The Dose - 3-12-2022

Submitted by studentofearth on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 4:29am

A few articles of interest.

United Nation Security Council on biolabs in the Ukraine March 11, 2022 The Saker

The link includes a translation of the Russian statement

This is a very short report. The hatred was so palpable in that meeting room that I felt physically affected.

The summary is:

Russia, China, Brazil, India, and Kenya want investigations into the Biolabs.

The US says they did not hide anything and used their time as 10 minutes of hate. And we know they speak the truth because CNN showed us the videos of the horrible Russians and the horrible things that they do, like bombing hospitals. There is no US biolab connection. There is nothing to see here, they say.

UK representative ditto. Norway ditto. A few others, ditto.

Russia says the Ukraine faked deaths and faked propaganda.

Everyone to Russia:
You are conspiracy theorists and aggressors.
*No one shows any proof*
*Russia shows proof*

I trust Russia has a mass of more proof and these speakers will have to swallow their words of today.

Nobody speaks about the biolabs but use their time for 10 minutes of hate. Of course they were caught in the act, and can only rail and hate.

Keyed at United States statement. Auto-translate was not available when I viewed the video, however many members presented there portion in english. (full video about 2 hours)
[video:https://youtu.be/34IWBaT_Kzk?t=1873]

Presentations in English
1st UN representative (approx 8 min at this link of the video at UN site)
00.00 2nd UN representative
24.54 Albania
31.13 United States (starts here)
43.38 United Kingdom
48.03 India
53.15 Ghana
56.52 Ireland
101.34 Norway
110.41 Brazil
113.30 Kenya
129.08 United States response to Russia
129.46 Ukraine

________

Who’s to blame for Hong Kong’s Covid catastrophe?/ Asia Times March 10, 2022
Recriminations fly as Hong Kong’s ‘zero infection’ policy fails to stop the highest Covid fatality rate worldwide

Hong Kong has postponed a citywide coronavirus testing scheme scheduled for late March and will focus instead on containing serious cases after the city’s Covid-19 death rate topped the world for a second straight week.

This week the government announced plans to turn several public hospitals into facilities that receive only serious Covid patients and others in critical condition. It also abnormally sent an urgent alert to citizens’ mobile phones about the decision, fueling already high anxieties in the city seen in panic buying of food and goods.
...
University of Hong Kong research forecasts that the number of infections in the city will reach 4.3 million, or 57% of the population of 7.5 million people, by the end of April.

Since the fifth epidemic wave broke out in Hong Kong in December, more than half a million people have been infected. In the month ended Tuesday, 498,809 cases had been reported, compared with 3,064 a month earlier. During this wave, 2,869 people who tested positive had died. Before the current wave, Hong Kong had recorded only 213 deaths.

In the week ended Tuesday, 1,697 Covid patients died in Hong Kong, compared with 1,304 a week earlier. That means the number of deaths per million in seven days grew to 226 from 174 the previous week.

China's daily local COVID cases top 1,000 as Omicron spreads Reuters March 11, 2022

Mainland China reported over 1,000 new COVID-19 infections in dozens of cities, the highest daily count in about two years, with the Omicron variant forcing a northeastern city to go under lockdown and the financial hub Shanghai to close schools.
...
FRUSTRATION OVER CURBS

Some of the restrictions have started to bite.

Targeted lockdowns of buildings have caused anxiety among residents in Shanghai, while complaints that some university students in Jilin were not promptly moved to designated quarantine sites or had not received certain daily necessities triggered social media anger. read more

Mainland China's daily number of local asymptomatic infections have hovered above 300 this week, a sharp increase from a daily average of about 10 such cases in the first two months this year, Reuters calculations showed.

"Infections in vaccinated individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic than infections in unvaccinated individuals, and vaccine coverage is now very high in China," said Ben Cowling, an epidemiology professor at the University of Hong Kong.

Around 87% of China's 1.4 billion population had received complete doses for primary vaccination as of late February, and around 40% of the population had received a booster shot.

There have been no new deaths from COVID-19 reported in more than a year.Mainland China's registered death toll has been static at 4,636 since January 2021.

________

Tags:

Open Thread

#Covid

Vote

Comments

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 7:49am

Zero was never a realistic target,

with a pathogen that is as infectious as measles and imperfect vaccines which did little to prevent transmission to others.

COVID Live data has Hong Kong’s Death/Million is under 500, which will continue to rise, as deaths lag behind the infection wave which is still rising. But for perspective many countries have suffered far higher rates of death; the hardest hit, Peru, lost well over 6,000/Million!

Perhaps a strategy that relies primarily on vaccines and downplays prophylaxis and early treatment is part of the problem, since ‘herd immunity’ and the advantage of natural immunity depends on infection and recovery of a significant portion of the population. If the ‘zero’ policy effectively keeps people from getting infected, it also effectively negates the positive effects of natural immunity and the improved and longer lasting protection of the ‘herd’.

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by studentofearth on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 12:57pm

On the plus side for a zero policy

@ovals49 a significant number of individuals have had more time to be alive. Two years additional years they have spent with family, friends and their communities. An even larger population has not become ill with an infectious disease with potential serious longterm complications. It has allowed time to develop better treatments and preventative measures.

Theories accepting a comfortable level of death and illness in a population, generally excludes the originator making the projection being effected. Many will accept the concept and repeat it as a way to reconcile the losses in their own life and those around them.

Last weeks The Dose referenced an article reporting the loss of life from a rare side effect of mRNA vaccines. In the words of her husband.

“She’s a hero of the times that we’re living in, in this pandemic, in this world which we are faced with today,” he said, “for the legacy of the work she did, and doing her societal obligations, and giving her life for it.”

Thomas is also upset that the risks of the various vaccines weren’t communicated earlier and more clearly.

“They’re not taking time to explain the acceptable risk,” he said. “They’re not taking time to communicate what shots are good for what age groups.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by QMS on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 8:03am

Do we really need CNN to tell us what to think?

Or the US government? The lies have been proven as untruths. It does not take a genius to connect
the dots between DoD contracts with foreign biolabs and outbreaks of various influenzas. This
process of bioengineering 'gain of function' aka weaponizing bugs has been going on since the
50's. For the US to deny substantiated evidence is another slap in the face of realism.

Thanks for posting SOE!

Submitted by studentofearth on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 12:58pm

welcome n/t

@QMS

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by Lookout on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 8:04am

Jmmy covers Dr John

and his review of IVM which I posted in yesterday's dose.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXKZp41y8KY]
Nurse practitioner instructor and YouTube star Dr. John Campbell recently reviewed two comprehensive studies that seem to put an end to any question whether the widely prescribed drug Ivermectin is effective as a treatment for COVID-19. That the media and medical establishment continue to paint Ivermectin as “horse paste” rather than a potentially powerful treatment in the fight against COVID is an incredible scandal, Campbell says.

Additionally word seems to be leaking to the MSM. (4 min)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEibLXi8yyE]

A day late and a dollar short, but maybe the truth will prevail.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 8:43am

The truth has many enemies in high places

@Lookout
Biden's Surgeon General Calls on Informants to Report Use of Generic Drugs

While the pandemic—after two horrific years of death, isolation, economic chaos, mandates, and restrictions on basic freedoms—might finally appear to be winding down, don’t be fooled. As President Biden has now made clear, Big Pharma has Big Plans in the works for the development and dissemination of both vaccines and new patent meds in perpetuity.

And the last thing that it and its political and bureaucratic stewards want to hear right now are dissenting voices telling the public that, according to the “best available evidence,” there are far safer and more effective ways of dealing with any relapses than anything it may have in that pipeline.

Covid may be disappearing, but Covid Big Brother is here to stay unless the rest of us get informed and do something about it.

—

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Submitted by Lookout on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 9:45am

profit is a powerful force...

@ovals49

and big pharma wields its power across all platforms. Fortunately I have a brain and can think for myself, and select treatments think are best. My suspicions are always riled by suppression of information.
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-iv...
Why? because sick and scared people are easy to manipulate, healthy thinking people less so.

All the best!

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 9:55am

The same guy wants social media to tell him

@ovals49

who is spreading fake news. This should even scare the shitlibs that their government is monitoring people’s speech, but it’s about Covid falsehoods so they are okay with it. Just imagine if it was Trump doing it, but to shitlibs who don’t think that early treatment works. Yeah they’d have a problem with that for sure.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 10:43am

Why people are objecting to John Campbell's analysis...

There is a lot of commentary online regarding the much touted discussion that John Campbell offered on Ivermectin. I watch Campbell basically for his educational talks on viruses etc. But he is capable of not being thorough and/or not presenting opposing evidence.

Once again, in case anyone here wants to read what other scientists are writing on Ivermectin.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-wasnt-shown-more-effec...

John's claim...FULL CLAIM: “In other words, you're about 70 percent less likely to die if you take ivermectin compared to taking remdesivir”; “That data shows that unequivocally ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 when compared to remdesivir”; “Why isn’t this in the newspapers, 70% reduction in mortality in this study? I mean this is just huge and this is with the tiny dose of ivermectin every fortnight acting as a prophylactic”; “This is why I think ivermectin is going to be one of the huge scandals, it’s almost as if information has been deliberately suppressed throughout the pandemic”

Rebuttal..."Fails to grasp significance of observation: The research presented in John Campbell’s video, purportedly showing ivermectin to be an effective COVID-19 treatment, contained several limitations. For example, one set of research findings that he cited involved comparing COVID-19 mortality in patients that took remdesivir with those who took ivermectin. However, remdesivir is used in hospitalized patients, while ivermectin is mainly used in outpatients. Patients on remdesivir are therefore more likely to be seriously ill and die compared to patients on ivermectin."

However, the authors of the abstract objected to such an interpretation of their work, with one of them calling out Campbell’s video specifically. This can be seen from the tweets below by medical student Iakov Efimenko and infectious disease specialist Jose Gonzales Zamora, both of whom are affiliated with the University of Miami: Iakov Efimenko tweeted " I don't think it's funny... people like John campbell are calling this a "great thought out study" when in reality it's an abstract with preliminary data. We have randomized controlled trials why are we still interested in retrospective cohort data abstracts?" Jose Gonzalez Samora tweeted this in response to Pierre Kory's announcement that the study PROVES Ivermectin is the miracle drug he has always endorse..."I am ONE of the authors of the study. This "retrospective" study looks for ASSOCIATION, not causality. Now that we have randomized clinical trials, we can say with certainty that IVERMECTIN DOES NOT WORK AT ALL FOR COVID (his emphasis). I recommend to read the conclusions of the abstract."
1:22 PM · Mar 3, 2022

The analysis has a lot more detail, but ends with this....Campbell also claimed that these studies were evidence that “ivermectin is going to be one of the huge scandals” and that “it’s almost as if information has been deliberately suppressed throughout the pandemic”.

But his claim isn’t grounded in reality. The research he cited in the video is free to access on the Internet. Moreover, the abstract was tweeted more than 14,000 times, while the study in Itajaí was read hundreds of thousands of times and received more than 39,000 engagements on social media according to the social media analytics tool CrowdTangle.

As explained previously in this review, the reason ivermectin isn’t approved as a COVID-19 preventative or treatment is that there’s no reliable clinical evidence showing that ivermectin is effective for such uses. Claims to the opposite commonly involve misinterpretation of a study and/or a failure to understand its flaws and limitations, as demonstrated in Campbell’s video. Indeed, the BBC reported that studies purporting to show that ivermectin is effective typically contain critical errors invalidating the study’s results or signs that the data was fabricated."

Also, this study from Maylasia involving 500 people was just reported in JAMA.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/not-a-miracle-drug-experts-on-...

I always thought Dr. John was pretty neutral on virus treatments etc. and appeared to be so in his reports. But you know that something is off when his commentary gets picked up by Jimmy Dore and when he is agreeing with "experts" like Pierre Kory.

Oh, and that Medical News Today link has another topic below the Ivermectin article that discusses what is going wrong with medical research and verification lately. It's good food for thought.

‘Science is flawed’: COVID-19, ivermectin, and beyond
Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an epidemiologist and writer based in Sydney, Australia. His work covers chronic disease, the pandemic response, and more recently, error detection in science. In this op-ed, he discusses issues with research that have become increasingly apparent during the pandemic.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by QMS on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 10:57am

Oh for crissakes fish

@Fishtroller 02

If you do not believe in early preventative measures and think the jab is the
only solution, then deny science to your own risk. The better approach would be
to allow people to make informed decisions. Dr. Campbell is singing this particular song.
I allow that you are playing devil's advocate here. But think. Are there other processes
at work here? This, I don't think you get.

thanks anyway

There is a lot of commentary online regarding the much touted discussion that John Campbell offered on Ivermectin. I watch Campbell basically for his educational talks on viruses etc. But he is capable of not being thorough and/or not presenting opposing evidence. Once again, in case anyone here wants to read what other scientists are writing on Ivermectin. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-wasnt-shown-more-effec... John's claim...FULL CLAIM: “In other words, you're about 70 percent less likely to die if you take ivermectin compared to taking remdesivir”; “That data shows that unequivocally ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 when compared to remdesivir”; “Why isn’t this in the newspapers, 70% reduction in mortality in this study? I mean this is just huge and this is with the tiny dose of ivermectin every fortnight acting as a prophylactic”; “This is why I think ivermectin is going to be one of the huge scandals, it’s almost as if information has been deliberately suppressed throughout the pandemic” Rebuttal..."Fails to grasp significance of observation: The research presented in John Campbell’s video, purportedly showing ivermectin to be an effective COVID-19 treatment, contained several limitations. For example, one set of research findings that he cited involved comparing COVID-19 mortality in patients that took remdesivir with those who took ivermectin. However, remdesivir is used in hospitalized patients, while ivermectin is mainly used in outpatients. Patients on remdesivir are therefore more likely to be seriously ill and die compared to patients on ivermectin." However, the authors of the abstract objected to such an interpretation of their work, with one of them calling out Campbell’s video specifically. This can be seen from the tweets below by medical student Iakov Efimenko and infectious disease specialist Jose Gonzales Zamora, both of whom are affiliated with the University of Miami: Iakov Efimenko tweeted " I don't think it's funny... people like John campbell are calling this a "great thought out study" when in reality it's an abstract with preliminary data. We have randomized controlled trials why are we still interested in retrospective cohort data abstracts?" Jose Gonzalez Samora tweeted this in response to Pierre Kory's announcement that the study PROVES Ivermectin is the miracle drug he has always endorse..."I am ONE of the authors of the study. This "retrospective" study looks for ASSOCIATION, not causality. Now that we have randomized clinical trials, we can say with certainty that IVERMECTIN DOES NOT WORK AT ALL FOR COVID (his emphasis). I recommend to read the conclusions of the abstract." 1:22 PM · Mar 3, 2022 The analysis has a lot more detail, but ends with this....Campbell also claimed that these studies were evidence that “ivermectin is going to be one of the huge scandals” and that “it’s almost as if information has been deliberately suppressed throughout the pandemic”. But his claim isn’t grounded in reality. The research he cited in the video is free to access on the Internet. Moreover, the abstract was tweeted more than 14,000 times, while the study in Itajaí was read hundreds of thousands of times and received more than 39,000 engagements on social media according to the social media analytics tool CrowdTangle. As explained previously in this review, the reason ivermectin isn’t approved as a COVID-19 preventative or treatment is that there’s no reliable clinical evidence showing that ivermectin is effective for such uses. Claims to the opposite commonly involve misinterpretation of a study and/or a failure to understand its flaws and limitations, as demonstrated in Campbell’s video. Indeed, the BBC reported that studies purporting to show that ivermectin is effective typically contain critical errors invalidating the study’s results or signs that the data was fabricated." Also, this study from Maylasia involving 500 people was just reported in JAMA. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/not-a-miracle-drug-experts-on-... I always thought Dr. John was pretty neutral on virus treatments etc. and appeared to be so in his reports. But you know that something is off when his commentary gets picked up by Jimmy Dore and when he is agreeing with "experts" like Pierre Kory. Oh, and that Medical News Today link has another topic below the Ivermectin article that discusses what is going wrong with medical research and verification lately. It's good food for thought. ‘Science is flawed’: COVID-19, ivermectin, and beyond Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an epidemiologist and writer based in Sydney, Australia. His work covers chronic disease, the pandemic response, and more recently, error detection in science. In this op-ed, he discusses issues with research that have become increasingly apparent during the pandemic.

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 12:10pm

Why is it when I present information that counters the push

@QMS

for Ivermectin, there is something suspect about that, but not if you or others present information pushing people to self medicate with this substance?

I have never said that I am against early preventative measures.... like Vitamin D, etc., but putting words in my mouth seems to be a hobby on here.

"The better approach would be to allow people to make informed decision." One definition of "informed" is actively incorporating other information in your decision making. I know there are people on here, some who have left the site, who just got tired of the one sided presentations pushing out others that seems to characterize The Dose. Why I keep trying to provide balance is something I probably need to assess. But maybe you don't care about that.

Did you even read anything in this post? If you did, is there something in it that you find objectionable or inaccurate about it? Then tell me what that is rather than throwing shade on me having the nerve to post anything at all.

Just what do you mean about "other processes" at work here? What are you accusing me of? I can't believe how twisted things have become around here. I have not seen you approach anyone else's posts this way. Why is that? Please explain what you don't think I'm getting. All I see is that every goddamn time I post information that counters the group approved narrative on here, I get some sort of hyperventilating blow back. Do you not see how this looks, not only to me, but to others?
This is pretty concerning for a site that was created out of a rejection of the group think tactics of TOP.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by JtC on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 12:39pm

Do you not see...

@Fishtroller 02

Do you not see how this looks, not only to me, but to others?

how it looks to others when a user disregards almost all other content on a site and focuses in, lazer-like, on a certain topic of discussion and seems to post only to disrupt the threads, over and over.

I see it.

Submitted by TB mare on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 1:48pm

Maybe he focuses laser-like on this topic

@JtC because he considers COVID to be that important, and would like to ensure that people have reliable information regarding mitigation and treatment there of. Is it “disruptive” to present counter arguments? Are counter arguments only allowed on other threads, but not The Dose? It’s really so plainly obvious that there is only one set of acceptable comments allowed here, any others are treated as sacrilegious and can lead to excommunication.

Thank you @Fishtroller 02. You’re the only reason I come to The Dose, hoping somehow you’ll open some eyes and minds to the fallacious thinking here. It is important.

Submitted by JtC on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 3:51pm

No...

@TB mare
she's trolling. The question then becomes, how much longer will I put up with it.

Submitted by TB mare on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 4:04pm

It would be a shame

@JtC to see heterodox ideas banned here. Groupthink only or else.

Submitted by JtC on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 4:18pm

I learned very early on...

@TB mare
when admining an open discussion board that certain individuals will take advantage of the rules and game both myself and the community. When caught they invoke the Sergeant Schultz defense and hang themselves on a cross as a victim.

I am no rookie at this game. I've had quite a few here do exactly that, one of them was one of my best online friends. I took it from him until I couldn't stand it any longer. I don't ban folks lightly here, I give them plenty of rope to prove exactly what and who they are.

If my warnings don't sink in, that's on them, not me.

Submitted by studentofearth on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 5:13pm

Other processes at work

@Fishtroller 02 might be one way to explain the efforts by regulating bodies to restrict the ability of physicians to prescribe FDA approved drugs for off-label used in a very narrow categories.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies indications in two categories. FDA-approved, also called labeled indications, and Non FDA-approved, also called off-label indications. Historically there has been no restrictions on Physicians to prescribe or a Pharmacist to dispense any FDA approved drug for an Off-Label use. Most patients are unaware if a drug they are taking is for a FDA-approved indication or not.

Only a drug manufacturers of the drug product in question can apply for an FDA-Approved indication. No other interested party may apply for a FDA-Approved indication, regardless of the quality of research available regarding efficacy. Once approved the drug product may be marketed and promoted by the manufacture for the indication to the public and health professionals.

Ivermectin prescriptions have been increasing, Physician prescribed treatment, not individuals self medicating.

Just for curiosity after reading this exchange I reviewed by e-mail history of 10 years of Board of Pharmacy bulletins regarding dispensing drugs for off-label uses. You might find it interesting only a subject the last 2 years. I suspect the coordinated messaging happened in multiple states.

3/23/2020 Bulletin
Prescriptions for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19

Across the nation, and in Oregon pharmacies are reporting an increase in the number of prescriptions being issued for this non-FDA approved purpose.

On 3/23/2020 the Oregon Medical Board (OMB) shared the following related statement about ‘Inappropriate Hydroxychloroquine Prescribing’:

The Board has received reports from pharmacies regarding physicians inappropriately prescribing hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil). The Board (OMB) does not approve of inappropriate or false prescribing, especially in times of crisis. Further, the Medical Board and the Board of Pharmacy provide the following reminders of some of the risks related to administering unproven therapies:
· Creating the risk of adverse effects and additional harm.
· Creating shortages of therapies for patients who have legitimate medical need for the drug's intended purpose and use.
· Confounding the interpretation of efficacy (particularly when randomized controlled studies are necessary and are currently underway).
· Providing false hope to patients or a false sense of security.

3/25/2020 Bulletin
RULE SUMMARY: Effective immediately, this temporary emergency rule prohibits the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for presumptive treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection to preserve supplies for treatment of malaria, inflammatory conditions, and documented COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients.

855-007-0085
Prescriptions for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency
(1) Prescription drug orders for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine may only be dispensed if:
(a) The prescription is a continuation of therapy begun prior to March 8, 2020; or
(b) The prescriber has provided a diagnosis code based on clinical findings for which the medication is medically indicated; or
(c) If written for a COVID-19 diagnosis, the patient is hospitalized with a positive test result for COVID-19 infection.

(2) Dispensing prescriptions for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine other than as outlined in this rule is prohibited.

(3) This temporary rule is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency or until rescinded.

This message has been shared with Oregon’s prescriber healthcare Boards to be broadly disseminated to licensees. (Message available on board’s website homepage).

3/31/20 Bulletin
Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) Dispensing Limitations

On 3/23/2020, the Oregon Medical Board and The Oregon Board of Pharmacy issued statements to licensees related to the inappropriate prescribing of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine.

On 3/25/2020, the Oregon Board of Pharmacy adopted an emergency temporary rule (OAR 855-007-0085) prohibiting the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for presumptive treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection as a measure to preserve supplies for treatment of malaria, inflammatory conditions, and documented COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients.

* Prescription Therapy for COVID-19 Patients Informational/FAQs – 3/27/2020

On 3/29/2020, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to allow HCQ/CQ products donated to the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) to be distributed and used for certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These drugs will be distributed from the SNS to states for doctors to prescribe to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, as appropriate, when a clinical trial is not available or feasible. The EUA requires that fact sheets that provide important information about using chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in treating COVID-19 be made available to health care providers and patients, including the known risks and drug interactions. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ship donated doses to states.

As this situation evolves, the Board continues to reassess temporary rule OAR 855-007-0085.

Related note: The FDA issued a letter to stakeholders, warning people to not use chloroquine phosphate intended for fish as treatment for COVID-19 in humans. Products marketed for veterinary use, “for research only,” or otherwise not for human consumption have not been evaluated for safety in humans. People should not take any form of chloroquine unless it has been prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider and is obtained through a legitimate source.

Bulletin 4/1/2020
The Prescriptions for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Rule (OAR 855-007-0085) Informational and FAQs document has been updated. Concerns have been raised by non-hospital institutional providers who may have seriously ill COVID-19 positive patients for whom they would like to prescribe these agents. The intent of the rule was to reserve these agents for seriously-ill COVID-19 positive patients, whether they were in a hospital or other institutional setting.

Pharmacists are permitted to dispense chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for seriously-ill COVID-19 positive patients in any institutional setting, including nursing facilities and correctional facilities.

6/16/2020 Bulletin
On 6/15/2020, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible. The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met.

Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.

In light of this FDA action, the Board of Pharmacy modified its rule (OAR 855-007-0085) for the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the public health emergency.

8/10/2021 Bulletin
Ivermectin Prescriptions for Treating or Preventing COVID-19

The US Food and Drug Administration has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans and it has not been proven to be safe or effective for this indication. Pharmacists receiving prescriptions for ivermectin for the treatment or prevention COVID-19 should use their professional judgment in determining whether to fill them. If you have concerns related to the prescribing practices of a practitioner, it may be appropriate to reach out to their licensing board.

The following rules may apply:

OAR 855-019-0200 General Responsibilities of a Pharmacist

ORS 689.025 states that "the practice of pharmacy in the State of Oregon is declared a health care professional practice affecting the public health, safety and welfare". Pharmacy practice is a dynamic patient-oriented health service that applies a scientific body of knowledge to improve and promote patient health by means of appropriate drug use, drug-related therapy, and communication for clinical and consultative purposes. A pharmacist licensed to practice pharmacy by the Board has the duty to use that degree of care, skill, diligence and professional judgment that is exercised by an ordinarily careful pharmacist in the same or similar circumstances.

OAR 855-019-0210 Duties of the Pharmacist Receiving a Prescription

(2) A pharmacist receiving a prescription is responsible for:
(a) Using professional judgment in dispensing only pursuant to a valid prescription. A pharmacist shall not dispense a prescription if the pharmacist, in their professional judgment, believes that the prescription was issued without a valid patient-practitioner relationship. In this rule, the term practitioner shall include a clinical associate of the practitioner or any other practitioner acting in the practitioner’s absence. The prescription must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of their professional practice and not result solely from a questionnaire or an internet-based relationship;

8/17/2021 Bulletin
COVID-19 Updates from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)

* Updated OHA COVID-19 Vaccine Protocol: 3rd Dose mRNA Vaccines for Moderate to Severely Immunocompromised Individuals

On 8/16/2021, the OHA Public Health Division Immunization Program updated the COVID-19 Vaccine Pharmacy Protocol for Immunization to include:

* Moderate to severely immunocompromised persons should be offered a third dose of either Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, depending on the brand received previously. There is currently no indication for additional doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine.

Ivermectin has become one of those subjects where an objective discussion is almost impossible.
How anti-vaxxers weaponized Ivermectin, a horse de-wormer drug, as a COVID-19 treatment Salon Aug 8, 2021
The right-wing obsession with the veterinary drug is a tactic to undermine COVID-19 vaccines, experts say

The obsession over Ivermectin, and its politicization, is curious from an economic standpoint. Unlike climate change denialism or other anti-science culture wars, there is no lobby group profiting off of Ivermectin sales to the extent that they might pull politicians' strings. So why have so many on the right seized on an unproven drug as a COVID-19 treatment?

According to Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center, the right-wing obsession with Ivermectin may be important to that demographic merely because it sows distrust in science in general while stirring up vaccine skepticism.

"Politics got injected into it, and then Ivermectin became a crusade for certain individuals, as a way to kind of deflect the importance of the vaccine," Adalja told Salon. "It's the same kind of story of the politics of this pandemic that's driven a lot of the interest in Ivermectin — and when I do interviews on ivermectin I get a slew of hate mail."

Ivermectin for animal use is very difficult to obtain. I will need to figure out something else out for parasite control for my flock this year.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by peachcreek on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 1:43am

Thanks for that SoE,

@studentofearth As an Oregonian, those pharmacy updates "behind the scenes" are interesting.

I've been working on local organic farms for the last few years and so I follow a bit of Oregon State's recommendations as a resource. I was initially surprised that worms develop resistance to ivermectin, but then, of course, selective evolution is a powerful force. It appears from this OSU report that there are areas in the South that ivermectin is no longer sufficient to protect some grazing animals from disease.

The report finishes with:

Use dewormers sparingly and intelligently to prolong their effectiveness on your farm. Practice the non-chemical means of parasite control mentioned above to increase the sustainability of your small ruminant flock or herd. As ACSRPC member Dr. Steve Hart stated recently at the Northwest Oregon Dairy Goat Association’s annual conference regarding parasite resistance in the Northwest, “Y’all are in good shape right now. Don’t ruin it.”

Long term, if possible, it would probably be best to selectively breed the livestock for resistance to the parasites. Short term? Uh, Yeah. The life of a farmer/rancher. Tea leaves and informed hope seems to me to be the method of choice. All the best to you and your flock in the coming year. It's an interesting life isn't it?

#4.1.1 might be one way to explain the efforts by regulating bodies to restrict the ability of physicians to prescribe FDA approved drugs for off-label used in a very narrow categories.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies indications in two categories. FDA-approved, also called labeled indications, and Non FDA-approved, also called off-label indications. Historically there has been no restrictions on Physicians to prescribe or a Pharmacist to dispense any FDA approved drug for an Off-Label use. Most patients are unaware if a drug they are taking is for a FDA-approved indication or not.

Only a drug manufacturers of the drug product in question can apply for an FDA-Approved indication. No other interested party may apply for a FDA-Approved indication, regardless of the quality of research available regarding efficacy. Once approved the drug product may be marketed and promoted by the manufacture for the indication to the public and health professionals.

Ivermectin prescriptions have been increasing, Physician prescribed treatment, not individuals self medicating.

Just for curiosity after reading this exchange I reviewed by e-mail history of 10 years of Board of Pharmacy bulletins regarding dispensing drugs for off-label uses. You might find it interesting only a subject the last 2 years. I suspect the coordinated messaging happened in multiple states.

3/23/2020 Bulletin
Prescriptions for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19

Across the nation, and in Oregon pharmacies are reporting an increase in the number of prescriptions being issued for this non-FDA approved purpose.

On 3/23/2020 the Oregon Medical Board (OMB) shared the following related statement about ‘Inappropriate Hydroxychloroquine Prescribing’:

The Board has received reports from pharmacies regarding physicians inappropriately prescribing hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil). The Board (OMB) does not approve of inappropriate or false prescribing, especially in times of crisis. Further, the Medical Board and the Board of Pharmacy provide the following reminders of some of the risks related to administering unproven therapies:
· Creating the risk of adverse effects and additional harm.
· Creating shortages of therapies for patients who have legitimate medical need for the drug's intended purpose and use.
· Confounding the interpretation of efficacy (particularly when randomized controlled studies are necessary and are currently underway).
· Providing false hope to patients or a false sense of security.

3/25/2020 Bulletin
RULE SUMMARY: Effective immediately, this temporary emergency rule prohibits the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for presumptive treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection to preserve supplies for treatment of malaria, inflammatory conditions, and documented COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients.

855-007-0085
Prescriptions for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency
(1) Prescription drug orders for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine may only be dispensed if:
(a) The prescription is a continuation of therapy begun prior to March 8, 2020; or
(b) The prescriber has provided a diagnosis code based on clinical findings for which the medication is medically indicated; or
(c) If written for a COVID-19 diagnosis, the patient is hospitalized with a positive test result for COVID-19 infection.

(2) Dispensing prescriptions for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine other than as outlined in this rule is prohibited.

(3) This temporary rule is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency or until rescinded.

This message has been shared with Oregon’s prescriber healthcare Boards to be broadly disseminated to licensees. (Message available on board’s website homepage).

3/31/20 Bulletin
Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) Dispensing Limitations

On 3/23/2020, the Oregon Medical Board and The Oregon Board of Pharmacy issued statements to licensees related to the inappropriate prescribing of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine.

On 3/25/2020, the Oregon Board of Pharmacy adopted an emergency temporary rule (OAR 855-007-0085) prohibiting the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for presumptive treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection as a measure to preserve supplies for treatment of malaria, inflammatory conditions, and documented COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients.

* Prescription Therapy for COVID-19 Patients Informational/FAQs – 3/27/2020

On 3/29/2020, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to allow HCQ/CQ products donated to the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) to be distributed and used for certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These drugs will be distributed from the SNS to states for doctors to prescribe to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, as appropriate, when a clinical trial is not available or feasible. The EUA requires that fact sheets that provide important information about using chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in treating COVID-19 be made available to health care providers and patients, including the known risks and drug interactions. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ship donated doses to states.

As this situation evolves, the Board continues to reassess temporary rule OAR 855-007-0085.

Related note: The FDA issued a letter to stakeholders, warning people to not use chloroquine phosphate intended for fish as treatment for COVID-19 in humans. Products marketed for veterinary use, “for research only,” or otherwise not for human consumption have not been evaluated for safety in humans. People should not take any form of chloroquine unless it has been prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider and is obtained through a legitimate source.

Bulletin 4/1/2020
The Prescriptions for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Rule (OAR 855-007-0085) Informational and FAQs document has been updated. Concerns have been raised by non-hospital institutional providers who may have seriously ill COVID-19 positive patients for whom they would like to prescribe these agents. The intent of the rule was to reserve these agents for seriously-ill COVID-19 positive patients, whether they were in a hospital or other institutional setting.

Pharmacists are permitted to dispense chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for seriously-ill COVID-19 positive patients in any institutional setting, including nursing facilities and correctional facilities.

6/16/2020 Bulletin
On 6/15/2020, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible. The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met.

Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.

In light of this FDA action, the Board of Pharmacy modified its rule (OAR 855-007-0085) for the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the public health emergency.

8/10/2021 Bulletin
Ivermectin Prescriptions for Treating or Preventing COVID-19

The US Food and Drug Administration has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans and it has not been proven to be safe or effective for this indication. Pharmacists receiving prescriptions for ivermectin for the treatment or prevention COVID-19 should use their professional judgment in determining whether to fill them. If you have concerns related to the prescribing practices of a practitioner, it may be appropriate to reach out to their licensing board.

The following rules may apply:

OAR 855-019-0200 General Responsibilities of a Pharmacist

ORS 689.025 states that "the practice of pharmacy in the State of Oregon is declared a health care professional practice affecting the public health, safety and welfare". Pharmacy practice is a dynamic patient-oriented health service that applies a scientific body of knowledge to improve and promote patient health by means of appropriate drug use, drug-related therapy, and communication for clinical and consultative purposes. A pharmacist licensed to practice pharmacy by the Board has the duty to use that degree of care, skill, diligence and professional judgment that is exercised by an ordinarily careful pharmacist in the same or similar circumstances.

OAR 855-019-0210 Duties of the Pharmacist Receiving a Prescription

(2) A pharmacist receiving a prescription is responsible for:
(a) Using professional judgment in dispensing only pursuant to a valid prescription. A pharmacist shall not dispense a prescription if the pharmacist, in their professional judgment, believes that the prescription was issued without a valid patient-practitioner relationship. In this rule, the term practitioner shall include a clinical associate of the practitioner or any other practitioner acting in the practitioner’s absence. The prescription must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of their professional practice and not result solely from a questionnaire or an internet-based relationship;

8/17/2021 Bulletin
COVID-19 Updates from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)

* Updated OHA COVID-19 Vaccine Protocol: 3rd Dose mRNA Vaccines for Moderate to Severely Immunocompromised Individuals

On 8/16/2021, the OHA Public Health Division Immunization Program updated the COVID-19 Vaccine Pharmacy Protocol for Immunization to include:

* Moderate to severely immunocompromised persons should be offered a third dose of either Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, depending on the brand received previously. There is currently no indication for additional doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine.

Ivermectin has become one of those subjects where an objective discussion is almost impossible.
How anti-vaxxers weaponized Ivermectin, a horse de-wormer drug, as a COVID-19 treatment Salon Aug 8, 2021
The right-wing obsession with the veterinary drug is a tactic to undermine COVID-19 vaccines, experts say

The obsession over Ivermectin, and its politicization, is curious from an economic standpoint. Unlike climate change denialism or other anti-science culture wars, there is no lobby group profiting off of Ivermectin sales to the extent that they might pull politicians' strings. So why have so many on the right seized on an unproven drug as a COVID-19 treatment?

According to Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center, the right-wing obsession with Ivermectin may be important to that demographic merely because it sows distrust in science in general while stirring up vaccine skepticism.

"Politics got injected into it, and then Ivermectin became a crusade for certain individuals, as a way to kind of deflect the importance of the vaccine," Adalja told Salon. "It's the same kind of story of the politics of this pandemic that's driven a lot of the interest in Ivermectin — and when I do interviews on ivermectin I get a slew of hate mail."

Ivermectin for animal use is very difficult to obtain. I will need to figure out something else out for parasite control for my flock this year.

Submitted by Sima on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 5:47am

I gotta agree

@peachcreek
with the statement about selectively breeding livestock and so on. When I started with goats (I have a small herd, about 25 dairy goats, in nw wa state) I used dewormers religiously. After all, it was what I was taught by one of my mentors. This was about 20 years ago. But another one of my mentors, who taught me basically how to keep baby goats alive and how to treat 'non-thriving' goats, didn't do that kind of deworming. And I paid attention. I stopped worming regularly every 6 months, which is against the 'recommendations'. I don't show my goats, so they don't go anywhere. I treat goats that get sick from worms with dewormer, but haven't had to do that in about 5 to 7 years, and slowly worm resistance has been bred into my herd, naturally. I used to test for worms every few months, my mentor taught me how to do that. We had no vets that would treat goats, so we had to learn to do it all ourselves. Anyway, I don't even test that much anymore, because there just aren't that many worms.

—

If you're poor now, my friend, then you'll stay poor.
These days, only the rich get given more. -- Martial book 5:81, c. AD 100 or so
Nothing ever changes -- Sima, c. AD 2020 or so

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 6:51am

Regular moving

@peachcreek @Sima

and using the Greg Judy method... graze a third, trample a third, and leave a third of your forage... prevents the need for worming. (which he doesn't touch on in the video below but in many others he does). Worms come from the soil so if your herbivore doesn't get down to soil they can't get worms. Plus the ideas of selection over time.
5.5 min
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvbUyqUDLG8]

Greg is something else...what a manager.

All the best with your animals and projects!

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by studentofearth on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 11:31am

Ivermectin resistance in parasite demonstrates the

@Lookout problem of relying on one solution. The simple answer was increase the dose and frequency. It is the most common response to drug resistance. We see it in many drug categories treating infectious agents - the classic example is the low doses of penicillin used when originally available to those given now. The third response is often increase the frequency. The third response try a newer drug. Fourth response no treatment available - support body health as much as possible for it to self heal or protect and strict use of infection control techniques.

Flexibility, improving skills and understanding the why of treatments increases potential for success.

Generally very spring I check the price of a new vial on the shelf. Not there this year.

This is a really good thread full of information.

Some additional practices I have found useful. After accepting a few sheep from a friend who regularly treated and showed her animals had a serious problem with resistance and commercial options were not effective. Spring weeds, especially mustard, to knock down a problem. Later in the year any variety of the mint family. Grow small patches and provide periodic grazing opportunities. Salt has been useful. Instead of free feeding set out periodically and enough is eaten to disrupt an infestation. Letting the chickens free range in the winter sheep area during other times of the year was the final step of pasture management. Actually have the option of using ivermectin again for spot treatment of individual animals. It took about 3 years to dilute the percentage of hyperresistant parasites to recreate the opportunity for spot treatment.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 11:42am

Interesting information- thanks.

@studentofearth

Good luck with the search for an alternative treatment for your animals. I have a good friend who has horses, and she is having the same issue.

"Ivermectin has become one of those subjects where an objective discussion is almost impossible." This is certainly and obviously true. Since you have worked with this drug, I have a question which you can certainly decline to answer.... would you take Ivermectin if you knew or thought you had Covid?

#4.1.1 might be one way to explain the efforts by regulating bodies to restrict the ability of physicians to prescribe FDA approved drugs for off-label used in a very narrow categories.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies indications in two categories. FDA-approved, also called labeled indications, and Non FDA-approved, also called off-label indications. Historically there has been no restrictions on Physicians to prescribe or a Pharmacist to dispense any FDA approved drug for an Off-Label use. Most patients are unaware if a drug they are taking is for a FDA-approved indication or not.

Only a drug manufacturers of the drug product in question can apply for an FDA-Approved indication. No other interested party may apply for a FDA-Approved indication, regardless of the quality of research available regarding efficacy. Once approved the drug product may be marketed and promoted by the manufacture for the indication to the public and health professionals.

Ivermectin prescriptions have been increasing, Physician prescribed treatment, not individuals self medicating.

Just for curiosity after reading this exchange I reviewed by e-mail history of 10 years of Board of Pharmacy bulletins regarding dispensing drugs for off-label uses. You might find it interesting only a subject the last 2 years. I suspect the coordinated messaging happened in multiple states.

3/23/2020 Bulletin
Prescriptions for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19

Across the nation, and in Oregon pharmacies are reporting an increase in the number of prescriptions being issued for this non-FDA approved purpose.

On 3/23/2020 the Oregon Medical Board (OMB) shared the following related statement about ‘Inappropriate Hydroxychloroquine Prescribing’:

The Board has received reports from pharmacies regarding physicians inappropriately prescribing hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil). The Board (OMB) does not approve of inappropriate or false prescribing, especially in times of crisis. Further, the Medical Board and the Board of Pharmacy provide the following reminders of some of the risks related to administering unproven therapies:
· Creating the risk of adverse effects and additional harm.
· Creating shortages of therapies for patients who have legitimate medical need for the drug's intended purpose and use.
· Confounding the interpretation of efficacy (particularly when randomized controlled studies are necessary and are currently underway).
· Providing false hope to patients or a false sense of security.

3/25/2020 Bulletin
RULE SUMMARY: Effective immediately, this temporary emergency rule prohibits the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for presumptive treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection to preserve supplies for treatment of malaria, inflammatory conditions, and documented COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients.

855-007-0085
Prescriptions for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency
(1) Prescription drug orders for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine may only be dispensed if:
(a) The prescription is a continuation of therapy begun prior to March 8, 2020; or
(b) The prescriber has provided a diagnosis code based on clinical findings for which the medication is medically indicated; or
(c) If written for a COVID-19 diagnosis, the patient is hospitalized with a positive test result for COVID-19 infection.

(2) Dispensing prescriptions for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine other than as outlined in this rule is prohibited.

(3) This temporary rule is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency or until rescinded.

This message has been shared with Oregon’s prescriber healthcare Boards to be broadly disseminated to licensees. (Message available on board’s website homepage).

3/31/20 Bulletin
Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) Dispensing Limitations

On 3/23/2020, the Oregon Medical Board and The Oregon Board of Pharmacy issued statements to licensees related to the inappropriate prescribing of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine.

On 3/25/2020, the Oregon Board of Pharmacy adopted an emergency temporary rule (OAR 855-007-0085) prohibiting the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for presumptive treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection as a measure to preserve supplies for treatment of malaria, inflammatory conditions, and documented COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients.

* Prescription Therapy for COVID-19 Patients Informational/FAQs – 3/27/2020

On 3/29/2020, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to allow HCQ/CQ products donated to the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) to be distributed and used for certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These drugs will be distributed from the SNS to states for doctors to prescribe to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, as appropriate, when a clinical trial is not available or feasible. The EUA requires that fact sheets that provide important information about using chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in treating COVID-19 be made available to health care providers and patients, including the known risks and drug interactions. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ship donated doses to states.

As this situation evolves, the Board continues to reassess temporary rule OAR 855-007-0085.

Related note: The FDA issued a letter to stakeholders, warning people to not use chloroquine phosphate intended for fish as treatment for COVID-19 in humans. Products marketed for veterinary use, “for research only,” or otherwise not for human consumption have not been evaluated for safety in humans. People should not take any form of chloroquine unless it has been prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider and is obtained through a legitimate source.

Bulletin 4/1/2020
The Prescriptions for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Rule (OAR 855-007-0085) Informational and FAQs document has been updated. Concerns have been raised by non-hospital institutional providers who may have seriously ill COVID-19 positive patients for whom they would like to prescribe these agents. The intent of the rule was to reserve these agents for seriously-ill COVID-19 positive patients, whether they were in a hospital or other institutional setting.

Pharmacists are permitted to dispense chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for seriously-ill COVID-19 positive patients in any institutional setting, including nursing facilities and correctional facilities.

6/16/2020 Bulletin
On 6/15/2020, the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible. The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met.

Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.

In light of this FDA action, the Board of Pharmacy modified its rule (OAR 855-007-0085) for the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the public health emergency.

8/10/2021 Bulletin
Ivermectin Prescriptions for Treating or Preventing COVID-19

The US Food and Drug Administration has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans and it has not been proven to be safe or effective for this indication. Pharmacists receiving prescriptions for ivermectin for the treatment or prevention COVID-19 should use their professional judgment in determining whether to fill them. If you have concerns related to the prescribing practices of a practitioner, it may be appropriate to reach out to their licensing board.

The following rules may apply:

OAR 855-019-0200 General Responsibilities of a Pharmacist

ORS 689.025 states that "the practice of pharmacy in the State of Oregon is declared a health care professional practice affecting the public health, safety and welfare". Pharmacy practice is a dynamic patient-oriented health service that applies a scientific body of knowledge to improve and promote patient health by means of appropriate drug use, drug-related therapy, and communication for clinical and consultative purposes. A pharmacist licensed to practice pharmacy by the Board has the duty to use that degree of care, skill, diligence and professional judgment that is exercised by an ordinarily careful pharmacist in the same or similar circumstances.

OAR 855-019-0210 Duties of the Pharmacist Receiving a Prescription

(2) A pharmacist receiving a prescription is responsible for:
(a) Using professional judgment in dispensing only pursuant to a valid prescription. A pharmacist shall not dispense a prescription if the pharmacist, in their professional judgment, believes that the prescription was issued without a valid patient-practitioner relationship. In this rule, the term practitioner shall include a clinical associate of the practitioner or any other practitioner acting in the practitioner’s absence. The prescription must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of their professional practice and not result solely from a questionnaire or an internet-based relationship;

8/17/2021 Bulletin
COVID-19 Updates from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)

* Updated OHA COVID-19 Vaccine Protocol: 3rd Dose mRNA Vaccines for Moderate to Severely Immunocompromised Individuals

On 8/16/2021, the OHA Public Health Division Immunization Program updated the COVID-19 Vaccine Pharmacy Protocol for Immunization to include:

* Moderate to severely immunocompromised persons should be offered a third dose of either Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, depending on the brand received previously. There is currently no indication for additional doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine.

Ivermectin has become one of those subjects where an objective discussion is almost impossible.
How anti-vaxxers weaponized Ivermectin, a horse de-wormer drug, as a COVID-19 treatment Salon Aug 8, 2021
The right-wing obsession with the veterinary drug is a tactic to undermine COVID-19 vaccines, experts say

The obsession over Ivermectin, and its politicization, is curious from an economic standpoint. Unlike climate change denialism or other anti-science culture wars, there is no lobby group profiting off of Ivermectin sales to the extent that they might pull politicians' strings. So why have so many on the right seized on an unproven drug as a COVID-19 treatment?

According to Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center, the right-wing obsession with Ivermectin may be important to that demographic merely because it sows distrust in science in general while stirring up vaccine skepticism.

"Politics got injected into it, and then Ivermectin became a crusade for certain individuals, as a way to kind of deflect the importance of the vaccine," Adalja told Salon. "It's the same kind of story of the politics of this pandemic that's driven a lot of the interest in Ivermectin — and when I do interviews on ivermectin I get a slew of hate mail."

Ivermectin for animal use is very difficult to obtain. I will need to figure out something else out for parasite control for my flock this year.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by studentofearth on Mon, 03/14/2022 - 1:27am

Do not believe any real interest in

@Fishtroller 02 a positive or negative answer. Either answer would be turn into a Gotcha response. I have more important things to spend my time than playing a silly game.

Reviewing the questions and links provided in the other comments decided to take the time to provide the "balance" which has been mentioned multiple times as important. Link to the response.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by Shahryar on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 3:02pm

meanwhile in Oregon....

today is the end of the mask mandate. In addition, I'm reading about places no longer requiring vax cards. So it must be over!

I mentioned on FB yesterday that I counted (during my walk) who had a mask and who didn't. Yesterday, with the mask mandate still in place, 40% had masks, 60% not. It'll be interesting to see what today brings.

And, for the record, since I don't trust anybody's info, I not only have no problem with Fishtroller's post, I think it's essential to us to question everybody. Let me make a statement...not an accusation. I find that many here are willing to post articles that agree with their already established opinions, no matter who the "info" came from, without looking into the background or the agenda of those people. But posting it here simply because it "confirms" what you already believe. Goes both ways.

I think it's important for us to question *everything*. To be skeptical of everyone. A bat in a wet market and not that lab over there that says "Get your virus here!"? I think not. Something from Project Veritas? Ask yourself why they do what they do. Look into it. Just because it appears to agree with you, look for another source.

Submitted by shaharazade on Sat, 03/12/2022 - 8:23pm

Fishtroller imo is a mixer

@Shahryar Takes one to know one. I've been a mixer here in the past and JTC has warned me. For good reason. We all have biases, we read all this bs. the net and all media puts out. Lately it's ludicrous and such obviously bad propoganda it makes me lol. This dueling pharmaceutical drug conversation here leaves me cold. I'm sick of it. How about addressing the reasons we're all taking their poison pills and jabs? Don't mind me I come here daily to morbidly find out if I'm gonna die. I don't at this point even take over the counter pain killers like Tylenol.

Too much monkey business. It's like arguing about the cures that the same freaking people who cooked up this plaque are now cooking up. I do take vitamins and eat healthy, which is hard considering the so called supply chain and phony 'inflation' mess. Good luck trying to find any truth or sanity in what passes for journalism/truth in this free for all wild no holds barred 'fact' checked by assholes online world. 'Propaganda, all is phony'. Stats only reflect what the counters decide to count. Focusing on political shit and 'experts' only muddies the water.

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 11:46am

Well yes, I have to confess that I am a "mixer".

@shaharazade

Just ask my friends about the great bourbon cocktails that I mix for them!

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 12:05pm

Wise words.

@Shahryar

As a point of reference on posting information that does not conform with the general discussion...I was banned from Daily Kos for posting that I didn't fully believe that the Russians caused Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 election. I also linked a good solid article to back up my opinion, which I think one should do if possible. My source was labeled right wing (it was a progressive blogger) and posting "right wing" material violated site rules. And off I went.

I still believe it is important to question everything. Skepticism is a valuable tool, which I learned in my journey from religious belief to atheism. I posted the Ivermectin information because I am very skeptical of its use for Covid and find promotion of it for that use questionable. Many may not agree with me, but my motivation for posting information is not nefarious. It comes out of real concern. Others may be posting pro-Ivermectin information for the same reason. My point is that both sides should feel comfortable with sharing information. It should not be that skepticism is only applied to one side of the coin.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 3:27pm

What is your concern for using ivermectin

@Fishtroller 02
as a prophylaxis for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The product has an excellent safety record that dates back three decades. It's safety profile has been well documented.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of escalating high doses of ivermectin in healthy adult subjects
2002 Oct

Abstract

Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin, administered in higher and/or more frequent doses than currently approved for human use, were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose escalation study.... This study demonstrated that ivermectin is generally well tolerated at these higher doses and more frequent regimens.
...

The current recommendations by the FDA for one who has contracted COVID-19 is to stay at home, isolate and go to the hospital if and when breathing becomes difficult. We have heard of many instances where people have been denied treatment and told to return home if their oxygen levels was greater than 85% do to lack of beds and staffing shortages.

If you were admitted and your condition degraded to the point that you needed a ventilator your chances of recovery were considerably reduced - Study: Most N.Y. COVID Patients on Ventilators Died.

The FDA does not even discuss the efficacious benefit of vitamin D3 and other well known treatments. It is almost as if FDA wanted to increase the death toll of COVID-19 to scare people into relying solely on the little-tested mRNA 'vaccines'. BTW, the pretext for this therapy for getting the EUA was that there can be no other drug that could be used to ameliorate the disease.

Why are you so adverse to the use of ivermectin despite it's excellent safety record?

New scientific study on the efficacy of ivermectin in Covid-19 positive patients
January 25, 2022

In the empirical study conducted in the heart of the port city of Itajai in southern Brazil, more than 200,000 people were observed, and the results are clear. The risk of infection, severe cases, or mortality is lower.

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Brazilian endocrinologist Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and eight other co-authors have published a peer-reviewed scientific study on the efficacy of early treatment with ivermectin against covid-19, involving more than 200,000 people.

“Before the study was published, I was very cautious about the efficacy of ivermectin as part of the treatment against covid-19,” Dr. Cadegiani admits to FranceSoir at the outset.

However, he asserts that he prescribed the drug to prevent the disease because “there is no risk in taking it.” In his opinion, the risk-benefit balance can only be positive since the risk is zero.

(Watch video the entire ivermectin story)

In the empirical study conducted in the heart of the port city of Itajai in southern Brazil, more than 200,000 people were observed, and the results are clear. The risk of infection, severe cases, or mortality is lower:

44% reduction in risk of infection;

56% reduction in risk of hospitalization (this may be comparable to the severe form of the disease);

68% reduction in risk of death

Dr. Cadegiani states that this is the first publication and that four more will follow with data from other countries. He also emphasizes that he has no ties to pharmaceutical laboratories and even says that he contributed 100,000 euros out of his pocket to these various studies to conduct them.
...

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 4:32pm

I should know better than this, but here goes...

@CB

For one, look at what I posted above in this comment thread regarding the responses to John Campbell's claims and the latest study of 500 people in Malaysia. Did you just happen to skip over it? Hard to do, it's pretty long.
Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti...

Do you think a doctor who prescribed prostate medication for women should be able to long distance give a prescription for Ivermectin to a Covid patient? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-b...

What do you think when you read about studies that don't reinforce your opinion? Like this one...https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/ivermectin-futile-mi...

this one...https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-697027

How can you conclude that Ivermectin is a good product for people to take for Covid if it is still being studied? https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220121/ivermectin-potential-covid-19-t... The ACTIV-6 study won't conclude until March 23rd. I assume it will take awhile to compile the results. This is a study I would look at seriously. If it shows that Ivermectin is great against Covid, then I might reconsider (still wouldn't take it myself because eye problems are common even at low dosages). If it shows that Ivermectin doesn't work or if it is too harmful to use for Covid (they are doubling the usual dosages) would YOU post a retraction of all your claims?

And last, I don't trust Pierre Kory past the next crack in the sidewalk, so I just tune out any references to what he promotes.

I had told you that I would not discuss these issues with you again after you insulted my children's intelligence over their reasons for choosing vaccination for their own kids. (Dose 12/31/21) Your comment in response to my post that I had sent an Atlantic article to my children and they eventually decided to have the two 8 year olds vaccinated (and that all went fine)..... You posted, "A webzine is not the proper place to get information for informed consent. You should have gone to the manufacturer instead. I gave you the links but it is obvious that you failed to heed my advice. You should send them the pamphlet Sick Kids in case problems should develop in the coming months....If you would have taken the time and effort you'd realize the first was from direct data and information taken from Pfizer's own safety report that a FOIA request was done. That's the company that wants 75 years to release all their data. The following is about SickKids who are trying to give you information about children's vaccinations: etc. etc."

So basically you said that I had shared bad information with my grown children who then made a terrible mistake making the decision to vaccinate their kids. If I had only listened to YOU-right?

You still owe me an apology for that. So if you are going to answer my questions in this post, please start with that apology.

#5.2
as a prophylaxis for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The product has an excellent safety record that dates back three decades. It's safety profile has been well documented.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of escalating high doses of ivermectin in healthy adult subjects
2002 Oct

Abstract

Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin, administered in higher and/or more frequent doses than currently approved for human use, were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose escalation study.... This study demonstrated that ivermectin is generally well tolerated at these higher doses and more frequent regimens.
...

The current recommendations by the FDA for one who has contracted COVID-19 is to stay at home, isolate and go to the hospital if and when breathing becomes difficult. We have heard of many instances where people have been denied treatment and told to return home if their oxygen levels was greater than 85% do to lack of beds and staffing shortages.

If you were admitted and your condition degraded to the point that you needed a ventilator your chances of recovery were considerably reduced - Study: Most N.Y. COVID Patients on Ventilators Died.

The FDA does not even discuss the efficacious benefit of vitamin D3 and other well known treatments. It is almost as if FDA wanted to increase the death toll of COVID-19 to scare people into relying solely on the little-tested mRNA 'vaccines'. BTW, the pretext for this therapy for getting the EUA was that there can be no other drug that could be used to ameliorate the disease.

Why are you so adverse to the use of ivermectin despite it's excellent safety record?

New scientific study on the efficacy of ivermectin in Covid-19 positive patients
January 25, 2022

In the empirical study conducted in the heart of the port city of Itajai in southern Brazil, more than 200,000 people were observed, and the results are clear. The risk of infection, severe cases, or mortality is lower.

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Brazilian endocrinologist Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and eight other co-authors have published a peer-reviewed scientific study on the efficacy of early treatment with ivermectin against covid-19, involving more than 200,000 people.

“Before the study was published, I was very cautious about the efficacy of ivermectin as part of the treatment against covid-19,” Dr. Cadegiani admits to FranceSoir at the outset.

However, he asserts that he prescribed the drug to prevent the disease because “there is no risk in taking it.” In his opinion, the risk-benefit balance can only be positive since the risk is zero.

(Watch video the entire ivermectin story)

In the empirical study conducted in the heart of the port city of Itajai in southern Brazil, more than 200,000 people were observed, and the results are clear. The risk of infection, severe cases, or mortality is lower:

44% reduction in risk of infection;

56% reduction in risk of hospitalization (this may be comparable to the severe form of the disease);

68% reduction in risk of death

Dr. Cadegiani states that this is the first publication and that four more will follow with data from other countries. He also emphasizes that he has no ties to pharmaceutical laboratories and even says that he contributed 100,000 euros out of his pocket to these various studies to conduct them.
...

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 9:02pm

I stand with what I previously said

@Fishtroller 02
I suggest you wait at least until the data comes in about the safety and efficacy of the mRNA 'vaccines' during the following 6 months.

Washington Health Board Advisory Group Recommends Against COVID Vaccine Mandate for K-12 Students
03/09/22

An advisory group convened by the Washington State Board of Health voted against requiring COVID vaccines for students from kindergarten to 12th grade in the state’s schools, the Seattle Times reported.

In a split decision — seven against, six in favor and four undecided — the group voted to recommend against adding the vaccine to the state’s administrative code when it presents its findings to Washington’s Board of Health in April.
...
As reported by The Defender, a study released in February found Pfizer’s COVID vaccine was only 12% effective against Omicron in children 5 to 11 years old.

In an interview earlier this month, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted health officials relied too heavily on vaccines as a “cure-all” for COVID, and said vaccine makers didn’t warn the agency that the vaccines would be less effective against potential variants.
...
Florida’s official guidance cited a series of medical studies highlighting the following:

“At the present time, there are certain risks to consider that may outweigh benefits among healthy children with no underlying conditions:

Limited risk of severe illness due to COVID-19.

High prevalence of existing immunity among children.

Absence of data informing benefit of COVID-19 vaccination among children with existing immunity.

In clinical trials, higher than anticipated serious adverse events occurred among those receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

Reduced COVID-19 vaccine efficacy among children 5-17.

Risk of myocarditis due to the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The state’s official guidance also referred to specific studies for young children and teenagers. For children aged 5 to 11, it states:

“In a clinical trial, there were no cases of severe illness among children ages 5 to 11 among any placebo recipients or COVID-19 vaccine recipients.

“A study conducted out of New York determined that COVID-19 vaccine efficacy declined 84%, from 68% to 12%, over a span of two months for children aged 5 to 11.”

And for children 12 to 17 years old, the guidance notes:

“The same study determined that COVID-19 vaccine efficacy declined 40%, from 85% to 51%, over a span of two months for adolescents ages 12 to 17.

“There is also concern for the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in children, especially among adolescent boys. One study found the highest rates of myocarditis among males ages 12 to 15, followed by adolescent males ages 16 to 17 years old.”
...

#5.2.1 For one, look at what I posted above in this comment thread regarding the responses to John Campbell's claims and the latest study of 500 people in Malaysia. Did you just happen to skip over it? Hard to do, it's pretty long. Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti... Do you think a doctor who prescribed prostate medication for women should be able to long distance give a prescription for Ivermectin to a Covid patient? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-b... What do you think when you read about studies that don't reinforce your opinion? Like this one...https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/ivermectin-futile-mi... this one...https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-697027 How can you conclude that Ivermectin is a good product for people to take for Covid if it is still being studied? https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220121/ivermectin-potential-covid-19-t... The ACTIV-6 study won't conclude until March 23rd. I assume it will take awhile to compile the results. This is a study I would look at seriously. If it shows that Ivermectin is great against Covid, then I might reconsider (still wouldn't take it myself because eye problems are common even at low dosages). If it shows that Ivermectin doesn't work or if it is too harmful to use for Covid (they are doubling the usual dosages) would YOU post a retraction of all your claims? And last, I don't trust Pierre Kory past the next crack in the sidewalk, so I just tune out any references to what he promotes. I had told you that I would not discuss these issues with you again after you insulted my children's intelligence over their reasons for choosing vaccination for their own kids. (Dose 12/31/21) Your comment in response to my post that I had sent an Atlantic article to my children and they eventually decided to have the two 8 year olds vaccinated (and that all went fine)..... You posted, "A webzine is not the proper place to get information for informed consent. You should have gone to the manufacturer instead. I gave you the links but it is obvious that you failed to heed my advice. You should send them the pamphlet Sick Kids in case problems should develop in the coming months....If you would have taken the time and effort you'd realize the first was from direct data and information taken from Pfizer's own safety report that a FOIA request was done. That's the company that wants 75 years to release all their data. The following is about SickKids who are trying to give you information about children's vaccinations: etc. etc." So basically you said that I had shared bad information with my grown children who then made a terrible mistake making the decision to vaccinate their kids. If I had only listened to YOU-right? You still owe me an apology for that. So if you are going to answer my questions in this post, please start with that apology.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 9:53pm

It is obvious that you hadn't

@Fishtroller 02
even read the 'report' that you are citing!

Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti...

You are now really scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempt to denigrate ivermectin. All the adverse events were complications due to the parasites ivermectin was used to treat.

For those who swallowed several doses of Ivermectin to treat their case of COVID-19, what are the long-lasting side effects? Have studies shown that it can cause early death without warning?
...
If you just took sheep drench because you trusted the word of someone who is not medically qualified, you might wish to drop by your closest emergency department and ask for help. Especially if you have one or more features of ivermectin toxicity or other adverse effects. Here’s the (shortened) list[6]:
...

Side effects are related to the microfilarial density...

Rarely, patients who are also heavily infected with Loa loa may develop a serious or even fatal encephalopathy...

In the treatment of strongyloidiasis, the following side effects have been reported...

In the treatment of filariasis caused by Wuchereria bancrofti, the intensity of the side effects does not seem to be dose-related but is related to the blood microfilarial density...

Following treatment of patients infected with Onchocerca volvulus with ivermectin, the following hypersensitivity reactions may occur due to the death of microfilariae:..

Cases of ascaris expulsion of adult worms have been described...

In patients with scabies, transient exacerbation of pruritus...

I suggest you view the ivermectin data sheet where Dr. 'Sheep Drench' Jo got his information from:

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/s/Stromectoltab.pdf
4.4 Special warnings and precautions for use
...
4.9 Overdose
In a study in which healthy volunteers were orally administered up to 2000 mcg/kg ivermectin in a fasted state or up to 600 mcg/kg ivermectin following a high-fat (48.6 g of fat) meal, there were no indications of central nervous system toxicity observed at any dose irrespective of food intake. (see section 5.2.)

#5.2.1 For one, look at what I posted above in this comment thread regarding the responses to John Campbell's claims and the latest study of 500 people in Malaysia. Did you just happen to skip over it? Hard to do, it's pretty long. Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti... Do you think a doctor who prescribed prostate medication for women should be able to long distance give a prescription for Ivermectin to a Covid patient? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-b... What do you think when you read about studies that don't reinforce your opinion? Like this one...https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/ivermectin-futile-mi... this one...https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-697027 How can you conclude that Ivermectin is a good product for people to take for Covid if it is still being studied? https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220121/ivermectin-potential-covid-19-t... The ACTIV-6 study won't conclude until March 23rd. I assume it will take awhile to compile the results. This is a study I would look at seriously. If it shows that Ivermectin is great against Covid, then I might reconsider (still wouldn't take it myself because eye problems are common even at low dosages). If it shows that Ivermectin doesn't work or if it is too harmful to use for Covid (they are doubling the usual dosages) would YOU post a retraction of all your claims? And last, I don't trust Pierre Kory past the next crack in the sidewalk, so I just tune out any references to what he promotes. I had told you that I would not discuss these issues with you again after you insulted my children's intelligence over their reasons for choosing vaccination for their own kids. (Dose 12/31/21) Your comment in response to my post that I had sent an Atlantic article to my children and they eventually decided to have the two 8 year olds vaccinated (and that all went fine)..... You posted, "A webzine is not the proper place to get information for informed consent. You should have gone to the manufacturer instead. I gave you the links but it is obvious that you failed to heed my advice. You should send them the pamphlet Sick Kids in case problems should develop in the coming months....If you would have taken the time and effort you'd realize the first was from direct data and information taken from Pfizer's own safety report that a FOIA request was done. That's the company that wants 75 years to release all their data. The following is about SickKids who are trying to give you information about children's vaccinations: etc. etc." So basically you said that I had shared bad information with my grown children who then made a terrible mistake making the decision to vaccinate their kids. If I had only listened to YOU-right? You still owe me an apology for that. So if you are going to answer my questions in this post, please start with that apology.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 10:07pm

Lol…

@CB

Seems to me that the anti ivermectin movement discounts how it’s one of the safest drugs ever made and it won a Nobel prize for the guys who brought it to market. Sheep drench? That’s a new one.

#5.2.1.1
even read the 'report' that you are citing!

Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti...

You are now really scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempt to denigrate ivermectin. All the adverse events were complications due to the parasites ivermectin was used to treat.

For those who swallowed several doses of Ivermectin to treat their case of COVID-19, what are the long-lasting side effects? Have studies shown that it can cause early death without warning?
...
If you just took sheep drench because you trusted the word of someone who is not medically qualified, you might wish to drop by your closest emergency department and ask for help. Especially if you have one or more features of ivermectin toxicity or other adverse effects. Here’s the (shortened) list[6]:
...

Side effects are related to the microfilarial density...

Rarely, patients who are also heavily infected with Loa loa may develop a serious or even fatal encephalopathy...

In the treatment of strongyloidiasis, the following side effects have been reported...

In the treatment of filariasis caused by Wuchereria bancrofti, the intensity of the side effects does not seem to be dose-related but is related to the blood microfilarial density...

Following treatment of patients infected with Onchocerca volvulus with ivermectin, the following hypersensitivity reactions may occur due to the death of microfilariae:..

Cases of ascaris expulsion of adult worms have been described...

In patients with scabies, transient exacerbation of pruritus...

I suggest you view the ivermectin data sheet where Dr. 'Sheep Drench' Jo got his information from:

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/s/Stromectoltab.pdf
4.4 Special warnings and precautions for use
...
4.9 Overdose
In a study in which healthy volunteers were orally administered up to 2000 mcg/kg ivermectin in a fasted state or up to 600 mcg/kg ivermectin following a high-fat (48.6 g of fat) meal, there were no indications of central nervous system toxicity observed at any dose irrespective of food intake. (see section 5.2.)

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by janis b on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 11:51pm

Thank you for always doing the hard yards CB,

@CB

and for your well informed and respecful presentations and responses.

Medsafe, a segment of the Ministry of Health, in this case appears more transparent than 'Dr. Jo’. I remember that vtcc recommended heeding this doctor who comments on Quora. He is an academic anesthesiologist, and computer programmer, maybe valuable in his field, I wouldn’t know; but he’d be the last person I’d listen to simply because the member on c99 who recommended him wrote the most offensive essay I’ve ever read here.

I know that sounds prejudiced, but I find them both so arrogant I can’t respectfully listen to them.

#5.2.1.1
even read the 'report' that you are citing!

Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti...

You are now really scraping the bottom of the barrel in your attempt to denigrate ivermectin. All the adverse events were complications due to the parasites ivermectin was used to treat.

For those who swallowed several doses of Ivermectin to treat their case of COVID-19, what are the long-lasting side effects? Have studies shown that it can cause early death without warning?
...
If you just took sheep drench because you trusted the word of someone who is not medically qualified, you might wish to drop by your closest emergency department and ask for help. Especially if you have one or more features of ivermectin toxicity or other adverse effects. Here’s the (shortened) list[6]:
...

Side effects are related to the microfilarial density...

Rarely, patients who are also heavily infected with Loa loa may develop a serious or even fatal encephalopathy...

In the treatment of strongyloidiasis, the following side effects have been reported...

In the treatment of filariasis caused by Wuchereria bancrofti, the intensity of the side effects does not seem to be dose-related but is related to the blood microfilarial density...

Following treatment of patients infected with Onchocerca volvulus with ivermectin, the following hypersensitivity reactions may occur due to the death of microfilariae:..

Cases of ascaris expulsion of adult worms have been described...

In patients with scabies, transient exacerbation of pruritus...

I suggest you view the ivermectin data sheet where Dr. 'Sheep Drench' Jo got his information from:

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/s/Stromectoltab.pdf
4.4 Special warnings and precautions for use
...
4.9 Overdose
In a study in which healthy volunteers were orally administered up to 2000 mcg/kg ivermectin in a fasted state or up to 600 mcg/kg ivermectin following a high-fat (48.6 g of fat) meal, there were no indications of central nervous system toxicity observed at any dose irrespective of food intake. (see section 5.2.)

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 10:43pm

Let's have a look at one of your studies

@Fishtroller 02

What do you think when you read about studies that don't reinforce your opinion?

Malaysia Study: Ivermectin helps with "Covid Lungs"
Patients already had "Covid lungs" -- but Ivermectin helped even with that

The Malaysia Ivermectin Study made quite a stir online. It was a randomized trial where 241 persons received Ivermectin treatment, whereas 249 persons only received “standard of care” treatment. Jessica Rose and myself wrote about it, pointing out that the study achieved remarkable reduction of death, specifically only 3 people died in the Ivermectin group, while 10 people died in the control group.

Last Friday, I wrote about 70% reduction of deaths in the Ivermectin arm. Today, we will question the main conclusion of that study — the conclusion that “Ivermectin did not prevent progression to severe disease”.
...
If so, is it surprising that 52 out of 158 patients in the ivermectin group, and 43 out of 165 control group members, who had bad lung radiography, proceeded to the “severe stage” shortly after admission?

How could ivermectin possibly help with that at all, given the timing of events? Of course, it could not. They already had lung damage and naturally, some of them quickly experienced further oxygen problems, with the difference between groups being fairly statistically insignificant (P=0.25).

Ivermectin is not a magic wand that can fix lungs already damaged by untreated Covid, in a day or two. What it can do is fix things once it has time to work — and here we do see the magic, indeed.
...
What Ivermectin helped with — because it had time to work — was preventing severe patients from going on a ventilator. In the Ivermectin group, 4 out of 52 patients in severe stage went on a ventilator. That’s 7.7%. In the control group, 10 out of 43 (23.3%) went on a ventilator. Would you prefer to be in the Ivermectin group where 7.7% go on a ventilator, or in the control group, where 23.3% went on a ventilator?

Even better is the death statistic. Repeating my previous post, 3 Ivermectin patients sadly died, vs 10 patients in the control group. That is 70% reduction in death!

Which group would you prefer to be in, if you were admitted to a Malaysian hospital? Ivermectin group or the control group?

#5.2.1 For one, look at what I posted above in this comment thread regarding the responses to John Campbell's claims and the latest study of 500 people in Malaysia. Did you just happen to skip over it? Hard to do, it's pretty long. Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti... Do you think a doctor who prescribed prostate medication for women should be able to long distance give a prescription for Ivermectin to a Covid patient? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-b... What do you think when you read about studies that don't reinforce your opinion? Like this one...https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/ivermectin-futile-mi... this one...https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-697027 How can you conclude that Ivermectin is a good product for people to take for Covid if it is still being studied? https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220121/ivermectin-potential-covid-19-t... The ACTIV-6 study won't conclude until March 23rd. I assume it will take awhile to compile the results. This is a study I would look at seriously. If it shows that Ivermectin is great against Covid, then I might reconsider (still wouldn't take it myself because eye problems are common even at low dosages). If it shows that Ivermectin doesn't work or if it is too harmful to use for Covid (they are doubling the usual dosages) would YOU post a retraction of all your claims? And last, I don't trust Pierre Kory past the next crack in the sidewalk, so I just tune out any references to what he promotes. I had told you that I would not discuss these issues with you again after you insulted my children's intelligence over their reasons for choosing vaccination for their own kids. (Dose 12/31/21) Your comment in response to my post that I had sent an Atlantic article to my children and they eventually decided to have the two 8 year olds vaccinated (and that all went fine)..... You posted, "A webzine is not the proper place to get information for informed consent. You should have gone to the manufacturer instead. I gave you the links but it is obvious that you failed to heed my advice. You should send them the pamphlet Sick Kids in case problems should develop in the coming months....If you would have taken the time and effort you'd realize the first was from direct data and information taken from Pfizer's own safety report that a FOIA request was done. That's the company that wants 75 years to release all their data. The following is about SickKids who are trying to give you information about children's vaccinations: etc. etc." So basically you said that I had shared bad information with my grown children who then made a terrible mistake making the decision to vaccinate their kids. If I had only listened to YOU-right? You still owe me an apology for that. So if you are going to answer my questions in this post, please start with that apology.

Submitted by studentofearth on Mon, 03/14/2022 - 1:24am

Decided to take the time replying to the questions

@Fishtroller 02 raised in your comments today.

Do you think a doctor who prescribed prostate medication for women should be able to long distance give a prescription for Ivermectin to a Covid patient?

Most likely prescribing for an off-label treatment for female pattern balding due to genetics or PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). Easy to research so I am not providing link.

What do you think when you read about studies that don't reinforce your opinion? Like this one.

First neither of the two links went to the study. Each was a review of the same study. It is important to understand the difference.

The study link

Would like to look at data further to evaluate why a limited 5 days of treatment resulted in fewer patients receiving mechanical respiration and dying within 28 days. Curious about degree of change in patient's symptomology and severity after the 5 day ivermentin treatment ended.

Among patients who progressed to severe disease, the time from study enrollment to the onset of deterioration was similar across ivermectin and control groups (mean [SD], 3.2 [2.4] days vs 2.9 [1.8] days; mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −0.6 to 1.2; P = .51). Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 patients (1.7%) in the ivermectin group vs 10 (4.0%) in the control group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30; P = .17) and intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.5%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20; P = .79). The 28-day in-hospital mortality rate was similar for the ivermectin and control groups (3 [1.2%] vs 10 [4.0%];

information like this gives me pause...

Dr Jo seems to be writing fear porn. "Have studies shown that it can cause early death without warning?" Really he can not differentiate between an adverse reaction and a known complication caused by too fast of parasite die off. Or he simply has no respect for his readers.

How can you conclude that Ivermectin is a good product for people to take for Covid if it is still being studied?

If the criteria for taking a drug therapy is no longer being studied for efficacy and safety - it rules out many commercially available drugs.

For example acetaminophen (Tylenol)
Sept 2021 - association with pre natal exposure alterations in fetal development the easy read and the study

Feb 2022 - association with high blood pressure the easy read and a short version of the study.

And last, I don't trust Pierre Kory past the next crack in the sidewalk, so I just tune out any references to what he promotes.

I review references made by any source, then make my own opinion. If my understanding of the comment is correct - If Pierre Kory recommended your writings they should automatically be tuned out.

#5.2.1 For one, look at what I posted above in this comment thread regarding the responses to John Campbell's claims and the latest study of 500 people in Malaysia. Did you just happen to skip over it? Hard to do, it's pretty long. Two, information like this gives me pause...https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-swallowed-several-doses-of-Ivermecti... Do you think a doctor who prescribed prostate medication for women should be able to long distance give a prescription for Ivermectin to a Covid patient? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-b... What do you think when you read about studies that don't reinforce your opinion? Like this one...https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/ivermectin-futile-mi... this one...https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-697027 How can you conclude that Ivermectin is a good product for people to take for Covid if it is still being studied? https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220121/ivermectin-potential-covid-19-t... The ACTIV-6 study won't conclude until March 23rd. I assume it will take awhile to compile the results. This is a study I would look at seriously. If it shows that Ivermectin is great against Covid, then I might reconsider (still wouldn't take it myself because eye problems are common even at low dosages). If it shows that Ivermectin doesn't work or if it is too harmful to use for Covid (they are doubling the usual dosages) would YOU post a retraction of all your claims? And last, I don't trust Pierre Kory past the next crack in the sidewalk, so I just tune out any references to what he promotes. I had told you that I would not discuss these issues with you again after you insulted my children's intelligence over their reasons for choosing vaccination for their own kids. (Dose 12/31/21) Your comment in response to my post that I had sent an Atlantic article to my children and they eventually decided to have the two 8 year olds vaccinated (and that all went fine)..... You posted, "A webzine is not the proper place to get information for informed consent. You should have gone to the manufacturer instead. I gave you the links but it is obvious that you failed to heed my advice. You should send them the pamphlet Sick Kids in case problems should develop in the coming months....If you would have taken the time and effort you'd realize the first was from direct data and information taken from Pfizer's own safety report that a FOIA request was done. That's the company that wants 75 years to release all their data. The following is about SickKids who are trying to give you information about children's vaccinations: etc. etc." So basically you said that I had shared bad information with my grown children who then made a terrible mistake making the decision to vaccinate their kids. If I had only listened to YOU-right? You still owe me an apology for that. So if you are going to answer my questions in this post, please start with that apology.

—

Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 12:39am

Data leaked from the Defense Health Agencies

Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows skyrocketing levels of disease among military personnel since the mandatory vaccines were rolled out. All data reflects reporting from January through November, 2021 only.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 1:45am

I didn't listen

@CB because I didn't want to interrupt my sleeping husband, but I did read the documents as best I could. I am gobsmacked we have done so much harm to our gallant protectors.
I didn't think they would mandate it to them, but I was wrong. I guess TPTB think we can dominate by drones and nukes, and we don't need no federales.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 03/13/2022 - 10:05am

Robots too

@on the cusp

Don’t forget the robot force that is being made to replace us humans in every workforce. They’ve got those very cute, but deadly robot dawgs that cops took out for a look see in poor neighborhoods in NYC much to the dismay of the tenets. And who knows how far stretched the brain implants story is so that we need injected soldiers who won’t mind slaughtering their citizens in all countries. You just never know what is true anymore with these sociopaths running the show.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.