Posted on 10/07/2021 10:18:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Just like aspirin and antibiotics are used for animals, Ivermectin is a very effective human medication. It is FDA and MHRA approved and a WHO “Essential Medicine” , eradicating horrific illnesses through 4 billion doses given to people over 40 years. It continues to protect millions and in normal doses is not ‘dangerous’; it is very safe, a hundred times safer than aspirin.
Ivermectin has strong antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties and features in early covid treatment protocols from expert clinicians worldwide - not ‘right wing anti-vax extremists’ as Atkins maliciously portrayed advocates.
He falsely claimed that there is ‘no evidence’ for ivermectin for Covid.
There is lots of it; over 64 studies so far. 45 are peer-reviewed and 35 are RCTs, involving 26,509 patients. Conducted by world-class researchers and medical professionals, they include gold standard meta-analyses in published and peer-reviewed journals supporting Ivermectin for covid. All have failed to be noticed by Atkins’ team.
The real truth is that the introduction of (human) ivermectin could save countless lives and remove many of the restrictions surrounding covid, just as health authorities in India, Mexico and many other countries have discovered.
But these inconvenient facts don’t suit Atkins’ ‘horse paste’ narrative – provocatively making 30 references to animals. The article by the New York Times he quotes has been debunked. This programme is poorly researched and biased. The BBC needs to uphold its responsibilities as a public broadcaster or continue to lose the public trust.
We 100% agree, don’t use animal medicines. No serious advocate of ivermectin is suggesting that.
Strangely, the editorial team chose to tell this as mainly an animal medicine story following a now debunked press release in the USA.
Horses, cows and other animals are mentioned or depicted 30+ times.
Peppered with emotional tags such ‘goo’, ‘de-wormer’ and ‘paste’, the intention appears to overtly and subliminally repulse the viewer against ivermectin rather than apply any kind of objectivity or further understanding.
Atkins brushed over the fact that ivermectin is safely used for humans.
4 billion times - transforming and saving their lives. It is safer than aspirin and works well with pretty much every other medicine.
By focusing on the danger of medicines that have animal versions, this would imply people should avoid taking aspirin, antibiotics and other common medications.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Useful video to understand the difference between animals and humans and ivermectin:
https://youtu.be/_blbVs8eBUK
Ivermectin is safe up to 10 times recommended dosage:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/
Chris Whitty describes as ‘safe’:
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/202/1/113/888773
64 Studies – 45 are peer-reviewed - with 26,500 participants plenty of data from multiple sources from around the world by world-eminent scientists.
On average the data show a reduction of deaths from covid by 68% for early treatment and 86% in prevention when using ivermectin. There are seven meta analyses from highly credible researchers from all over the world.
The report didn’t acknowledge any of them. Credible journalism should acknowledge their existence and their findings.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/900/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx
Why are six telephone calls to poison control about Ivermectin newsworthy, yet over 100,000 calls to poison control on Tylenol/Paracetamol each year are not?
Moreover, no one dies of Ivermectin in a typical year, yet Tylenol accounts for 56,000 annual emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalisations, and almost 500 deaths.
To be clear, none of the 1143 Ivermectin-related telephone calls made to Poison Control across the United States from January 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021 dealt with a severe reaction to veterinary Ivermectin. Not one.
Yet, if you read the media reports, you would be led to believe this was a significant problem. It isn’t.
https://trialsitenews.com/u-s-poison-control-ivermectin-data-analyzedby-trialsite-some-surprises/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15239078/
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/theivermectin-deworminghoax---part-iii-poisoncontrolexposed/article_a553b7f2- 1a31-11ec-881aa7df53e98d65.html
In Peru the same, when ivermectin was rolled out it drastically shrunk the death and hospitalisation toll. When it was stopped, by politicians, they rose again.
Perhaps a cursory glance by the editorial team would have surfaced the 60+ studies that show efficacy of the human version in humans, rather than the recycled and debunked story in the US media about the animal version in humans.
Indian lawyers are even suing WHO for advocating deprivation of life-saving medication.
https://www.thedesertrevie w.com/opinion/letters_to_ editor/is-ivermectin-thenewpenicillin/article_b6b7afd8- bd77-11eb-8259- af11e3c83aea.html
https://indianexpress.com/ article/cities/lucknow/uttarpradesh-government-saysivermectin-helped-to-keepdeaths-low-7311786/
https://manilastandard.net/ opinion/columns/crossroad s-by-j-a-delacruz/358374/indian-barassociation-sues-who.html
Yes, there is research which is neutral of ivermectin for covid. But, these are heavily outnumbered by those that show a strong, positive outcome. Currently 86% effective overall. None of them show that ivermectin causes any harm.
Even so, we believe in science over politics and we still acknowledge the non-positive reports exist.
Also worth noting that the NYT printed a serious error overstating calls to poison control centre by 35 times. Rather than print a retraction they just deleted the info. Perhaps, not the most reliable of sources.
https://politicofire.com/202 1/09/18/new-york-timesissues-major-correction-tostory-with-erroneous-claimabout-ivermectin-ingestionpoof-but-damage-done/
https://resistthemainstrea m.org/nyt-finally-correctsclaim-aboutivermectin/?utm_source=telegram
We agree! The discussion with Ros and Jennifer Reich about the loss of trust in institutions over many years was interesting. However, they omitted to mention the media bears much responsibility. The lack of public confidence is not surprising with media reports such as this which do not provide correct information or journalistic balance and can easily be shown up for their falsehoods.
Pharma is in the driving seat:
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=-z_W3yRA9I8
Ping for your interest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.