Jump to content

Everyone was wrong about Ivermectin?


bullets13

Recommended Posts

This is the hidden content, please

 

This is a blog, but it examines and provides links to a ton of studies of Ivermectin.  It also gives pertinent back-information.  Examples of this would be information about the doctors writing the study having a history of fraud, some studies had numbers that were clearly made up, examples of well-written studies, etc.  Anyway, for anyone wanting to dive down the rabbit hole, this is an interesting read.  For those of you who don't, here's a very brief summary of the author's findings...

Basically after studying and breaking down pretty much every study out there, the author came to the following conclusion: everyone was wrong about ivermectin.  The people who think it's effective against COVID are wrong, and the people that think it has no value against COVID are also wrong.  How can this be, you ask?  Basically, a decent amount of studies where Ivermectin was shown to be beneficial are clearly fake or exaggerated.  The author goes into detail on these cases, in some cases providing links.  So it's not him just telling you to trust him.  In most reputable studies, the difference in results of groups taking ivermectin vs. groups taking nothing or a placebo were statistically insignificant.  Ivermectin didn't hurt anyone, but it didn't really appear to make much of a difference.  HOWEVER, there is one exception, and this exception played a very important role in the push for Ivermectin to begin with.  Some of the earliest (and most impressive) Ivermectin results came from areas where people are teeming with parasites. Studies early on from Bangladesh, East India, and Colombia showed tremendous results for people who took Ivermectin while sick with COVID.  Why would results differ in studies from these third world countries versus less impoverished areas? It's simple: the inhabitants of all of these countries are commonly infected by roundworms, threadworms, hookworms, blood flukes, liver flukes, nematodes, trematodes, pretty much every parasite you can think of.  Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic.  Does it not make complete and total sense that someone who's fighting COVID, AND also infested with parasites, would have a much better chance of survival if they took a drug that killed all of the parasites in their body?  Does it not also make sense that someone who's infested with parasites would be more susceptible to death from COVID than someone who's completely healthy? 

I'm not saying this article is the end all source for information, but a whole lot of what this guy says makes a whole lot of sense.  It's a long read, but I'd love to hear what you guys think.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

 

This is a blog, but it examines and provides links to a ton of studies of Ivermectin.  It also gives pertinent back-information.  Examples of this would be information about the doctors writing the study having a history of fraud, some studies had numbers that were clearly made up, examples of well-written studies, etc.  Anyway, for anyone wanting to dive down the rabbit hole, this is an interesting read.  For those of you who don't, here's a very brief summary of the author's findings...

Basically after studying and breaking down pretty much every study out there, the author came to the following conclusion: everyone was wrong about ivermectin.  The people who think it's effective against COVID are wrong, and the people that think it has no value against COVID are also wrong.  How can this be, you ask?  Basically, a decent amount of studies where Ivermectin was shown to be beneficial are clearly fake or exaggerated.  The author goes into detail on these cases, in some cases providing links.  So it's not him just telling you to trust him.  In most reputable studies, the difference in results of groups taking ivermectin vs. groups taking nothing or a placebo were statistically insignificant.  Ivermectin didn't hurt anyone, but it didn't really appear to make much of a difference.  HOWEVER, there is one exception, and this exception played a very important role in the push for Ivermectin to begin with.  Some of the earliest (and most impressive) Ivermectin results came from areas where people are teeming with parasites. Studies early on from Bangladesh, East India, and Colombia showed tremendous results for people who took Ivermectin while sick with COVID.  Why would results differ in studies from these third world countries versus less impoverished areas? It's simple: the inhabitants of all of these countries are commonly infected by roundworms, threadworms, hookworms, blood flukes, liver flukes, nematodes, trematodes, pretty much every parasite you can think of.  Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic.  Does it not make complete and total sense that someone who's fighting COVID, AND also infested with parasites, would have a much better chance of survival if they took a drug that killed all of the parasites in their body?  Does it not also make sense that someone who's infested with parasites would be more susceptible to death from COVID than someone who's completely healthy? 

I'm not saying this article is the end all source for information, but a whole lot of what this guy says makes a whole lot of sense.  It's a long read, but I'd love to hear what you guys think.  

Dang man. A while back I offered a couple of very credible videos to watch but you we're interest. Now you offer a 100 page opinion report? No thank you. I barely get through some of these long winded posts. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Confirmation Bias... if you want to find somebody to give you "facts" to support what you already believe, the internet is a great place. 

You could get sick and eat a straight diet of Reese's peanut butter cups and if you recover, was it the Reese's that did the trick?  

 

That kinda sums up ivermectin in a nutshell for me.  The same folks who claim the vaccine was never necessary for a virus that isn’t all that serious for most folks and carries a 99% survival rate then turn around and swear that ivermectin is the reason they survived and the virus didn’t hit them that hard.  What I found really interesting is that the argument made makes a lot of sense as to why a few early trials in a few third-world areas showed a lot of success, but have shown little results in areas where people aren’t eaten up with parasites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

That kinda sums up ivermectin in a nutshell for me.  The same folks who claim the vaccine was never necessary for a virus that isn’t all that serious for most folks and carries a 99% survival rate then turn around and swear that ivermectin is the reason they survived and the virus didn’t hit them that hard.  What I found really interesting is that the argument made makes a lot of sense as to why a few early trials in a few third-world areas showed a lot of success, but have shown little results in areas where people aren’t eaten up with parasites.

Glad to see you found reassurance in your investigation. I found my reassurance about a month or two after all this nonsense started. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with any of these studies is that we have a virus which probably has a survival rate in excess of 98%.

Going back two years and reading peoples’ experiences, it seems that many people have flu like symptoms for two or three days and then recover, sometimes relatively quickly. Anyone with such a result, could see anything as the reasoning for the recovery. A person who does not normally drink milk could’ve had a bowl of cereal with a cup of milk in it and then recovered from Covid. The logical conclusion is there, milk was the answer.

If a significant number of people in a Third World country were taking ivermectin and then recovered from Covid… at about 98%…. the ivermectin was a logical conclusion but is it statistically any different? 

If Covid had a 40% fatality rate and then people taking ivermectin or some other “cure” and the fatality rate dropped to maybe 5%, they would probably be a compelling case for that cure.

With the survival rate of Covid so high, I think it would be difficult to prove something works or there’s something does not work. I would lean towards something not working if there was statically very little evidence of a much higher survival rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2021 at 5:34 PM, bullets13 said:

That kinda sums up ivermectin in a nutshell for me.  The same folks who claim the vaccine was never necessary for a virus that isn’t all that serious for most folks and carries a 99% survival rate then turn around and swear that ivermectin is the reason they survived and the virus didn’t hit them that hard.  What I found really interesting is that the argument made makes a lot of sense as to why a few early trials in a few third-world areas showed a lot of success, but have shown little results in areas where people aren’t eaten up with parasites.

Did you find the article on the internet? 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2021 at 3:44 PM, CardinalBacker said:

Confirmation Bias... if you want to find somebody to give you "facts" to support what you already believe, the internet is a great place. 

You could get sick and eat a straight diet of Reese's peanut butter cups and if you recover, was it the Reese's that did the trick?  

 

Take it easy CB…Reese’s has done a lot for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a guy who worked at a hospital in Tyler that actually had a TB ward. One day a guy was brought in that had TB (of course), but he also tested positive for HIV, Hepatitis C, Syphillis, and a nasty cold. 
The doctor that admitted him prescribed protease inhibitors for the HIV, IV antibiotics, steroids, an anti fungal, and a strict diet of pizza and pancakes. 
 

They nurses were like “ok, that makes sense… except for the diet… what’s up with that?” And the doctor said “that’s all we can slide under the door to him.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,204
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    TJ_40
    Newest Member
    TJ_40
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Sorry sir on my miss count. I was in hurry
    • Are they offering refuge to criminals? Or is it a Trump talking point? Refugees are people who leave their country due to unwarranted prosecution. I actually take care of 2 refugee kids who have complex medical needs   No, refugees are not criminals, and the assumption that they are more likely to be criminals than the general population is incorrect:                                                                                          Research shows immigrants commit crimes at lower rates Immigrants in the United States commit crimes at lower rates than the U.S.-born population, including unauthorized immigrants. This is true across immigrant groups.                  Immigration doesn't raise crime rates Immigrants don't raise crime rates in the communities where they settle. In fact, some studies suggest that immigration can lower crime rates, especially violent crime.                  Anti-immigration politicians have spread a myth Anti-immigration politicians have repeatedly tried to link immigrants to crime, but research shows this is a myth.                  Refugees don't cause crime in Turkey A study found that refugees don't have a causal effect on crime rates in Turkey. In fact, the study found that refugees may have a negative effect on crime rates per capita. 
    • I think it's actually the first time ever to get past the second round. Some older folks might try to tell you about Scott High but I wasn't here when that school was around 😆
    • Smith is 78-31 overall and 18-8 in the playoffs. His first three years he went 23-15 overall and 6-3 in playoffs. His Silsbee teams are averaging making 3rd round every year in his 9 years as head coach.
    • Wishing everyone a great Thanksgiving!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...