It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Ivermectin for horses the same as Ivermectin for Humans?

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2021 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

They most certainly should do studies and test. That would sure clear it all up and Doctors could then prescribe it. I do believe just based on the very few and small studies so plus the anecdotal evidence that it shows promise.

I am a little shy of people dosing themselves based on a dose of a horse. And have witnessed the run on ivermectin not only at stores but online sales and see disaster coming as those who are often waiting for something like this to profit are going to be counterfeiting ivermectin and use god knows what instead.

So yes I would prefer studies and don’t have an issue with prescribing now so Doctors could evaluate first hand but just find it ironic how people reject one cause we don’t know but jump head first into another unknown. And I am afraid of what’s coming with counterfeit products as it’s gonna happen.



posted on Sep, 24 2021 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skyman65
a reply to: MDDoxs
You probably know that almost any doctor in a clinic environment won't prescribe Ivermectin due to peer pressure or clinic policy. Even though it's therapeutic effects are proven, the policy remains.

For all those seeking Ivermectin treatment local, find a private practice doctor. They are more beholden to you and their ethics VS. Corporate policy.


That peer pressure comes along with the likelihood of getting sued, and having those peers show up as "expert testimony" and lie outright using their credentials as a shield.

Like Fauci himself does in this CNN clip:

www.cnn.com...

He there is, in his words "no evidence". It would be one thing to say it is unproven. But it's blatant academic dishonesty for a person who knows full well there is evidence to falsely state that none exists.

His college degree should be revoked by the issuer. If I were an employer, I would disallow acceptance of degrees from that university until they revoke it.

To knowingly and intentionally make provably false statements is a line that academia simply must not cross.



originally posted by: Superecho2021
a reply to: incoserv

No there is not. You are being ignorant. Look at the studies. The problem is it has not been long enough as the studies are short.

Does it make any sense to reject a vaccine due to lack of studies and doubt it efficacy but champion a non viral medication to fight a viral infection ?

I am not pro vaccine, have not got it but both sides are arguing the same thing about both alleged remedies so it’s rather funny actually.


Not everything in medicine, or any other science "makes sense".

Science isn't about what "makes sense". It's about what you can prove and/or test, and valuing the observed outcome over the predicted one.

Superstition often does a better job of "making sense" than science does. But science gets results (unless it gets mixed with politics and the politicians cherry pick.)




originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: PiratesCut
a reply to: TTU77

According to my daughter who has had horses for at least three decades it is a dosage thing.

DO NOT go by my words OR use stuff from a vet supply place.
Be sure you KNOW ALL the facts!!!

The last two sentences are a public service announcement.


And I'm going to add another public service announcement...

I used horse paste for my rabbits for years but started hearing that people had od'd their rabbits because the paste wasn't mixed well. Imagine, the syringe set up for a 1000lb horse goes straight down their throat, factory mixing isn't as critical. With a small animal, or human, if you use the paste and it has higher concentration at that spot in the syringe, there can be trouble.

Never had this happen myself and I have had over a hundred rabbits at a time. If you must go this route squeeze it all out, mix well, re calibrate the dosage properly. Get someone else to check your math if need be. A slipped decimal can kill. That said, ivermectin is pretty safe.


A lot of medicines are toxic if you take too much.

Your body will focus its whole effort on purging the toxin, and you may never even get the benefit.



posted on Sep, 24 2021 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The horse version just requires a proper dosage calculation. As others have said and as Chris Martensen from peak prosperity explained being off a little doesnt matter with ivermectin. It is extremely safe unlike what the media is saying.

I have just placed an order with a Canadian pharmacy for 600 of the 12mg pills for my wife and I. No prescription needed. The total was 1200 for that many pills. It comes out to around 2 bucks for a 12 mg dose. I had a prescription for it and in the states that same dose was running close to 2.50. That's when you could actually have it prescribed and filled. Good luck to anyone trying now a days. That pharmacy ships to the states as well just gotta look around.

I have had covid twice. Once back in jan / Feb of 2020 and once in june / july of 2021. I was sick, weak and could barely breath in 2020 for weeks on end. Symptoms lasted for approx 120 to 150 days (not as severe) after the initial severe symptoms of 30 to 60 days. It was absolutely awful. I went with no medical treatment by choice and survived. The version that I had in jun / july of 2021(I assume it was delta) I treated with the ivermectin protocol of d3, quercetin, c, zinc, ivermectin and misc over the counter meds to reduce other symptoms. I was awful for 3 days. After that basically as good as new, very minor lingering symptoms. (Ivermectin dose of 15mg on day 1 and another 15mg 2 days later - vitamins / meds every day)

Medical history is clear, no comorbidities, no prescriptions, mid 30s and fairly fit. Just for background.

Obviously this is just my anectodal evidence, but from my own experience I fully believe in the ivermectin protocol.

Not medical advice as I am not your doctor or a certified medical advisor.

I also am not a certified chemist or bleach specialist, but I suggest that noone drinks any of it.

See how dumb it is to have to always defer to a higher authority to make any basic logical decision?

Also I love the benadryl comment on this thread and will be calling it dog medicine to all of my wonderful liberal friends.

At the end of the day the medicine is super well tolerated by humans so why not try it? Your family's health is your responsibility and if something is extremely low risk (safe than advil!) - why not try it?



posted on Sep, 24 2021 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MountainLaurel

If slightly off-topic post is allowed (I don't mind if this is removed being such), I'd like to give thoughts on that tree on your avatar. Did you draw it yourself?

The trunk looks amazing, it has a lot of detail, it's thick, curvy, it oozes personality - great-looking trunk. The branches are good, too, but not as good as the trunk - they could've used a bit more imagination and 'quirkiness'. They start feeling a bit more 'safe', and less expressive of individuality.

Then the troubles begin. The leaves look more like a mass of hair than actual leaves. The shape is as stock and conformist as you can get. There's a nice 'depth-effect' included, but it's also pretty unrealistic, as trees don't usually form perfect shapes like that, there are usually 'holes' in the leaves you can see through. The whole tree looks very two-dimensional, as the source of the light is not clear, there's not enough shadow shading in the branches, there are no leaves that 'block the view to the trunk', and the branches go only two-dimensionally to left and right, never in Z-coordinate, away or towards the viewer.

There are no branches on the other side of the tree, but realistically, there would have to be, even if just to maintain that mass of leaves. (I just noticed the picture goes deeper than the avatar shows)

The aspect ratio of the tree seems to have been 'squished' to fit the avatar, maybe - it looks like it should be a bit wider picture.

The branches don't 'diminish' quickly enough, so you get a weird effect where the branch is very thick and then suddenly becomes thin - it should be more gradual, maybe.

Everything is neatly split in the middle, too - the root and the upper part of the trunk both have this 'deeper shadow' in the middle that splits the tree in a very two-dimensional way to two parts, visually speaking. The split trunk-branches are at the same height, which is visually boring (real trees have branches in all kinds of heights).

The tree itself is pretty colorless, even though the background is 'oversaturated colors'.

The roots look like they are spreading like a human might spread their legs, instead of doing a 'treelike thing', roots going every which way.

It's very 'conformist' and 'conventional' for the most part, mostly the trunk detail is amazing, but it's as if the artist didn't dare do anything wild or imaginative with this tree idea.

The trunk is also MASSIVE considering hiw puny and minuscule the leaves-part is. Usually a trunk that massive should be able to have way, way bigger 'leaves-part', so the proportions look weird for this reason as well.

The leaves are very oddly in two layers - front and back. There's nothing indicating true depth or 3-D nature of the leaves and the tree besides this 'two-layered-technique'. This looks boring, unrealistic and visually a bit unappealing in my opinion. The leaves-part shape is also a bit odd, it's more like human hair than actual tree - look how it curves unnaturally in the back. What is holding the back leaves in place anyway? Surely not any of the branches we see. Are there invisible branches in this tree?

The roots section is _way_ bigger and even thicker (!) than the branch section, which makes this tree look really odd and disproportionate.

I could go on, but I think this is enough.. nice tree otherwise.
edit on 24-9-2021 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2021 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2021 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Superecho2021
a reply to: incoserv



Does it make any sense to reject a vaccine due to lack of studies and doubt it efficacy but champion a non viral medication to fight a viral infection ?




It is an interesting question. So I did some looking.


So what you need to remember about viruses, is that although they aren't functioning cells themselves, they also can't replicate on their own.

They need to infect a cell and make that cell replicate them. That infected cell may be subject to things that can kill or inhibit a bacteria.

And this is where it gets interesting: Ivermectin works by inhibiting a tubulin that is used by ringworms to build microtubules, which is part of their structure. It's part of their "ring worm" shape.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Your lung cells are the most similar cells in your body to that same structure. Forming into filaments that trap oxygen and carry blood to that trapped oxygen, for the transfer.


I can't say this for sure, but I *think* it is working by stopping the infected lung cells from being able to replicate the virus as well as they normally would.

That would explain why it won't prevent you from getting infected in the first place, but dramatically lowers your viral load. The virus is getting in just as it normally would, but finding it difficult to actually grow in number once it arrives.
edit on 25-9-2021 by bloodymarvelous because: That infected cell may be subject to things that can kill or inhibit virus. changed to: That infected cell may be subject to things that can kill or inhibit a bacteria. - since that what I had meant to say.



posted on Sep, 25 2021 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TTU77




I said Yes , Need More Proof ?

" Never Say Neigh: FDA Lists 'Horse Drug' As Approved COVID Treatment "



www.zerohedge.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2021 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I was able to find Zimecterin at a local co-op. Be sure if one buys ivermectin to avoid to buy only (ivermectin 1.55% ) and not anything with extra stuff it in, like Zimecterin Gold (ivermectin 1.55% / praziquantel 7.75%.

Also, I'm wondering on the dosage amount. Someone says just take one dose per month and others says take multiple doses. I'm wondering if the one dose per month is a preventative solution and taking multiple doses is if one catches covid.



posted on Oct, 9 2021 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TTU77
I was able to find Zimecterin at a local co-op. Be sure if one buys ivermectin to avoid to buy only (ivermectin 1.55% ) and not anything with extra stuff it in, like Zimecterin Gold (ivermectin 1.55% / praziquantel 7.75%.

Also, I'm wondering on the dosage amount. Someone says just take one dose per month and others says take multiple doses. I'm wondering if the one dose per month is a preventative solution and taking multiple doses is if one catches covid.


Go and read the FLCCC document on early treatment and prevention, it will tell you the appropriate dosage.

DO NOT get your Ivermectin from any body except a Human Medical Doctor, you need a prescription. If you are unable to find a doctor to prescribe, the FLCCC has resources for you.

Taking Ivermectin will set you back about $60.00US per month if taken twice a week. I'm starting my 7th month of Ivermectin, been exposed at least twice, not been sick at all (with anything).

You should understand that even Ivermectin for Covid19 is experimental, but, it is vastly safer.




new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join