research document directly.

They would not first make all sorts of disparaging remarks on Twitter, then try and get the cooperation of the author/s of a study and ask for data/clarification etc.

THAT is the difference!

Once the debate turns into an SM fight, cooperation just simply disappears.

Now, go back and look at the two examples posted by @buka001. From the little visible on myBB (the Twiter selections) by both those so-called revered "experts", it is already clear that both parties are/were on a warpath and actually not interested in any clarification or access to the data except to further their ill-considered attack.

An in the above article, it is precisely the same. Of course, all was okay until the Guardian reporter played the gender card as well. The article became just another piece of SJW junk, not worth reading further.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
It has been approved for human use for 40 years. Go find your own fscking studies if you want to quibble about the point, or better yet, go harangue the pharmaceutical industry/FDA/et al for failing to behave according to your expectations. The risk profile of IVM is well-known.


Trolololololol.

Note how all those dosage levels are lower than the level that Geoff says is required to combat COVID.

Let me be clear.

Studies around IVM, pre-COVID did mot look at the long term dosage on humans, who would be using this as a preventative measure.

What studies have shown that this is perfectly fine for humans, who use IVM over a long duration?
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
If hundreds of millions of people using it annually for decades to treat various infections, totaling 100s of billions of doses aren't enough, nothing will ever be
What dosage? What duration?

What percentage of that was administered as a preventative medicine?
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
And notice how he demands studies for "long term use". As if people are recommending that you take IVM every day for the rest of your life or something. :rolleyes:
Can you say with confidence that if someone pre-medicates with IVM for several days in the hope of avoiding contracting COVID, his health will not be affected by this?

Geoff has advocated for this before.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Note how all those dosage levels are lower than the level that Geoff says is required to combat COVID.

Let me be clear.

Studies around IVM, pre-COVID did mot look at the long term dosage on humans, who would be using this as a preventative measure.

What studies have shown that this is perfectly fine for humans, who use IVM over a long duration?
None of this has anything to do with your garbage characterisation of IVM as a "sheep dip". You weren't talking to Geoff when you did that, troll, you were talking to Swa and Soldierman.

So, to be clear, you are a partisan troll who is placing his political agenda above the science, presenting the facts in such a way as to distort the picture for his own personal gain, and when given a chance to apologise for it chose to double down instead.

Tsek.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Can you say with confidence that if someone pre-medicates with IVM for several days in the hope of avoiding contracting COVID, his health will not be affected by this?

Geoff has advocated for this before.
What does this have to do with you characterising IVM as sheep dip, O barrel of oil?
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
What dosage? What duration?

What percentage of that was administered as a preventative medicine?
tenor.gif


Methods The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3 days vs. placebo in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab was obtained at recruitment and then every two days. Primary endpoint was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day (third day after termination of treatment) as reflected by Ct level>30 (non-infectious level). The primary outcome was supported by determination of viral culture viability.

The Israeli study which you claimed is "promising" has the standard IVM dose of 200mcg/kg.

Tsek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,990
Can you say with confidence that if someone pre-medicates with IVM for several days in the hope of avoiding contracting COVID, his health will not be affected by this?

Geoff has advocated for this before.
You are now stringing a whole bunch of accusations together which are simply not based on facts or anything I have advocated or claimed.
You are reaching the point where I am formally asking you to STOP this because it is reaching the point where I will be fully justified in taking further steps.
So now stop it or face the consequences. This is your last chance.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Swa

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
None of this has anything to do with your garbage characterisation of IVM as a "sheep dip". You weren't talking to Geoff when you did that, troll, you were talking to Swa and Soldierman.

So, to be clear, you are a partisan troll who is placing his political agenda above the science, presenting the facts in such a way as to distort the picture for his own personal gain, and when given a chance to apologise for it chose to double down instead.

Tsek.
Where did I say long term use of IVM has anything to do with IVM use as a sheep dip?

I just said it is ironic that those who argue against vaccines by calling those in favour, sheeple, while simultaneously arguing for a medicine that is used for sheep.

I was picking up on your point regarding that it was "perfectly fine" for humans, by reminding you that prolonged use of IVM has not been fully tested, especially as a preventative medicine.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
tenor.gif




The Israeli study which you claimed is "promising" has the standard IVM dose of 200mcg/kg.

Tsek.
Thats Geoff who claimed that. I actually argued that it was not practical to achieve the concentration Geoff argues for.

Tell him to Tsek.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
You are now stringing a whole bunch of accusations together which are simply not based on facts or anything I have advocated or claimed.
You are reaching the point where I am formally asking you to STOP this because it is reaching the point where I will be fully justified in taking further steps.
So now stop it or face the consequences. This is your last chance.
I have quoted two of your posts where you stipulated the requirements for preventative dosing of IVM.

Shall I link to it for a 3rd time?
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
12,942
You are reaching the point where I am formally asking you to STOP this because it is reaching the point where I will be fully justified in taking further steps.
So now stop it or face the consequences. This is your last chance.
Lol, I'm curious as to what it is exactly you think you can do? You can simply ignore him.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,990
I have quoted two of your posts where you stipulated the requirements for preventative dosing of IVM.

Shall I link to it for a 3rd time?
I simply stated what the current research suggests the concentration values would need to be able to kill the virus. That IS NOT the same as advocating that that is what anyne should be doing!

Now Again you STOP this crap right now, and desist or face the consequences!
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Thats Geoff who claimed that. I actually argued that it was not practical to achieve the concentration Geoff argues for.

Tell him to Tsek.
Why? He didn't troll the thread like you did. He didn't discredit the reputation of science in the process. He didn't shift the goalposts after being called on it.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Where did I say long term use of IVM has anything to do with IVM use as a sheep dip?
Here you go:

I'm just laughing at people who rage against the "sheeple", while advocate for people to take medicine that is also used for sheep.

Laughing at the irony.

Given how you and Soldier got so triggered by that fact, shows considerable cognisance of the fact that you know full well of this association, but wish to distract from its association with sheep.

The only misleading being done is by the anti-science brigade, who punt studies that have been forged and plagiarised. Studies where the data has been hidden. Where the math fell through the floor.

Why do reputable institutes say that Ivermectin shows no benefit in fighting COVID? Why mislead people from that fact?

Nah, you're just another clown trying to make it seem as if IVM is unfit for humans.


Uh. It's perfectly fine for humans to use it. You're the one trying to suggest otherwise.
Guy who says vaccines lack clinical data for safety can't show me any clinical data on safety of long term IVM use.

I just said it is ironic that those who argue against vaccines by calling those in favour, sheeple, while simultaneously arguing for a medicine that is used for sheep.
You "just" misrepresented what IVM is and used that misrepresentation to troll people. And when caught out refused to back down and apologise.

I was picking up on your point regarding that it was "perfectly fine" for humans, by reminding you that prolonged use of IVM has not been fully tested, especially as a preventative medicine.
Red-herring that in no way detracts from your dishonesty. But keep trying to shift the goalposts while pretending you're not an enemy of science. :ROFL:
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
Why? He didn't troll the thread like you did. He didn't discredit the reputation of science in the process. He didn't shift the goalposts after being called on it.
He is the one who claimed it needed to be a higher concentration.

Looks like on a preliminary review basis, I was right at calling him out on the concentration he argued for.

It shows that one should wait for the results of the peer reviews before making unfounded calls.

Which is what I have been saying.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
He is the one who claimed it needed to be a higher concentration.
Irrelevant.

Looks like on a preliminary review basis, I was right at calling him out on the concentration he argued for.
Changing the topic in no way detracts from your dishonesty and your refusal to acknowledge mistakes that you make. Other people making mistakes (not that I'm even convinced that happened because the words of proven liars aren't to be taken at face value) in no way detracts from the crap you spewed elsewhere.

It shows that one should wait for the results of the peer reviews before making unfounded calls.

Which is what I have been saying.
What it shows is that you're incapable of admitting fault. Which is kind of ironic from someone who claims to be a proponent of "science". :ROFL:

Take your religious zealotry somewhere else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,419
I simply stated what the current research suggests the concentration values would need to be able to kill the virus. That IS NOT the same as advocating that that is what anyne should be doing!

Now Again you STOP this crap right now, and desist or face the consequences!
Here Geoff, I raised it in this post -

Sorry, it must have been another Geoff who offered this advice and also said this -
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
@buka001



Do you know why the belief in anthropogenic climate change does down as scientific intelligence increases? It's because as the scientific awareness goes up, people become aware that the science has become politicised.

And you are the primary vector of that kind of BS.

So for all your whining about people being anti-science, nothing they could do in a lifetime comes anywhere close to the damage you do to the reputation of science in a single day, because once people become aware that the science has been politicised, that's it, the trust is never coming back.

So good job, Mr Science Guy. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Top