Jump to content

Free To Fly


FA@AC
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

"However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock."

Vsplat ...the operative words above are "self-medicating". I thought you might be talking about Ivermectin in your earlier post and I hope you won't mind me clarifying a few matters.

1. Ivermectin has been an approved medication for humans for some years for treatment of parasitic infections. The emphasis here is "humans" because the formulation and dosage is specific to human consumption. Taken as prescribed, the drug has no known adverse human affects.

2. There is an entirely different formulation of Ivermectin that is intended for use in animals. 

3. I do not know of any recommendation by anyone....excluding stuff like the video posted above....that promotes the use of ANIMAL Ivermectin by humans for ANY purpose.

4. On THIS forum, Seeker remarked that absent any negative risk and minimal cost, why not take Covid for the treatment of Covid symptoms if it MIGHT be beneficial. That comment unfortunately was misconstrued and perhaps taken out of context.

5. Ivermectin has NOT been approved by the FDA for the treatment of Covid 19 but testing is ongoing. It has been prescribed by many physicians seeking to find something to relieve their patient's suffering and anecdotally, there have been many positive results reported.

6. I personally know a pilot who was infected by Covid. His physician prescribed Ivermectin. He had a swift recovery which may or may not have been attributable to Ivermectin. The same fellow thereafter got both shots of Pfizer.

7. There are a LOT of drugs being assessed for effectiveness in the treatment of Covid symptoms. You probably know that thalidomide was introduced as an anti-nausea and anti-anxiety drug. It later became approved for use in cancer treatment. It was tested in a limited trial of patients with Covid and was found to reduce the need for ICU treatment by over 300%. Remarkable. Similar studies are ongoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, A330PilotCanada said:

Good Afternoon Upper Deck

It was meant to be a light hearted look at the anti-vax movement and those who do not look beyond the rhetoric. Last time I checked COVID-19 was a upper respiratory disease not a exclusive gastro intestinal disease.   

330....honestly just checking. Did the smiley face come up on my post? If I didn't know that was a spoof post....I'd be in trouble! I was poking Vsplat just a little because I was pretty sure he was conflating "non-adverse" HUMAN -use Ivermectin comments with anti-vaxxers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UpperDeck said:

330....honestly just checking. Did the smiley face come up on my post? If I didn't know that was a spoof post....I'd be in trouble! I was poking Vsplat just a little because I was pretty sure he was conflating "non-adverse" HUMAN -use Ivermectin comments with anti-vaxxers.

Good Afternoon Upper Deck:

No worries I was just trying to insert some badly needed humour as it appeared a few were getting wound up. 

I appreciate your thoughts as this COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving situation which has not had the time for scientific peer review of new medicines. Until sanctioned I will stick to what my Doctor prescribes. 

Contrary to friend Seeker I do read the links provided but I am biased if it is not from Lancet, CMA or CDC but that is just me as I spent way too much time following procedures in the AOM, FCOM etc but I digress  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

1. Ivermectin has been an approved medication for humans for some years for treatment of parasitic infections. The emphasis here is "humans" because the formulation and dosage is specific to human consumption. Taken as prescribed, the drug has no known adverse human affects.

2. There is an entirely different formulation of Ivermectin that is intended for use in animals. 

The issue is that the animal form of this medication is, in fact, being used, hence the warning from the FDA.  Many drugs are prescribed for use 'off label' , but generally only formulations that have already been approved for human consumption.  That's not just the active ingredient, as you probably know.

"The Mississippi Poison Control Center has received an increasing number of calls from individuals with potential ivermectin exposure taken to treat or prevent COVID-19 infection.
At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.
85% of the callers had mild symptoms, but one individual was instructed to seek further evaluation due to the amount of ivermectin reportedly ingested. "

This is a lot like the chloroquine saga.  Without any rigour applied to data gathering or testing, who knows why someone got better?  Those that didn't, or in fact died, wouldn't be in a position to share details...

The point being, a lot more is known about the vaccines, which ARE being used as intended and have millions of tracked data points.  How is that somehow not trustworthy but this is? 

Vs

Edited by Vsplat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vsplat said:

The issue is that the animal form of this medication is, in fact, being used, hence the warning from the FDA.  Many drugs are prescribed for use 'off label' , but generally only formulations that have already been approved for human consumption.  That's not just the active ingredient, as you probably know.

"The Mississippi Poison Control Center has received an increasing number of calls from individuals with potential ivermectin exposure taken to treat or prevent COVID-19 infection.
At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.
85% of the callers had mild symptoms, but one individual was instructed to seek further evaluation due to the amount of ivermectin reportedly ingested. "

This is a lot like the chloroquine saga.  Without any rigour applied to data gathering or testing, who knows why someone got better?  Those that didn't, or in fact died, wouldn't be in a position to share details...

The point being, a lot more is known about the vaccines, which ARE being used as intended and have millions of tracked data points.  How is that somehow not trustworthy but this is? 

Vs

Vs....I still don't understand why you state; "How is that somehow not trustworthy but this is?"

Again...I know of no reasonable source that would suggest that ingesting Ivermectin is preferable to vaccination. Frankly....that makes no sense.

The vaccine is obviously designed and intended to PREVENT infection by "exciting" the immune system. Ivermectin...as an example only...is one of the arsenal of medications being used/assessed to treat an individual already infected.

Forgive me but....that's a horse of a different colour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UD, I don't really know where you are headed.  The thread started with the free to fly link.  It leads to this document.

https://64499a81-d991-4e8d-a576-ea3dd3827ffa.filesusr.com/ugd/16b6b8_4cef2c211d3346359241e86ace7ac44a.pdf

I think you might see why I am connecting the dots the way I am...or perhaps you'll disagree.  I'm fine with either. 

IMO ivermectin is not in any arsenal. It's just folks trying stuff.   If someone decided to try out arsenic, it wouldn't automatically make that a good choice either.

Vs

Edited by Vsplat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

Again...I know of no reasonable source that would suggest that ingesting Ivermectin is preferable to vaccination. Frankly....that makes no sense.

Are you sure you don't know of anyone who'd suggest that?

At least one poster here suggests that everyone diagnosed with the "minor medical issue" that is Covid-19 should be given Ivermectin.  The same person isn't keen on vaccination and has opined that history will prove the anti-vaxers (other than those who die of covid or who infect others who then die of it) correct.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

UD, I don't really know where you are headed.  The thread started with the free to fly link.  It leads to this document.

https://64499a81-d991-4e8d-a576-ea3dd3827ffa.filesusr.com/ugd/16b6b8_4cef2c211d3346359241e86ace7ac44a.pdf

I think you might see why I am connecting the dots the way I am...or perhaps not. 

Vs

And why would I not see your rationale...lol?

To be candid...I have only been following the Ivermectin discussion and only to the extent that I objected to dismissing the usefulness of a particular medication because it was abused by some. I have to chuckle at myself at times; I have an affinity for propofol administered prior to general anaesthesia....and I've had the need of that too many times. That is the same drug that led to Michael Jackson's death. Thank God the drug wasn't tarred and feathered by reason of that abuse!

There are many who firmly believe that we have rushed into vaccinations for Covid without adequate study. Their opinions are honestly held and I for one harbour no belief in my own infallibility or that of others; those of us who accept vaccination could be mistaken. Maybe there are side-effects yet to be discovered or appreciated that far outweigh the consequence of being unvaccinated. I don't know but I understand the hesitation of those who ask the same question to which there are no certain responses. I don't consider them " nutcases" but I agree....they shouldn't proselytize. Keep those opinions and beliefs to yourselves...like religion, it's a private matter.

That said...the same is true of medications taken to combat the symptoms of Covid. I take a daily aspirin. Lord knows if it does me any good but I can tell you this without hesitation....I'll never urge everyone else to take it! As with everything else...be guided by YOUR physician(s).

Have a GREAT night!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi UD;

Re,

11 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

....they shouldn't proselytize. Keep those opinions and beliefs to yourselves...like religion, it's a private matter.

Well thanks, you said it far better than I was capable of at the time - this was what I was trying to convey with the objection I made earlier in the thread. It had nothing to do with the actual discussion about Ivermectin or asking reasonable questions about it.

On ingesting other compounds, as a BC resident I take Vitamin D just like my damp friends do, based on what probably are a number of myths as in BC the sun is mostly an apparition. But taking compounds to keep one as healthy as possible as one ages, a process which I am striving to continue, are a doctor's perview, period, and the decisions and choices are indeed private.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens when your prescription drug becomes the center of covid misinformation

Ivermectin has been falsely promoted as a covid treatment—but for those who use the drug legitimately, seeing it become a piece of anti-vaccine misinformation is disconcerting.

Wed Sep 08, 2021 - MIT Technology Review
by Abby Ohlheiser

Quote

'It’s become incredibly complicated, and even talking about it is tricky right now because the conversation is so easily weaponized'

By the time Joe Rogan mentioned ivermectin as one ingredient in an experimental cocktail he was taking to treat his covid infection, the drug was a meme. In the days and weeks leading up to the hugely popular podcaster’s revelation, the drug had already become a flashpoint in the covid culture wars. Ivermectin isn’t some new or experimental drug: in addition to its use as an anti-parasite treatment for livestock, it’s commonly employed in humans to treat a form of rosacea, among other things. So for those of us who have been using it for years, its sudden infamy was unexpected and unwelcome.

Prescriptions for the oral form of ivermectin spiked in August as the drug was promoted widely across the conservative media landscape and championed by a group of pro-Trump doctors who are popular in anti-vaccine circles. Phil Valentine, an anti-vaccine, anti-mask radio host, posted on Facebook in July that people who turn down the vaccine should “have a doctor on speed dial who will write you a prescription for ivermectin.” (He later caught the virus and died.)

People without a prescription started buying it in the form of so-called horse paste from Amazon, from livestock suppliers—wherever they could find it. The CDC confirmed that the increased interest in ivermectin as a covid “treatment” coincided with a bump in calls to poison control centers for adverse effects of consuming the drug. Those callers included people who ate a topical cream and those who consumed veterinary formulations meant for large animals. This swell of interest in ivermectin attracted substantial, justified alarm. Headline after headline talked about the “livestock drug” that anti-vaxxers were relying on. Even the US Food and Drug Administration dunked on misinformation peddlers by tweeting, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it.” 

The viral posts and memes came as a surprise to some with rosacea, a common skin condition that is best known for causing redness on the face. I’m one: there are actually four varieties of rosacea, and several years ago, a dermatologist diagnosed me with three of them.  On and off for the past five years, I’ve used a topical cream containing ivermectin to treat it.

Watching “ivermectin” become a keyword for anti-vaccine misinformation has been pretty weird and infuriating for me. So as the memes spread, I wanted to know how all of this was going to affect those of us who use the drug legitimately. 

It’s become incredibly complicated, and even talking about it is tricky right now because the conversation is so easily weaponized: when I tweeted in late August that it kind of sucked to see the treatment you use for a skin condition go viral as a “livestock drug,” I was quoted by someone promoting ivermectin as a covid treatment. The argument was that because some people take the drug legitimately for completely unrelated conditions, it must also be safe for covid (it’s  not: the FDA says that “taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous”). 

I’ve watched this play out again and again online: misinformation evolves and adapts as it seeks attention. 

The fact is, the evidence that ivermectin can treat covid is slim, based largely on a preprint (i.e., not peer-reviewed) study that was posted early in the pandemic but later withdrawn after substantial questions about its data. But online, the fact that ivermectin has a history as a real drug with actual uses in humans and animals has become part of the script for those trying to promote its dubious and potentially dangerous use as a treatment for covid. And as ivermectin’s misuse has caught on, the response to that fact has itself become part of the story for anti-vaccine influencers.

Changing the script
Before ivermectin was hydroxychloroquine, an immunosuppressant that is often prescribed to prevent malaria and to treat some skin conditions, and was also falsely promoted as a covid-19 treatment. Its ensuing popularity led to shortages, hurting people who actually needed it—and made it harder to prescribe for legitimate uses, says Adam Friedman, a physician and chair of dermatology at George Washington University.

It’s a reminder that when drugs get caught up in viral health misinformation, it doesn’t affect just the people who ignore reliable experts and opt for ineffective, debunked, or dangerous treatments they read about online.

Friedman says has been forced to change how he talks to patients when he needs to prescribe hydroxychloroquine. “I’ve now worked into my scripting: ‘Hey, I want to start you on this medicine. You may have heard about it related to covid, that it was being used as a cure and it’s not,’” he says. “It got a lot of negative press. However, in dermatology we’ve been using it for decades for these different things.” 

To understand the extent to which this confusion might also be ivermectin’s future, I went to r/Rosacea, the subreddit for advice on dealing with the chronic condition. 

Categorically different
People with rosacea know ivermectin not as an unproven covid drug, but as a proven and effective treatment that helps some people with a type of rosacea that causes bumps on the skin. On the subreddit, one user was confused by the sudden influx of attention, asking: “Why are ivermectin memes popping up everywhere right now? And how does the mainstream know what it is?” 

For people on the subreddit, ivermectin is a pretty persistent topic of discussion. There’s an expensive topical cream called Soolantra that contains the drug, and a generic version was released this summer. But a subset of those users also knew that the same drug was in horse paste, because some people diagnosed with rosacea have also bought the veterinary form—usually because they can’t otherwise get access to the creams or can’t afford a prescription. 

This practice is controversial among people with rosacea, and dermatologists have raised concerns about experimenting with a product that contains an inappropriate dosage or untested ingredients with potentially adverse effects. However, Friedman says, a person with rosacea turning to horse paste for cost reasons is in a categorically different medical and ethical universe from the one in which people are eating horse paste to “cure” covid. For diagnosed rosacea patients who need ivermectin to control the condition, Friedman says, “unfortunately, the best medication is the one patients can get.” 

People who use Soolantra or the generic version of ivermectin topically are, as of right now, unlikely to be encountering shortages, says Friedman. There are reports of farm supply stores running short on horse paste, however. In addition to some practical issues of access—while reporting this story, I spoke to one person who had to purchase horse paste from the UK in order to treat his pet rats for mites a few weeks ago—there’s now an added layer of scrutiny and stigma. How do you explain that you use horse paste on yourself, but not like that?

“Attached to this oversimplified idea”
The subreddit’s moderators were already pretty familiar with misinformation about ivermectin. 

People use the site, like many online communities, to discuss and trade information based on their experience: for example, discussing the best facial cleansers, asking how to avoid triggering a flare-up, or sharing how their treatment is progressing over time. But they can also incubate and promote misinformation, which moderators have to monitor and remove.

Although there are some Facebook groups that promote horse paste for those with rosacea, the r/Rosacea subreddit neither encourages nor bans discussion of its use. One moderator told me the biggest risk is that people will self-diagnose with rosacea and decide to treat themselves with a DIY version of a medication that, even in a form intended for use by humans, should only be used with the guidance of a physician. 

Not all rosacea is the same, however, and the reasons ivermectin might work for some is still a subject of scientific debate.

There is a connection between rosacea and demodex mites, which live in the hair follicles on more or less everyone’s face. in people with any form of rosacea, those mites are there in excess. But the exact relationship isn’t clear. “The question is chicken or egg,” Friedman says. Are people with rosacea ideal environments for demodex mites to live in excess, or “or is it this overgrowth that then exacerbates rosacea?” 

That uncertainty has led to some pretty dangerous suggestions online, said Ryan, a Reddit moderator who asked that I withhold his last name. 

“People get attracted and attached to this oversimplified idea that if they just kill the mites, their rosacea and their problems will go away,” he said. “We’ve even seen some pretty crazy things, like people recommending wearing flea collars or using pesticides on their face.” 

Data voids and poisoned wells
Online peddlers of misinformation often exploit a data void, telling people to search for specific terms that they know will lead to results that promote what they’re trying to say. At worst, as the misinformation researcher Renee DiResta has written in the past, the top results can end up coming entirely from people who believe in and promote the misinformation. 

And as searches for “ivermectin” soared in August, according to Google Trends, the search results themselves were more or less completely overtaken by discussions of the people who use ivermectin to treat covid. 

Platforms and vendors have started promising to address the problem: Amazon’s results for horse paste, which had been filled with reviews promoting the product as a covid treatment, were removed after a Washington Post reporter asked for comment. Searches for “ivermectin” on Amazon now carry a warning from the FDA. But in subreddits and private Facebook groups, in Amazon reviews, and in YouTube videos, bad information still awaits those searching for it.

The second result on a Google search for “ivermectin” run on September 7 was a study in the American Journal of Therapeutics promoting the drug’s use to treat covid. The study, a meta-analysis of other trials of using ivermectin, was authored by researchers who are trying to get the drug approved as a covid treatment, Politifact noted. Outside experts said the studies the paper relied on were not high enough quality to warrant the conclusions. 

Another top result? A clip of Joe Rogan’s podcast in which he jokes about the media’s coverage of his use of ivermectin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Phil Valentine story is filed under "be careful what you wish for". If people would leave science and medicine to the experts, we'd be much better off. I'm pretty sure no one on this forum would hop in the back of an airplane flown by a circus clown, or hire their favourite barista to defend them in a lawsuit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, J.O. said:

The Phil Valentine story is filed under "be careful what you wish for". If people would leave science and medicine to the experts, we'd be much better off. I'm pretty sure no one on this forum would hop in the back of an airplane flown by a circus clown, or hire their favourite barista to defend them in a lawsuit.

Yes, good story.  Anti-vaxxer dies from the Covid.  Gotta love the irony of that.  What about the story of the pro-vaxxer who died from the vaccine?  I make no claim about the relative numbers of "anti" vs "pro" dying from their choice.  VAERS shows thousands of deaths after the vaccine and this number is widely thought to be a gross underrepresentation but, of course we'll never know the truth about whether these deaths were an adverse reaction to the vaccine or just co-incidence and I would certainly never make any claim.  One thing is for sure, you won't see it being reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Seeker said:

Yes, good story.  Anti-vaxxer dies from the Covid.  Gotta love the irony of that.  What about the story of the pro-vaxxer who died from the vaccine?  I make no claim about the relative numbers of "anti" vs "pro" dying from their choice.  VAERS shows thousands of deaths after the vaccine and this number is widely thought to be a gross underrepresentation but, of course we'll never know the truth about whether these deaths were an adverse reaction to the vaccine or just co-incidence and I would certainly never make any claim.  One thing is for sure, you won't see it being reported.

You may find the following of interest. The data is for Canada.

 

image.thumb.png.b02d0ae2543c579b40fc64e60bc10106.png

COVID-19 daily epidemiology update - Canada.ca

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Skeptic said:

You may find the following of interest. The data is for Canada.

 

Yes, that is interesting but you realize that only includes "Covid" cases, right.  Someone get's the vaccine and then a week later has an MI or stroke - doesn't show on the list of Covid cases.  I don't know how much of this there is - anecdotally there's - lots, officially there's - none.  What's the truth?  There's likely some - statistically significant?  God knows.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Seeker said:

Yes, that is interesting but you realize that only includes "Covid" cases, right.  Someone get's the vaccine and then a week later has an MI or stroke - doesn't show on the list of Covid cases.  I don't know how much of this there is - anecdotally there's - lots, officially there's - none.  What's the truth?  There's likely some - statistically significant?  God knows.

 

I want to understand your meaning here.  Are you suggesting that the MI or Stroke is as a result of the vaccine and going unreported? 

Vs

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vsplat said:

I want to understand your meaning here.  Are you suggesting that the MI or Stroke is as a result of the vaccine and going unreported? 

Vs

I'm simply saying this;  there are some people who experience serious medical episodes after getting the vaccine.  My doctor says;  "Yeah, well, when you vaccinate a bazillion people, statistically, you're gonna have people with medical events - doesn't mean it's connected."    That's true, can't argue, but VAERS does have thousands of deaths reported.  Other sources estimate that somewhere between 1 and 10 % of vaccination injury events are reported to VAERS.  What's the truth?   I sure don't know.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a strong tendency to play up the stories such as, "Anti-vaxxer dies from Covid" while dismissing, hand-waving or downplaying any that run counter to the narrative.

Here's a rather long-winded example, I'll try to write it so it makes sense;

In both the Pfizer and Moderna Vaccine clinical trials, incidents of Bell’s Palsy were cited as medically attended adverse events (MAAE). Pfizer had 4 in the vaccine group, zero in the placebo.  Moderna had 3 in vaccine group, 1 in placebo group. 

My co-worker's wife developed Bell's Palsy after vaccination.  So, I'm talking to my doctor (maybe 4 months ago) about my vaccination concerns and I mention the co-worker/wife/Bell's Palsy situation.  He totally dismisses it.  Says, "Bell's Palsy is actually quite common.  I could walk into any emergency room and find at least one person with it." 

This concerns me.  Pfizer and Moderna themselves presented data showing it might be an issue and my doctor dismisses it - completely refuses to acknowledge any possible connection.  Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive but if this is his thinking - to dismiss anything that falls outside his clinical experience as irrelevant how can I trust his advice?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vsplat said:

I want to understand your meaning here.  Are you suggesting that the MI or Stroke is as a result of the vaccine and going unreported? 

Vs

The data there doesn't seem to consider any underlying health issues that may or may not be present.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seeker said:

This concerns me.  Pfizer and Moderna themselves presented data showing it might be an issue and my doctor dismisses it - completely refuses to acknowledge any possible connection.  Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive but if this is his thinking - to dismiss anything that falls outside his clinical experience as irrelevant how can I trust his advice?  

OK.  So this is indeed about unreported side effects.  There is a process for tracking these and I don't sense any sort of orchestrated conspiracy to silence that system. Human factors being what they are, there is a fallback method.   If a specific physician is unaware or unable to respond to a side effect concern, the local public health office will take the call.  But it is not perfect. 

Now, compare that to the approach to tracking side effects from chloroquine or ivermectin use.  It just makes me scratch my head to see aversion based on international, widespread data-driven systems that actually identify issues, while embracing chemical options that have floated up on social media powered by ardent belief and strident talk, with limited or absent tracking or follow up of bad outcomes. It seems to me that one of these approaches is far more prone to biased reporting than the other.

Anyway, not a discussion that will ever result in universal agreement, just some thoughts.

Vs

Edited by Vsplat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...