Ivermectin: Yes, No or Maybe

[jackspade]

13 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

 

Yep...... that's the sort of self-opinionated arrogance I am talking about..................... never a clue about the middle ground.

Never a clue about the middle ground, you say? You're preaching to the choir. In fact, I myself would be ever so happy if the "middle ground" were given a little bit of space in this world of black and white. It is precisely those who can't allow for any middle ground that I was describing in my post.

Those people I was referring to (such as those who blanket dismiss any remote suggestion that a vaccine alternative should be given a fair shake) are never ok with "middle ground". For them, it is the official narrative to the very T... or the highway.

I'm not arrogant in the least, I have no claim to fame. I'm merely honest with myself and others—a trait which tends to bother some people. As for opinions, I'm sorry if it offends you, but I have a few of them.

One of them is that this world absolutely needs a bit more allowance for middle ground. ????

Edited July 7, 2021 by jackspade

[partington]

On 7/4/2021 at 5:49 AM, DeepSea said:

 

I posted a link to a totally transparent, real-time meta analysis of 61 studies (which also includes a couple of negative results), which I'm sure you haven't read, would you care to reciprocate by linking us to your list of negative clinical trials?

If you think a non-peer reviewed, anonymous, that is the authors don't actually dare to reveal who they are, (are they plumbers, geographers, experts in data analysis ?) screed on a commercial .com site is "transparent", then you have a rather elastic definition of this term.

 

They do declare they are "Ph.D scientists, and you can find our work in journals like Science and Nature," but of course it's not really possible to check is it?

 

I am a Ph.D scientist and you can also find my work in Science and Nature, if you look hard enough.

Edited July 7, 2021 by partington

[JetsetBkk]

2 hours ago, partington said:

I am a Ph.D scientist and you can also find my work in Science and Nature

Ah, but are you a former Pfizer Chief Science Officer like Dr. Mike Yeadon? Don't Google him whatever you do.

[DJBenz]

4 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

Ah, but are you a former Pfizer Chief Science Officer like Dr. Mike Yeadon? Don't Google him whatever you do.

Good advice, he’s a crackpot that believes in the global depopulation conspiracy theory. 

[impulse]

On 7/3/2021 at 11:15 PM, Danderman123 said:

You are comparing vaccines with proven efficacy against Covid-19 with a medication with many negative clinical trials against Covid-19. Interesting.

Gosh.  If only you could get Ivermectin in Thailand as easily as you can get a vaccine...

 

I don't see anyone proposing IVM as an alternative to a vaccine they can actually get.  But I'd sure have some in the medicine cabinet if I couldn't get the vaccine.  And given the variants raging through the world, maybe to have on hand in addition to my jabs.  Just in case.

 

Where's the downside?  It's a cheap, proven safe medicine.  Worst case, expensive urine.

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by impulse

[DJBenz]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

Where's the downside?  It's a cheap, proven safe medicine.  Worst case, expensive urine.

 

The downside is that even at a dose 8.5x the FDA recommended amount, it wasn’t at an effective anti-viral level:

 

 

[impulse]

28 minutes ago, DJBenz said:

The downside is that even at a dose 8.5x the FDA recommended amount, it wasn’t at an effective anti-viral level:

So what do you recommend for someone who's at least 3 months away from getting a vaccine?  Crossing your fingers isn't a plan, BTW.  Neither are amulets.

 

Half of the studies say it works.  Half say "meh".  I'd go with 50% over doing nothing.  In fact, I'd go with 25% over nothing.

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by impulse

[DJBenz]

53 minutes ago, impulse said:

So what do you recommend for someone who's at least 3 months away from getting a vaccine?

 

Mask up, socially distance yourself, keep good hygiene and avoid crowded places until you can get jabbed. Prevention is far more effective than cure. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be to be almost denied a vaccine, but you have my best wishes and hopes that it happens sooner rather than later. 

[mtls2005]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

So what do you recommend for someone who's at least 3 months away from getting a vaccine? 

No one is stopping you from self-medicating.

 

<Why do so many get hysterical on this point? And call out all sorts straw-men like big pharma, governments, men-in-black preventing them from getting the medicine they think will solve all their problems? Why do so many search out the nether regions of the interwebs to support their beliefs? I'm guessing that, deep down, they have doubts so look for others to reinforce their belief. If you believe then just go buy it.>

 

 

However, here in Thailand and AFAIK, if you are admitted to a hospital for COVID, ivermectin will not be used even if you ask for it. (unless there is a study, and I think there is one planned for Thailand somewhere, and you agree to participate in the study).

 

I think Thailand is a bit desperate for a treatment silver bullet. Favripiravir, their go-to is worthless and expensive and available from Japan (yes, Thailand is looking to steal the IP and make it here). Think they're hoping dexamethasone might "work", so are researching that now, as well as ivermectin.

 

Yes, I will stipulate that ivermectin is widely available here OTC, and in pet supply stores.

 

And that ivermectineers are passionate, and desperate for a solution to allay their fear.

 

 

It would help here if the ivermectineer can first identify if they are recommending it for a prophylaxes, treatment, both, or parasites.

 

Proponents seem to conflate these randomly in support of an odd argument point.

 

 

 

 

 

[rabas]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Why do a few constantly discourage others from getting vaccines, some up to 90% effective at preventing a disease that has killed an estimated 7 plus million, and can cause long term brain fog and other neurological damage in up to 25% of cases including young and people with mild symptoms?

 

That makes less sense than worrying about a recent bat crossover/created disease. Yesterdays discovery was that SARS-2 can infect your salivary glands.

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Why do a few constantly discourage others from getting vaccines, some up to 90% effective at preventing a disease that has killed an estimated 7 plus million

Are those vaccines available in Thailand (to foreigners)?

Just asking, not discouraging you from having one.

Edited July 8, 2021 by BritManToo

[vandeventer]

6 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

If this does not get them moving forward with provincial lockdowns and no travel, I do not know what to say.  I feel bad for those who have traveled to the sandbox for a vacation which could have included travel elsewhere in Thailand, but why travel internationally especially to a country where the cases are continuing to stack up daily as well as deaths and the populace is barely even vaccinated.

 

My heart goes out to the families of those who have lost a loved one, and this government needs to accept full responsibility instead of passing the buck as they have created the fiasco we are now seeing by their poor attempt at handling this, but then so have other countries, yet we are just now entering the dark days.

For the live of me, why don't they sell this here??? Ivermectin  for humans not animals. And if you find a place that does please let us know.

 

[impulse]

10 hours ago, rabas said:

Why do a few constantly discourage others from getting vaccines, some up to 90% effective at preventing a disease that has killed an estimated 7 plus million, and can cause long term brain fog and other neurological damage in up to 25% of cases including young and people with mild symptoms?

 

That makes less sense than worrying about a recent bat crossover/created disease. Yesterdays discovery was that SARS-2 can infect your salivary glands.

How many women who've had their vaccines have then gotten pregnant, taken their pregnancy to full term, and raised their kids to an age where they can confirm no learning disabilities?   I'm not anti-vax, and for me at my age it was an easy decision.  But not one that I would force on anyone of child bearing age.  There just isn't enough data.  And there won't be for years.  But there's 40 years of data that says Ivermectin is safe...  And some studies that say it's effective.  

 

And I would add...  You can get Ivermectin in Thailand.  Can you get a vaccine?

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by impulse

[rabas]

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

How many women who've had their vaccines have then gotten pregnant, taken their pregnancy to full term, and raised their kids to an age where the can confirm no learning disabilities?   I'm not anti-vax, and for me at my age it was an easy decision.  But not one that I would force on anyone of child bearing age.  There just isn't enough data.  And there won't be for years.  But there's 40 years of data that says Ivermectin is safe...  And some studies that say it's effective.  

 

If you read carefully, the post I responded to was not about Ivermectin nor was my reply.

 

If you've read some of my other posts, I have said I'm on the fence with Ivermectin, I even have some, and I would like it to work.  But my cold, hard as steel scientific mind has not seen reasonable proof that it works, at least by itself...   Have you read any of the studies?

[Scott]

Conspiracy and troll posts and replies removed.

 

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, rabas said:

If you read carefully, the post I responded to was not about Ivermectin nor was my reply.

 

If you've read some of my other posts, I have said I'm on the fence with Ivermectin, I even have some, and I would like it to work.  But my cold, hard as steel scientific mind has not seen reasonable proof that it works, at least by itself...   Have you read any of the studies?

I'm not qualified to understand the studies that I have read, so I settle for analysis of meta studies on IVM and HCQ.  I agree.  It's not 100%.  But if I couldn't get a jab, I'd keep some in the medicine cabinet, especially in Thailand.  If there's a new wave of Covid cases, hospital care may not be an option if all the ICU beds are filled up.  And even if I could get a jab, I hear there's now an Epsilon variant...

 

And I anxiously await the studies that show the long term effects of the various vaccines on unborn children and their development.  Maybe in 3-4 years.

[rabas]

23 minutes ago, impulse said:

I'm not qualified to understand the studies that I have read, so I settle for analysis of meta studies on IVM and HCQ.  I agree.  It's not 100%.  But if I couldn't get a jab, I'd keep some in the medicine cabinet, especially in Thailand.  If there's a new wave of Covid cases, hospital care may not be an option if all the ICU beds are filled up.  And even if I could get a jab, I hear there's now an Epsilon variant...

 

And I anxiously await the studies that show the long term effects of the various vaccines on unborn children and their development.  Maybe in 3-4 years.

Perfectly reasonable point of view.

 

"If there's a new wave of Covid cases, hospital care may not be an option..." 

That's also why I have some.

 

Speaking of filling hospitals, I just noticed they are building a new field hospital across from Immigration Chaengwatthana near me. It wasn't there earlier today.

 

[Credo]

50 minutes ago, impulse said:

I'm not qualified to understand the studies that I have read, so I settle for analysis of meta studies on IVM and HCQ.  I agree.  It's not 100%.  But if I couldn't get a jab, I'd keep some in the medicine cabinet, especially in Thailand.  If there's a new wave of Covid cases, hospital care may not be an option if all the ICU beds are filled up.  And even if I could get a jab, I hear there's now an Epsilon variant...

 

And I anxiously await the studies that show the long term effects of the various vaccines on unborn children and their development.  Maybe in 3-4 years.

I think where people get in trouble is by thinking some medication is effective in preventing viral infections.   They generally aren't.  If you catch the flu, the antiviral Tamiflu will cut down on the time you are ill and symptoms, but it won't prevent it.   If you have HIV, antivirals will keep the virus in check, but it will never eliminate it.   

 

So, if you are at high risk of problems, I'd tend not to rely on Ivermectin.  There are drugs and therapies that are proven to be effective.   

As an aside, I know in my home area, there are a lot of anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers.  A former neighbor, in his early 50's, in reasonably good health was taking HCQ as a preventative (yes, there are Dr.'s who will prescribe it).  He caught Covid and died a miserable death on a by-pass machine.   The only good was that a whole lot of people who knew him put masks on and got vaccinated.   

 

[NemoH]

They should start using ivermectin like Singaporeans Japan India 

[Mises]

1 minute ago, NemoH said:

They should start using ivermectin like Singaporeans Japan India 

In theory you can buy ivermectin from any pharmacist here but you try.

[Rimmer]

Off topic post removed

[DeepSea]

On 7/7/2021 at 6:59 PM, partington said:

If you think a non-peer reviewed, anonymous, that is the authors don't actually dare to reveal who they are, (are they plumbers, geographers, experts in data analysis ?) screed on a commercial .com site is "transparent", then you have a rather elastic definition of this term.

 

 

I don't know if you took the time to actually look at any of this data, but let me give you an example.

 

If you open the linked document, then search for 'Ahmed (DB RCT)' (listed in the first chart, below the summary in Blue at the start of the document). Mouse over the name and click on the hyperlink, which will take you to this document. The header on this document is described as follows:

 

Ahmed et al., International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191 (Peer Reviewed)
A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness

 

It cites the name of the publication, a reference number and a brief description of the study, some of which are pre-prints, others are peer reviewed. Below that is a hyperlink to the SOURCE, this is where you will find the names of those responsible for each study and in many cases the name of the medical institution they are affiliated with. From what I can see this source material is available for all of the studies provided, not exactly anonymous as you suggest... They may work as plumbers in their spare time, perhaps you can do a little more research and find out?

Edited July 13, 2021 by DeepSea

[partington]

23 hours ago, DeepSea said:

I don't know if you took the time to actually look at any of this data, but let me give you an example.

 

If you open the linked document, then search for 'Ahmed (DB RCT)' (listed in the first chart, below the summary in Blue at the start of the document). Mouse over the name and click on the hyperlink, which will take you to this document. The header on this document is described as follows:

 

Ahmed et al., International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191 (Peer Reviewed)
A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness

 

It cites the name of the publication, a reference number and a brief description of the study, some of which are pre-prints, others are peer reviewed. Below that is a hyperlink to the SOURCE, this is where you will find the names of those responsible for each study and in many cases the name of the medical institution they are affiliated with. From what I can see this source material is available for all of the studies provided, not exactly anonymous as you suggest... They may work as plumbers in their spare time, perhaps you can do a little more research and find out?

I was very obviously referring to the authors of the meta-analysis  as being anonymous of course, not the authors of the papers which are used within the meta-analysis, and which are public domain. Let me emphasise: science is about open and free and attributable exchange of ideas. Authors of papers who do not want to reveal who they are are not trustworthy

 

The meta-analysis itself is a huge squid ink splurge of all the data, coupled with sensationalist and statistically invalid statements like

 

"As above, the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 62 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 652 billion (p = 0.0000000000015)."

 

that no serious scientist would write.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by partington

[metisdead]

Posts with links to conspiracy-pseudoscience sites have been removed. 

[samtam]

On 7/8/2021 at 4:02 AM, DJBenz said:

Mask up, socially distance yourself, keep good hygiene and avoid crowded places until you can get jabbed. Prevention is far more effective than cure. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be to be almost denied a vaccine, but you have my best wishes and hopes that it happens sooner rather than later. 

Thoughts and prayers.

[partington]

Just as a heads up , for those unaware- the major paper with amazingly positive results for ivermectin  that tips most meta-analyses towards positivity has been shown to be fabricated, and withdrawn "for ethical reasons".

 

 The Elgazzar study from Benha University Egypt supposedly found that patients with Covid-19 treated with ivermectin showed “a substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in ivermectin treated groups” by 90%.

 

Among the discrepancies discovered in this paper:

 

1. Introduction copied from websites and press releases, but altered individual words using synonyms to try to avoid detection.

 

2. Contradictory claims within the paper itself, e.g. patients said to be aged 18-80 but 3 patients in data set were under 18; study claimed to be done between 8th June and 20th September 2020, but most of the patients who died were admitted and died before 8th June 2020; paper says there were 4 deaths in mild Covid patients treated with standard treatment compared to 0 deaths in ivermectin group - the raw data gives 0 deaths for both groups; paper says there were 2 deaths in severe Covid patients treated with ivermectin  the raw data shows there were 4 deaths.

 

3. Fabricated data: about 79 of the patient records were obvious near-identical copies of other records, but clear evidence of fraud shown by deliberate minor changes in some of the details, so data simply repeated to try to falsely bump up number of patients in the trial.

 

This is reported in the Guardian July 16th 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

 

Here's an extract giving the  opinion of Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz:

 

"Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”. This was concerning because two meta-analyses of ivermectin for treating Covid-19 had included the Elgazzar study in the results. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to determine what the overall scientific literature has found about a treatment or intervention.

 

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.

 

“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

 

The discover of the fraud, a med student (!) said  

"Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign. That this all happened amid an ongoing global health crisis of epic proportions is all the more terrifying."

Edited July 19, 2021 by partington

[IraqRon]

On 6/23/2021 at 6:41 PM, xylophone said:

Be careful about this, because I read about a case of a guy who took the ivermectin that was prescribed for his dog, however he was found the next day with a broken neck, apparently as a result of trying to lick his balls!

at my age they hang so low that it would not result in any neck injury at all...

[Clydesdale]

13 minutes ago, ebean001 said:

the vaccine is a great break through. I wish we had a great break through on treatment for those infected. 

 

No breakthrough required. Apparently the long available and relatively cheap Ivermectin is an effective treatment. 

[lks7689]

33 minutes ago, Clydesdale said:

No breakthrough required. Apparently the long available and relatively cheap Ivermectin is an effective treatment. 

Ivermectin was only recently singled out yesterday by both WHO and CDC as a no go due to high risk of poisoning and lack of sufficient data from those optimistic "research". 

[Clydesdale]

46 minutes ago, lks7689 said:

Ivermectin was only recently singled out yesterday by both WHO and CDC as a no go due to high risk of poisoning and lack of sufficient data from those optimistic "research". 

However there are real cases of Ivermectin having been taken and working as a remedy.