[CobaltFire]

Hypocritical to call the FDA claims baseless when you provide no basis for your claim that it would prevent many of these stories.

From what I've read the in vitro response requires something like 100x the safe dose for a human, which causes many other health issues. The in vivo response hasn't even been studied, unless you have some information I don't?

[nradov]

The in vivo response has been studied. This site has a fairly complete index to studies so far.

https://c19ivermectin.com/

I recommend ignoring the editorial content on that site and just read the original studies directly. None are really conclusive one way or the other due to small subject groups or other limitations. At least one study has been retracted. So more research is still needed.

[vokep]

72% improvement in 27 early treatment trials and 86% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials https://ivmmeta.com/ is a bit easier to digest

Sure more research is still needed but with these sorts of results so far, if someone wants ivermectin, they should be able to get it, easily, cheaply. There is no excuse for it to be banned or doctors only allowed to prescribe it later into treatment (or not at all in some cases), its criminal, and when you've seen someone saved by it, you've heard the difference in their voice hours after first dosage, its absolutely infuriating that anyone would take a single action against easy access to ivermectin and information about it. It has been researched for use as malaria treatment for decades, so it being safe for people to take isn't even in question whatsoever. If it in some way made the infection worse, that would already be clear in the studies that have been done. It should be available to anyone who wants it.

[vokep]

I've personally seen it help someone who was getting significantly worse day after day. The effect was undeniable, and makes it infuriating to see claims of the drug as being dangerous or needing more study. Because the FDA is the FDA doesn't mean what they're publishing isn't misinformation. The dose used was about the same as would be used for malaria, within hours of the first dose there was already massive improvement in breathing and overall energy. After further doses it wasn't long before complete recovery. To deny easy access to this sort of thing, for doctors not to offer it as an option when a patient is found to have covid, is criminal.

Where is the basis of any of the FDA's claims? Because the mechanism of action isn't fully understood? Does it matter when it saves lives?

[bellyfullofbac]

I don't really follow the debate, but team "pro" (e.g. you) says it works, and apparently team "anti" can cite studies that it has no effect. Could it be that the person you saw got cured would've recovered without the medication anyway? Team "anti" seems to have more data to say that it doesn't work.

To make a poor analogy, maybe this is like saying "buy lottery tickets to be wealthy, I saw it work for this one person!", although that person never won the lottery but was a shrewd businessman.

[vokep]

Of several covid stories of people around me, I've never heard of a recovery like this one. No long haul, nothing at all, everything fits a definition of having been cured. In a few days. Able to do strenuous activity without issue. All the no-treatment recoveries I'm aware of were fairly slow processes over weeks.

[rualca]

> I've personally seen it help someone who was getting significantly worse day after day. (...)

Some people do recover from Covid19 on their own. Ironically, a popular theme among covid deniers is to boast about covid's alleged 99% survivability rate. What leads you to believe that your anecdotal case was caused by taking ivermectin instead of simply correlated with its ingestion?

There's a famous Simpsons scene where Lisa shows Homer a Tiger-repelling rock. That's what ivermectin proponents sound like.

[vokep]

The rate of recovery after first dose, directly correlated with it was plain and clear. If you take a drug and experience significant effects within hours of taking it, you don't question if you randomly would've felt that way anyways, you know exactly whats causing it. This person was getting nearer and nearer to hospitalization possibly, when someone in that situation has a 180 in condition just hours after a dose of treatment, you don't question "oh maybe the treatment did nothing at all".

I understand of course questioning causation/correlation, except when something is so absolute and its life and death, its criminal and morally devoid to deny access to treatment.

It works. Look deeper into it if you really care, or stop saying anything against it. If you don't know someone with covid who's been treated with it, how can you take your own opinion seriously? You can question about the reality of how effective it is of course, but its wrong to argue against something that is harmless and may be life saving.

[nradov]

I'm not a "covid denier" by any means but why would you mention an "alleged" survival rate? The best available data from the CDC shows a 99.4% survival rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...