Ivermectin: wonder drug.
- Thread starter HillzHoozier
- Start date
All laws passed by legislatures, dumbass. Not edicts from a wannabe-dictator.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
Bowelmania would call you a liar, since it isn't 90%.86% against death. "The investigators used the US Department of Veteran Affairs health care system data for this study, due to its inclusion of a large population of older adults with comorbidities." So that's 86% of people older and with comorbidities.
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/...-infection-or-death-in-an-at-risk-study-group`
mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Against Infection or Death in an At-Risk Study Group
A study of mRNA vaccination in older people and people with comorbidities found vaccine efficacy of 69% against COVID-19 infection and 86% against death.www.contagionlive.com
And like a Phoenix rising from that turd we have you. You are a seriously f***ed person man.
Factcheck. lmao!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...
Is this a serious post?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 additioin 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
There were no US military deaths in Afghanistan for 18 months before the 13.
Seriously, this kind of thing should be out of bounds. Why can't we be grown-ups here?
If you're following the thread, I think the abstract the youtube guy in your video is referencing has been withdrawn by its authors. I don't know Petersens take, but to my knowledge the abstract in question was always referenced as insubstantial corroboration only. The conversation now is about other peer-reviewed studies which are making their way into public channels. I find it interesting, and wonder why folks on your side are so intent on making it a political issue rather than science/medicine. So exhausting.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
And the English nurse/Ph.D. Had a video discussing the retraction, because he is not political about Covid, which is why some here criticize him.
Covid must be a Trump/anti-Trump litmus test here. Science is ignored.
Because people spreading misinformation that Ivermectin works to stop COVID are actually killing people.
The Ivermectin question has been answered thoroughly. Even Merck, who developed Ivermectin put out a statement:
“Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
- No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
- A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Merck.com
KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of...
www.merck.com
Fact Check-Merck’s experimental COVID-19 antiviral drug is not ‘repackaged ivermectin’
Some social media users have been saying that Merck’s experimental COVID-19 antiviral product molnupiravir is a rebranded version of the anti-parasitic Ivermectin. Two disease experts have told Reuters that this is not the case and that the chemical make-up of the two drugs...
mobile.reuters.com
I have no beef against Ivermectin. I would take it if it worked. It doesn’t. It is not a political issue, and people like you are the ones making it political.
If your Facebook group nuts said a maxi-pad taped to your forehead would stop COVID (with no evidence, obviously), we’d see Cletus from Alabama walking around proudly with a maxi pad taped to his face.
Quit lying.
Last edited:
You are stuck in 2021. Get with the times old man. I'm just passing the evidence along. Ignore it and this thread if you like.Because people spreading misinformation that Ivermectin works to stop COVID are actually killing people.
The Ivermectin question has been answered thoroughly. Even Merck, who developed Ivermectin put out a statement:
“Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
- No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
- A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Merck.com
KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of...
Fact Check-Merck’s experimental COVID-19 antiviral drug is not ‘repackaged ivermectin’
Some social media users have been saying that Merck’s experimental COVID-19 antiviral product molnupiravir is a rebranded version of the anti-parasitic Ivermectin. Two disease experts have told Reuters that this is not the case and that the chemical make-up of the two drugs...
I have no beef against Ivermectin. I would take it if it worked. It doesn’t. It is not a political issue, and people like you are the ones making it political.
If your Facebook group nuts said a maxi-pad taped to your forehead would stop COVID (with no evidence, obviously), we’d see Jim o from Alabama walking around proudly with a maxi pad taped to his face.
Quit lying.
So far I’ve seen ZERO evidence. A video from a nurse in the UK referencing a “paper”, whose author has since retracted it and even answered Tweets by loons like Jordan Peterson and the UK nurse saying as much.
U didn’t watch the videos, because they are diametrically opposed to your Facebook docs.
Try a maxi pad! Joe Rogan used one when he “threw the kitchen sink at his COVID.”
Better yet, let someone throw a kitchen sink at your COVID.
Perhaps it would stop you from killing innocent (but gravely misinformed) people.
Science involves numbers.
I prefer the better results from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine per year than four doses a month from Ivermectin.
You say it was "withdrawn by it's authors" as if that is some abstract concept? I guess you don't read my posts because I posted the twitter conversation that the MAIN AUTHOR of the abstract tried to have with both Peterson AND the Brit Nurse (Campbell).
He HAD to withdraw the video because the AUTHOR of the abstract basically called him out. It's like you ignored everything I posted, then came back with a rationale that was explained in length in my post already. If by "you tube guy in the video" you mean Lakov Efimenko, HE IS the AUTHOR. I imagine him making comments like the below is WHY Campbell had no choice but to withdraw the video.
I haven't watched Campbell's "explanation video". Since he mentions that "the authors withdrew it" does he give any reason why HE wasn't willing to interview the author, or even communicate with the author who btw, tried to elicit conversation with both Peterson and Campbell on twitter? Greg-Tucker Kellogg is a biology prof located in Singapore and HE was able to interview Efimenko. Is there any rational reason to suppose the same opportunity wouldn't have been available to Campbell had he chosen to pursue it?
I mean just so we're clear, Kellogg is interviewing the SAME author which Campbell chooses to refer to in the 3rd person...
I didn't read your post, but to he fair, I didn't reply to you. I was responding to Dr. Hoops.
What are your thoughts on the peer-reviewed study from Brazil? Are you on a mission to dis-credit that one as well? If so, why is that?
My magic covid killer was alternating doses of Tylenol and Advil. Don't tell the CDC 😉
I know how to read. It’s called an education.
Unfortunately for you and you band of low information loudmouths, reading Facebook doesn’t count.
According to posts I've made elsewhere in this thread, both the NIH and the BMJ had said that study did NOT qualify as "peer reviewed". I don't post on subjects unless I have some working knowledge of what I'm posting and I don't link to articles which don't support what I post. If it's "out of my lane", I avoid getting involved...
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching
Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of...
www.cureus.com
Hilariously, there isn’t even a study. It was a guy who wrote a paper for some presentation at a conference. The guy who wrot it has retracted it because “there wasn’t evidence.” He has since directly tweeted to the misinformation “superspreaders” who just ignore him…the actual author of the paper.
Now it’s fully ensconced in the Trumpster echo chamber/padded cell, so it’s too late. Hill is on it like a pit bull on a toddler’s face. He can’t let go. He’s too embarrassed to just tap out.
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching
Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of...
www.cureus.com
Use your schoolin
Are you replying to me or about the poster I responded to comparing someones mother dying to his dog dying and sh*tting a turd?
WOW! You sure made a strong case for your reading and comprehension skills with that post!
The paper was not "peer reviewed" at least to the NIH standards and I previously linked to their critique. It's kind of strange to ignore what I post (and especially what I link to), and then comeback at me with a question I already answered and provided evidence to support my initial answer. But far be it from me to criticize people for not reading what I post. It's just weird that you came back with THIS...
Now I know some are confusing the abstract with the Brazilian study, but I assure you I understand the difference. The critiques I've read from both the NIH and BMJ specifically mentioned the "cureus" paper, and both dismissed the notion that it could accurately be described as "peer reviewed". That could be a matter of semantics, but again this NIH critique is from June 2021, and outlines their serious concerns with the methodology...
"A more detailed and in-depth analysis of these data shows us that they do not provide enough evidence of effectiveness of ivermectin because there are discrepancies from the official data and the previous use of lockdown and other preventive public health measures was not adequately considered."
And specifically to Brazil...
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"
Inaccurate Real-World Data Does Not Provide Real-World Answers - PMC
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Now in my previous post (which you likely ignored) I also included the tables they were discussing. You can read the entire NIH critique at the link. But this is their summary...
"Therefore, all 3 country examples cited as epidemiological evidence of ivermectin effectiveness presented either show considerable discrepancy from the official data or the effects attributed to ivermectin depend on temporal associations that coincided with multiple preventive measures being implemented and not to ivermectin administration per se.
Considering all the above arguments, and the complexity of this pandemic, we believe that only large-scale randomized controlled trials can determine the utility, if any, of the administration of ivermectin."
So in answer to your question, I'm just relaying what the actual experts said about the study/paper, and why they did not feel it was valid...The experts discredited it, not me. I just reported what they said...
Thanks for the info. Weird how scientific opinion can vary. I support continued efforts to find alternatives to the expensive vaccines, since their performance fades so rapidly. I also appreciate the free flow of information. I've neither taken Ivermectin nor declined it based on YouTube, facebook or water cooler for that matter.The paper was not "peer reviewed" at least to the NIH standards and I previously linked to their critique. It's kind of strange to ignore what I post (and especially what I link to), and then comeback at me with a question I already answered and provided evidence to support my initial answer. But far be it from me to criticize people for not reading what I post. It's just weird that you came back with THIS...
Now I know some are confusing the abstract with the Brazilian study, but I assure you I understand the difference. The critiques I've read from both the NIH and BMJ specifically mentioned the "cureus" paper, and both dismissed the notion that it could accurately be described as "peer reviewed". That could be a matter of semantics, but again this NIH critique is from June 2021, and outlines their serious concerns with the methodology...
"A more detailed and in-depth analysis of these data shows us that they do not provide enough evidence of effectiveness of ivermectin because there are discrepancies from the official data and the previous use of lockdown and other preventive public health measures was not adequately considered."
And specifically to Brazil...
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"
Inaccurate Real-World Data Does Not Provide Real-World Answers - PMC
Now in my previous post (which you likely ignored) I also included the tables they were discussing. You can read the entire NIH critique at the link. But this is their summary...
"Therefore, all 3 country examples cited as epidemiological evidence of ivermectin effectiveness presented either show considerable discrepancy from the official data or the effects attributed to ivermectin depend on temporal associations that coincided with multiple preventive measures being implemented and not to ivermectin administration per se.
Considering all the above arguments, and the complexity of this pandemic, we believe that only large-scale randomized controlled trials can determine the utility, if any, of the administration of ivermectin."
So in answer to your question, I'm just relaying what the actual experts said about the study/paper, and why they did not feel it was valid...The experts discredited it, not me. I just reported what they said...
The paper was not "peer reviewed" at least to the NIH standards and I previously linked to their critique. It's kind of strange to ignore what I post (and especially what I link to), and then comeback at me with a question I already answered and provided evidence to support my initial answer. But far be it from me to criticize people for not reading what I post. It's just weird that you came back with THIS...
Now I know some are confusing the abstract with the Brazilian study, but I assure you I understand the difference. The critiques I've read from both the NIH and BMJ specifically mentioned the "cureus" paper, and both dismissed the notion that it could accurately be described as "peer reviewed". That could be a matter of semantics, but again this NIH critique is from June 2021, and outlines their serious concerns with the methodology...
"A more detailed and in-depth analysis of these data shows us that they do not provide enough evidence of effectiveness of ivermectin because there are discrepancies from the official data and the previous use of lockdown and other preventive public health measures was not adequately considered."
And specifically to Brazil...
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"
Inaccurate Real-World Data Does Not Provide Real-World Answers - PMC
Now in my previous post (which you likely ignored) I also included the tables they were discussing. You can read the entire NIH critique at the link. But this is their summary...
"Therefore, all 3 country examples cited as epidemiological evidence of ivermectin effectiveness presented either show considerable discrepancy from the official data or the effects attributed to ivermectin depend on temporal associations that coincided with multiple preventive measures being implemented and not to ivermectin administration per se.
Considering all the above arguments, and the complexity of this pandemic, we believe that only large-scale randomized controlled trials can determine the utility, if any, of the administration of ivermectin."
So in answer to your question, I'm just relaying what the actual experts said about the study/paper, and why they did not feel it was valid...The experts discredited it, not me. I just reported what they said...
Correct. There are no actual studies, but they can’t let go.
Perhaps they are drunk on their own urine.