Share this comment
Before the vaccines were available, a small number of brave, hero, doctors proved that with Ivermectin protocols, a C19 vaccine wasn't needed much to the dismay of Herr Fauci who was positioned to getting stinking rich from Big Pharma.
Here are two such heros: zerohedge.com/covid-19/…
Before the vaccines were available, a small number of brave, hero, doctors proved that with Ivermectin protocols, a C19 vaccine wasn't needed much to the dismay of Herr Fauci who was positioned to getting stinking rich from Big Pharma.
Here are two such heros: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fda-drops-ivermectin-bombshell
Vaccines don't work, and ivermectin also doesn't work. If you are saying it helped with symptoms - then maybe. But it doesn't kill covid.
How would one kill something that is not alive? Killing a "virus", which is a doctrine of one denomination of the religion of scientism, virology, is not possible. It's like saying sunlight kills vampires.
Lots of non living things, abiotic entities can be killed, destroyed, from viruses to ideas and theories.
Oh, yes it does: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011?
via%3Dihub
plus: 187 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 138 peer reviewed, 93 comparing treatment and control groups. Recent: De Forni Ochoa-
Jaramillo PRINCIPLE Marinos Aref Uematsu Qadeer. ACTIV-6 TOGETHER PRINCIPLE COVID-OUT. Ivermectin was
adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations). Submit
updates/corrections.
Every study you sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
Oh no it doesn't. You read the study wrong. You even read the Headline wrong. It said "IN VITRO". Then it went on to say - it has "potential for repurposing...". It concluded with it could be a "possible SARS-CoV-2 antiviral. "
All of those studies, ANY ivermectin study, will say the same things.
FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fda-drops-ivermectin-bombshell?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1742
It doesn't matter because hospital associations (and other overseers of medicine) which own those docs forbid its use. Frank talk with my new doc; he said he wasn't allowed. Oh, and they'd told him there were NO studies proving efficacy, so he didn't feel the need to look further.
Every study sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
The FDA gives the green light to alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, bacon. ??
An FDA approval doesn't mean something "works" or is effective. Most of the FDA process for approval has much more to do with safety than efficacy. Those trials, on animals first and then humans, is about safety largely.
But here's the thing - besides ivermectin not doing anything to cure, prevent or treat covid 19 - if you have covid, or any disease, from cancer to colds and flus, the body, it's immune system, needs to not be encumbered by other things that will do it harm. All meds, treatments etc. have side effects, so now the immune system has to deal with those toxins, those impurities - and this takes away from it focusing on the antigen that is covid.
Doing nothing but rest is the best way for the body to heal. Drink water, eat simple, very simple foods, ideally raw, not much, not every day (food also has to be processed and that includes not just the digestive system but the immune system as well).
If one needs a respirator, ventilator, iron lung etc. as they go through the covid issues, then okay, that won't impact or interfere with the immune system doing what it has to do.
Yes, you are right! Moms and grandmas were right all along.
Appreciate and totally agree with your common sensible way of thinking and living.
Saying Ivermectin doesn't work for covid is like saying aspirin doesn't work for headaches or certain treatments don't work against the common cold. Most doctors and people who wanted Ivermectin was for treatment purposes as KTonCapeCod details below.
Those things you listed - don't work.
Give it up, cold liver. There is far too much proof that ivermectin is effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Are you sure your last name isn't Balber? I have presented documentation of its efficacy (and there is a ton of anecdotal evidence as well). What do you present to back up your belief that it doesn't work?
Every study you sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
What's odd is that you didn't fully read those papers. If so you would see they all concluded that there is potential but so far nothing is conclusive as evidence. And ten years from now that will still be the case...
Like hell they don't. You have lost credibility for anyone who those treatments helped.
Show me one study where they tagged and tracked the molecule, from exogenous entity to wherever u think it ended up and did what you think it did. I don't want to hear about clinical trials and or RCTs or patient/doctor testimonies - I WANT actual visual proof that a molecule, of any kind, went into the body, and one, remained intact, two, bypassed digestive enzymes and immune defenses (to remain intact), 3, when to wherever they claim it went, 4, breached a cell and started doing X. Show us that study. I'll wait...
I just commented with a source of 186 studies that have proven it is effective. WEHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IT DOESN'T? Your naked, unsupported assertion is worthless.
Every study you sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
Not ONE of those studies concluded with it worked. Why is that so hard to grasp? Instead of getting fooled by the click bait headline - try scrolling down to the conclusion portion of the paper...
Well, there are in the literature papers demonstrating the direct nuking of destructive covid related mechanisms by ivermectin. There was a threshold of minimum effectiveness, and once hit and surpassed, it was game over for the bad guys.
That's one, for starters.
Papers? Link please
187 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 138 peer reviewed, 93 comparing treatment and control groups. Recent: De Forni Ochoa-
Jaramillo PRINCIPLE Marinos Aref Uematsu Qadeer. ACTIV-6 TOGETHER PRINCIPLE COVID-OUT. Ivermectin was
adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations). Submit
updates/corrections.
Every study you sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
First article, first reference therein contains meta-study with restrictive criteria and proper registration (much data out the window) and has this neat little caveat:
"No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy."
Pierre Kory is probably the world's #1 proponent of ivermectin, and he admits that the efficacy of the substance is squared directly over prevention and immediate onset.
Alpha strain showed highest response to ivermectin, subsequent strains showed more resistance. As virulence increased, the window to allow ivermectin a chance to be effective required either prophylactic dosing or immediately upon first symptoms.
Any trial which observes mild to severe covid is missing the window almost entirely, and much of the trials were excluded, so there was no broad net to find even "arguable" efficacy with such a trial setup.
Regardless, it was not about proving efficacy. The authorities loved to present it that way, because they believe they had a silver tool in a vaccine, but that never materialized, as all vaccinated got covid as well. So, a vaccine it was not, but for so long it was argued that selection of a "placebo" was "harmful" because it allowed vaccine avoidance--a now known falsehood.
The reason for so many studies is due to us being in a pandemic and all eyes are on covid and fighting or preventing it. So all companies have stepped up their game to promote various drugs, treatments etc, pumped some money into these quick studies - yet not one of those studies has conclusive evidence - not one. And still, here on substack some have linked studies and not one of them say it works. "Potential" is okay in sports and for marketing but it's still snake oil at this point.
The first was a simple search, but it described sundry possible mechanisms. You contest that, so set it aside.
The following is the one referenced in the initial comment. It has tests, results, and commentary.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36555121/
Every study people have sent me was 2020 or 2021 - here is a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6
So, let me show you how to really read these articles - beyond getting hyped up on the headline. It starts out by saying "could be worthy of attention" and "probable mechanisms". Meaning no hard evidence.
Then it goes on to say
"Ivermectin has rapid oral absorption, high liposolubility, is widely distributed in the body, metabolized in the liver (cytochrome P450 system), and excreted almost exclusively in feces" "peak plasma levels". "anti-inflammatory" This is all kinds of contradiction in terms, concepts and meanings.
We can simply start with digestion destroys molecules, rapidly. As for "peak plasma levels". If the body ingested marble dust - there would be a marble dust plasma presence. A presence doesn't mean it's doing anything. In fact, if it was doing something you wouldn't see it because it's inside a cell - and we don't have that technology yet.
To say Ivermectin is an "anti inflammatory" is odd. Ivermectin has plenty of known side effects - each cause inflammation...
Then the study you provided us with, in it's "Conclusion" states the following:
"We have summarized published results on the inhibition of multiple viral and host targets that could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 replication and the disease COVID-19. Although multiple antiviral and host target activities have been reported for ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, it is STILL UNCLEAR if any of these activities will play a role in the prevention and treatment of the disease. The controlled clinical trials that are underway will reveal if these activities will translate into clinical efficacy."
Many times it's easier to scroll down past all of the flub and get right to the conclusion notes.
You still have been unable to present a single peer-reviewed article to support your claims. Do so or give it up, cold liver.
At the end of the day gary - all you have is testimonies and that's the same thing big pharma has - it was big pharma testimonies that had billions taking a jab with a vaccine that doesn't work. It's the same lame testimonies that said Vitamin D is the cure - and on and on and on. Not one person can actually prove any of their claims - on a molecular level.
That's where everyone gets caught, gets busted. When I ask them for molecular proof they all fail - most don't even know what Absolute proof of molecular efficacy is. I do - and I demand it all the time.
At the beginning and end of the day Cold liver, all of your arguments and the tact you are taking to convince people of whatever, yeah, wait for it.............
that is not working - Absolutely!
So that would be a no? You can't actually provide true molecular proof? Of course you can't. No one can. Yet so many, including and especially big pharma swear by their studies - none of which are actual proof of molecular efficacy.
Cod Liver, the other day you lectured me about ''losing credibility.'' On another Stack. Lol. You keep saying the same bs, over and over. Nobody, anywhere cares what you have to say. Own it.
Cold liver is pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.
His "arguments" do little to nothing to help the purpose of Steve's substack. I figure he's either a person that needs to think he is important with his "deep levels of chem and bio ... what I bring to the table" (LOL) or he is a paid troll in an attempt to make the substack look kooky.
And yet and still, no one can prove it's actual BS. The chemistry i bring to the table is not something many here grasp. I get it. I get not all, if any here know deep levels of chem and bio - but here's a great chance, with me, for yall to learn some. Many actually do care serafino - they actually care what I have to say. Many are intrigued, curious, interested in what I bring to the table. Just because 3 or 4 go at it with me - you should not ignore the countless dozens here on substack who agree and like my comments and my main post about how vaccines don't work.
Yall need to get over it and get over yourselves. I'm here for real science - not politics, not agendas, not personality contests - and definitely not hack science.
I never thought of ivermectin as killing COVID. I used it and for me, it worked. In reducing symptoms, yes. I'll take it. In keeping it from getting worse, yes, I'll take it. I don't think anyone was ever thinking we would "kill" covid. It's here forever more. But managing, treating, lessening symptoms, sure I'll take it. I bet there are lots of families who lost loved ones that if the option was to reduce symptoms and not kill covid AND survive...they would take ivermectin.
Ivermectin will not, not at all, prevent you from dying from covid - if you have covid. Again, like a cough suppressant helps to suppress the cough perhaps allowing you to sleep and rest better as you ride out the cold, a cough suppressant will not kill the cold virus or prevent it from spreading or even killing you (people have died from colds).
And for anyone wondering - covid is not the same as a cold.
If you acknowledge that ivermectin reduced symptoms, then you have allowed one hurdle in the efficacy of ivermectin to be cleared.
It is noted that you allowed for it but did not inquire as to WHAT symptoms were alleviated.
Body aches, for example, are alleviated with ivermectin. What is the mechanism of action for such a response? Is it a direct action on the muscles, direct action on the sensory apparatus, direct action against the virus proper, allowing the body a reprieve in its battle against the invader? What is the explanation? Why is it dismissed offhandedly as irrelevant? It rather could be quite illustrative of possible mechanism of action against covid infection, but if no one deigns to study it, it remains conjecture only. But, it cannot simply be dismissed--not per scientific methods and retain a shred of credibility, anyway.
Some symptoms are not reduced, not at all (perhaps placebo wise maybe). You can suppress a cough to some extent. You can treat a topical issue with a topical ointment perhaps - but once inside a body all bets are off and zero proof of efficacy exists.
No one who wanted to use ivermectin felt compelled to prove efficacy.
Rather, they wanted to trial it against a novel disease for which there was no known cure and only an experimental therapeutic made available.
The whole mess devolved into a pointless argument over allowing or disallowing those who wanted to try it to do so.
Acetaminophen in substantial quantity can be an overdose, yet it is an OTC pharma. Ivermectin was prescribed in known safe and standard dosing, but pharmacists were convinced to refuse to fill prescriptions. That was complete dereliction of care and ethics on the part of participants, and all against those who wished to try it against no good alternative.
The behavior surrounding ivermectin has been pernicious.
I fully get that there is some "politics" involved. And what you are saying about the rights to at least try various drugs, protocols, methodologies etc - but my point is still, as with vaccines, they don't work - so why waste time, money and energy on drugs?
If they all provide a compliment of side effects then the risk reward dynamic is moot - there is no reward so why take the risk on side effects?
Lost family to covid, so the risk/reward calculation was palpable. Those who would profess to stand in the way of a desperate grab for a curative--placebo or real--against a reality of no known and viable alternatives are not compassionate but evil.
Do what you can to not die. Survival is a thing for all species. People have gone to great lengths to try and heal - even religious dynamics.
I am not mad at any of that. What I am saying and continue to say is that when the body needs to fight disease - it's best to do it solo - as in let the immune system do what it do.
The immune system does not really want to be further encumbered by other foreign matter coming into the body - it needs to focus on fighting and defeating the rogue cells already in the body.
I am sorry for your losses.
To think that mankind can improve the human anatomy is an unfounded leap of faith. Repair a damaged one? Yes, substantially capable of making repairs due to trauma. Improving a working system via pre-emptive medicine? Arguably only in the exception, definitely not the rule.
Obviously not well read
What is your evidence that it doesn't keep you from dying of covid?
Well, there's a loaded question...
What evidence do you have that shows it does?
Well I never said covid was a cold. I had COVID. It was no cold for sure. I have a friend who is a complicated quadriplegic. He used ivermectin when he was having trouble breathing when he got COVID. It kept him out of the hospital. I would take that option. I am not going to argue with you despite you gaslighting those that want an effective treatment. What sweat off your back is it if someone uses it? I don't understand people who want ivermectin to not work or to rip it down. I just don't get it. What do you gain? What is it to you if people use it?
Covid was originally called coronavirus - which is in medical books as a form of the common cold. My husband has been a virologist/immunologist for many decades and when he worked for Public Health Dept. of PA (the folks who advise govt./etc. on how to manage epidemics and treat diseases) he worked with coronavirus and knew it was a form of the common cold. If you look it up in medical books, that's what it will say.
Tell your husband this: There are only 3 airborne viruses that utilise the human ACE2 receptor for successful transmission, and “a cold” ain’t one of them!
Sweaty off my back? Drugs do harm. So if could could show them, tell them, that the juice is not worth the squeeze, then that's what I am going to do. There are placebo dynamics - which can have value but then again those side effects from drugs...
Thank you for correcting my typo. You are so superior.
Am I superior or are you just inferior?
It is key to use ivermectin or HDQ the moment you get a sniffle. Early treatment is key like with any disease. Fauci committed a huge sin by telling people that early treatment is not important
Nah, ivermectin is just another in a long list of hype drugs and treatments.
I assume then that you are fully jabbed and boosted?
You assumed wrong. I am not worried about the spike protein or the mRNA molecules or the lipid nanoparticles - it's the sodium, the deadly potassium chloride that can stop your heart and the Graphene Oxide that can cause blood clots that keeps me away from those syringes...
And again, vaccines don't work, so the juice definitely ain't worth the squeeze.
Do vaccines work or don't they? Risk vs Reward - is the Juice worth the squeeze? No, and no.
https://rev10.substack.com/p/vaccines-do-they-work-or-are-they
If that is the case then we are on the same page.
We're not on the same page if you think ivermectin works.
Bob - no one has thus far provided evidence - including you. I teach chemistry and biology bob. With chemistry there are no opinions, there are no "beliefs" - there is only visual evidence. No one, not one person in this thread or perhaps the entire website that is substack, is a chemist.
It's okay if one is not a chemist but yall need to not freak out when one suddenly shows up and is trying to get you all to understand the difference between actual molecular proof of efficacy - and hype from someone trying to sell you a product.
Actual visual proof of molecular efficacy: What happens when we mix pure red pigment with equal pigment of pure blue? We get purple - each time every time bob. We can actually see this chemical reaction among molecules before our very eyes. Chemistry is all about action/reaction - cause and effect. How does one molecule impact another - if it impacts it at all.
What happens when 2 parts of hydrogen meet up with one part of Oxygen - and we add a spark? We get water Bob - each time every time. We can actually see this.
Chemistry, unlike any other science discipline, is akin to math as regards visual proof and known results that are the same and happen each time everytime you combine the same variables. 2 Plus 2 will always be 4 bob - each time every time. This we know this we can see.
What we can't see bob, evergreen and everyone else on substack - is what molecules are doing inside the body. We don't have the technology for that - yet.
We have microscopes and in the lab we can see some interactions twixt molecules - but a lab is a hyper controlled environment - we can set up and manage for so many factors - and see each factor, each component, each player/variable - in real time - is 3d.
But this lab process - can only tell us so much. We can only learn so much about how a cell might react, how it might be impacted by a molecule or set of molecules - aka drug.
Once inside the human body, the human matrix - ALL BEST ARE OFF for truly knowing what is going on. We can't follow the molecules that make up ivermectin and see where they are going and what precisely they are doing.
What we do know from lab dynamics is that digestive enzymes, starting in the mouth and all throughout the digestive tracks - destroy molecules. The immune system also destroys foreign, alien molecules.
This we could see in a lab. If we put ivermectin in a vat of hydrochloric acid - the molecules would be Kaput. So we start there bob - how to keep that molecule from being destroyed once ingested? Or, if given intravenously, how do we keep the immune system from not seeing ivermectin as a threat and attacking it and destroying it?
We can't, we can't bob. 80 percent of big pharma money goes to drug delivery systems - because they know molecules get destroyed once they enter the body. 80 percent of funding on effective drug delivery systems - billions of dollars - always comes up short. Mother Nature is not defeated Bob.
So I don't want to hear anyone on this frekin website tell me ivermectin works to kill the virus that is covid - unless they can actually prove it on a molecular level.
You may or may not know this bob but vaccines don't work. Details here:https://rev10.substack.com/p/vaccines-do-they-work-or-are-they
You may or may not know this bob but you can make money selling any drug. Ivermectin sales are over 100 million a year...
Lots of drugs, all of which fail, make money bob.
The selling of pet rocks makes money bobby boy...
And finally, like so many fanatics - in their zealousness, end up going to extremes with claims that their product dujour, in your case ivermectin - cures cancer.
You have failed here bob. you have failed miserably.
Bob, you're a grown ass man - Buy a pair and take the L...