Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 06 Mar 2022, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2022, 11:43 am

Pastafarian » 06 Mar 2022, 6:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2022, 6:27 am

Then post it again. You’ve not shown me your studies.

Here is a link to me rolling out and extensively quoting an NIH study extolling both the unusual safety and multi-faceted applicability of Ivermectin as a treatment for human ailments - both as an on-label and off-label prescription. Just so you understand the issue - your media deliberately obscures it, - off-label prescriptions of medication are routine. They are not a crime or an abuse - they are common. Ivermectin has been prescribed off-label for decades to treat rosacea - no one has ever pretended the doctors caring for their patients were "bad." Off-label prescriptions are an accepted and ubiquitous practice.

Embedded toward the end is a link to other studies made available by the NIH in reference to Ivermectin's usefulness against covid, specifically. 

If you are competent to read an abstract, you just might learn something.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=59260&p=1770770&hil ... n#p1770770

This is a snippet from the second embedded link in that post, which is taken from a peer reviewed abstract published by the NIH. 

 Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. 

...

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

And here is that peer reviewed study's conclusion:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

That is from the meta-analysis accepted for publication by the NIH. I feel justified in assuming that you have no concept what a powerful endorsement of the credibility of a paper its acceptance by the NIH is, or how arduous the process of getting published in any legitimate journal is, but before you smirk like a chimp that the NIH "only published it," do a teeny bit of research on the topic of getting science papers published - for your dignity and for my emotional welfare, you ape. 

Because there is no financially interested party willing to pay for the series of large scale (thousands of participants and controls), randomized studies which are the gold standard of "approved" science, to which your masters and their captive government agencies hold the purse strings, there will not EVER be definitive "proof" that Ivermectin is effective against covid. Never.

- continued in the next post