I know we haven't had an Ivermectin discussion in quite a while, but after our English Bulldog died (not the recent one, but 10 years ago), i found that Ivermectin has a very strong correlation to seizures, especially with certain breeds.
This even after very carefully administering the dosage as guided by our Veterinarian. As much as I now don't trust the COVID Vax (I've had the first two rounds plus a booster) I sure don't want to take something that has even less study with human subjects.
https://www.thesprucepets.com/is-ivermectin-safe-dogs-and-cats-3384698Oddly enough, several medical journal articles I could have linked concerning Ivermectin use in humans over the last 25 years are now unavailable. Imagine that.
Abstracts remain available, but finding full text is a challenge.
Here is one which concentrates on the anti-parasitic properties, which Ivermectin, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine were developed to provide.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjab/87/2/87_2_13/_pdf/-char/enIt also turns out that all three are powerful ionophores, which is where Ivermectin use comes in with COVID, to get Zinc ions into cells affected by the virus, where Zinc was known to interrupt the reproduction of SARS since 2005. Turns out that works with SARS-Cov-2, also.
I researched the normal clinical dose of Ivermectin in humans at the Mayo Clinic website.
It is weight based, as in 0.2 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. It turns out, doing the math, that the dosage of the 1.87% Ivermectin "horse paste" works out to the same per unit of body weight as the dosage for humans.
Some breeds of dogs are sensitive to and subject to harmful effects from Ivermectin, and as such the use of Ivermectin for those breeds may be contraindicated. English Bulldogs are one of those breeds, and I have seen several accounts from owners that would have me very cautious about giving Ivermectin to dogs of that breed.
However, I have taken Ivermectin (the 'horse paste'--because I could get it), and it is not the first time I have used veterinary antibiotics, myself. Not only did I have no ill effects, but I firmly believe, that in conjunction with Zinc supplementation and the doxycycline the doctor would prescribe, that contributed to me being well just shortly after I got the test results back. At ten days (from symptom onset) I tested clear of the virus.
Keep in mind, that having a relative who had taken hydroxychloroquine for seven years to great benefit for Rheumatoid Arthritis already had me skeptical of the Mainstream Media attack on possible treatments for COVID, that I had seem Zelenko's You Tube which explained (very well) the strategy behind the use of Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin/Zinc in the treatment, and that I had researched the
efficacy of Zinc in combating SARS-in vitro and in vivo-which verified Zelenko's claim that the use of HCQ as an ionophore (also documented elsewhere) to get Zinc into type one pneumocytes and epithelial airway cells would stymie the progress of the disease and effectively give the body the time it needed to form antibodies and fight it off.
The ionophore effects of Ivermectin are similar to the use of Hydroxychloroquine, the doxycycline replaces another macrolide antibiotic (Azithromycin, which, idiopathically, suppress immune function just enough to prevent a cytokine storm and prevents opportunistic bacterial infection), and the zinc, the essential ion which disrupts the replication of the virus. There are other ionophores as well, among them Quercetin and Epigallocatechin-gallate.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf5014633I read the 'studies' which purported to prove that HCQ was ineffective, but those studies all failed to administer Zinc supplementation, most failed to include the Macrolide Antibiotic, and all were administered in the late stages of the disease. Hardly a way to 'prove' that the use of a treatment protocol designed to stop the disease in its early stages is ineffective. Preventing viral replication is somewhat moot after the virus has had ample time to replicate and spread throughout the body, and the damage is done.
Every study thus presented was deeply flawed, and not indicative of a lack of efficacy as an early onset treatment as so often claimed in the Media.
We know now that there existed political, economic, and possibly other motives for decrying these treatment regimens as ineffective, and one study (conducted in Brazil) actually dispensed lethal doses of Chloroquine to participants, and the Media claimed the study had been stopped because patients were dying from the Chloroquine, but failed to explain that 4 times the LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of recipients) of chloroquine had been administered. Chloroquine was conflated in the media with Hydroxychloroquine (two related, but different drugs), and the concept that both were deadly pushed, while Remdesivir, a drug with reported adverse effects of kidney and liver failure was advocated by the CDC and Medical Establishment.
I think it is worth noting that the entire regimen of HCQ/Azithromycin/Zinc or IVM/doxycycline/Zinc should have cost less than $20/course (not dose, course), whereas Remdesivir, administered iv in a clinical setting was some $3000, and we're still finding out the cost of the "safe and effective" mRNA injections.
If, as noted, you have had the shots and have had no ill effects, I'm glad. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for many--enough to especially question the wisdom of administering those injections as a childhood 'vaccine'.
