# Ivermectin Propaganda Starting to Fall Apart



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

It appears that under pressure from his sponsors, Dr. Andrew Hill sabotaged his Ivermectin study.

His initial findings were that ivermectin was effective and could save many lives, but when his final report came out, something had changed and now he was calling for additional studies. An analysis showed that, in addition to Dr. Hill, 2 other unknown authors contributed to the final report. Who are they and why weren't they identified as authors?

From Dana Loesch's site: EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Tess Lawrie Discusses Her Work With Ivermectin, Dismisses "Propaganda"

Dr. Tess Lawrie serves as Director of Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy in the UK, Consultant to The WHO and The National Health Service, and Co-Founder of the BIRD Group (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development). She (Dr. Tess Lawrie) joined me (Dana Loesch) on air this afternoon to recount *her conversation with virologist Dr. Andrew Hill and his acknowledgement in a zoom call that his study could potentially lead to the deaths of half a million people. Hill perviously concluded that ivermectin was a successful drug to use to combat COVID symptoms and changed his mind, seemingly after the influence of sponsorship.*​​Next watch Dr. Pierre Kory as he provides background on Dr. Hill, his collaboration with the FLCCC and Tess Lawrie, and how it appears he was bought out by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.​​







FLCCC Weekly Update: The Truth Behind Andrew Hill's Reversal on the Efficacy of Ivermectin


Dr. Pierre Kory unveils the truth behind Dr. Andrew Hill's reversal on the efficacy of ivermectin. Kory states, "the truth is coming out." For too long science has been corrupted and people in power h...




odysee.com



​Then the interview Dana Loesch did with Dr. Tess Lawrie where she discusses her zoom call with Dr. Hill.​​



​And finally, a copy of the transcript of the zoom call between Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr. Hill.​







Researcher Andrew Hill’s conflict: A $40 million Gates Foundation grant vs a half million human lives


by WorldTribune Staff, December 9, 2021 In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half million people. In defending his reversal on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for...




www.worldtribune.com



​​​


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

My horses and mules get ivermectin every four or five months, none of them have suffered any adverse side effects. I order it from a Vet supply company on line, and they deliver it to my door. None of them have come down with Covid, and it keeps the worms under control.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

How shaky ivermectin studies overseas wreaked havoc in the U.S.


Not a single scientific or health authority in the U.S. recommends the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. Still, some Americans see the unproven drug as a way out of the pandemic.



www.wfyi.org





"Not a single scientific or health authority in the U.S. recommends the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. Still, some Americans see the unproven drug as a way out of the pandemic.

Ivermectin is mostly used in large animals and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating human conditions, including head lice and stomach worms. But across the country, demand for the drug has surged in recent months — leading to a spike in hospitalizations for human exposures to ivermectin."


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective









Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective


Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world. Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it kills a wide range of internal and external parasites in commercial livestock and companion animals. It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. This paper looks in depth at the events surrounding ivermectin’s passage from being a huge success in Animal Health into its widespread use in humans, a development which has led many to describe it as a “wonder” drug.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> "Not a single scientific or health authority in the U.S. recommends the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. Still, some Americans see the unproven drug as a way out of the pandemic.


Really? You don’t say.

From the article Moon posted, maybe part of the reason no “scientific or health authorities” recommend it:


> Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.
> 
> On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.
> 
> ...


Nah. You prolly right.
It’s not like we’ve ever seen anyone do anything as outlandish as lie when something as silly as money is at stake.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Blows my my ever living mind


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug


Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what's the evidence?



www.bbc.com





"Dr Tess Lawrie - a medical doctor who specialises in pregnancy and childbirth - founded the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (Bird) Group.

She has called for a pause to the Covid-19 vaccination programme and has made unsubstantiated claims implying the Covid vaccine had led to a large number of deaths based on a common misreading of safety data."


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
> 
> 
> Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what's the evidence?
> ...



So what? Dr. Elfonashelf hasn't seen a patient in probably 40 years, if ever, and is nothing more than a political hack doling out taxpayer money to his chosen researchers, including the Wuhan facility where this virus started. And yet you believe him. LOL


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> So what? Dr. Elfonashelf hasn't seen a patient in probably 40 years, if ever, and is nothing more than a political hack doling out taxpayer money to his chosen researchers, including the Wuhan facility where this virus started. And yet you believe him. LOL


Telling lies about me does not back up the propaganda that woman is trying to sell.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Telling lies about me does not back up the propaganda that woman is trying to sell.


I’ve read poppy’s post three times now. The only statement he made about you in it was _”And yet you believe him.”_

So, that’s the lie?

You _don’t_ believe Dr. Fauci?

I did not see that coming. Good for you, Mrs. Painter. How’s that red pill taste?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I’ve read poppy’s post three times now. The only statement he made about you in it was _”And yet you believe him.”_
> 
> So, that’s the lie?
> 
> ...


I never take the word of talking heads of any type. I do the research. Some here should try it instead of glommng on to every twitter or youtube bit of propaganda that supports their theories.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

People are dying, and they're doing it in the hospital, with standard hospital protocols. Screw that, it's not working. If they want ivernectin, let them have it. Hey, if people are dying using the best medicine available, it's high time for alternatives. If they die, make notes to compare to all the other people that died. Let them have at their choice of alternate and unapproved medicines. It can't be any worse than it is, and if it works, great. If it don't people will stop asking for it. 
A huge problem, solved by a stoned guy with a computer. That'll be $5. (Always used to say "That's a 5 dollar idea" long time ago...)


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

***


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I never take the word of talking heads of any type. I do the research. Some here should try it instead of glommng on to every twitter or youtube bit of propaganda that supports their theories.


Practice some magic research on Gun Monkeys questions to you.

What was the lie?
You don't believe Dr. Fauci?
How is the red pill? Need water?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Clem said:


> People are dying, and they're doing it in the hospital, with standard hospital protocols. Screw that, it's not working. If they want ivernectin, let them have it. Hey, if people are dying using the best medicine available, it's high time for alternatives. If they die, make notes to compare to all the other people that died. Let them have at their choice of alternate and unapproved medicines. It can't be any worse than it is, and if it works, great. If it don't people will stop asking for it.
> A huge problem, solved by a stoned guy with a computer. That'll be $5. (Always used to say "That's a 5 dollar idea" long time ago...)


All good points.
Get all of the information out and allow the people to choose and then choke or cheer.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Omg. You mean…

Freedom?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Omg. You mean…
> 
> Freedom?


Ask yourself why there are some of your fellow men and women who seem to fear your freedom?
Maybe they even resent it?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think they have bought into the Big Brother knows best ideology so far that they have LOST the ability to think for themselves.

They fear thinking.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

They are free not to think and good for them.
It is their resentment at your willingness to think I am pointing out.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Clem said:


> People are dying, and they're doing it in the hospital, with standard hospital protocols. Screw that, it's not working. If they want ivernectin, let them have it. Hey, if people are dying using the best medicine available, it's high time for alternatives. If they die, make notes to compare to all the other people that died. Let them have at their choice of alternate and unapproved medicines. It can't be any worse than it is, and if it works, great. If it don't people will stop asking for it.
> A huge problem, solved by a stoned guy with a computer. That'll be $5. (Always used to say "That's a 5 dollar idea" long time ago...)


Crazy talk. Well, that is what it is considered to some true believers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No one objects to anyone's doctor prescribing them ivermectin. Go for it. 

It has not proven to be the miracle drug some want it to be. 1000 articles or youtubes about the same study that has been proven incorrect by peer review won't back up that opinion. So don't get upset if your doctor or hospital won't use it or prescribe. Move on a find one that will.


.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> No one objects to anyone's doctor prescribing them ivermectin.
> 
> .


Funny world that you exist in. Denying the reality of doctors being fired for prescribing approved medications and pharmacists being barred from filling lawful prescriptions of ivermectin recasted as "No one objects" is ...... worse than laughable. 

What is your motivation for this?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hiro said:


> Funny world that you exist in. Denying the reality of doctors being fired for prescribing approved medications and pharmacists being barred from filling lawful prescriptions of ivermectin recasted as "No one objects" is ...... worse than laughable.
> 
> What is your motivation for this?


Did not deny that. Another lie to back up the propaganda. Hospitals decide what treatment is available in their hospitals. Doctors know that when they sign on.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> No one objects to anyone's doctor prescribing them ivermectin. Go for it.
> 
> It has not proven to be the miracle drug some want it to be. 1000 articles or youtubes about the same study that has been proven incorrect by peer review won't back up that opinion. So don't get upset if your doctor or hospital won't use it or prescribe. Move on a find one that will.
> 
> ...


Funny how you base it all on one supposedly incorrect study but ignore many studies that show it is beneficial. It is a proven fact that it is a very safe drug taken by millions regularly in countries with parasite issues. Don't you wonder why the government is so set against it? Another thing you might want to ask yourself is why isn't government hammering the proven fact that it is important to keep your immune system optimized? Several studies have shown the vast majority of serious Covid infections and deaths were in people with low vitamin D3. This is no secret to anyone. Why isn't government telling us? Doctors know it and tell patients but people who don't doctor regularly are unaware.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Did not deny that. Another lie to back up the propaganda. Hospitals decide what treatment is available in their hospitals. Doctors know that when they sign on.


What did "No one objects" mean again? This is absurd.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Funny how you base it all on one supposedly incorrect study but ignore many studies that show it is beneficial. It is a proven fact that it is a very safe drug taken by millions regularly in countries with parasite issues. Don't you wonder why the government is so set against it? Another thing you might want to ask yourself is why isn't government hammering the proven fact that it is important to keep your immune system optimized? Several studies have shown the vast majority of serious Covid infections and deaths were in people with low vitamin D3. This is no secret to anyone. Why isn't government telling us? Doctors know it and tell patients but people who don't doctor regularly are unaware.


Again more lies. I have read a multitude of studies. I also have not questioned that ivermectin is a good drug for the things it has proven results for. It is not proven effective for covid in a significant percentage . The studies prove that.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> *No one objects to anyone's doctor prescribing them ivermectin.* Go for it.
> 
> It has not proven to be the miracle drug some want it to be. 1000 articles or youtubes about the same study that has been proven incorrect by peer review won't back up that opinion. So don't get upset if your doctor or hospital won't use it or prescribe. Move on a find one that will.
> 
> ...


LOL. Some people do object, although you say no one does, because doctors are banned from prescribing it. No one said it was a miracle cure but there are many studies that show it helps, which is the same thing vaccines do. They apparently help but are not the miracle cure some wanted them to be either.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Again more lies. I have read a multitude of studies. I also have not questioned that ivermectin is a good drug for the things it has proven results for. It is not proven effective for covid in a significant percentage . The studies prove that.


Go to YouTube and search for Dr. John Campbell ivermectin studies. He is very pro vaccine but also interested in other possible treatments. He has several studies on ivermectin around the world and shows them on paper. Do you think they are all wrong?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Go to YouTube and search for Dr. John Campbell ivermectin studies. He is very pro vaccine but also interested in other possible treatments. He has several studies on ivermectin around the world and shows them on paper. Do you think they are all wrong?


I have watched many. His favorite statement is. "It Warrants more study" . Those words say it all. Not proven still conjecture.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The majority of people hospitalized for ivermectin overdose were using much more than the standardized safe for human dosage. I have not found any cases where people were hospitalized for taking the recommended dose.

Read the last 2 paragraphs of this article. I laugh at their "proven preventions" which have not been proven to prevent the spread of covid.









Ivermectin misuse in Arizona is leading to hospitalizations, clinical leader warns


Leaders at Phoenix-based Banner Health are warning the public not to use ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment or prevention.



www.azcentral.com





Brooks said he understands the impulse to "get ahead" of COVID. But the safest course for everyone is sticking to proven preventions known to work: vaccines, masks and self-isolation when someone is symptomatic or known to be infected.

"If people just did that, we'd get ahead of this within weeks, if not months," he said. "We're kind of wasting time and resources looking at these other things like ivermectin and we're putting ourselves and our family members and our entire community at risk.

This part bears repeating. It shows that some in the medical community are not at all interested in finding better treatment for covid patients.
Brooks said "We're kind of wasting time and resources looking at these other things like ivermectin and we're putting ourselves and our family members and our entire community at risk.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I have watched many. His favorite statement is. "It Warrants more study" . Those words say it all. Not proven still conjecture.


You fail to mention he also has stated that the various studies are hard to ignore and he bashes governments for not doing the studies. One country asked Merck to do the study but Merck declined by saying they weren't interested. One has to wonder if the fact that the patent has expired on ivermectin, which means any company can make it and there would be no profit in it plus the fact that Merck is making billions off the vaccine is why they weren't interested.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Clem said:


> People are dying, and they're doing it in the hospital, with standard hospital protocols. Screw that, it's not working. If they want ivernectin, let them have it. Hey, if people are dying using the best medicine available, it's high time for alternatives. If they die, make notes to compare to all the other people that died. Let them have at their choice of alternate and unapproved medicines. It can't be any worse than it is, and if it works, great. If it don't people will stop asking for it.
> A huge problem, solved by a stoned guy with a computer. That'll be $5. (Always used to say "That's a 5 dollar idea" long time ago...)


Slippery slope attitude....Do you know the joke where the punch line is "Circumcision?!...That's the word! THAT"S the word!" ?

Th problem here is that desparate, fearful, naive people have cherry picked a few poorly done studies with borderline results, ignoring the many studies thay show no benefit for Iver-, then, coupled with the obviously politicized atmoshere surrounding all govt recommendations on CoV, they've turned this thng into a conspiracy theory phenomenon.

The truth is, Iver- is simply not an effective treatment in CoViD and probably not even good at prophylaxis. The data simply doesn't support the concept.

Now we can all go back to our after work beers at the corner bar and continue discussing our thoughts on the merits of String Theory vs clasical Quantum Mechanics.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> No one objects to anyone's doctor prescribing them ivermectin. Go for it.


Interesting that you seem anointed to speak for "everyone".
Got a link to back that up kiddo? Oh that's right, when we question low information quotes or your posts without links we are supposed to do our own research, lol.
You should hit the pause button while posting and listening to "The Last Episode" at the same time so as not to miss your facts as they are fed.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Most of you are missing the point. A researcher who was in a position to influence whether Ivermectin was recommended by the WHO or not apparently allowed his sponsor (which led to the Gates Foundation), to include in his conclusion material written by 2 unknown authors, which prevented the WHO from approving Ivermectin. The author is accused of scientific misconduct.

Just prior to that, the author had been collaborating with both the FLCCC and with Dr. Tess Lawrie. (As an aside, Painters Wife's reference has nothing to do with this story). Dr. Hill even recommended approving Ivermectin to NIH based on his research. Shortly after that, Dr. Hill went dark and stopped sharing any data. Then he published his study on a preprint server with false conclusions. This is the point where Dr. Tess Lawrie's zoom call takes place,

Dr. Hill admits he is under pressure from his sponsors. Dr. Lawrie and Dr. Hill agree that an additional 500,000 people may die by delaying the recommendation of Ivermectin for 6 weeks.

When people start looking into this, they find that the Gates Foundation provides most of the funding for the NGO that was paying Dr. Hill. There was also a $40 million grant to the university where Dr. Hill is employed just days before the falsified report was released.

If you go through everything I linked in the OP, you will see and hear Dr. Tess Lawrie in her own words explain what happened when she asked Dr. Hill to explain his falsified conclusion.

You will see and hear Dr. Pierre Kory explain how they collaborated with Dr. Hill who was an avid supporter of Ivermectin until he suddenly wasn't. You can read the full transcript of the zoom call between Dr Lawrie and Dr. Hill after he had falsified his conclusion.

You will learn that Dr. Hill is being sued in France by the BonSens Association for scientific misconduct,

The ivermectin situation continues in controversy as a new French civic group known as the BonSens Association makes allegations of scientific misconduct associated with the ivermectin meta-analysis authored by Dr. Andrew Hill and a group of researchers affiliated with the University of Liverpool and Unitaid. TrialSite has gained insight on this imbroglio from a series of conversations with relevant and associated parties, some that wish to remain anonymous that have shared that in fact this study was modified separate and apart from the investigator.​








Scientific Misconduct Associated with Ivermectin Meta Analysis


The ivermectin situation continues in controversy as a new French civic group known as the BonSens Association makes allegations of scientific misconduct



trialsitenews.com



​This story is only tangentially about Ivermectin. It is about people and organizations with billions of dollars corrupting science and medicine. It appears to me these people are willingly allowing people to die unnecessarily because cheap, off-label drugs conflict with their agenda.


----------



## Robotron (Mar 25, 2012)

Clem said:


> People are dying, and they're doing it in the hospital, with standard hospital protocols. Screw that, it's not working. If they want ivernectin, let them have it. Hey, if people are dying using the best medicine available, it's high time for alternatives. If they die, make notes to compare to all the other people that died. Let them have at their choice of alternate and unapproved medicines. It can't be any worse than it is, and if it works, great. If it don't people will stop asking for it.
> A huge problem, solved by a stoned guy with a computer. That'll be $5. (Always used to say "That's a 5 dollar idea" long time ago...)


Until the lawyers get a hold of it. Then their point of view changes to as a professional you should have stopped me from hurting myself. It’s your fault the mom died from ivermectin. We have vaccines that work, maybe not as well as some hope but they do create an immune response to the virus. Get one! Use something proven in practice not something you heard about. You could inject bleach, one notable suggested that. That bright light that was also suggested could very well be the crematorium that you got stuck into. That does cure covid, any takers?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> This story is only tangentially about Ivermectin. It is about people and organizations with billions of dollars corrupting science and medicine. It appears to me these people are willingly allowing people to die unnecessarily because cheap, off-label drugs conflict with their agenda.


Troof


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Robotron said:


> Until the lawyers get a hold of it. Then their point of view changes to as a professional you should have stopped me from hurting myself. It’s your fault the mom died from ivermectin. We have vaccines that work, maybe not as well as some hope but they do create an immune response to the virus. Get one! Use something proven in practice not something you heard about. You could inject bleach, one notable suggested that. That bright light that was also suggested could very well be the crematorium that you got stuck into. That does cure covid, any takers?


Yep, even if they all sign waivers, lawyers will argue, and successfully, too, that those people had no idea what they were doing,
However, it's costing the way we're doing it now. Those hospital bills will never get paid but the cost of health care will go up even more from the nosebleed area it already is. 

As to the "right or wrong aspect" It doesn't even matter. Until all these treatments are laid out as options, and people freely choose the option they want, and some options result universally below average, the craziness will not stop. If a hundred thousand people take various alternative treatments and the death rate is the same as current protocol, that'll show that current is no better. If ivermectin is successful, that'll show that. and if a quarter million people make the decision to take it, and 90% of them die, that will be in the informed consent form that the next patient will have read to him. 

If millions die from ignorance, that is just the new cost of proving science is real. And if they do better, then by the fact that it'll all be on record, that will become science. Science is all about facts, and facts don't actually change based on your point of view.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I have watched many. His favorite statement is. "It Warrants more study" . Those words say it all. Not proven still conjecture.


Dr John Campbell confuses me. My antivaxxer friends swear by him. He is their proof of ’just following the science’. But only for the ivermectin/natural immunity tidbits that Campbell seems to inject into an otherwise decent daily update. 
He hints that ivermectin brought down numbers in Brazil, India, and quite notably japan. But when you listen to his wording he does what you said- admits there is no proof and that it needs further study. 
I GUARANTEE he only continues noting ivermectin in his videos to gain views, and mainly from an American audience that needs validation. I don’t know how YouTube videos make money but I’m sure he is making off like a bandit playing to both sides like this.
My hope is he gets his butt handed to him. A couple weeks ago he went along with the right wing propaganda claiming that Omicron only caused runny noses and that this was a lucky development and perhaps the end of the pandemic. But he was only using minimal data- young and healthy vaccinated that came down with the variant. Things have changed!
Yesterday I noticed him now claiming that numbers will spike into 1M a day in UK and many more in the US, and noted the unvaccinated will get hit hardest, and to expect huge pressure on the healthcare systems. Oops!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

fireweed farm said:


> Dr John Campbell confuses me. My antivaxxer friends swear by him. He is their proof of ’just following the science’. But only for the ivermectin/natural immunity tidbits that Campbell seems to inject into an otherwise decent daily update.
> He hints that ivermectin brought down numbers in Brazil, India, and quite notably japan. But when you listen to his wording he does what you said- admits there is no proof and that it needs further study.
> I GUARANTEE he only continues noting ivermectin in his videos to gain views, and mainly from an American audience that needs validation. I don’t know how YouTube videos make money but I’m sure he is making off like a bandit playing to both sides like this.
> My hope is he gets his butt handed to him. A couple weeks ago he went along with the right wing propaganda claiming that Omicron only caused runny noses and that this was a lucky development and perhaps the end of the pandemic. But he was only using minimal data- young and healthy vaccinated that came down with the variant. Things have changed!
> Yesterday I noticed him now claiming that numbers will spike into 1M a day in UK and many more in the US, and noted the unvaccinated will get hit hardest, and to expect huge pressure on the healthcare systems. Oops!


I agree. He is a very good propagandist. Just enough info to make you think he is right but never enough info to prove what he is saying. He is making good money with his videos so the formula is working for him. He says things at the beginning of his videos that he never really addresses as well. Teasers that really pan out.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

You are indeed confused, as usual. There are very few true antivaxxers. There are many of us who have had many vaccines in our lives. We just don't trust THIS vaccine because it was rushed and it bypassed the normal trial protocols. Dr. Campbell has an open mind on things like Ivermectin and wants testing done. That should be what we all want because that is the normal learning curve. Close minded people never learn much


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I agree. He is a very good propagandist. Just enough info to make you think he is right but never enough info to prove what he is saying. He is making good money with his videos so the formula is working for him. He says things at the beginning of his videos that he never really addresses as well. Teasers that really pan out.


Sure you're not talking about Fauci? He is the ultimate propagandist.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> You are indeed confused, as usual. There are very few true anti-vaxxers. There are many of us who have had many vaccines in our lives. We just don't trust THIS vaccine because it was rushed and it bypassed the normal trial protocols. Dr. Campbell has an open mind on things like Ivermectin and wants testing done. That should be what we all want because that is the normal learning curve. Close minded people never learn much


I want more testing done and have said that many times. I hope you are not telling me I call people anti vaxxers over the covid vaccines. If you are you are the closed minded one.

If you were talking about Fireweed and his anti-vaxxer friends the I would assume Fireweed should know if they are real anti-vaxxers or not.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Most of you are missing the point. A researcher who was in a position to influence whether Ivermectin was recommended by the WHO or not apparently allowed his sponsor (which led to the Gates Foundation), to include in his conclusion material written by 2 unknown authors, which prevented the WHO from approving Ivermectin. The author is accused of scientific misconduct.
> 
> Just prior to that, the author had been collaborating with both the FLCCC and with Dr. Tess Lawrie. (As an aside, Painters Wife's reference has nothing to do with this story). Dr. Hill even recommended approving Ivermectin to NIH based on his research. Shortly after that, Dr. Hill went dark and stopped sharing any data. Then he published his study on a preprint server with false conclusions. This is the point where Dr. Tess Lawrie's zoom call takes place,
> 
> ...


Well the title of the thread says "Ivermectrin propaganda" You might want to choose your titles differently if you want to discuss something different.


----------



## CoffeeChickensandJesus (Apr 2, 2021)

I LOVE when studies fall apart... by feeding a mouse 200x its bodyweight and then EUREKA!
Nope... sorry folks!
The whole body shut down!

Pork producers fund study: Bacon is good for you.
PETA funds study: Bacon will kill you.
Wine producers of CA fund study: Antioxidants make you live forever!
Anti-pesticide people fund study: Wines contain POISON.


_sigh_


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Again more lies. I have read a multitude of studies. I also have not questioned that ivermectin is a good drug for the things it has proven results for.* It is not proven effective for covid in a significant percentage* . The studies prove that.


While I agree we can always use more studies, that shouldn't prevent its use given how safe it is. A lack of studies didn't stop us from using the vaccine or other new treatments.

And it is safe...and effective. According to the NIH, that is. If there's a problem with this study, they would remove it from their website.









A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness


Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





_"Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro...
...A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19."_


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> While I agree we can always use more studies, that shouldn't prevent its use given how safe it is. A lack of studies didn't stop us from using the vaccine or other new treatments.
> 
> And it is safe...and effective. According to the NIH, that is. If there's a problem with this study, they would remove it from their website.
> 
> ...


It is safe enough in the low doses used for parasites. It is not proven safe at the high doses needed for Covid. I bet that study says it needs more study. It is not proven effective enough for those high doses for an extended period of time. It is not effective enough over other proven treatments. 

At only offers about a 5 percent benefit. Others offer much more. The small studies have proven that.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It is safe enough in the low doses used for parasites. It is not proven safe at the high doses needed for Covid. I bet that study says it needs more study. It is not proven effective enough for those high doses for an extended period of time. It is not effective enough over other proven treatments.
> 
> At only offers about a 5 percent benefit. Others offer much more. The small studies have proven that.


Not sure how you define an extended amount of time, but this study was of a five day course. The dose was for 12mg a day, lower than what may be given for parasitic infection (200 mcg per kg body weight for adults). It was found to be safe and effective. That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the NIH based upon _their _research.

And like I said ALL these treatments need more study.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> Not sure how you define an extended amount of time, but this study was of a five day course. The dose was for 12mg a day, lower than what may be given for parasitic infection (200 mcg per kg body weight for adults). It was found to be safe and effective. That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the NIH based upon _their _research.
> 
> And like I said ALL these treatments need more study.


" A larger randomized controlled clinical trial of ivermectin treatment appears to be warranted to validate these important findings."


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> " A larger randomized controlled clinical trial of ivermectin treatment appears to be warranted to validate these important findings."





kinderfeld said:


> And like I said ALL these treatments need more study.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It is the same thing I have been saying as well. As of yet no study has proven that ivermectin does more than slightly help with covid.

I have no problem with people trying it but I believe it should be under a doctor's care. I also don't believe doctors should be forced to prescribe it if they don't believe it is effective enough. 

Hospitals also get to decide what care is appropriate within their walls.

Ivermectin is not a miracle cure for Covid. Plain and simple.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> " A larger randomized controlled clinical trial of ivermectin treatment appears to be warranted to validate these important findings."


And there is the question. Ask yourself why the NIH itself doesn't conduct those needed clinical trials. They fund all sorts of medical research, including the Wuhan lab where the virus began. One would think they would like a real answer to the ivermectin question.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> And there is the question. Ask yourself why the NIH itself doesn't conduct those needed clinical trials. They fund all sorts of medical research, including the Wuhan lab where the virus began. One would think they would like a real answer to the ivermectin question.


Maybe because the results did not warrant it. The slight help at a specific time of the illness was not worthy of the time and money when other treatments were showing more promising results. 

As simple as that.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> It is the same thing I have been saying as well. As of yet no study has proven that ivermectin does more than slightly help with covid.
> 
> I have no problem with people trying it but I believe it should be under a doctor's care. I also don't believe doctors should be forced to prescribe it if they don't believe it is effective enough.
> 
> ...


Decisions of care in hospitals is determined by a small group of people at the top. One would hope they get relevant information from many sources before reaching a decision, but it seems many rely totally on what the CDC advises. Look how fast many of them got on the unvaxxed employee ban and after seeing the results have stopped it. Let's look at Florida. The third largest population in the US and yet has a much lower death rate than some states with a population less than one third of theirs. Currently they are averaging 3 deaths per day. I would think people running hospitals would consult with people running hospitals in Florida and find out what their treatment protocol is instead of relying totally on the CDC. Japan has cases and deaths near zero. Why not find out what they are doing? But, such is the state of big corporation health care.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Decisions of care in hospitals is determined by a small group of people at the top. One would hope they get relevant information from many sources before reaching a decision, but it seems many rely totally on what the CDC advises. Look how fast many of them got on the unvaxxed employee ban and after seeing the results have stopped it. Let's look at Florida. The third largest population in the US and yet has a much lower death rate than some states with a population less than one third of theirs. Currently they are averaging 3 deaths per day. I would think people running hospitals would consult with people running hospitals in Florida and find out what their treatment protocol is instead of relying totally on the CDC. Japan has cases and deaths near zero. Why not find out what they are doing? But, such is the state of big corporation health care.


Conjecture. You have no idea how much research those hospitals did be making a decision on treatments.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Maybe because the results did not warrant it. The slight help at a specific time of the illness was not worthy of the time and money when other treatments were showing more promising results.
> 
> As simple as that.


That is lame. How do they know it wasn't warranted without studying it? It would not cost much to begin with a study of maybe 300 people and get those results. If it showed promise, up the number of people studied to 10,000 or more to verify the first results. That would be pocket change to the NIH.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Conjecture. You have no idea how much research those hospitals did be making a decision on treatments.


No, it is not conjecture. I know some doctors and nurses I talk to. Doctors say hospital management either doesn't want their input about what they are seeing in practice or ignores it if you give it to them.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

fireweed farm said:


> Dr John Campbell confuses me. My antivaxxer friends swear by him. He is their proof of ’just following the science’. But only for the ivermectin/natural immunity tidbits that Campbell seems to inject into an otherwise decent daily update.
> He hints that ivermectin brought down numbers in Brazil, India, and quite notably japan. But when you listen to his wording he does what you said- admits there is no proof and that it needs further study.
> I GUARANTEE he only continues noting ivermectin in his videos to gain views, and mainly from an American audience that needs validation. I don’t know how YouTube videos make money but I’m sure he is making off like a bandit playing to both sides like this.
> My hope is he gets his butt handed to him. A couple weeks ago he went along with the right wing propaganda claiming that Omicron only caused runny noses and that this was a lucky development and perhaps the end of the pandemic. But he was only using minimal data- young and healthy vaccinated that came down with the variant. Things have changed!
> Yesterday I noticed him now claiming that numbers will spike into 1M a day in UK and many more in the US, and noted the unvaccinated will get hit hardest, and to expect huge pressure on the healthcare systems. Oops!


You have to watch him as well as listen. He is a big believer in Ivermectin, so he gets as close as he can without getting his video demonetized or blocked by Youtube. He had some trouble early on, so now he talks in code on sensitive subjects.

Sounds like when you disagree, he must be playing to the right. Dr. Campbell is the most honest commentator on covid-19 I have heard. What he said about Omicron in SA was straight from SA. I believe one of his recent videos even included an interview with a doctor from SA who treats patients infected with Omicron.

In terms of runny nose, he was talking about the reported symptoms in SA and said he hoped it was true for GB as well.

His audience is from all over the world which you would know if you read through the comments. There is a lot of good information there as people, including doctors and nurses, provide reports on the current situation in their countries.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I agree. He is a very good propagandist. Just enough info to make you think he is right but never enough info to prove what he is saying. He is making good money with his videos so the formula is working for him. He says things at the beginning of his videos that he never really addresses as well. Teasers that really pan out.


Dr. John Campbrll shows the documentation as he talks. He is in a small window and the document, taking up most of the screen, is gone through point by point.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Maybe because the results did not warrant it. The slight help at a specific time of the illness was not worthy of the time and money when other treatments were showing more promising results.
> 
> As simple as that.


How many clinical trials were there on the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J vaccines? How many clinical trials were there on remdesivir and what was the result?


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> How many clinical trials were there on the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J vaccines? How many clinical trials were there on remdesivir and what was the result?


Look it up. The info is out there if you are able to put political blinders are for an hour or two of legitimate reading. Plenty of misinformation to stumble over if you let it.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Horsepucky


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

fireweed farm said:


> Look it up. The info is out there if you are able to put political blinders are for an hour or two of legitimate reading. Plenty of misinformation to stumble over if you let it.


I don't have to look it up. There was 1 of each.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Keep in mind there is a reason for Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to request and be given guaranteed free funded research credit line, pre purchased and paid product order, and most of all, absolutely no liability of any kind for their product. It’s been a huge money making process and continues with each booster shot. No questions asked or apparent surprise about the vaccines failing effectiveness with the changes in the virus. Just require another round of this profitable drug. Products such as ivermectin acts as a smoke screen at a minimum for this process. 

No need or desire to look at alternatives that are not going to fit a similar profit profile. The possible products now being mentioned by the same manufactures will probably come into the market, eventually. There is little incentive it seems to hurry the process.

Some day I hope the rest of the story for the no liability process, the creative records, and seeming lack of serious studies for alternatives, will come out.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Redlands Okie said:


> Keep in mind there is a reason for Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to request and be given guaranteed free funded research credit line, pre purchased and paid product order, and most of all, absolutely no liability of any kind for their product. It’s been a huge money making process and continues with each booster shot. No questions asked or apparent surprise about the vaccines failing effectiveness with the changes in the virus. Just require another round of this profitable drug. Products such as ivermectin acts as a smoke screen at a minimum for this process.
> 
> No need or desire to look at alternatives that are not going to fit a similar profit profile. The possible products now being mentioned by the same manufactures will probably come into the market, eventually. There is little incentive it seems to hurry the process.
> 
> Some day I hope the rest of the story for the no liability process, the creative records, and seeming lack of serious studies for alternatives, will come out.


It will.


----------

