The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

How's your immunity looking? Had covid - vote twice - vax status and then again for infection status

  • Vaxxed but no booster

  • Boostered

  • Still waiting in queue for first vaccine dose

  • Won't get vaxxed (unless I have to for travel/work etc)

  • Past infection with covid + I've been vaccinated

  • Past infection with covid - I've not been vaccinated

Results are only viewable after voting.
WPMUFC said:
None....not one national medical body is advising ivermetctin usage for COVID, and your disingenuous and moralising posting over "a wonderful drug being besmirched" is in complete bad faith.

Your continual shifting of the goal posts to focus discussion on where ivermetctin may be useful and it's proper usage in humans has nothing to do with the fact that people are continually using the drug in non-safe ways instead of taking a safe and highly efficacious vaccine. To the point that the incorrect usage of ivermetctin via people buying ANIMAL-GRADE products is leading to hospitalisation.

People (and my making fun of Rogan) that are talking about ivermetctin as "horse dewormer" are obviously talking about it in the examples of fecking morons going to a pet store for medication instead of taking a vaccine. Making fun of a moron like Rogan is trying to highlight that he is willing to take 50 other types of medication over a vaccine, yet are the first morons to pipe up about "Gotta follow the real science bro".
Click to expand...

The discussion was in the Joe Rogan thread because someone posted an image with Joe Rogan morphing into a horse.

I have continuously said that people using Ivermectin over a vaccine are morons.

What I had a problem with is people coming out and labelling a wonderful drug like Ivermectin into just a horse dewormer. The number of times I have seen this in the last week by credible journalists and news outlets is astounding.

My point is just that it needed to be studied and trialled properly as a possible treatment of Covid. Instead idiots in the US have made it into a political issue.

The liberal media is labelling it just as a horse medicine while some anti vaxxers are actually using the horse version and ending up in hospitals.

So I don’t know how I am shifting the goal posts - I am very clear on my issue with this whole IVM fiasco. The discussion has taken many different routes since then. Has it been used by billions or not? Some didn’t even know that it’s discovery resulted in a nobel prize award.

My whole point was there should be no bias against any possible treatment of Covid.
 
snk123 said:
The discussion was in the Joe Rogan thread because someone posted an image with Joe Rogan morphing into a horse.

I have continuously said that people using Ivermectin over a vaccine are morons.

What I had a problem with is people coming out and labelling a wonderful drug like Ivermectin into just a horse dewormer. The number of times I have seen this in the last week by credible journalists and news outlets is astounding.

My point is just that it needed to be studied and trialled properly as a possible treatment of Covid. Instead idiots in the US have made it into a political issue.

The liberal media is labelling it just as a horse medicine while some anti vaxxers are actually using the horse version and ending up in hospitals.

So I don’t know how I am shifting the goal posts - I am very clear on my issue with this whole IVM fiasco. The discussion has taken many different routes since then. Has it been used by billions or not? Some didn’t even know that it’s discovery resulted in a nobel prize award.

My whole point was there should be no bias against any possible treatment of Covid.
Click to expand...

It doesn't though, because there is no basis for it being trialed in the first place. If you put enough of almost anything into a dish of cells you will inhibit viral growth. Ivermectin had an effect only at levels toxic to humans - at physiological doses it had no effect whatsoever.

You can't claim that this drug has a rich history of safe usage whilst simultaneously advocating for it to be tested at higher dosages as that's the only scenario where it was effective - if you dose people with 80x the recommended amount of ibuprofen or acetaminophen or any number of OTC drugs they'd have massive issues; what on earth makes you think high in vitro doses of ivermectin justify study when there are already huge side effects?

Also, it hasn't been used by billions. Just to clear that up as you seem to keep insisting on it.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
It doesn't though, because there is no basis for it being trialed in the first place. If you put enough of almost anything into a dish of cells you will inhibit viral growth. Ivermectin had an effect only at levels toxic to humans - at physiological doses it had no effect whatsoever.

You can't claim that this drug has a rich history of safe usage whilst simultaneously advocating for it to be tested at higher dosages as that's the only scenario where it was effective - if you dose people with 80x the recommended amount of ibuprofen or acetaminophen or any number of OTC drugs they'd have massive issues; what on earth makes you think high in vitro doses of ivermectin justify study when there are already huge side effects?

Also, it hasn't been used by billions. Just to clear that up as you seem to keep insisting on it.
Click to expand...

Not always true. I once dosed a cell culture with 10 cans of spinach and it somehow grew an arm with an anchor tattoo and punched me.

I also may have been drunk.
 
WI_Red said:
Not always true. I once dosed a cell culture with 10 cans of spinach and it somehow grew an arm with an anchor tattoo and punched me.

I also may have been drunk.
Click to expand...

Well of course, gotta always exercise the utmost care when it comes to S. oleracea - obviously only 9 cans can be dumped per petri dish, duh!
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
It doesn't though, because there is no basis for it being trialed in the first place. If you put enough of almost anything into a dish of cells you will inhibit viral growth. Ivermectin had an effect only at levels toxic to humans - at physiological doses it had no effect whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It's funny because it is literally being trialed in Oxford University. I guess you know more than the people there as well.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-2...e-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial

"With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19."

TheMagicFoolBus said:
You can't claim that this drug has a rich history of safe usage whilst simultaneously advocating for it to be tested at higher dosages as that's the only scenario where it was effective
Click to expand...

Again, your assumption that it is only beneficial in large doses may or may not be correct. We don't know for certain yet.

TheMagicFoolBus said:
Also, it hasn't been used by billions. Just to clear that up as you seem to keep insisting on it.
Click to expand...

And what exactly is your source for that? That you worked at Merck? :lol:

Subsequently, more than 2 billion treatments have been distributed...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5850622/
Click to expand...

well-being of billions of people worldwide since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835698/
Click to expand...

Billions of people have been treated with ivermectin during mass drug administrations (MDAs) for onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis.
https://www.wwarn.org/working-together/study-groups/ivermectin-exposure-small-children-study-group-0
Click to expand...

"billions of people, literally, have taken it"
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-and-should-we-be-using-it-to-treat-covid-19
Click to expand...

It has been given to billions of people and no serious adverse effects have been reported.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Tokyo-considers-trials-of-parasite-drug-for-COVID-19
Click to expand...


Again, sometimes it's okay to admit you're wrong. Also, even if tens of millions have taken it and not billions, what difference does it make?
The drug is safe and needs to be assessed without bias is my entire point.

Why is there no middle ground these days? Why the feck is everything so polarized.
 
Why is everything so polarized, says a person knee-deep in one of the most boring culture war issues of the past year.
 
Having the same rubbish being spouted is not boring at all and presenting a logical and different point of view is boring? Excellent.

Go on continue lying then.
Joe Rogan used a horse medicine haha. So funny. Next.
 
snk123 said:
It's funny because it is literally being trialed in Oxford University. I guess you know more than the people there as well.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-2...e-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial

"With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies. Small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19."

Again, your assumption that it is only beneficial in large doses may or may not be correct. We don't know for certain yet.

And what exactly is your source for that? That you worked at Merck? :lol:

Again, sometimes it's okay to admit you're wrong. Also, even if tens of millions have taken it and not billions, what difference does it make?
The drug is safe and needs to be assessed without bias is my entire point.

Why is there no middle ground these days? Why the feck is everything so polarized.
Click to expand...

Yep, guess I do then. Its antiviral properties have only been displayed in in vitro studies at dosages incompatible with human life. Those small pilot studies are worthless.

My source for that is literally in the abstract of one of the papers you posted:
"It has been used by millions of people around the world exhibiting a wide margin of clinical safety." Also simply common sense? Statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in the world at about 200 million per year. But yes, a horse dewormer is taken by 300 million per year :lol:

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Treatments being distributed has very little to do with treatments actually going into people - time for you to try to learn what a supply chain is.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Yep, guess I do then. Its antiviral properties have only been displayed in in vitro studies at dosages incompatible with human life. Those small pilot studies are worthless.

My source for that is literally in the abstract of one of the papers you posted:
"It has been used by millions of people around the world exhibiting a wide margin of clinical safety." Also simply common sense? Statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in the world at about 200 million per year. But yes, a horse dewormer is taken by 300 million per year :lol:

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Treatments being distributed has very little to do with treatments actually going into people - time for you to try to learn what a supply chain is.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony. :lol:

I have literally posted so many sources verifying that it is used by millions every year.
Supply chain? How the feck do you know how many of those have actually went to/were used by people? again the original point was that it is a safe and widely used drug - and not just a horse dewormer.

But apparently facts, statements and links from your arse are the only correct source of information. :lol:
That's me done in this thread.
 
snk123 said:
Oh the irony. :lol:

I have literally posted so many sources verifying that it is used by millions every year.
Supply chain? How the feck do you know how many of those have actually went to/were used by people? again the original point was that it is a safe and widely used drug - and not just a horse dewormer.

But apparently facts, statements and links from your arse are the only correct source of information. :lol:
That's me done in this thread.
Click to expand...
It's a safe and widely used drug supplied for specific purposes - in particular as a one off treatment used against parasites. It can be used annually in locations with high infestation risk, sometimes at a shorter interval in an individual prone to stubborn reinfection.

It isn't used routinely or without medical assessment and dosage depends on the individual. There's no trial safety information on regular usage (as proposed by some of its fans) or on higher doses. When it failed to show efficacy against covid in formal trials conducted in hospitals and failed again as an early outpatient treatment option in the Together Trial - its fans asked for higher doses. That is: they not only wanted to use it for something it wasn't designed for, they didn't want to use the "proven safe" pattern either.

Repurposing cheap, safety tested drugs is something of a holy grail for medical researchers. Multiple trials of all kinds of drugs have been done, only a small number have shown any measurable clinical advantage. Currently the most promising of the early outpatient drugs, based on actual statistically sound clinical trials, are fluvoxamine and budesonide, with budesonide being the closest to actual usage.

Anyone who comes up with a safe (ideally safe enough to dispense over the counter without prescription) treatment set for early covid is into a winner. Preferably one that can be taken while you wait for a positive PCR test is onto a massive money-spinner. Imagine - a packet of lemsip-for-covid in everyone's medicine cabinet.

There's no incentive to hide the truth from the world and a massive incentive to find effective treatments. Vaccines are saving lives right now, the only thing we know for sure about ivermectin is that desperate people want to believe in it.

For anyone who fancies doing a basic read of what ivermectin is designed to do, try:
https://www.rxlist.com/stromectol-drug.htm
Most common side-effects are:
headache
muscle aches
dizziness
nausea
diarrhea
mild skin rash
Which I guess means it does have something in common with the vaccines.
 
snk123 said:
Oh the irony. :lol:

I have literally posted so many sources verifying that it is used by millions every year.
Supply chain? How the feck do you know how many of those have actually went to/were used by people? again the original point was that it is a safe and widely used drug - and not just a horse dewormer.

But apparently facts, statements and links from your arse are the only correct source of information. :lol:
That's me done in this thread.
Click to expand...
Honestly, thank feck.

I understand the point you were trying to make but a drug that has not been clinically tested sufficiently for the specific purpose of treating CV19 infection, irrespective of the fact that it has been used at appropriate dosages to treat other conditions, but being advocated strongly as a treatment for said illness by prominent non medical media celebrities resulting in people literally taking doses of the drug designed for the veterinary treatment of an animal that is considerably more massive is a bad thing.

This does not mean Ivermectin is not safe for human use at appropriate dosages for certain conditions (which has been medically tested, proven and the side effects understood - somewhat like the vaccine as an aside) and Seth fecking Rogan may have taken a sensible dosage to treat the disease he has contracted (and let's not even go into his positions on this matter) but that changes absolutely none of the above paragraph.

So, yes, laughing at Rogan for being a (dangerous) idiot is entirely appropriate as he is doing something far more risky than taking the vaccine he is so sceptical about and the fact that humans have used Ivermectin for other purposes is, literally, fecking irrelevant.
 
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

"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."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
 
Last edited:
nimic said:
Doesn't work either. But the one you linked before that does. This one has a b at the end of the actual link, for some reason.
Click to expand...
If you look in the URL, a B is being added at the end, cut it off and it works. This is really weird. Have you ever heard of a link that adds an extra character that causes the link to fail?
 
There seem to be a few studies saying "this totally works", and then a few studies saying "it's impossible to say if this works or not". Doesn't feel possible for non-professionals to conclude one way or another.
 
I find the whole Ivermectin thing really bizarre. We are awaiting results of principle trial and trial in Brazil which will let us know for sure.

What's even weirder is that we have inpatient therapies that we know work, dexamethasone, tocilizumab. And budesonide inhaler that principle trial identified as a community outpatient therapy which early treatment with can reduce recovery time. Which none of the ivermectin lot are interested in.
 
nimic said:
That study is five months old, I just noticed. I'm sceptical about taking it at face value given that governmental health authorities are still not accepting it.
Click to expand...
Once you remove the big positive trial in there which has been rejected subsequently as faulty and possibly even fabricated, it has a different result. As Wolverine says there are two trials, Principle (UK) and Together (Canada/South America) currently trialling it as part of a series of trials looking at possible repurposed drugs - so we'll know more when they report. Early news from Together is that they've already seen better results from fluvoxamine, and no statistically significant impact from Ivermectin.
 
Wolverine said:
I find the whole Ivermectin thing really bizarre. We are awaiting results of principle trial and trial in Brazil which will let us know for sure.

What's even weirder is that we have inpatient therapies that we know work, dexamethasone, tocilizumab. And budesonide inhaler that principle trial identified as a community outpatient therapy which early treatment with can reduce recovery time. Which none of the ivermectin lot are interested in.
Click to expand...
That's great news! Are they affordable?

I'm not sure there's enough Ivermectin or any of this stuff to really make a dent, though we could have been producing huge quantities for a while now. I hope that's the plan.
 
snk123 said:
Again, sometimes it's okay to admit you're wrong. Also, even if tens of millions have taken it and not billions, what difference does it make?
The drug is safe and needs to be assessed without bias is my entire point.
Click to expand...

You suggesting tens of millions and several billions are even in the same fcuking ballpark tells me all I need to know.
 
jojojo said:
Once you remove the big positive trial in there which has been rejected subsequently as faulty and possibly even fabricated, it has a different result. As Wolverine says there are two trials, Principle (UK) and Together (Canada/South America) currently trialling it as part of a series of trials looking at possible repurposed drugs - so we'll know more when they report. Early news from Together is that they've already seen better results from fluvoxamine, and no statistically significant impact from Ivermectin.
Click to expand...
Is there a link to that info in here, I haven't heard one of the trials was rejected, that would be very interesting.
 
Beans said:
That's great news! Are they affordable?

I'm not sure there's enough Ivermectin or any of this stuff to really make a dent, though we could have been producing huge quantities for a while now. I hope that's the plan.
Click to expand...
Dex and the inhaler are both cheap. Widely available.
Wondering though why the latter doesnt get any traction amongst the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin crowd.
Whats even weirder is that we have some great vaccines widely available but instead we are seeing overdoses of horsepaste
 
jojojo said:
A good starting point is:https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on-fraudulent-research-5cc079278602
Click to expand...
I'll have to look into it more, the claims are complicated, but I do take exception with this:

"The problem is, if you look at those large, aggregate models, and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses almost all of its purported benefit. Take the recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al. that has been all over the news — they found a 62% reduction in risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin compared to controls when combining randomized trials.

However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide"

First of all, no one had ever said it works on people with severe COVID, it's a prophylactic, it prevents the infection from taking place, it can't fight an infection that's already there.

Second, 52% is a big deal to me, I don't understand why they're saying 62% is amazing but 52% is equal to "loses almost all of its purported benefit."

But I'll check the rest out. I haven't paid attention to all this for a while so I don't have everything to hand, but if I can muster the energy I'll check out some of the old Peak Prosperity videos on the info and studies that have come out and post the data.

As I recall, you really have to take it in the first 48 hours to get the benefit, and it doesn't work once you're quite sick. That's always been the case, and any study that only tests people already 2 days into symptoms will find little benefit. As I recall, it binds to the site that COVID wants to bind to, I think that's it.
 
Last edited:
I skimmed through the linked paper above and I am not that impressed. Two major issues:

1. Animal Data: Both studies are missing controls that I would think would have been required. It could be this review is just not referencing them. Also, the hamster study mentions that there is no change in viral titers which is just weird if the arguments for MOA is the inhibition of viral entry and/or replication.
2. Clinical Data: Those numbers are completely dependent on the actions of people within their social groups (ie, do they wear PPE equally, are they equally social, are the people around them wearing PPE, etc.). There is not a single mention of measuring viral titers which I would think would be a necessary component. I am/was not a clincal researcher, but I did study a respitory disease in a lab setting and all of our observational animal data (pre and post killing) had to be backed up by CFU measurements.

There are other things, but as this is a review I would need to track down the original articles and I just don't care that much. If this drug was being proposed by those feckers as a companion to vaccination then sure, deworm away, but as they pushing it as an alternative I simply don't have the time.

---To be clear, the "they" in the above is not the researchers, but the anti-vaxx idiots and their enablers in right-wing media.
 
snk123 said:
Oh the irony. :lol:

I have literally posted so many sources verifying that it is used by millions every year.
Supply chain? How the feck do you know how many of those have actually went to/were used by people? again the original point was that it is a safe and widely used drug - and not just a horse dewormer.

But apparently facts, statements and links from your arse are the only correct source of information. :lol:
That's me done in this thread.
Click to expand...

Setting aside your ridiculous moving of the goalposts (2 billion patients a year initially was the claim :lol: :lol: :lol:), the whole point is that it has no impact on COVID when used at safe dosages, so if it's used at high doses then the previous safety profile is completely irrelevant.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
the whole point is that it has no impact on COVID when used at safe dosages, so if it's used at high doses then the previous safety profile is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Yep.
“Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans. Even though ivermectin appears to accumulate in the lung tissue, predicted systemic plasma and lung tissue concentrations are much lower than 2 µM, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.”

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
 
WI_Red said:
Crap. Wish I had seen this before wasting time this morning reading that shit.

How's the head this morning?
Click to expand...
Haha sorry I wasn’t quicker on the post.

Never felt better. I’ve not had a hangover since about 2009. I don’t know why, I just don’t get them.
 
Carolina Red said:
Haha sorry I wasn’t quicker on the post.

Never felt better. I’ve not had a hangover since about 2009. I don’t know why, I just don’t get them.
Click to expand...

If you figure it out let me know, I have a feeling that the WCQ game tonight is going to send me over the edge.
 
I know some people who have been taking IVM for months (probably a year at this stage). Some of them caught COVID and were fine, others caught COVID and died. I also know a bunch of people who received the vaccine and caught COVID subsequently - not a single person has died. I just can't understand how people aren't willing to take the vaccine due to 'science and safety reasons', but are chomping at the bit to take this drug indefinitely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.