3 other possibilities: America's Frontline Doctors, pharmacies in Mexico (I believe it's still OTC there), or an office consult with me. Frontline does telemedicine, and it's a long story why I don't, but I hope this helps.
My favourite arugment against IVM is this: "“Ivermectin is a chemical therapeutic agent, and it has significant risks associated with it,” Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias told the Post. “We should be very cautious about using this type of medication to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment". There are several ways to interpret this statement, and none of them make any sense.
Hilarious study. Here's a thought, why don't we look at why the African continent has not been DECIMATED by COVID19? The continent has no healthcare infrastructure and struggles to feed it's population and yet.....they have next to no deaths/illness from COVID.....could it be that the use of Ivermectin and HCQ is used like WATER there??? Hint: yes....
Actually, the Tokyo Medical Assoc. Chairman used a comparison of C19 impact between the African countries that give out Ivermectin and those that don't as a justification for using the drug for prophylaxis and early treatment.
Do the Branch Covidians realize that publicizing this study, rank crap that it is, contradicts their earlier claims that Ivermectin was only for horses? Ah well, I guess they know their target audience...
At the root of this issue, I believe, is the need to uphold the charade that there are no viable therapeutic alternatives to the mRNA vaccines. This stems from the Federal legal language which covers EUAs. Notably, in order to declare emergency use, the Secretary of the FDA, among other things, must certify:
"(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;"
To have Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies or any other "alternative" would invalidate the EUA. That's why the press, and the FDA, is usually careful to state specifically that Ivermectin is not "approved for treatment of COVID-19" even though it is an approved and safe medication for other applications.
Further, any EUA must be sunset after 90 days unless the FDA can re-certify continued EU under the exact same terms as the initial authorization. Hence, to keep the whole thing "legal" they must not allow any evolution in conditionality.
And don't forget...both Merck and Pfizer have brand spanking new anti-virals in the pipeline. Thanks to their friends in the FDA...these new drugs don't have to work...they might even destroy your kidneys...but they'll make $$$.
Editor’s note: Following audience concerns over the efficacy and accuracy of the scientific methods used in the ivermectin study performed in Nigeria in 2011, the original publishing station, KTSM, issued the following correction:
FOR THE RECORD: A national story regarding Ivermectin and a study regarding its effect on men’s reproductive health that KTSM published, has been removed from our website.
Concerns over the scientific research methods, the veracity of the original, peer-reviewed report and public statements by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) saying that infertility is not a known side effect of Ivermectin all led to our editorial decision to remove the story.
Well, there’s a zillion who will read your post. I read through replies to the author’s tweet, all but one chastising, and mine suggesting an apology was due hear readers. Kitten steps, el gato.
Bruh - I would have gladly paid 3X to have skipped the vasectomy and taken IVM if it would have done the same thing. THAT would have been a wonder drug in my eyes.
Hahaha how pathetic msm has become. First the overdose fake news (curiously, no one who posted the overdose thing at twitter got flagged), and now this.
If they are viciously attacking it, then it means it works
For anybody that don't want to link directly to a given news source (or any other webpage, for that matter) simply use https://archive.is/ (or its many mirrors like https://archive.ph/). The story in question here already has multiple copies saved. Here is an older version (https://archive.is/s6ku6) and here is a more recent one with a retraction (https://archive.is/ecNMb) already printed.
Dr. Chris Martenson reviews a very comprehensive ivermectin study by Jacques Descotes MD, PharmD, PhD. One of the parameters included in the studies is possible effects on pregnancy. (Basically no effects reported in humans) Sterility in men was not addressed in the review as I recall, so your report is an excellent supplement.
Excellent take-down of junk science, as you wield that particular skewer so well.
Here's my Substack of several minutes ago on evidence that ivermectin is safe & effective, including for COVID patients and for preventive use: https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/ivermectin-is-safe-and-effective
Dr. Huber. Not asking for medical advice. Any idea where IVM is available?
I think ivermectin is still available here without a prescription:
http://Alldaychemist.com
Thanks. Looks like they have a 30 day lag time after order. This is really frustrating.
I ordered from a drop shipper off India mart
Thanks. Will try.
3 other possibilities: America's Frontline Doctors, pharmacies in Mexico (I believe it's still OTC there), or an office consult with me. Frontline does telemedicine, and it's a long story why I don't, but I hope this helps.
Thanks again, doctor.
Striking out with all these. If you would consider a telemed visit, let me know.
My favourite arugment against IVM is this: "“Ivermectin is a chemical therapeutic agent, and it has significant risks associated with it,” Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias told the Post. “We should be very cautious about using this type of medication to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment". There are several ways to interpret this statement, and none of them make any sense.
find/replace "ivermectin" with "mRNA vaccine". see if they still like the text. certainly at least as true.
The only variable where both seem commutative is actually sterilization.
Honk honk!
Bad news sells. Bad news about your pee-pee really sells.
Hilarious study. Here's a thought, why don't we look at why the African continent has not been DECIMATED by COVID19? The continent has no healthcare infrastructure and struggles to feed it's population and yet.....they have next to no deaths/illness from COVID.....could it be that the use of Ivermectin and HCQ is used like WATER there??? Hint: yes....
Actually, the Tokyo Medical Assoc. Chairman used a comparison of C19 impact between the African countries that give out Ivermectin and those that don't as a justification for using the drug for prophylaxis and early treatment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkWOpFk1GGk
One of the reasons is that covid is dangerous for old people. I am afraid Africans do not live long enough to die from covid.
Do the Branch Covidians realize that publicizing this study, rank crap that it is, contradicts their earlier claims that Ivermectin was only for horses? Ah well, I guess they know their target audience...
so now you're expecting consistency from this gang?
<insert "you must be new here" graphic>
LOL.
I'm such a silly goose! 😂
If this were true you know the de-pop demons would hand out blister packs with jabs.
At the root of this issue, I believe, is the need to uphold the charade that there are no viable therapeutic alternatives to the mRNA vaccines. This stems from the Federal legal language which covers EUAs. Notably, in order to declare emergency use, the Secretary of the FDA, among other things, must certify:
"(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;"
To have Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies or any other "alternative" would invalidate the EUA. That's why the press, and the FDA, is usually careful to state specifically that Ivermectin is not "approved for treatment of COVID-19" even though it is an approved and safe medication for other applications.
Further, any EUA must be sunset after 90 days unless the FDA can re-certify continued EU under the exact same terms as the initial authorization. Hence, to keep the whole thing "legal" they must not allow any evolution in conditionality.
And don't forget...both Merck and Pfizer have brand spanking new anti-virals in the pipeline. Thanks to their friends in the FDA...these new drugs don't have to work...they might even destroy your kidneys...but they'll make $$$.
"A healthy kidney a day keeps the new Audi away." - Doctors' mantra
If Ivermectin DID cause sterility, that would be a huge opportunity for male birth control research. As a mom, I’d fund it myself. 🤦♀️😂
Well, kudos to the news org:
Editor’s note: Following audience concerns over the efficacy and accuracy of the scientific methods used in the ivermectin study performed in Nigeria in 2011, the original publishing station, KTSM, issued the following correction:
FOR THE RECORD: A national story regarding Ivermectin and a study regarding its effect on men’s reproductive health that KTSM published, has been removed from our website.
Concerns over the scientific research methods, the veracity of the original, peer-reviewed report and public statements by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) saying that infertility is not a known side effect of Ivermectin all led to our editorial decision to remove the story.
classic.
3 zillion impressions on the fraud, 27 people see the retraction.
Well, there’s a zillion who will read your post. I read through replies to the author’s tweet, all but one chastising, and mine suggesting an apology was due hear readers. Kitten steps, el gato.
Bruh - I would have gladly paid 3X to have skipped the vasectomy and taken IVM if it would have done the same thing. THAT would have been a wonder drug in my eyes.
Hahaha how pathetic msm has become. First the overdose fake news (curiously, no one who posted the overdose thing at twitter got flagged), and now this.
If they are viciously attacking it, then it means it works
Looks like they've retracted and removed the article.
if i were elderly, then infertility would be a small price to pay for an effective therapeutic
For anybody that don't want to link directly to a given news source (or any other webpage, for that matter) simply use https://archive.is/ (or its many mirrors like https://archive.ph/). The story in question here already has multiple copies saved. Here is an older version (https://archive.is/s6ku6) and here is a more recent one with a retraction (https://archive.is/ecNMb) already printed.
Thank you for this debunkment.
Dr. Chris Martenson reviews a very comprehensive ivermectin study by Jacques Descotes MD, PharmD, PhD. One of the parameters included in the studies is possible effects on pregnancy. (Basically no effects reported in humans) Sterility in men was not addressed in the review as I recall, so your report is an excellent supplement.
https://youtu.be/ATiX0-2PEr4
who (the cdc of the world) has been watching sperm count drop for decades.
males just are not that good at making "you know, those things" any more. (ht to biden)
that said; my step d in l and many medical personnel are aware of fertility issues from mrna jabs.
watch the 'crisis' when us hospitals do what the old toad in the white house let out today.
the media will blame no staffed beds on the unvaxxed when the staff refused the jab....
Satoshi Omura, the discoverer of avermectin, the precursor for ivermectin, wrote an article about the drug in 2011. I suggest it over recent media articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/