tech, I don't know why I continue to take you seriously, maybe it's just trying to be polite on this forum, but this is really nonsense. You can't have it both ways, NIH posts articles and studies of ivermectin yet is suppressing its usage for Covid for some nefarious conspiratorial reason. Nope, they post serious work, including what I consider to be 'opinion' that suggests ivermectin has potential usage against viruses, thus ought to be at least examined for Covid (which it has), and they post the actual studies that have made pretty darn clear that there's no real efficacy against Covid...wish it were different, but that's the way it is.tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:43 amAs you know full well... because the "cancel crowd" (including people here on this board), crazed on partisan politics, want to discredit/ridicule anything that isn't mainstream and/or promoted/mandated by the Biden administration.jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:19 am... so why are all the folks proselytizing on the virtues of IVM claiming there is a conspiracy among the government and medical establishment to not consider IVM seriously?tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:35 amIt is certainly not "opinion"... as usual, just silly on your part. I understand the "bottomline"...have so all along. My reason for posting is to show that the NIH, Fauci's own institution, is still providing research information re IVM/Covid. If you happened to scan down the page, you will find many other abstracts from other researchers, the sort of people you like to call "experts" when it's convenient.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:06 pmNo, it is merely a review of past studies, none of which were on Covid. And indeed, here's the bottomline:tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:16 pmWrong. The IVM information on the NIH site is an abstract.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:59 pmIt's an opinion article by two people, not a study, it's not endorsed by anyone much less the FDA. And the FDA has explicitly warned against off-label usage and specifically said there's no evidence of appropriateness for Covid. In other words, "Don't prescribe it, docs"... Sheesh.tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:22 pmOK genius... show us where anyone on this board has "promoted" or suggested anyone take IVM without a physician's prescription!DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:02 am The message?
(1) Get the COVID-19 vaccine.
(2) Wear a mask in accordance with CDC guidance.
(3) Do NOT take ivermectin for COVID-19, or for any reason without a physician’s prescription.
(4) Stop being ignorant and stupid—stop listening to right-wing media.
(5) Do the above and LIVE.
DocBarrister
What I posted this morning is information found on the public NIH Library of Medicine site. It's not political and is obviously considered relevant or the NIH would not have posted it. You better let your buddy Fauci know right away so he can cancel it!
Yes, are are promoting ivermectin's usage when you try to pawn this stuff off as meaning more than it does.
An abstract is a short statement about your paper designed to give the reader a complete, yet concise, understanding of your paper's research and findings.
Abstracts are designed to highlight key points from major sections of the paper and to explain what the paper includes. Effective abstracts provide sufficient details to expedite classifying the paper as relevant (or not) to readers' clinical work or research interests.
Opinion? This is not the NYT, it's the NIH. Also, I have never tried to pawn any stuff off "as meaning more than it does." Why do you lie about it? I post information I find relevant. If it upsets you, stop reading.
In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting.
Here's another:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/
And before you post another dumb and/or snarky comment, I understand IVM is FDA approved for other reasons.
So, why don't we (FDA etc) want docs prescribing for Covid? Because ivermectin, like all drugs, does have negative side effects and there's simply no basis for such usage other than in a controlled study.
I'd also suggest that selling false hope to people is morally wrong. And, moreover, the notion that there's a miracle prevention for Covid, other than vaccines, is bound to feed into the notion that we don't need to get vaccinated...just drink some Root Tonic and you be good...
Up above I said "wish it were different"...I'd posit that we all wish it to be different, that ivermectin or some other drug was indeed a miracle cure, but what the conspiracy mongers and promoters of snake oil in general would suggest is that there's some vast conspiracy to suppress knowledge of such a cure...full out BS.