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…
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.
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.
If, when, medical science can go in the body and shrink or cut and remove a tumor, with minimal collateral damage - then have at it. When we can replace organs - do transplants and pace makers etc - again, god bless and go for it. But preventive medicine is fools gold as is medicine to treat diseases. That is the stuff of snake oils - a time honored tradition.
Two patients, members of same family, same household, took ill same time. Both identical patient history, bad heart condition. Both tracked identical covid progression, both tracked identical O2 depletion, one went ER, other not. Within 24 hrs, non-ER had expired, in same time track the ER was on 40L O2 and crashing. Denied ivermectin upon request, dexamethasone 6mg wasn't stopping progression. Requested ascorbic acid (Vit C) megadose IV, was granted, along with increase to 10mg dex. In matter of hours, patient rebounded, v-shaped recovery, fastest wean off O2 the hospital had ever witnessed. Patient alive and kicking, was the lesser healthy of the pair.
Intervention made the difference. The intervention was a violation of protocol. The intervention was derived from the recommendations of those who stood in favor of covid intervention, studied the world's varied methods thereof, and lost their gainful employments over such. With much to lose, nothing to gain, they tried to find answers while the establishment walled off every known avenue that was not vaccine related. Their knowledge saved lives. The disease was treated....because the SYMPTOM was the disease: inflammation and dysregulation thereof to the point of death.
Question: does anaphylaxis count as a disease? Perhaps not. But, treatment of it will prevent death from asphyxiation. Covid was not far from this. Thus, treatment of the symptoms amazingly enough can forestall death. So, to the efficacy point: sometimes it is enough to accept that moderation of symptoms can be a curative contribution.
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...
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
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.
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 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.
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.
If, when, medical science can go in the body and shrink or cut and remove a tumor, with minimal collateral damage - then have at it. When we can replace organs - do transplants and pace makers etc - again, god bless and go for it. But preventive medicine is fools gold as is medicine to treat diseases. That is the stuff of snake oils - a time honored tradition.
Two patients, members of same family, same household, took ill same time. Both identical patient history, bad heart condition. Both tracked identical covid progression, both tracked identical O2 depletion, one went ER, other not. Within 24 hrs, non-ER had expired, in same time track the ER was on 40L O2 and crashing. Denied ivermectin upon request, dexamethasone 6mg wasn't stopping progression. Requested ascorbic acid (Vit C) megadose IV, was granted, along with increase to 10mg dex. In matter of hours, patient rebounded, v-shaped recovery, fastest wean off O2 the hospital had ever witnessed. Patient alive and kicking, was the lesser healthy of the pair.
Intervention made the difference. The intervention was a violation of protocol. The intervention was derived from the recommendations of those who stood in favor of covid intervention, studied the world's varied methods thereof, and lost their gainful employments over such. With much to lose, nothing to gain, they tried to find answers while the establishment walled off every known avenue that was not vaccine related. Their knowledge saved lives. The disease was treated....because the SYMPTOM was the disease: inflammation and dysregulation thereof to the point of death.
Question: does anaphylaxis count as a disease? Perhaps not. But, treatment of it will prevent death from asphyxiation. Covid was not far from this. Thus, treatment of the symptoms amazingly enough can forestall death. So, to the efficacy point: sometimes it is enough to accept that moderation of symptoms can be a curative contribution.
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.
Then we are not on the same page. Good luck with what you are doing.
And good luck to you as well.
Someone sent me this by the way
a more recent study provided by the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA);
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
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...