Hydroxychloroquine pioneer Didier Raoult finally takes it back: it doesn't work

@DennisTate

I have taken Ivermectin for 2 full courses
and there were no side effects.
And I am a sensitive sort !

The reported side effects referenced could have
been due to the target's death and subsequent
release of other immune targets.

My Med School parisitology teacher who did U.N.
work lectured about living with his body-mates
rather than risk the above.
Most of us in "the West" don't have such concerns.
Worms & larvae oh my


Moi, M.D. ret.
UCSF '74

​

 

A ninety six percent success rate is not exactly what I would term a "wild drug."




Clinical Trials and Research News Weekly Roundup | S2 E27 | Ivermectin VS Hydroxychloroquine

 

Real

Have you never seen drug induced VT?

 

Here is a bit of life advice

Do not take medical advice from YouTube videos because with rare exceptions they are usually less reliable than a used car salesman in a recession - in South America - the poorer parts

 

Ref.: #26 above.
Paragraph 3 beginning with "My Med School parisitology teacher. . ."



Was it the death of some parasite that Ivermectin treats

A deadened larvae/worm poisoned by ivermectin releasing
its' immune stimulating antigens ? Beware your own immunity.
Ref.: S L E
And Congo is major diff than "the West" respecting parasites.

Ivermectin is truly remarkable at killing off invertebrates and some viruses too without messing with "our" biochemistry.

Are YOU a vertebrate @Bowerbird ?


Moi

 

I crossed the road today and did not die.

As for toxins, do you have any evidence other than someone told you that they may happen and cause death? If you read the link you would have noticed that alcohol was a factor in the increase of severe adverse effects, not toxins. Alcohol is just as rife in the west as anywhere else, if not more so.

The risks of SAE is much higher in Invermectin than it is with any of the vaccines

 

And that is why you don't promote the use of a drug that has a higher risk of a severe adverse effect (SAE) over one that has a lesser risk of SAE. Hydrochloroquine, (which has been shown not to work and had a high risk of SAE) and Invermectin (which has been shown that it might help but had a high risk of SAE) both had higher risk of SAE than any of the vaccines (which have been shown to work and had lower risk of SAE)

 

I'm not following the whole discussion here since some of the people here are on Ignore... but here is a brand new article on toxicity of chloroquine (granted, it's not about hydroxychloroquine but the two drugs are very close) that introduces another reason not to use it for Covid-19: endothelial lesions. The SARS-CoV-2 has a huge predilection for endothelial cells and one of the mechanisms of severe disease and death in Covid-19 is precisely the endothelial lesions that can cause a lot of the lung issues, as well as kidney, liver, and brain issues. Guess what? Chloroquine enhances these lesions. The authors say that this cancels any benefit of chloroquine for Covid-19, and postulate that this issue is one of the mechanisms for why chloroquine has failed as a therapy for Covid-19.

Mechanism: cell toxicity and oxidative stress mediated by lysosomal dysfunction:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0041008X21000193

As for ivermectin, the evidence that it works is becoming truly overwhelming. By now, of 18 RCTs and 18 observational studies, all 36 point to effectiveness. Look at this meta-analysis site:

https://ivmmeta.com/

About severe adverse events, sure, but they aren't the kind that hydroxychloroquine causes that directly compromise people with Covid-19, such as QTc prolongation for a condition that already causes conduction delays in the heart (although ivermectin can cause PR prolongation, which is not the same as QTc prolongation), and endothelial lesions as above for a condition that already causes endothelial lesions (which is why these drugs are unsafe for Covid-19 patients but safe for lupus, RA, and malaria patients; like I said many times, safety of a drug is disease-specific).

Efficacy wise, ivermectin as prophylaxis has supposedly resulted in a 90% reduction in relative risk. @truth and justice above (who is not on my Ignore list) said that vaccines are better.

Yes, vaccines are better, no doubt, and I'm a big advocate. Particularly, the safety record of these Covid-19 vaccines is outstanding. With 104 million doses delivered worldwide, not a single person has died due to the vaccines, and the very rare cases of anaphylaxis have all recovered.

On the matter of prophylaxis, though, ivermectin's result of 90% (see the meta-analysis above), while inferior to the indexes for the vaccines made by Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, and Gamaleya (Sputinik-V), is superior to the ones achieved by Novavax, Sinovac (CoronaVac), Sinopharm, and Oxford/AstraZeneca.

Still, of course, I'd rather see someone being vaccinated than using ivermectin intermittently as a prophylactic. But I'm just saying, the prophylaxis results for ivermectin are actually impressive, so it is something to be considered for people who have a high level of exposure but haven't had the opportunity to have the vaccine yet - say, a grocery store clerk who isn't a member of the age group that is already receiving the vaccine. Also, we might consider it if the vaccines fail a new variant.

Let's also remember that ivermectin has a role in treating moderate and severe cases of Covid-19, as well. That's something that the vaccines can prevent but can't treat if it happens to a patient, vaccinated or not.

The bottom line is, it does appear that there is a niche to use ivermectin for prevention and treatment of Covid-19. It's not to be understood as INSTEAD of the vaccines. It is to be understood as another tool in the arsenal. Certainly the evidence for ivermectin appears more robust than the meager one ever found for hydroxychloroquine, and even more robust than FDA-approved drug remdesivir.

So let's not be prejudiced against ivermectin just because of the hydroxychloroquine fiasco. This one may very well be for real.

-----

Ivermectin side effects: real issue. Here is a list. However a bunch of these occur when one is using ivermectin to treat severe infestations (especially onchocerciasis); then, the worms die out, degrade, and release toxins; some of these side effects are not expected when you are giving ivermectin to someone with no worms:

General
Ivermectin is well tolerated compared to other microfilaricidal agents (i.e., thiabendazole, diethylcarbamazine). Adverse reactions (i.e., pruritus, fever, rash, myalgia, headache) occur commonly during the first 3 days after treatment and appear to be related to the extent of parasitic infection and systemic mobilization and killing of microfilariae. The majority of reactions can usually be treated with aspirin, acetaminophen and/or antihistamines.

Ocular
Ocular side effects have included eyelid edema, anterior uveitis, blurred vision, conjunctivitis, limbitis, punctate opacity, keratitis, abnormal sensation in the eyes, and chorioretinitis/choroiditis; however, these effects are also associated with the disease onchocerciasis. Loss of vision has occurred rarely but usually resolved without corticosteroid treatment. Conjunctival hemorrhage has been reported during postmarketing experience in patients treated for onchocerciasis.

Other
Worsening of Mazzotti reactions, including arthralgia, synovitis, lymph node enlargement and tenderness, pruritus, skin involvement (including edema, papular and pustular or frank urticarial rash), and fever, has been reported during the first 4 days following treatment for onchocerciasis.

Nervous system
Nervous system side effects have included dizziness, headache, somnolence, vertigo, and tremor. Serious or fatal encephalopathy has been reported rarely in patients with onchocerciases, and heavily infected with Loa loa, either spontaneously or after treatment with ivermectin. Seizures have been reported during postmarketing experience.

Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal side effects have included anorexia, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention.

Other
Other side effects have included asthenia, fatigue, abdominal pain, chest discomfort, facial edema, and peripheral edema.

Hematologic
Hematologic side effects have included decreased leukocyte count (3%), eosinophilia (3%), and increased hemoglobin (1%). Hematomatous swellings associated with prolonged prothrombin times have been reported, but the clinical significance is unknown. Leukopenia and anemia have been reported in at least one patient.

Hepatic
Hepatic side effects have included elevated ALT and/or AST. Elevated liver enzymes, elevated bilirubin, and hepatitis have been reported during postmarketing experience.

Cardiovascular
Cardiovascular side effects have included tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. EKG changes, including prolonged PR interval, flattened T waves and peaked T waves, have been reported in single cases. Hypotension (primarily orthostatic hypotension) has been reported during postmarketing experience.

 

Are you kidding?????????????????????????????????????????????????????


https://www.bitchute.com/video/HsoaftPNOsMe/

DR SHERRI TENPENNY: CURRENT OUTLOOK ON 2021! (FULL VIDEO JANUARY 7, 2021)