A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Yea. Just like how schools required vaccines from kids for quite a while now.
You just didn't care until covid
Ivermectin: wonder drug.
- Thread starter HillzHoozier
- Start date
Yea. Just like how schools required vaccines from kids for quite a while now.
You just didn't care until covid
Can you please just cite the study instead of saying that it's in the video? I'd like to actually read it, but I'm not going to search for it in some silly video rant.
how many people has this nurse roped into thinking he’s some Nostradamus? He couldn’t even become a doctor
Here is the Jan fact check of the article from Jan which touted the study. I think the link to the actual study will work...
The Brazil study
The FLCCC story shared on Facebook links to a study published on Jan. 15 in the scientific journal Cureus. Its authors, two of whom are members of the FLCCC, concluded that "regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates," based on an observational study of 159,561 residents ages 18 and over in Itajaí, Brazil.
According to the study, between July 7, 2020, and Dec. 2, 2020, 113,845 participants of a citywide program took the drug, while 45,716 did not. Those who took ivermectin caught COVID-19 at a rate of 3.7%, while those who did not had a 6.6% infection rate.
After adjusting for variables, the authors said, they found a 67% reduction in hospitalization rate and a 70% reduction in mortality rate for ivermectin users.
It sounds promising, but two experts not associated with the study pointed out serious research flaws, including leaving questions about whether those identified as having taken the ivermectin actually did as prescribed. They also raised questions about conflict of interest by some of its authors.
Concerns about methodology
Dr. Nikolas Wada, an epidemiologist with the Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium at Johns Hopkins, raised concerns about the study's uncertainty over who was "truly taking ivermectin and vice versa" and poor control for factors that may predispose someone to catch COVID-19, among other issues.
"My primary takeaway," Wada said, "is that this paper adds nearly nothing to the knowledge base regarding ivermectin and COVID-19, and certainly does not prove its effectiveness as a prophylaxis."
Ivermectin study on Brazil town is flawed, experts say
Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for use against COVID-19 and there’s no scientific consensus yet of its effectiveness in
www.politifact.com
After reading this factcheck, which I just discovered I'm not surprised that quack guy on you tube is touting the study but ignoring the Factcheck. Not clear if it's just the article on the study or the study itself that includes the Frontline doctors. But either way that's a huge conflict of interest, esp when it comes to Brazil where Frontline were the main advocates for Bolsonaro's policy in the first place...
Go to the video on YouTube.. there are always hotlinks to the pertinent material in the description under the video, so watching isn't necessary
Nope, when your bad choices negatively affect public health and safety, it isn't only your business and never has been.
Following up on Frontline, which appears to be involved in "the study" if you compare names...Here is the Jan fact check of the article from Jan which touted the study. I think the link to the actual study will work...
The Brazil study
The FLCCC story shared on Facebook links to a study published on Jan. 15 in the scientific journal Cureus. Its authors, two of whom are members of the FLCCC, concluded that "regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates," based on an observational study of 159,561 residents ages 18 and over in Itajaí, Brazil.
According to the study, between July 7, 2020, and Dec. 2, 2020, 113,845 participants of a citywide program took the drug, while 45,716 did not. Those who took ivermectin caught COVID-19 at a rate of 3.7%, while those who did not had a 6.6% infection rate.
After adjusting for variables, the authors said, they found a 67% reduction in hospitalization rate and a 70% reduction in mortality rate for ivermectin users.
It sounds promising, but two experts not associated with the study pointed out serious research flaws, including leaving questions about whether those identified as having taken the ivermectin actually did as prescribed. They also raised questions about conflict of interest by some of its authors.
Concerns about methodology
Dr. Nikolas Wada, an epidemiologist with the Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium at Johns Hopkins, raised concerns about the study's uncertainty over who was "truly taking ivermectin and vice versa" and poor control for factors that may predispose someone to catch COVID-19, among other issues.
"My primary takeaway," Wada said, "is that this paper adds nearly nothing to the knowledge base regarding ivermectin and COVID-19, and certainly does not prove its effectiveness as a prophylaxis."
Ivermectin study on Brazil town is flawed, experts say
Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for use against COVID-19 and there’s no scientific consensus yet of its effectiveness in
After reading this factcheck, which I just discovered I'm not surprised that quack guy on you tube is touting the study but ignoring the Factcheck. Not clear if it's just the article on the study or the study itself that includes the Frontline doctors. But either way that's a huge conflict of interest, esp when it comes to Brazil where Frontline were the main advocates for Bolsonaro's policy in the first place...
This Sept 21 expose from The Intercept...
"NETWORK OF RIGHT-WING HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IS MAKING MILLIONS OFF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND IVERMECTIN, HACKED DATA REVEALS
The data also reveals that 72,000 people paid at least $6.7 million for Covid-19 consultations promoted by America’s Frontline Doctors and vaccine conspiracist Simone Gold."
Network of Right-Wing Health Care Providers Is Making Millions Off Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, Hacked Data Reveals
Hacked data also reveals that 72,000 people paid at least $6.7 million for Covid-19 consultations promoted by America’s Frontline Doctors and Simone Gold.
theintercept.com
How many has Biden killed by fooling you and your ilk he is even remotely capable of anything?Or even alive for that matter? 13 soldiers in Afghanistan in one day. How many military lives were lost due to any direct action of Trumps in for years?
Reading your post I would guess wiping your a** needs mandated for you.lol, like wearing a seatbelt, not drinking and driving...
It isn't the first mandate and won't be the last. Maybe if people weren't dumb, they wouldn't have to mandate
You have insufficient data to make assumptions about my health choices.
Who is your liberal alter ego here?
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I wasn't the one fighting masks/vaccines. No, mandates are for the people that can't do the right thing on their own accord....so people like you
Did you even research this? There were 33 servicemembers killed in 2017, which represented the first INCREASE in casualties in a war zone in 6 yrs... In addition to Afghanistan, US troops were killed in Yemen, Niger and Somalia...
These US troops were killed in combat during Trump’s first year in office
Most died in Afghanistan, the US's longest-running war, but the first casualty of Trump's term came in Yemen.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Did you even research this? There were 33 servicemembers killed in 2017, which represented the first INCREASE in casualties in a war zone in 6 yrs... In addition to Afghanistan, US troops were killed in Yemen, Niger and Somalia...
These US troops were killed in combat during Trump’s first year in office
Most died in Afghanistan, the US's longest-running war, but the first casualty of Trump's term came in Yemen.www.buzzfeednews.com
It's just like with the national debt, that stuff only matters when a dem is president.
If this thread happens to be one of your health choices then we’ve got a whole lot of data, amigo.
This guy really is a quack, with an audience of adoring fanboys, rather than anyone who would even pose a serious challenge to nonsense when he spews it...
The study he touts dealt with a mass distribution program of ivermectin in Itajai (BZ) from June 2020 thru Aug 2020. I'm no clinical researcher, but just reading thru this June 2021 analysis of the study shows some obvious flaws. For one thing there was no inclusion of factors other than ivermectin, and beyond that the people who comprised the study were handed out a supply and told to take it in a prescribed daily dose without any actual followup on whether they even took it and how often...
Even more troubling, is the fact that in the months following the mass distribution the amount of cases in Itajai increased rapidly from where it was previously. And what the study claimed did not correlate to official Brazilian Govt statistics...This is from a June 2021 analysis of the yet unpublished study by the NIH...
"Data from Brazil published in the article differ from the official data.2 As shown in Table Table1,1, the number of cases of COVID-19 did not decrease after the introduction of ivermectin, as shown by the authors of the article for Itajai city. On the contrary, the number of cases rapidly increased.
Some Brazilian cities (such as Macapa and Itajai) where ivermectin was widely used became the cities with the highest case fatality rate at the beginning of 2021, while Ivermectin continued to be administered to the population.3,4
We also analyzed the number of cases and deaths for the 6 Brazilian cities cited in the article between May and December 2020. As shown in Figure Figure1,1, there is no evidence that ivermectin was effective despite its extensive use."
Inaccurate Real-World Data Does Not Provide Real-World Answers - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Last edited:
I don't live by researching every last GD thing like this place really matter. How many of those were killed directly because of any action by trump and 33 over a year vs 13 in a day?Did you even research this? There were 33 servicemembers killed in 2017, which represented the first INCREASE in casualties in a war zone in 6 yrs... In addition to Afghanistan, US troops were killed in Yemen, Niger and Somalia...
These US troops were killed in combat during Trump’s first year in office
Most died in Afghanistan, the US's longest-running war, but the first casualty of Trump's term came in Yemen.
I just wondered because if you're going to pose a question that could end up biting you in the ass, it's a good idea to avoid that and have your ducks in a row...
Not sure why 13 in a day (and total for a year, btw) would somehow be more damning than 33 in Trump's first year? I know it's a talking point, but as horrible as those 13 lives being lost was it's still not even 1/2 as many as died in Trump's first year. Which by the way was the question you posed, and I answered...
Btw since we're talking Afghanistan, 23 service people died in Afghanistan in 2019 and 11 in 2020. So Biden's 13 in 2021 is not exactly an outlier...
Last edited:
You should lurk more.
I really dont GAF about you and your constant research. I don't care my response was more in the vein of Zekes holy shit Trump is the worst person to ever walk the face of the earth's post that she constantly makes. I will pose the question were any of the other deaths by Trump actually doing something really stupid with no plan or just the happenings of the ongoing war he was left with? Research your ass off I don't care if you want to. God I just wonder what some of you people must be like in real life. Do you actually just ever have a conversation with anyone without researching it? I swear some of you must get superglue suppositories or some version of
Thanks. We could fit what you've added to the WC over these years into a fortune cookie. Have a nice day.As a health choice? Your best post in this thread by far.
Got any youtube videos on the health benefits of Gwyneth Paltrow's vagina eggs? I'm sure it would have helped with COVID, if some Trumper had dreampt up the idea that it might.
They would have more benefit than a brain cell from you if anyone could find one
The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro - PubMed
Although several clinical trials are now underway to test possible therapies, the worldwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been largely limited to monitoring/containment. We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
Although several clinical trials are now underway to test possible therapies, the worldwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been largely limited…
Ivermectin does come up all of the time in the in vitro assays for virus killing.
In vitro means in a test tube, i.e. in a lab environment
In vivo means in an animal.
Ivermectin indeed works great in vitro. that's what every one of those just-cited studied is about. What you want is something that works in vivo, because we are animals, not test tubes.
Plutonium and hand grenade blasts both kill COVID in vitro.
Basically, something working in vitro means jack-freakin'-shit if it doesn't also work just as well in vivo.
That jump from in vitro results to in vivo performance, which ivermectin failed to make, is called discovering a drug.
In vitro means in a test tube, i.e. in a lab environment
In vivo means in an animal.
Ivermectin indeed works great in vitro. that's what every one of those just-cited studied is about. What you want is something that works in vivo, because we are animals, not test tubes.
Plutonium and hand grenade blasts both kill COVID in vitro.
Basically, something working in vitro means jack-freakin'-shit if it doesn't also work just as well in vivo.
That jump from in vitro results to in vivo performance, which ivermectin failed to make, is called discovering a drug.
Ivermectin reduces in vivo coronavirus infection in a mouse experimental model - PMC
The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of ivermectin for the treatment of mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), a type 2 family RNA coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-2. Female BALB/cJ mice were infected with 6,000 PFU of MHV-A59 (group ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Ivermectin reduces in vivo coronavirus infection in a mouse experimental model - PubMed
The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of ivermectin for the treatment of mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), a type 2 family RNA coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-2. Female BALB/cJ mice were infected with 6,000 PFU of MHV-A59 (group infected, n = 20) or infected and then immediately...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Ivermectin reduces in vivo coronavirus infection in a mouse experimental model - Scientific Reports
The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of ivermectin for the treatment of mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), a type 2 family RNA coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-2. Female BALB/cJ mice were infected with 6,000 PFU of MHV-A59 (group infected, n = 20) or infected and then immediately...
www.nature.com
The important question going forward is how to ensure that an off-patent drug like Ivermectin that shows in vitro effectiveness will be studied in a robust trial.
There are little financial incentives for private companies to sponsor those trials. ( I think this was a bigger barrier for Ivermectin than any liberal conspiracy.)
The government needs a process to identify and test these kind of drugs where drug companies have little incentive.
There are little financial incentives for private companies to sponsor those trials. ( I think this was a bigger barrier for Ivermectin than any liberal conspiracy.)
The government needs a process to identify and test these kind of drugs where drug companies have little incentive.
Your posts-- like watching Michael Ann Jello paint the Sixteen Chapel... At true master at twerk.