Thinking of trying ivermectin for COVID? Here's what can happen with this controversial drug (Author admits to lying!)

Medical XPress / The Conversation ^ | Sept. 2, 2021 | Nial Wheate

[Glad2bnuts]

I had a really good friend die last Friday night/Saturday morning. The hospital said it was the Rona. He wasn’t sick, he had dinner with the family and he said “I can’t taste any pineapple in this”. Ate dinner, went to bed and about 11 pm, he began pacing saying he could not breathe. His Wife called 911, they wouldn’t allow her to ride in the ambulance. When she got to the hospital, they told her he had a bad case of Covid. He died at 1 AM without ever seeing his wife again.

I told his wife she should pay for an autopsy. In my mind, he had a heart attack and they treated him like a Covid patient. Which in my experience means they shove you in a examination room and ignore you. Of course the next day the wife, two adult kids and their girlfriends got the vaxx.

I have never in my life heard of a virus that takes you from feeling normal to dead in 8 hours. It is total BS.

[DugwayDuke]

zek157 wrote: “So you don’t mind getting a booster every 6 months?”

Preferable to wearing a mask, social distancing, lockdowns, hospitalization, etc.

[Svartalfiar]

Did he actually overdose though? Some of the farm ivermectin pastes have other stuff in them that aren’t good for you. Coulda been on overdose, but I would guess it might be a non-ivermectin issue.

[LilFarmer]

The CDC is using it on refugees coming to the US (for parasites)

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overseas-guidelines.html

[Svartalfiar]

zek157 wrote: “So you don’t mind getting a booster every 6 months?”

Preferable to wearing a mask, social distancing, lockdowns, hospitalization, etc.

Or, you don't get the shot, you avoid the myriad issues with these "vaccines", and you don't bother wearing an ineffective mask, who cares about 'social distancing', lockdowns will happen no matter what because they're about power over the masses not actual societal benefit, and hospitalization is an extremely rare chance that you're likely to avoid by taking a couple vitamins, or ivermectin/quinine/zinc if you actually get a sniffle.

[LilFarmer]

The author does not mention the fact that many of the rare severe side effects are related to the particular parasite being treated, most likely related to die off. Side effects are broken down that way on most med info sites.

[DugwayDuke]

Svartalfiar wrote: “Or, you don’t get the shot, you avoid the myriad issues with these “vaccines”, and you don’t bother wearing an ineffective mask, who cares about ‘social distancing’, lockdowns will happen no matter what because they’re about power over the masses not actual societal benefit, and hospitalization is an extremely rare chance that you’re likely to avoid by taking a couple vitamins, or ivermectin/quinine/zinc if you actually get a sniffle.”

What makes you think you have a choice about masks, etc?

The vaccines are far more effective than couple vitamins, or ivermectin/quinine/zinc, etc.

[Svartalfiar]

What makes you think you have a choice about masks, etc?

The vaccines are far more effective than couple vitamins, or ivermectin/quinine/zinc, etc.

The fact that I live in Texas, where I've, so far, purchased ONE mask this entire time: a nice metal mesh paintball half-mask that lets me breathe just fine. And I've only 'had' to wear it at 3-4 places, only because I didn't feel like arguing. No where else cared if you didn't wear one.

And how do you know tha "vaccines" are more effective? Even the manufacturers only put them at ~95%, when they were supposedly most effective. Now the numbers I see are 30-40%, and even if we accept those at face value, that's still incredible low. The only ivermectin studies I've seen with worse numbers were the ones with very low doses. And ivermectin/vitamin C/etc doesn't have nearly the terrible side effects that these "vaccines" do.

[DugwayDuke]

Svartalfiar wrote: “And how do you know tha “vaccines” are more effective? Even the manufacturers only put them at ~95%, when they were supposedly most effective. Now the numbers I see are 30-40%, and even if we accept those at face value, that’s still incredible low. The only ivermectin studies I’ve seen with worse numbers were the ones with very low doses. And ivermectin/vitamin C/etc doesn’t have nearly the terrible side effects that these “vaccines” do.”

How do you know the vaccines are waning in effectiveness?

https://www.newsmax.com/health/health-news/covid-vaccine-protection-infection/2021/08/30/id/1034352/

Svartalfiar wrote: “The only ivermectin studies I’ve seen with worse numbers were the ones with very low doses. And ivermectin/vitamin C/etc doesn’t have nearly the terrible side effects that these “vaccines” do.”

One should be very skeptical of ivermectin studies. For example:

“Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

And, yes ivermectin does have side effects.

[Svartalfiar]

How do you know the vaccines are waning in effectiveness?

The CDC tells you. I don;t have links to the articles here on FR, but a quick search comes up with plenty of articles on the CDC's own words. And not just that, but if the "vaccines" are still just as effective, then why would you need a third booster shot? Or even a FOURTH if you're in Israel, one of the highest (or the highest?) "vaccinated" country with extremely high ChinaVirus positives? These don't go as low as 40%, but that may have just been an article on here that was Pfizer-specific.
https://outragedpatriot.com/breaking-cdc-admits-vaccine-effectiveness-against-hospitalizations-is-falling/
https://bdnews24.com/coronavirus-pandemic/2021/08/18/cdc-says-vaccine-protectiveness-slipped-amid-delta-variant
https://nationalfile.com/israels-covid-czar-tells-public-to-prepare-for-fourth-pfizer-booster-shot/


One should be very skeptical of ivermectin studies. For example:
...
And, yes ivermectin does have side effects.

Why should one be very skeptical? Because it's effective so FedGov and Big Pharma have to suppress everything they can, and not allow for big, easy-to-do studies, so we're stuck with extremely limited ones from a few doctors here and there? It's so ineffective that Japan now suggests it as one of the primary treatment options?

And I never said ivermectin doesn't have side effects, I said they're much rarer and less extreme than the side effects from the ChinaVirus "vaccines". Ivermectin is so bad for you, it never won a Nobel prize and certainly isn't on the WHO's list of essential medicines every country should stockpile, right? Have you even looked at any ivermectin studies? the toxicity dose is rather high, even for someone math-challenged who eats a whole tube of horse dewormer. Even that amount (about ten-fifteen times the recommended prophylactic dose) is well below the human limit, and nowhere close to a fatal dose. Ivermectin dosing for river blindness is ~150ug/kg, or 30mg for a 200# person. A single horse tube has ~100mg in it.
And hey, even Wikipedia says this: Ivermectin is considered relatively free of toxicity in standard doses, that is, around 300 µg/kg.

[DugwayDuke]

Svartalfiar wrote: “The CDC tells you. I don;t have links to the articles here on FR, but a quick search comes up with plenty of articles on the CDC’s own words.”

If you haven’t noticed, FreeRepublic is dominated by anti-vaxxer posters who post anti-vaxxer propaganda.

[Svartalfiar]

And oh hey, look what just showed up on my recent articles list, any comment on this?

FR: Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

[DugwayDuke]

Svartalfiar wrote: “And oh hey, look what just showed up on my recent articles list, any comment on this?”

FR is biased in favor of anti-vaxxer articles. Try researching other sources. Like this one.

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.