RE: Early on in the in remedy in craze many of the people desperate to demonstrate some conspiracy pointed to India with its wide distribution of ivermectin as the shining example. Unfortunately India is now being decimated by a severe wave despite widespread ivermectin use.
India is a big country. What I’d like to know is how Is widespread is this distribution in India?
Is the severe wave India is experiencing now in those provinces and cities that DO have Ivermectin widely distributed or not?
Next question:
RE: Ivermectin is at best an impartial solution
Impartial solution to me, means it works under certain conditions and does not work under others. Do you know under which conditions it works and under which conditions it does not?
All good questions Seek, plus there’s such disparity in data collection and reporting one would want to take comparisons between different nations with a large grain of salt.
Some other questions seem pertinent, even with that proviso.
First, while it is true that, India is today reporting a rapid rise in case numbers that began about 50 days ago, they are still reporting only a little over 9/100,000 population, with deaths a 0.05/100,000. IE, very low numbers compared to a lot of other places. Can all of that be attributed to bad reporting? Or is something else accounting for India faring so much better than other large countries?
Second, no one on this thread anyway has claimed that IVM is a “cure”, pace the good doctor. The claim is that there is a strong therapeutic effect that would appear to have been well established by not one, but three separate meta-analyses of more than a dozen studies, including RCT’s conducted over the past year. Tess Lawrie, Pierre Kourie and Andrew Hill each independently conducted rigorous meta-analyses of the global data, and all reached the same conclusion: the only debate is “how much” it can help, not “if it can” help. Dr. Lawrie’s summary is the clearest: at the low end, IVM appears to reduce deaths compared to standard of care by 28%, with the possibility that the reduction could be as great as 68%. And we’re talking about deaths here, so that translates into a lot of lives saved, even at the low end.
Is that a cure? No. Is that compelling evidence of efficacy? Well, I’m not a doctor, but I can do a little math still, and the only way these effects are illusory is if a bunch of people with nothing to gain somehow got together and decided to lie about their findings. That seems unlikely.
I have rx ivermectin numerous times. I have seen it work about 1/3 of the time. I have NEVER scene it work in late phase disease (inflammatory period) but have had occasional success with early and moderate diseases
While every one want ivermectin to worn the data are not there especially with the grandiose statement that it is a cure. It is not. Science evolves. We learn. There is a highly effective treatment but the HCQ and ivermectin conspiracy theorists don’t want to listen or have it.
The highly effective therapy is monoclonal antibodies. Bamlanivomab and Regeneron. You know. What they gave the president. When given in the first 10 days these therapeutics seem to arrest progression to high degree of effectiveness.
And yes. It irritates the conspiracy theorists however vaccination is an effective prophylaxis. But too many people right here are guilty of what the left has done. They have politicized the disease.
It is just an opinion. It may not work for all people, but it works quickly for some if not most.
There is no downside risk that I know of.
Our local doctor who prescribed it is great at what she does.
She actually cares about her patients.
We live in the Big Nothing.