Ivermectine study surgisphere
We have to be extremely cautious about surgisphere. They faked data in order to discredit HCQ. So they likely faked data in order to favor ivermectine? Suspicion should work 2 ways! They are very suspect themselves now, but I would not take their positive study about ivermectine as a reason to discredit it. But that is what the Guardian infers now:
But there are other studies indicating high success rates:
Could surgisphere have tried to kill 2 birds with one stone?
I’ve already retracted my statement that “Ivermecin works!” because it was based on a study that used SurgiFraud’s “”data.”” Once an outfit commits major fraud, everything in their past gets chucked right out the window. Immediately.
However, I am willing to gather other, more believable data. That’s how we roll here.
Ivermectin is another interesting one with a peroxide bridge that may be cleaved, similar to artemisinin and CDS. Too bad it seems it would require overdoses to have an effect, where toxicity by other mechanisms would override any benefit.
Please refer to the study that says one would have to OD on ivermectin to have a protective effect??
I think its very possible Surgisphere tarnished HCQ’s reputation in order to promote Ivermectin (their favored treatment[?]), a drug which they may have legitimately discovered was effective in treating patients with the Honeybadger Virus (though they cannot be trusted, so it is hard to attribute their true motivations).
@Rootman Wikipedia references a few sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#SARS-CoV-2 “The doses used in cell culture would require 10^4 larger doses in humans based on this data”
However, Peru and Bolivia approved it in May, so I guess we’ll see soon… or we haven’t heard anything yet because it isn’t useful.
Thanks! I happened to find a very good lecture about Ivermectin from dr Been (a great professor- cell physiology)). It seems that normal doses work fine!
Right, maybe it DOES work and they’re trying to suppress it just like HCQ…