No way your phone came up with monocolonial. Please take credit.. I'm a big fan. Not even joking.
Ivermectin: wonder drug.
- Thread starter HillzHoozier
- Start date
Mouse activity is interesting. Now try humans. Let's start with the double-blinded controlled clinical trials. I think results of 8 of them are known. The standings I believe are 0-for-8. Worse than Shaq shooting free throws on is worst day.
I had Covid! I took Ivermectin and Regeneron. Had a fever for two days. Never felt bad and didn’t lose taste or smell! So you people that are agin both those remedies. You don’t know shit.
Maybe the phone thought I was trying to treat pilgrims😁
Internal testing is performed regularly and is only validated if following existing standards, set by the FDA. The studies I cited above were performed by outside parties with no skin in the game.
Kind of my point. Outside parties with no skin in the game aren't going to make the investment needed for studies required by the FDA.
Yes, they can and do. And, again their studies are not valid, therefore not officially published, and no approvals are made if they don’t follow the FDA standards. It’s really not about money, but adherence to existing policies.
Google clinical trials and you’ll get a ton of information on how the studies are conducted and validated, along with the long list of requirements in order to gain approval.
I work for a medical device company and believe me it’s no easy task and there is no such thing as cutting corners - the FDA has set it up that way - good or bad that’s the highway.
I think we're saying the same thing. FDA stamp of approval requires following FDA standards, and that takes money. Not likely to get profit-seeking companies investing in the kind of trial required for FDA authorization for an off-patent drug. So we're left with one-off, small studies that people like us WC members argue over.
I got vaxxed and boosted and wore my mask in crowds. NEVER HAD COVID!!! Tell me I'm wrong!!!
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Anyone else find this statement ironic coming from cosmic?
He also is/was MTIOTF's go-to guy on all things Covid.
The ivermectin saga is a prime example of why I think we need to try to extricate ourselves from this insane two party political paradigm which is destroying constructive debate and objective reasoning.
For a long time I was convinced that desperate people were grasping at straws and taking veterinary meds in an effort to have better covid outcomes. I assumed that it was just more Q-tardation,
It turns out that the vast majority of the success stories associated with ivermectin are in foreign countries, where American politics play a minimal role in efforts to treat ill patients. I think there have been around 80 or so studies/trials worldwide showing ivermectin to be very good treatment option both in active cases and prophylactic use.
I saw a study by I-TECH (I think it was) a week or two ago where the authors concluded that ivermectin should NOT be used to treat covid, but when you looked at their supplementary table 6 for outcomes, the data seemed to strongly contradict the conclusion. Interestingly, it was one of the few studies where they broke down each arm of the study by vaccination status.
Here's table 6....
The best thing about the study as opposition to ivermectin was that it was under powered. If the study had been twice the size, they would have been forced to draw different conclusions based on the ass kicking that the Ivermectin arm was delivering relative to mortality.
If I were about to enter hospital with covid and this table was all I had to go on, I would much rather be in the ivermectin arm. The study defines progression to severe disease as requiring oxygen (nasal prongs, simple oxygen mask as well as a couple of high flow options and finally intubation). You'll notice that the Ivermectin/No Vax progressed to oxygen more often, but only 1 of 21 died, whereas the Double Vax/No Ivermectin group died at a rate of 5 of 12!
The studies focus was on progression to oxygen, and Ivermectin didn't seem to be effective in stopping the progression to oxygen. However as a patient I'm more worried about surviving than whether or not I might need oxygen. I've received oxygen before and I liked it okay.
Also, since the beginning of the Ivermectin push, it's strongly encouraged to start treatment in the first day or two of symptoms. In the study, Ivermectin wasn't started until day 5.
Anyway, if you're interested... and I know most of you won't be, you can look it up. The study was published by JAMA and it's easy enough to find.
For a long time I was convinced that desperate people were grasping at straws and taking veterinary meds in an effort to have better covid outcomes. I assumed that it was just more Q-tardation,
It turns out that the vast majority of the success stories associated with ivermectin are in foreign countries, where American politics play a minimal role in efforts to treat ill patients. I think there have been around 80 or so studies/trials worldwide showing ivermectin to be very good treatment option both in active cases and prophylactic use.
I saw a study by I-TECH (I think it was) a week or two ago where the authors concluded that ivermectin should NOT be used to treat covid, but when you looked at their supplementary table 6 for outcomes, the data seemed to strongly contradict the conclusion. Interestingly, it was one of the few studies where they broke down each arm of the study by vaccination status.
Here's table 6....
The best thing about the study as opposition to ivermectin was that it was under powered. If the study had been twice the size, they would have been forced to draw different conclusions based on the ass kicking that the Ivermectin arm was delivering relative to mortality.
If I were about to enter hospital with covid and this table was all I had to go on, I would much rather be in the ivermectin arm. The study defines progression to severe disease as requiring oxygen (nasal prongs, simple oxygen mask as well as a couple of high flow options and finally intubation). You'll notice that the Ivermectin/No Vax progressed to oxygen more often, but only 1 of 21 died, whereas the Double Vax/No Ivermectin group died at a rate of 5 of 12!
The studies focus was on progression to oxygen, and Ivermectin didn't seem to be effective in stopping the progression to oxygen. However as a patient I'm more worried about surviving than whether or not I might need oxygen. I've received oxygen before and I liked it okay.
Also, since the beginning of the Ivermectin push, it's strongly encouraged to start treatment in the first day or two of symptoms. In the study, Ivermectin wasn't started until day 5.
Anyway, if you're interested... and I know most of you won't be, you can look it up. The study was published by JAMA and it's easy enough to find.
The problem is that it's impossible to do the testing needed for every damn home remedy that gets barfed up as the new miracle cure.The ivermectin saga is a prime example of why I think we need to try to extricate ourselves from this insane two party political paradigm which is destroying constructive debate and objective reasoning.
For a long time I was convinced that desperate people were grasping at straws and taking veterinary meds in an effort to have better covid outcomes. I assumed that it was just more Q-tardation,
It turns out that the vast majority of the success stories associated with ivermectin are in foreign countries, where American politics play a minimal role in efforts to treat ill patients. I think there have been around 80 or so studies/trials worldwide showing ivermectin to be very good treatment option both in active cases and prophylactic use.
I saw a study by I-TECH (I think it was) a week or two ago where the authors concluded that ivermectin should NOT be used to treat covid, but when you looked at their supplementary table 6 for outcomes, the data seemed to strongly contradict the conclusion. Interestingly, it was one of the few studies where they broke down each arm of the study by vaccination status.
Here's table 6....
The best thing about the study as opposition to ivermectin was that it was under powered. If the study had been twice the size, they would have been forced to draw different conclusions based on the ass kicking that the Ivermectin arm was delivering relative to mortality.
If I were about to enter hospital with covid and this table was all I had to go on, I would much rather be in the ivermectin arm. The study defines progression to severe disease as requiring oxygen (nasal prongs, simple oxygen mask as well as a couple of high flow options and finally intubation). You'll notice that the Ivermectin/No Vax progressed to oxygen more often, but only 1 of 21 died, whereas the Double Vax/No Ivermectin group died at a rate of 5 of 12!
The studies focus was on progression to oxygen, and Ivermectin didn't seem to be effective in stopping the progression to oxygen. However as a patient I'm more worried about surviving than whether or not I might need oxygen. I've received oxygen before and I liked it okay.
Also, since the beginning of the Ivermectin push, it's strongly encouraged to start treatment in the first day or two of symptoms. In the study, Ivermectin wasn't started until day 5.
Anyway, if you're interested... and I know most of you won't be, you can look it up. The study was published by JAMA and it's easy enough to find.
Ivermectin was what, the fourth or fifth miracle cure touted by antivaxxers?
There's not the time, energy or money to go on a rabbit chase every couple of weeks.
From Miracle Mineral Solution (a form of bleach) to uv rays to Hydroxychloroquine to the pneumococcal vaccine to nasal saline to zinc to ivermectin.
There isn't enough money in the world to chase every Facebook news remedy that came out and was deemed a miracle cure, so much so that there are a billion stories of antivaxxers having to go on vents whose antivaxxer spouse starts telling the doctors how to treat their loved ones (typically ivermectin and zinc, etc).
That's the last thing our hospitals needed, antivax Facebook MD's dictating treatment and throwing a fit when they are told to sit down.
Your characterization of Ivermectin pretty much matched mine. So much so that it was on and off my radar within the space of one conversation with a friend who fancies himself an expert on all things planet X.
I now think it was a gross mischaracterization and a tragic mistake.
We're living in very strange times, without great hoops to distract us, as we inch toward the long anticipated USA vs Russia heavyweight Title bout
FYI my little rant wasn't directed at you and your post. More at the thread in general after reading all the posts.
yes and he’s very dedicated to nursing… that is until he realized how much he could make on YouTube vids about COVID
What's your beef with nursing?
What you and I and others say here has no more value than what's posted on Facebook. The spelling is sometimes better, but not always. It's a shame it isnt possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
it’s a fine profession for taking orders and doing specific tasks. Some nurses are great. They aren’t doctors, epidemiologists, scientists or anything else.
so let’s stop pretending they are?
Nobody is. If you'd look at the material you'd see he's no more than a medical reporter of sorts. He posts videos for and against about every covid-related topic as the evidence changes. He's always supported masks and vaccines. He also supports allowing medical professionals decide what's best for their patients--not bureaucrats. I happen to agree, and I believe the politicization on both sides cost lives.
Wow, that is quite opinion. Apparently you aren't up on the greater expanding roles of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants. There are so many more levels of nursing that you just shit on the whole profession. Obviously there are drastic different training for high up specialist type Dr's. But your comment here is pretty demeaning to a profession.
lol they are being tasked with greater responsibility for two reasons: 1) cost and 2) shortage of doctors
that’s particularly true in more rural areas where docs get paid significantly more
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 inwww.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...
he doesn’t “tout” studies.
he reads and reviews them - even provides links to them so folks can read them if they want
he has even covered studies that reached differing results on ivermectin
did you watch those? Look them up on your political sites to see if you are permitted to agree or disagree?
he doesn’t engage in selective science … like most folks here
But he’s smarter than you …
When was the last time YOU read a Covid study and explained it to others? With or without politics?
We've had the ivermectin discussion here many times (as with Hydroxychloroquine and others....each time putting the onus on Shooter or Marv or whoever to disprove sort of speak for the board. It's exhausting, especially after the right keeps coming up and pushing different miracle cures).
So yeah, there's a rep and a pattern...a boy who cried wolf scenario, especially in light of something that has been tested more than any miracle cure, is free for the most part and has proven to drastically lower your odds of having to be put on a ventilator and then dying (the vax).
Good news is Ivermectin is freely available. No one is preventing people from taking it if they want. Even Merck says it's not effective of Covid but people are free to take it if they want.
I've told this story before but my grandfather was completely deaf in one ear. Turns out when he was young he got a bad ear infection and my grandmother's social circle told her to pour boiling water in his ear to kill the infection.
She did. He lost his hearing.
There's always been grandma's social circle full of terrible ideas. Today that's to the millionth power with social media.
We're all guilty of seeking out affirmation that we believe is information.
So I don't mind the miracle cures, that's up to you. The aggressive pushing of them to the point that it interferes with the cause is what chaps me a bit.
Omicron is the silver bullet universal vaccine we were all hoping for. Moving on...
I drink 2 tables spoons Braggs, 2 table spoons lemon juice and 1 teaspoon Manaku Honey & 1/4 cup of water every morning and some evenings.
The whole point is that people aren't free to take it if they want! Unless something has changed in the last couple of weeks, it has been a huge issue. You would probably never hear about it again or maybe never heard of it hardly at all if people were free to take it. You can use the online Dr.'s to get a script, but most pharmacies wouldn't fill it. I have never heard of anything quite like it.
My Mom is all vaxxed up, but she wanted to take it as a prophylactic measure and couldn't get it. Everybody that she knew was vaxxed and getting sick, she got scared and wanted to take the stuff and couldn't get it.
I was referencing over the counter.
The advice I heard going around was to read the instructions, divide your weight by and average horse weight and then take that percentage of the horse dosage.
Not a lie.
Asking drs to prescribe it and then getting angry if they don't falls under the 'facebook Drs' telling Drs how to do their job.
At least to me.
That's like me telling you that not only is your data completely worthless and wrong....you need to either take my data or figure out how to manipulate the data to say what I want (without me being able to really explain how my data works....it just does).
Gotcha! That's probably why some people were taking the Mr. Ed version. My Mom's Doc told her he had seen the same stuff my Mom had regarding the prophylactic protection. He told her that his hands were tied and he could neither recommend nor prescribe, but with some ingenuity he was confident she could probably get a script. She figured that part out, but gave up when they told her that she would have to hunt for a pharmacy that would fill it. She said the whole thing made her feel like Walter White
A phD who had to count the zeros on a p value? Who doesn’t know the difference between less & fewer? Who goes through great pains to continually say how significant a study is without acknowledging the shortcomings in it that even the authors do (e.g., non double blind or placebo controlled study) and not to mention that the people writing the Brazil study are in the advocacy business.
I also haven’t looked it up but I’m curious what the peer review process is for that website. It’s a big deal to say “peer reviewed” but I have a feeling that the cureus.com process might be giving a copy to Joe in Accounting or running it by the local anti-vax group.
Especially when the manufacturers of Ivermectin confirm it doesn’t work against COVID.
Why is this nonsense still being discussed?