Is this the FLCCC that pushes ivermectin (a fine worm killer, but no panacea) for covid?
For instance, see Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus.
Ivermectin is a potent inhibitor of flavivirus replication specifically targeting NS3 helicase activity: new prospects for an old drug.
A screen of FDA-approved drugs for inhibitors of Zika virus infection.
If someone is catastrophically and unapologetically wrong on problem 1a, you don't really need to pay attention to their solution to problem 1b.
Just published now:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/desperate-patie...
These people should be in prison.
And if I understand your timeline right --- you think a single dose of the vaccine gave you "long covid" symptoms? So you're going to rely on the long-covid treatment path, even though you've never had the virus? Yikes man..
My story: got all the long covid symptoms, started eight hours after the AZ vaccine. Tested negative twice on pcr. 3.5 months with little improvement. Optometrist noted blood heme in eye, had a clot removed from forehead vein recently. Both of those noted within a week or three of vaccine date. At the 3.5 month date I started that protocol, first with ivermectin. Within five hours I felt better than I had in the past three months and then in five days brain fog, sob, headaches, extreme fatigue, heart issues, high blood pressure all resolved. I quit the daily dose of ivm then and started prednisone for remaining lung inflammation. (Describe this like extreme asthma, any deep inhalation would trigger coughing). That worked. I still have a bit of a dry like congestion that lingers (8 months since vax).
Maybe I caught covid same time frame as vax but the two negative tests seem to not support that. The symptoms certainly presented right after the shot. They very clearly resolved a few hours after the ivermectin. It was like a light switch. My wife noticed improvement in my color even.
Also, why did it take over a year to publish when the study ran from July-Dec 2020?
Started reading it now, and what? Why can't these people do real science?
> "Although study design, IRB approval, and data analysis occurred after completion of the voluntary prophylaxis program, all data were collected prospectively in real-time with mandated reporting to the registry of all events as they occurred during the citywide governmental COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program"
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-brazilian-mayor-t...
And what now -- the 2nd author is facing prison for massive ethics violations running a different covid study?
https://sei.saude.gov.br/sei/controlador_externo.php?acao=do...
The advocates for IVM are consistently some of the worst acting scientists on the planet. It's a real disservice to their stated goal that they're all so incompetent.
There's no benefit to cosplaying as Socrates when there is no data point or research result that could change the mind of these weird conspiracy theorists. If a well-done study came out tomorrow that demonstrated Ivermectin worked to help Covid patients, it would literally be in every hospital's protocol tomorrow.
On the opposite side, these charlatans have been promoting IVM since March 2020 with absolutely no evidence of efficacy (often at the expense of convincing people to not get vaccinated). What little evidence has come out has only weakened the case for it as a treatment, and yet, they're still promoting it as fervently as ever.
If you want a long-covid treatment protocol, you should absolutely look somewhere else aside from the pages of the most stubbornly wrong people in this whole pandemic. They've shown repeatedly that they don't care about updating their priors when there's contradictory evidence. At least the HCQ dorks have mostly retired to complaining about cancel culture.
Before personally taking the medicine we spent 1.5 weeks reading everything we could find. Straight from Google Scholar or pubmed. Respectfully, I disagree with you. But that's based on my own reading and I'm not an MD or medical professional.
I would say, a) it is very common in certain countries, and like hey, they awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine partially for it in 2015, but b) we have to agree to disagree here, were just too far apart on tone. But respect your point of view.
We have hundreds of millions of active infections, it's dead-simple to do research studies to determine whether something prevents hospitalization, or shortens length-of-stay, etc etc. You don't have to spend weeks of your life reading primary materials -- here's the EUA for Paxlovid (Section 14):
https://www.fda.gov/media/155050/download
A pre-registered RCT, with specific endpoints and statistically significant evidence that it lowers viral load, and prevents hospitalization and death. It only took 4 months from study enrollment -> results to see how effective it was. Paxlovid works! Hurray! IVM doesn't. Rats.
Good faith individuals would move on and investigate something else that could help humanity but admitting you were wrong doesn't get you invited onto Joe Rogan so here we are, with people still referencing their nonsense.
Ketamine is widely available and cheap, but the FDA approved esketamine (the S enantiomer of ketamine) and gave the pharma companies a patent for the formulation so they would fund the clinical trials that are needed for it to be used as a treatment of depression.
Esketamine is much, much more expensive than ketamine, and essentially the same molecule, yet it hasn't been 'outcompeted' by ketamine (in the context of treating depression).
Because the new ivermectin (newermectin) would be specifically authorised and used to treat covid, it would have a niche advantage over ivermectin. Ivermectin would still dominate treating parasites, but there would still be good money in developing newermectin.