No I don’t.
1 Like
I read that ivemectin is toxic to retrievers and some collies
If dosed properly by the dog’s weight, it should be safe because the amount is too low to be toxic.
1 Like
Well he sat down with dr. Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein in a 3 hour long podcast. Introduced credentials and research for ivermektin. Basically the drug has been extremelly effective in prevention and curing covid. The evidence was presented. Then they explained why it is not accepted in the medical authorities. Two reasons, it lacks a huge randomized study and there is no money to be made. Apperantly the randomized study is like a video evidence proof for crime. But while it lacks this it has every other evidence. Regarding the money to be made. It is a drug that has no patent is wide spread and cheap to produce. So it is of no financial interest to anyone.
The most significant part is that Bret Weinstein has discused this is a prevention tool with the creator of mRNA vacines. And while at first the idea was dismissed then the creator himself got interested and has come back to Bret Weinsten with a proof how it may work. The conclusions are if preventing ivermetin is taken with 70 % compliance rate of the population for 2 weeks, Covid will be killed.
1 Like
You guys ought to look at what’s happening in Aus.
Covid is starting to spread again in NSW! Only time will tell if it gets out of control or whether the government will continue its aggressive, unsustainable “lock down forever” strategy
It’d be very unfortunate if it spread now considering the low rate of vaccination
Fortunately for dr. Rogan, we know the long term effects of Rogan cleans - neuro spinal surgery.
No it’s not. It’s the cornerstone of the scientific process designed to minimize subtle and not-so subtle methods to create biased samples.
1 Like
Podcasts like this are incredibly frustrating for me and other people (e.g. ActivitiesGuy) who have worked and published in pharmacology.
It being “not accepted by the medical authorities” is simply untrue. It is in a state of active study. That is VERY DIFFERENT from being “not accepted”, as if it was a flat earth or snake oil equivalent.
Furthermore I 100% hate when the old “no money to be made” boogeyman shows up. It borders on conspiracy theory, because it is floated as the reason for damn near EVERYTHING that doesn’t get approved, or isn’t currently approved, or is in limbo.
The truth is that because ivermectin is ALREADY approved for other uses and has already passed safety monitoring it is actually easier to make money from if it is approved for covid - and it is generally faster to approve than new drugs if the efficacy data is there. It’s the opposite of the situation you claim.
You don’t get the highest price per pull but you will be guaranteed global demand, with a drug already easily manufacturable. When it comes to drugs you don’t want to guess any more than you have to.
You’re making claims that are unsupported. Promising preliminary data, computer modeling, and the SUGGESTION of effectiveness are not the same thing as concrete evidence of effectiveness. THIS IS THE ENTIRE REASON RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS ARE IMPORTANT.
See the link below for an overview of some areas we need to work on prior to approving ivermectin -
No, it does not have “every other evidence”. It has positive suggestive evidence. The entire point of an RCT is to double-check that the previous studies were accurate and to add weight to statistical analysis.
Hate to tell you this but change of opinion with the researcher is an extremely common occurrence. that doesn’t mean they were right the first time and it doesn’t mean they were right the second time, it just means they change their opinion based on something they saw. That’s how science is supposed to work… But then it’s also supposed to be cemented with concrete clinical trials in the case of novel drug therapies.
Not to mention statistical noise (i.e. false positive results), accidental misinterpretation of previous results, a double check on experimental design, and a host of other things.
3 Likes
I don’t get that either. Are they saying I can grow it in my backyard or something? Someone has to make it and someone has to distribute it and I doubt they will do those things for free. And someone is currently making money from it as vets prescribe it for animals, and they don’t give it away. Imagine if the market expanded to include humans.
1 Like
Right? Shit, you’re guaranteed global demand for it and it’s cheap to make. And on top of that, if ivermectin is shown to be effective then you basically end the lockdown situation in most places. Take ivermectin when you travel and get on with your life.
The economic potential is absolutely there.
1 Like
I’ve seen that for ivermectin is the new wonder drug for anti vaxxers after HCQ and Vitamin D.
Why take an “unknown” vaccine when you can take a supplement the Big Pharma ™ doesn’t want you to know about?
“Concerned” idiots like Rogan will keep the vaccination rates below the herd immunity threshold.
Basically. There’s so much irony in the situation it’s rather astounding.
“OMG Big Pharma is evil!! They just want money! I’m not taking that sketchy-ass vaccine!!1!1”
“OMG I want Evil Big Pharma to manufacture ivermectin dammit”
Public service announcement - there are no fucking wonder drugs
1 Like
For covid, the wonder drug is being healthy in the first place.
1 Like
Penicillin and aspirin (maybe Viagra if one needs it 
)
Your posts as legit subject expert on bio/chem are good examples of the problem we have in today’s easy access webz society.
A guy can reach any number of people vs another that spent 8 years in education plus x years in field. IOW one guy does this for a living and the other repeats something he heard somewhere.
Frustrating when trying to filter through the noise.
1 Like
The reason big pharma charges so much for treatments is to make up for astronomical R&D costs, right? So, for a drug that has already had the R&D done, the company selling it would be able to turn a profit nearly immediately instead of having to wait 10 years after approval to break even.
I would imagine there are plenty of smaller pharma companies that would love easy money, right now, even if profits are relatively small, so they could have additional cash flow.
2 Likes
Dammit… I absolutely knew with 100% certainty as soon as I wrote that somebody was going to bring up two out of those three drugs 
. You’re right though. All of them changed the world.
Ok for others reading I mean “wonder drug” as in one with no side effects lol
Oh man where to start on this… Absolutely agree. It’s hard because I have always been all about the ability to access as much information as possible, as easily as possible, and as rapidly as possible. I still am. I have a really complex thoughts on the topic which aren’t always easy to articulate in a forum environment lol.
The amount of information we have access to (if you know how to look) is just unbelievable. It has never been better to be a researcher or even just a curious lifelong student.
But the downside is also huge and you alluded to it in your last sentence… It has gotten exponentially more difficult to filter and noise from signal now than it was. Especially if you’re not already very familiar (i.e. experienced with) with the topic you’re looking at.
It is really hard to explain to people how the pieces of biomedical research fit together with all the different experimental designs and purposes, and how the process works on a large level, meaning a scale bigger than an individual lab, researcher or university.
It’s made worse by the fact that these topics are inherently complicated and tricky. Then it’s made worse again by the fact that we science geeks like to use words that nobody else in their right mind would use and most people can’t even pronounce let alone understand. Kind of like we wanted to make our own code language lol. I mean it works well for the tasks we use it for, but it is almost entirely inaccessible to people outside.
Then you throw in the fact that science is inherently gray rather than black and white, and on top of it that researchers like everyone else are people with strongly held opinions at times… I mean if you spent your life on a topic or field you have earned the right to that without question, but you can still be just as wrong as the next guy. Einstein’s early critics in the scientific field are proof of that. All very smart dudes, very well experienced, very strongly held opinions. That’s a lot for people to have to digest in any area let alone a topic as alien as drug discovery or disease research.
Speaking of Einstein… There is, I think, far too much attention paid to the idea of the individual genius, the lone wolf, the visionary. They exist without question, but this fascination with the ideal of one person holed away in a lab or office that emerges to change the world all on their own is exceedingly rare. But the concept is pop culture at this point and it leads to things like a lot of people who very understandingly say “well so and so is a big researcher, won all the awards, has these patents, teaches here, and HE says that drug x/y/z is being held back. HE’S BRILLIANT. What’s wrong with everyone else?? Why isn’t this happening???”
But they forget that there are a lot of brilliant people in science. A ton. And while they’re still the minority, those that aren’t outright brilliant are extremely hard-working and extremely knowledgeable. And…and this is the rub…in any particular given field those “lone wolf” types are still countable on 1 or at most 2 hands across a hundred+ years. There’s still only 1 Babe Ruth, right?
It’s just not how research actually works. The system has flaws (oh boy does it ever), but there are really good reasons that the system evolved the way it did. Not talking about the administrative side here, but experimental design and the need to replicate/verify/re-verify/and review things.
It’s super sucks that science moves at glacial pace.
1 Like
pharmaceutical companies do not make the majority of their money from the drugs, but from patents.
I love it how the wokeish posters come here talking about conspiracies all the time. Watch the damn podcast. It is very reasonable, well presented and educative. It shows why discussions should be allowed, not called conspiracies or silenced.
You may hate podcasts, but these are the places where discussion are being done at the moment.
Oh by the way a day after the podcast, Astra Zenica has started researching the drug for COVID use? I do not want to be the conspiracy guy, so I am only asking is it coincidence?
I’ll pass on listening to 3 hours of Rogan talking about anything, especially if it’s about COVID-19. This is the same Joe Rogan who recently said: “I’m not a doctor, I’m a f—ing moron.” after suggesting that young healthy people don’t need the vaccine.
How about doing some of the leg work yourself? Here you go…ivermectin covid - Search Results - PubMed
2 Likes
New review on Ivemectin came out a couple of days ago.
Fairly positive results. Might have some promise if used in conjunction with aggressive vaccination
Cheap too
2 Likes
Yes it looks interesting and hopefully bigger and better studies will continue so we can know if it’s a safe and effective treatment. However a treatment does not equal a vaccine. I’d rather not get the disease in the first place even if there are effective treatments available.
2 Likes
I was talking about the Weinstein fellow. I wouldn’t take anything Rogan says seriously.
EDIT:
Regarding vaccination, apparently a pretty established doctor here told my younger brother he was concerned about the mrna issue I brought up and now my bro’s afraid to get vaccinated.