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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
As for ivermectin - that too doesn't work. My science is based on observance of the molecule and no molecules in ivermectin have one, remained intact once inside the body, and two breached any rogue cell, any covid cell and did something to it. There is zero biologic value to ivermectin as regards curing the matters that are covid related. Same with vitamin D and all the other repurposed drugs, supplements, remedies that popped up with this pandemic that claimed to save the day.
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.
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.
I know, thanks to knowing physics chem and biology that ivermectin doesn't work. And all peer reviewed papers say the same thing. The problem is many of you don't know how to read the study properly. You think they are saying ivermectin works - but you skipped past the part where they say it works so far in a petri dish, in a lab (in vitro). You also miss the part where they ALL conclude that there is not enough evidence to say it actually works.
Official physician and CDC guidance was once positive for covid, go home, take acetaminophen, and wait until O2 levels drop and difficulty breathing sets in, then go to hospital.
Acetaminophen has a harsher side effect and risk profile than ivermectin, and on top of that it is in numerous cold medicines, so as an OTC compound, it is very likely to be used into the risk zone. Ivermectin, being prescribed at known safe, tested dosing, is quite unlikely to be causative of side effect injury. Its safety profile is better than acetaminophen.
Nevertheless, people were NOT allowed to take ivermectin "placebo" but were DIRECTED to take acetaminophen placebo, self-medicated, and with greater OD risk. That is NOT logical in any sense, nor is it ethical for a novel disease with no cure.
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.............
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.
Steve's articles serve one purpose, but what he claims, is hard to prove. I can prove vaccines don't work. And once we know that, then we don't ever have to take vaccines again. Killing two birds with one stone.
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.
What I do know is that when I gave it to my horse for years, it always kept the parasites under control. It's been that way for countless horseowners for decades.
What Pfizer, Moderna et al know is that their vaccines work - they have made and used vaccines for years, they have saved millions of lives over the years...
Yet, I'm here to tell them vaccines don't work, have never worked, have never saved any lives. So too ivermectin.
Do vaccines work or don't they? Risk vs Reward - is the Juice worth the squeeze? No, and no.
Just so you know - you are talking here with a person whose husband has been a virologist/immunologist for over 50 yrs. He worked in Public Health Dept. of PA for years and also worked with a Nobel prize winning scientist. As such, he helped to develop jabs back in 1970s - and quit because he found out what was in them. SB-40 for one, which is a cancer virus. He hasn't been jabbed since then. We do know that the principal of jabs do work, IOW if you are exposed to a small amount of virus, etc. your immune system will develop immunity to that bacteria, virus, etc. We know this and it's why homeopathy works, too. IMO, the question re: jabs at this point is NOT whether or not they work - it's do they cause damage? Considering that mercury, aluminum, SB-40 and more are ingredients of jabs, we can safely say that they do cause harm and even death. Jabs, as they are currently being made are NOT vaccines as they don't utilize standard vax procedures when they are made. mRNA is something entirely different than the classic vax. Now, back to Ivermectin, our original conversation: it has never been known to harm, injure or kill anyone unless you take enormous amounts of it, which most sane people wouldn't do. Do they work? Yes, they have been known to kill many forms of cancer for one, but also all parasites. I can't show you proof, but Ivermectin has been used for decades and has been shown to keep animals and people from getting sick. This is known as anecdotal evidence and in spite of what modern, i.e. fake science says - anecdotal evidence is some of the best evidence there is. Farmers are not idiots, they are very practical, evidence-based folks for the most part. If something doesn't work they wouldn't use it. Farmers have used Ivermectin for a very long time - because when they use it, they don't see their animals getting sick from parasites. This is why they keep using it, not because big pharma told them it works. That's all I am going to say about this topic.
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.
I'm the guy saying and showing vaccines don't work, can't work - it's my article on Substack.
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
As for ivermectin - that too doesn't work. My science is based on observance of the molecule and no molecules in ivermectin have one, remained intact once inside the body, and two breached any rogue cell, any covid cell and did something to it. There is zero biologic value to ivermectin as regards curing the matters that are covid related. Same with vitamin D and all the other repurposed drugs, supplements, remedies that popped up with this pandemic that claimed to save the day.
Prednisolone? Budesonide?
Those down regulate the immune system. It's what was needed for covid after a critical period of infection, when the immune response became erratic.
Nope. Leave the body alone - that's the only way to heal. We are so wired to always add something to the body - the body is screaming 'keep shit out!'
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.
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
I know, thanks to knowing physics chem and biology that ivermectin doesn't work. And all peer reviewed papers say the same thing. The problem is many of you don't know how to read the study properly. You think they are saying ivermectin works - but you skipped past the part where they say it works so far in a petri dish, in a lab (in vitro). You also miss the part where they ALL conclude that there is not enough evidence to say it actually works.
Official physician and CDC guidance was once positive for covid, go home, take acetaminophen, and wait until O2 levels drop and difficulty breathing sets in, then go to hospital.
Acetaminophen has a harsher side effect and risk profile than ivermectin, and on top of that it is in numerous cold medicines, so as an OTC compound, it is very likely to be used into the risk zone. Ivermectin, being prescribed at known safe, tested dosing, is quite unlikely to be causative of side effect injury. Its safety profile is better than acetaminophen.
Nevertheless, people were NOT allowed to take ivermectin "placebo" but were DIRECTED to take acetaminophen placebo, self-medicated, and with greater OD risk. That is NOT logical in any sense, nor is it ethical for a novel disease with no cure.
The immune system is the only thing that can defeat covid, or cancer, or colds and flus etc.
Details here:
https://rev10.substack.com/p/vaccines-do-they-work-or-are-they
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.
Steve's articles serve one purpose, but what he claims, is hard to prove. I can prove vaccines don't work. And once we know that, then we don't ever have to take vaccines again. Killing two birds with one stone.
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.
What I do know is that when I gave it to my horse for years, it always kept the parasites under control. It's been that way for countless horseowners for decades.
What Pfizer, Moderna et al know is that their vaccines work - they have made and used vaccines for years, they have saved millions of lives over the years...
Yet, I'm here to tell them vaccines don't work, have never worked, have never saved any lives. So too ivermectin.
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
Just so you know - you are talking here with a person whose husband has been a virologist/immunologist for over 50 yrs. He worked in Public Health Dept. of PA for years and also worked with a Nobel prize winning scientist. As such, he helped to develop jabs back in 1970s - and quit because he found out what was in them. SB-40 for one, which is a cancer virus. He hasn't been jabbed since then. We do know that the principal of jabs do work, IOW if you are exposed to a small amount of virus, etc. your immune system will develop immunity to that bacteria, virus, etc. We know this and it's why homeopathy works, too. IMO, the question re: jabs at this point is NOT whether or not they work - it's do they cause damage? Considering that mercury, aluminum, SB-40 and more are ingredients of jabs, we can safely say that they do cause harm and even death. Jabs, as they are currently being made are NOT vaccines as they don't utilize standard vax procedures when they are made. mRNA is something entirely different than the classic vax. Now, back to Ivermectin, our original conversation: it has never been known to harm, injure or kill anyone unless you take enormous amounts of it, which most sane people wouldn't do. Do they work? Yes, they have been known to kill many forms of cancer for one, but also all parasites. I can't show you proof, but Ivermectin has been used for decades and has been shown to keep animals and people from getting sick. This is known as anecdotal evidence and in spite of what modern, i.e. fake science says - anecdotal evidence is some of the best evidence there is. Farmers are not idiots, they are very practical, evidence-based folks for the most part. If something doesn't work they wouldn't use it. Farmers have used Ivermectin for a very long time - because when they use it, they don't see their animals getting sick from parasites. This is why they keep using it, not because big pharma told them it works. That's all I am going to say about this topic.