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

[Swa]

So, because Ivermectin is used as a universal anti parasitic and you're butthurt about the sheep dip label, you disingeniously and dishonestly try to imply I'm lying and don't know the uses of Ivermectin?

Is that what I said?

The clown brigade? First you claim Ivermectin is an antibiotic. Then pill filler is so that they're not microscopic. You don't know the difference between bacteria and parasites and didn't know antibiotics are fungi. You thought an anti parasitic was effective against bacteria too.

Maybe you should go buy the clown suit to complement your medical knowledge?

Firstly I didn't claim IVM is an antibiotic but ironic how they were discovered in more or less the same manner. Now try to take pills that are the size of a pinhead and come back to me on that. So many wrong assumptions in your post here.

 

[Swa]

I know the ANC is stupid and useless. So does everyone else. But really. They really proving it now.

If you really want it just go to a vaccination site as a walk-in.

 

[semaphore]

The clown brigade? First you claim Ivermectin is an antibiotic. Then pill filler is so that they're not microscopic. You don't know the difference between bacteria and parasites and didn't know antibiotics are fungi. You thought an anti parasitic was effective against bacteria too.

Maybe you should go buy the clown suit to complement your medical knowledge?

Not all. But anyways.

 

[Geoff.D]

Source please. You can't just post claims without the source. Or did you specifically leave the source out because your info is from one of those less credible sites?

And it is a sheep dip as well as used for other purposes.

Oh so now it is sheep dip AND used for other purposes as well?

Amazing. A drug first developed and TESTED in TRIALS for human use, then STALLED BY the establishment for years, having to prove itself in repeated trials over and over again (up to phases 4,5,6) finally gets "approval" for human use long after it was already being used to treat parasitic ailments in Africa for quite a few years) (must be because people who live in Africa are somehow inferior I suppose). Meanwhile, the vets could see it was really good and went ahead with their trials and started using it also before it received some or other "official" stamp of approval.

Now the part-time paramedic ( with a full-time qualification) suddenly decides it is not just sheep dip after all.

I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.

 

[thehuman]

Bigger problem is everyone getting 500ml bottles of injectable ivermectin and using it.

Bottle state 1% what is the other 99% tho


Is these filler substances safe for human consumption ?

 

[Geoff.D]

Bigger problem is everyone getting 500ml bottles of injectable ivermectin and using it.

Bottle state 1% what is the other 99% tho


Is these filler substances safe for human consumption ?

According to our sheep dip expert, it is the same as the 1% human solution. And as already posted previously, others also claimed that there was danger in it because it is not manufactured to the same quality standards.

The answer is it depends on the brand of animal use IVM. Some brands DO contain other things that are specifically suitable for animal use only. (Glycol is one of the other ingredients in the animal versions plus some really nasties in others).

So you have to be careful and check on the contents of the animal version before you simply use it to treat yourself.

 

[Swa]

Bigger problem is everyone getting 500ml bottles of injectable ivermectin and using it.

Bottle state 1% what is the other 99% tho


Is these filler substances safe for human consumption ?

Topical rather than injectable. People indeed apply it to their skin but some ingest it.

According to our sheep dip expert, it is the same as the 1% human solution. And as already posted previously, others also claimed that there was danger in it because it is not manufactured to the same quality standards.

The answer is it depends on the brand of animal use IVM. Some brands DO contain other things that are specifically suitable for animal use only. (Glycol is one of the other ingredients in the animal versions plus some really nasties in others).

So you have to be careful and check on the contents of the animal version before you simply use it to treat yourself.

Glycol can produce liver failure.

 

[Geoff.D]

Topical rather than injectable. People indeed apply it to their skin but some ingest it.


Glycol can produce liver failure.

Well, there is Ethylene glycol and some of its derivatives are mildly toxic. -this is not supposed to be used, I am told because of its toxicity.

Then there is Propylene glycol, it is not toxic and is used extensively in foods, cosmetics, and oral hygiene products as a solvent, preservative, and moisture-retaining agent. _ I am told this is quite often used in animal use dosing agents.

And then there is butyrolactone, a valuable solvent and chemical intermediate;
And then 2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol, an effective insect repellent

2-methyl-2-propyl-1,3-propanediol, made into meprobamate, a widely used tranquilizer.

So I think we need to wait for our resident Sheep dip expert to tell us what he knows about what animal sheep dip in SA contains.

Ivomec: Ivomec Injection is a clear, ready-to-use, sterile solution containing 1% ivermectin, 40% glycerol formal, and propylene glycol, q.s. ad 100%. This one is considered "safe" for human use.

There is one for sure that has a nasty in it that should not be tried for human use.

IVOMEC Plus: is a ready-to-use sterile solution containing 1% w/v ivermectin, 10% clorsulon, 40% glycerol formal, and propylene glycol, q.s. ad 100%.

Clorsulon, is not considered safe for human use.

 

[Spizz]

Well, there is Ethylene glycol and some of its derivatives are mildly toxic. -this is not supposed to be used, I am told because of its toxicity.

Then there is Propylene glycol, it is not toxic and is used extensively in foods, cosmetics, and oral hygiene products as a solvent, preservative, and moisture-retaining agent. _ I am told this is quite often used in animal use dosing agents.

And then there is butyrolactone, a valuable solvent and chemical intermediate;
And then 2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol, an effective insect repellent

2-methyl-2-propyl-1,3-propanediol, made into meprobamate, a widely used tranquilizer.

So I think we need to wait for our resident Sheep dip expert to tell us what he knows about what animal sheep dip in SA contains.

Ivomec: Ivomec Injection is a clear, ready-to-use, sterile solution containing 1% ivermectin, 40% glycerol formal, and propylene glycol, q.s. ad 100%. This one is considered "safe" for human use.

There is one for sure that has a nasty in it that should not be tried for human use.

IVOMEC Plus: is a ready-to-use sterile solution containing 1% w/v ivermectin, 10% clorsulon, 40% glycerol formal, and propylene glycol, q.s. ad 100%.

Clorsulon, is not considered safe for human use.

Wow. This actually just shows how dangerous you guys are. A quick scan of the internet, a copy and paste of some ingredients, insert a few opinions and you are ready to argue with medical professionals who have studied this stuff for many years.

Just wow. The arrogance and delusion is palpable.

 

[Ragnarök]

Wow. This actually just shows how dangerous you guys are. A quick scan of the internet, a copy and paste of some ingredients, insert a few opinions and you are ready to argue with medical professionals who have studied this stuff for many years.

Just wow. The arrogance and delusion is palpable.

Did you have a look at the ingredients of vaccines

 

[Spizz]

Did you have a look at the ingredients of vaccines

I had a glance but I’m not qualified to comment so, no.

 

[JohnStarr]

Anecdotal - MyBB Expert Word of the Year 2021...

 

[buka001]

Well, there is Ethylene glycol and some of its derivatives are mildly toxic. -this is not supposed to be used, I am told because of its toxicity.

Then there is Propylene glycol, it is not toxic and is used extensively in foods, cosmetics, and oral hygiene products as a solvent, preservative, and moisture-retaining agent. _ I am told this is quite often used in animal use dosing agents.

And then there is butyrolactone, a valuable solvent and chemical intermediate;
And then 2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol, an effective insect repellent

2-methyl-2-propyl-1,3-propanediol, made into meprobamate, a widely used tranquilizer.

So I think we need to wait for our resident Sheep dip expert to tell us what he knows about what animal sheep dip in SA contains.

Ivomec: Ivomec Injection is a clear, ready-to-use, sterile solution containing 1% ivermectin, 40% glycerol formal, and propylene glycol, q.s. ad 100%. This one is considered "safe" for human use.

There is one for sure that has a nasty in it that should not be tried for human use.

IVOMEC Plus: is a ready-to-use sterile solution containing 1% w/v ivermectin, 10% clorsulon, 40% glycerol formal, and propylene glycol, q.s. ad 100%.

Clorsulon, is not considered safe for human use.

Holy hell.

And you think me characterising you as suffering from Dunning-Kruger, was bullying?

This post of yours is ridiculous.

 

[greg0205]

Wow. This actually just shows how dangerous you guys are. A quick scan of the internet, a copy and paste of some ingredients, insert a few opinions and you are ready to argue with medical professionals who have studied this stuff for many years.

Just wow. The arrogance and delusion is palpable.

Julian Sanchez wrote a fantastic twitter thread on this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424946657242796034

I'll unroll it for folks:

Because I like exterminating any residual shreds of faith in humanity, I looked through the overwhelmingly hostile comments on a YouTube video by a doctor debunking some covid misinformation tonight. I noticed an interesting parallel to some “election theft” disinfo.

Here’s what I note in both cases: The cranks typically have the superficial trappings of real science. Links to journal articles on the one hand, or on the other, impressively hackery looking hex dumps & spreadsheets full of IP addresses. “See, I’m giving you the evidence…”

Now in both cases, this evidence is absolutely useless to the target audience. They have neither the training nor the context to evaluate the quality or relevance of technical articles in medical journals—or even to understand what the article is claiming in many cases.

Ditto on the “election fraud” side: The target audience has no idea what a real packet capture looks like, or whether it makes any sense that someone would have the kind of information claimed in that spreadsheet full of numbers.

They are, however, being flattered by the INVITATION to assess the evidence for themselves—do your own research, make up your own mind!

So what do the responses from acutal experts look like? Well, generally pretty dismissive—understandably so—because they can tell the evidence is nonsense, and typically aren’t super interested spending hours going into granular detail about why or throwing around citations to technical material they know full well a lay audience isn’t remotely equipped to understand. (The people who ARE equipped to understand the technical material don’t need a pop debunking.)

So they’ll do a quickie explainer of why some particular claim is wrong in lay terms, but they’re typically not going to bother with a bunch of citations that might be relevant to a peer specialist. To a lot of the audience, this comes across as “arrogant.”

The crank is flattering me with a display of technical jargon and a mountain of citations to “evidence.” I’m not equipped to evaluate that “evidence,” but I can nod along and say “oh yes, I see,” and feel like I’ve been treated as a peer.

The actual experts understands that this would be a performative and pointless. So past a fairly superficial point they go with some version of “99% of us who spent years studying this are on the same page, and you sort of have to trust us.” Which can feel patronizing.

What the crank is doing is ultimately a lot more condescending—the equivalent of giving a child a fake cell phone so they can “make calls” just like mom & dad. They’re pretending not to ultimately rely on trust, and so they get trust.

The actual expert is honest about this part of it: I can’t take you through med school or a CS degree in a YouTube video. I could give you some papers, but even if you’re extremely smart, you wouldn’t understand them without that training. And to the insecure, that feels bad.

It’s the byproduct of a culture that valorizes (at least nominally) the ideal of being an independent thinker who questions the received wisdom rather than just accepting things on authority. Which is healthy in lots of ways! And yet the vast majority of human knowledge is beyond anyone’s capability to personally verify. Past a fairly superficial point, we have to take most things “on authority” in some sense. And the folks who trust the crank are too, of course!

What the crank is giving people is the *illusion* of not trusting an authority—unlike all those sheep who trust the *mainstream* authorities. A bit like the media elites who win large followings by telling you not to trust media elites.

The expert who’s treating you like an adult is the one who, at some point, is willing to say “I’m sorry, you don’t have the math” rather than pretending common sense conquers every domain of knowledge.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424962157071028224

 

[Spizz]

Julian Sanchez wrote a fantastic twitter thread on this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424946657242796034

I'll unroll it for folks:

Because I like exterminating any residual shreds of faith in humanity, I looked through the overwhelmingly hostile comments on a YouTube video by a doctor debunking some covid misinformation tonight. I noticed an interesting parallel to some “election theft” disinfo.

Here’s what I note in both cases: The cranks typically have the superficial trappings of real science. Links to journal articles on the one hand, or on the other, impressively hackery looking hex dumps & spreadsheets full of IP addresses. “See, I’m giving you the evidence…”

Now in both cases, this evidence is absolutely useless to the target audience. They have neither the training nor the context to evaluate the quality or relevance of technical articles in medical journals—or even to understand what the article is claiming in many cases.

Ditto on the “election fraud” side: The target audience has no idea what a real packet capture looks like, or whether it makes any sense that someone would have the kind of information claimed in that spreadsheet full of numbers.

They are, however, being flattered by the INVITATION to assess the evidence for themselves—do your own research, make up your own mind!

So what do the responses from acutal experts look like? Well, generally pretty dismissive—understandably so—because they can tell the evidence is nonsense, and typically aren’t super interested spending hours going into granular detail about why or throwing around citations to technical material they know full well a lay audience isn’t remotely equipped to understand. (The people who ARE equipped to understand the technical material don’t need a pop debunking.)

So they’ll do a quickie explainer of why some particular claim is wrong in lay terms, but they’re typically not going to bother with a bunch of citations that might be relevant to a peer specialist. To a lot of the audience, this comes across as “arrogant.”

The crank is flattering me with a display of technical jargon and a mountain of citations to “evidence.” I’m not equipped to evaluate that “evidence,” but I can nod along and say “oh yes, I see,” and feel like I’ve been treated as a peer.

The actual experts understands that this would be a performative and pointless. So past a fairly superficial point they go with some version of “99% of us who spent years studying this are on the same page, and you sort of have to trust us.” Which can feel patronizing.

What the crank is doing is ultimately a lot more condescending—the equivalent of giving a child a fake cell phone so they can “make calls” just like mom & dad. They’re pretending not to ultimately rely on trust, and so they get trust.

The actual expert is honest about this part of it: I can’t take you through med school or a CS degree in a YouTube video. I could give you some papers, but even if you’re extremely smart, you wouldn’t understand them without that training. And to the insecure, that feels bad.

It’s the byproduct of a culture that valorizes (at least nominally) the ideal of being an independent thinker who questions the received wisdom rather than just accepting things on authority. Which is healthy in lots of ways! And yet the vast majority of human knowledge is beyond anyone’s capability to personally verify. Past a fairly superficial point, we have to take most things “on authority” in some sense. And the folks who trust the crank are too, of course!

What the crank is giving people is the *illusion* of not trusting an authority—unlike all those sheep who trust the *mainstream* authorities. A bit like the media elites who win large followings by telling you not to trust media elites.

The expert who’s treating you like an adult is the one who, at some point, is willing to say “I’m sorry, you don’t have the math” rather than pretending common sense conquers every domain of knowledge.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424962157071028224

Great post. I'd hope our resident cranks will be embarrassed into stopping their nonsense now, but as pointed out many times, the Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in them. No doubt they'll be doubling down.

 

[semaphore]

Great post. I'd hope our resident cranks will be embarrassed into stopping their nonsense now, but as pointed out many times, the Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in them. No doubt they'll be doubling down.

Twitter remember.

 

[Geoff.D]

Wow. This actually just shows how dangerous you guys are. A quick scan of the internet, a copy and paste of some ingredients, insert a few opinions and you are ready to argue with medical professionals who have studied this stuff for many years.

Just wow. The arrogance and delusion is palpable.

So are you disputing the above details about what could be found in animal use products?
Or are you disputing the the various glycols?
Or are you challenging the contents of IVM for animal use?
Or what?
I am giving the forum sheep dip experts a chance to tell us what their IVM products contain.
The Ivomec specs are pretty accurate.
Would you like a list of foods stuffs?
Are you ready for the shock?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Oh so now it is sheep dip AND used for other purposes as well?

Amazing. A drug first developed and TESTED in TRIALS for human use, then STALLED BY the establishment for years, having to prove itself in repeated trials over and over again (up to phases 4,5,6) finally gets "approval" for human use long after it was already being used to treat parasitic ailments in Africa for quite a few years) (must be because people who live in Africa are somehow inferior I suppose). Meanwhile, the vets could see it was really good and went ahead with their trials and started using it also before it received some or other "official" stamp of approval.

Now the part-time paramedic ( with a full-time qualification) suddenly decides it is not just sheep dip after all.

I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.

Ivermectin was approved for human use in 1988, two years after it was approved for animal use. You're the one screaming that the vaccine hasn't been tested long enough for human use then accuse researchers of taking too long to approve Ivermectin several decades ago when there was no urgency to approve Ivermectin?

Hypocrite much?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Glycol can produce liver failure.

Touche'.

And the experts you were fighting with claiming there was a single case of liver failure knew that all along because they had studied it during their medical studies.

See why it's dangerous to think you know anything about medicine at all?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Well, there is Ethylene glycol and some of its derivatives are mildly toxic. -this is not supposed to be used, I am told because of its toxicity.

Mildly toxic? I dare you to drink some car antifreeze and tell me that. That's Ethylene Glycol. It causes a feeling of warmth when it touches the skin and can be absorbed through the skin.

Are you aware of the MSDS hazard classification of Ethylene Glycol? Let's see what you know about sheep dip.

Google away.