Ivermectin

[Harry Om]

42 minutes ago, xylophone said:

You are being very selective and mixing things up to suit your case, because research does show that ivermectin can be dangerous, and even if it's discoverer has been awarded the Nobel prize, it wasn't awarded because of the fact it was efficacious against Covid!

 

I will listen to the virologists and specialists/doctors worldwide who have basically said that there is no evidence whatsoever that ivermectin is useful against Covid, and even when one research paper put forward results that showed it could, this research paper was shown to be totally flawed.

 

Sure, it can be used to treat worms and parasites, but no evidence whatsoever that it is useful in treating Covid.

 

And as for being a dangerous drug, well there is no specific dosing regimen offered for ivermectin against Covid, so people are free to do what they want with it and in that case, it can be dangerous.

 

I will listen to the experts and I don't consider somebody on a forum here to be one of those, although I will say that Partington, a long-time poster, has a lot of knowledge in this area because it is his field of expertise.

 

AGAIN..........

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death. 

 

That wouldn’t be a surprise to the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration or, indeed, Merck, a manufacturer of ivermectin. The drug company says there is “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.”

I don't care what you do re Ivermectin. ????

 

You initially responded to my post with clear misinformation, which i corrected. If I have made a mistake in my interpretation of those studies, I'm sure I'll be corrected, but hopefully by someone who read and understands the studies.

 

Have a nice night, thanks for the chat.

[xylophone]

14 hours ago, Harry Om said:

I don't care what you do re Ivermectin. ????

 

You initially responded to my post with clear misinformation, which i corrected. If I have made a mistake in my interpretation of those studies, I'm sure I'll be corrected, but hopefully by someone who read and understands the studies.

 

Have a nice night, thanks for the chat.

You did post a link to the FLCCC Alliance information, whose information has also been dismissed as "suspect" at best.

 

What's Behind the Ivermectin-for-COVID Buzz?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552   

 

And I responded to your post with links and quoted from those links, but if you believe what has so far been unproven "science" with more than enough evidence to show that the papers published on the trials/results are faulty, with one paper being withdrawn completely, then carry on.

 

[sucit]

They should have it at better pharmacies, usually the ones very close to hospitals. 

[Harry Om]

51 minutes ago, xylophone said:

You did post a link to the FLCCC Alliance information, whose information has also been dismissed as "suspect" at best.

 

What's Behind the Ivermectin-for-COVID Buzz?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552   

 

And I responded to your post with links and quoted from those links, but if you believe what has so far been unproven "science" with more than enough evidence to show that the papers published on the trials/results are faulty, with one paper being withdrawn completely, then carry on.

 

So the essence of your medpage link is "these bad boys have the audacity to try and save their patients without waiting for an authority figure to give them approval".

 

As it says in that article, one of the Doctors had to resign from one position because he was using a non-approved treatment for Covid. For anyone that knows, that non-approved  (at the time) treatment he was using was steroids, which is now accepted worldwide as a standard treatment.

 

I think much of the concern in forums like these is philosophical. Those that need an authority figure to give them approval are mortified that others may be making decisions for themselves.

 

As for your assertion re Ivermectin studies, once again, you're just using what the media (authority figure) tells you rather than looking for yourself.

 

There are numerous (recent and older) studies that are highly suggestive that Ivermectin is useful both as a prophylactic and treatment, but as they are not large studies they are all disregarded. Many are not from Western countries, and some people seem to automatically disregard them for this reason. If people want, I can post links to these actual studies (not the media dumbed down interpretation) and people can read and decide for themselves, but considering this thread was actually started as a request just to find Ivermectin, that might be overkill.

 

Hopefully the upcoming Oxford trial is well structured and definitive one way or the other, but until then IMO it is a no brainer for the unvaccinated to consider Ivermectin, especially seeing the high safety profile, and infrequent suggested regimen.

 

So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[xylophone]

22 minutes ago, Harry Om said:

So the essence of your medpage link is "these bad boys have the audacity to try and save their patients without waiting for an authority figure to give them approval".

 

As it says in that article, one of the Doctors had to resign from one position because he was using a non-approved treatment for Covid. For anyone that knows, that non-approved  (at the time) treatment he was using was steroids, which is now accepted worldwide as a standard treatment.

 

I think much of the concern in forums like these is philosophical. Those that need an authority figure to give them approval are mortified that others may be making decisions for themselves.

 

As for your assertion re Ivermectin studies, once again, you're just using what the media (authority figure) tells you rather than looking for yourself.

 

There are numerous (recent and older) studies that are highly suggestive that Ivermectin is useful both as a prophylactic and treatment, but as they are not large studies they are all disregarded. Many are not from Western countries, and some people seem to automatically disregard them for this reason. If people want, I can post links to these actual studies (not the media dumbed down interpretation) and people can read and decide for themselves, but considering this thread was actually started as a request just to find Ivermectin, that might be overkill.

 

Hopefully the upcoming Oxford trial is well structured and definitive one way or the other, but until then IMO it is a no brainer for the unvaccinated to consider Ivermectin, especially seeing the high safety profile, and infrequent suggested regimen.

 

So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What I am saying is that I choose to believe the vast majority of virologists, specialists, professors and others in the medical profession who have studied in this field, over and above a few doctors championing a totally untried and unproven remedy.

 

That's my take on it, and I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
 

[lexilis]

This article from The Guardian is worth reading carefully:

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

 

[orang37]

On 7/24/2021 at 11:14 AM, fearless1 said:

Partington,

 

100's of millions of people are taking doses of ivermectin right now that are greater and more frequent than what I outlined. This is happening all over in different areas of India, South America, etc. There have been zero reports of side effects and in every area it has been administered cases of covid have plummeted. I have looked at the graphs of multitude of countries and areas where it has been administered and it is remarkable.

Evidence ? Sources ?

[ArcticFox]

On 7/23/2021 at 6:19 PM, suzannegoh said:

That's good feedback.  How much Vit D and Zinc should be taken in addition Ivermectin, and how many of the 5mg Ivermectin pills do you take per day?

 

Also, you say no side effects, which is great, but I was wondering if it's safe to drink alcohol when taking it.  I'm sure that it's not recommended to do that, but have you?

Search online "I-MASK+ Prevention & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19"

 

[ArcticFox]

On 7/24/2021 at 12:13 PM, xylophone said:

Perhaps try this...........

Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble

I've noticed then when anyone questions any part of the established covid narrative, even if they provide statistics and studies that are verifiable - instead of providing intelligent counter arguments (in this case those arguing that Ivermectin protocols are a danger but supply no links, data, or science to back up their claim) they instead go immediately to personal ridicule (trolling) and ad-hominem attacks.  Very sad.  If you have counter evidence to a claim, provide that evidence.  But Lord, let's keep this civil?

So for those who believe Ivermectin is akin to "Eye of newt and toe of frog" here is the latest peer-reviewed study of the efficacy of Ivermectin that has just been published this month (July 2021):

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines from the American Journal of Therapeutics: July/August 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 4 - p e434-e460
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx


 

Edited August 1, 2021 by ArcticFox

[ArcticFox]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:02 AM, orang37 said:

Evidence ? Sources ?

Peer-reviewed study of the efficacy of Ivermectin published in the American Journal of Therapeutics: July/August 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 4

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

[sanuk711]

.This site was on MIMS......you are supposed to be in the medical professional  to access the site--- but they do not always do a good check.

I joined it a few years back as an Ambo (which I am not) Infectious disease site

 

 

https://specialty.mims.com/topic/ivermectin-useful-for-treating-mild-covid-19 

Ivermectin useful for treating mild COVID-19

11 Feb 2021

 

 

A 5-day course of the Food and Drug Administration-approved antiparasitic agent ivermectin appears safe and effective in the treatment of adult patients with early-onset mild COVID-19, a study has reported.

The study randomized 72 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients (mean age, 42 years; 54 percent female) to one of the following treatment courses: oral ivermectin alone (12 mg once daily for 5 days; n=24), oral ivermectin (12 mg single dose) in combination with doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg every 12 hours for the next 4 days; n=24), and a placebo (n=24).

Fever, cough, and sore throat were the most common symptoms observed, and the proportion of patients .

Edited August 1, 2021 by sanuk711

[xylophone]

57 minutes ago, ArcticFox said:

I've noticed then when anyone questions any part of the established covid narrative, even if they provide statistics and studies that are verifiable - instead of providing intelligent counter arguments (in this case those arguing that Ivermectin protocols are a danger but supply no links, data, or science to back up their claim) they instead go immediately to personal ridicule (trolling) and ad-hominem attacks.  Very sad.  If you have counter evidence to a claim, provide that evidence.  But Lord, let's keep this civil?

So for those who believe Ivermectin is akin to "Eye of newt and toe of frog" here is the latest peer-reviewed study of the efficacy of Ivermectin that has just been published this month (July 2021):
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines from the American Journal of Therapeutics: July/August 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 4 - p e434-e460
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx


 

The problem is that there are still conflicting reports out there, with just as many saying that there is no evidence to suggest that ivermectin should be used for Covid treatment and even scientists disagreeing with each other.

 

And the link you quote from American therapeutics also contains some "get out" clauses, such as: –

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

One may wish to note that the recently discredited paper on ivermectin and Covid was pulled because it contained unsubstantiated claims and other information about ivermectin, AND this paper by the FLCCC, was posted on the American Therapeutics website (your link)– – doesn't say a lot for the integrity of the American Therapeutics!

And this makes interesting reading if you would like to click on the link, and I will just copy a couple of paras from it......

The most robust summary of the evidence for ivermectin in COVID-19, published in June, goes one step further. It found available evidence showed ivermectin didn’t work.

This review carefully examined ten higher-quality (randomised-controlled) clinical trials, which involved more than 1,100 patients with COVID-19 being treated with ivermectin.

The researchers excluded many of the low-quality (observational) studies some commentators have used to support ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. This was because observational studies cannot control other clinical factors that might influence how people respond to COVID-19, such as other treatments and supportive care.

This major review concluded ivermectin did not reduce death from any cause, the length of stay in hospital or people’s ability to clear the virus. The review also said ivermectin was safe but “not a viable option” to treat Covid 19.

https://theconversation.com/a-major-ivermectin-study-has-been-withdrawn-so-what-now-for-the-controversial-drug-164627     

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by xylophone

[ArcticFox]

23 minutes ago, xylophone said:

The problem is that there are still conflicting reports out there, with just as many saying that there is no evidence to suggest that ivermectin should be used for Covid treatment and even scientists disagreeing with each other.

 

And the link you quote from American therapeutics also contains some "get out" clauses, such as: –

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

One may wish to note that the recently discredited paper on ivermectin and Covid was pulled because it contained unsubstantiated claims and other information about ivermectin, AND this paper by the FLCCC, was posted on the American Therapeutics website (your link)– – doesn't say a lot for the integrity of the American Therapeutics!

And this makes interesting reading if you would like to click on the link, and I will just copy a couple of paras from it......

The most robust summary of the evidence for ivermectin in COVID-19, published in June, goes one step further. It found available evidence showed ivermectin didn’t work.

This review carefully examined ten higher-quality (randomised-controlled) clinical trials, which involved more than 1,100 patients with COVID-19 being treated with ivermectin.

The researchers excluded many of the low-quality (observational) studies some commentators have used to support ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. This was because observational studies cannot control other clinical factors that might influence how people respond to COVID-19, such as other treatments and supportive care.

This major review concluded ivermectin did not reduce death from any cause, the length of stay in hospital or people’s ability to clear the virus. The review also said ivermectin was safe but “not a viable option” to treat Covid 19.

https://theconversation.com/a-major-ivermectin-study-has-been-withdrawn-so-what-now-for-the-controversial-drug-164627     

 

This is what this really comes down to.  If you contract Covid what's your personal game-plan.

Those who only believe main-stream, establishment authority figures will go with the newest, most expensive treatments that may or may not save your life or prevent long-haul covid symptoms.

Those who distrust the profit motives of large pharmaceutical companies and who can comprehend the massive sums of money that facilitate legislative, media, and regulatory capture and who are open to reading observational studies and who have serious questions about the new practice of banning the voices of preeminent scientific voices who have views counter to the NIH, WHO, and CDC narratives - people like myself - will use the new protocols using inexpensive repurposed drugs that have shown promise in front-line clinical observational studies and anecdotal evidence in the treatment of covid.  These studies are primarily in poor countries where even oxygen is unavailable no less drugs that are completely beyond the affordability of average citizens, or ventilators, or first-world hospital conditions.  These studies happen out of innovation.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  These treatments that may or may not save your life or prevent long-haul covid symptoms.  However, the evidence is compelling enough to me personally to take my chances with repurposed drug protocols.

Life is a krap-shoot, xylophone.  You roll the die and take your chances.

Those who are pro-establishment and pro-authority - then best of luck with Remdesivir, other extremely expensive drug protocols, and ventilators.
Those who are pro-innovation and question both establishment and authority - best of luck with Ivermectin and other repurposed drug protocols. 

It comes down to personal choice although pro-authority proponents tend not to like personal choice.  The freedom of personal choice is anathema to those who embrace authoritarianism.  If you chose a course that is counter-establishment - you will be ridiculed and attacked.  That's just the nature of the world today.  New Normal.

For those who think like I do, you tune out the ridicule and steer your own course.  Ocean explorers of old were ridiculed by those who accepted the established wisdom and knew that the oceans ended in a waterfall at the ends of the world and beyond that "Thar be dragons."  Only fools failed to accept that Truth!

Believe what you need to believe.  I'll do the same.  I'll respect your decision.  And you?

[canthai55]

31 minutes ago, ArcticFox said:

This is what this really comes down to.  If you contract Covid what's your personal game-plan.

Those who only believe main-stream, establishment authority figures will go with the newest, most expensive treatments that may or may not save your life or prevent long-haul covid symptoms.

Those who distrust the profit motives of large pharmaceutical companies and who can comprehend the massive sums of money that facilitate legislative, media, and regulatory capture and who are open to reading observational studies and who have serious questions about the new practice of banning the voices of preeminent scientific voices who have views counter to the NIH, WHO, and CDC narratives - people like myself - will use the new protocols using inexpensive repurposed drugs that have shown promise in front-line clinical observational studies and anecdotal evidence in the treatment of covid.  These studies are primarily in poor countries where even oxygen is unavailable no less drugs that are completely beyond the affordability of average citizens, or ventilators, or first-world hospital conditions.  These studies happen out of innovation.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  These treatments that may or may not save your life or prevent long-haul covid symptoms.  However, the evidence is compelling enough to me personally to take my chances with repurposed drug protocols.

Life is a krap-shoot, xylophone.  You roll the die and take your chances.

Those who are pro-establishment and pro-authority - then best of luck with Remdesivir, other extremely expensive drug protocols, and ventilators.
Those who are pro-innovation and question both establishment and authority - best of luck with Ivermectin and other repurposed drug protocols. 

It comes down to personal choice although pro-authority proponents tend not to like personal choice.  The freedom of personal choice is anathema to those who embrace authoritarianism.  If you chose a course that is counter-establishment - you will be ridiculed and attacked.  That's just the nature of the world today.  New Normal.

For those who think like I do, you tune out the ridicule and steer your own course.  Ocean explorers of old were ridiculed by those who accepted the established wisdom and knew that the oceans ended in a waterfall at the ends of the world and beyond that "Thar be dragons."  Only fools failed to accept that Truth!

Believe what you need to believe.  I'll do the same.  I'll respect your decision.  And you?

Well said

[gamb00ler]

4 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

This is what this really comes down to.  If you contract Covid what's your personal game-plan.

snip....snip....snip

For those who think like I do, you tune out the ridicule and steer your own course.  Ocean explorers of old were ridiculed by those who accepted the established wisdom and knew that the oceans ended in a waterfall at the ends of the world and beyond that "Thar be dragons."  Only fools failed to accept that Truth!

Believe what you need to believe.  I'll do the same.  I'll respect your decision.  And you?

Just remember..... there's probably a lot more of those who steered their "own course" and just disappeared than those that rewrote science.  The odds are far worse odds than those for craps.

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

Believe what you need to believe.  I'll do the same.  I'll respect your decision.  And you?

 

4 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

This is what this really comes down to.  If you contract Covid what's your personal game-plan.

Those who only believe main-stream, establishment authority figures will go with the newest, most expensive treatments that may or may not save your life or prevent long-haul covid symptoms.

Those who distrust the profit motives of large pharmaceutical companies and who can comprehend the massive sums of money that facilitate legislative, media, and regulatory capture and who are open to reading observational studies and who have serious questions about the new practice of banning the voices of preeminent scientific voices who have views counter to the NIH, WHO, and CDC narratives - people like myself - will use the new protocols using inexpensive repurposed drugs that have shown promise in front-line clinical observational studies and anecdotal evidence in the treatment of covid.  These studies are primarily in poor countries where even oxygen is unavailable no less drugs that are completely beyond the affordability of average citizens, or ventilators, or first-world hospital conditions.  These studies happen out of innovation.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  These treatments that may or may not save your life or prevent long-haul covid symptoms.  However, the evidence is compelling enough to me personally to take my chances with repurposed drug protocols.

Life is a krap-shoot, xylophone.  You roll the die and take your chances.

Those who are pro-establishment and pro-authority - then best of luck with Remdesivir, other extremely expensive drug protocols, and ventilators.
Those who are pro-innovation and question both establishment and authority - best of luck with Ivermectin and other repurposed drug protocols. 

It comes down to personal choice although pro-authority proponents tend not to like personal choice.  The freedom of personal choice is anathema to those who embrace authoritarianism.  If you chose a course that is counter-establishment - you will be ridiculed and attacked.  That's just the nature of the world today.  New Normal.

For those who think like I do, you tune out the ridicule and steer your own course.  Ocean explorers of old were ridiculed by those who accepted the established wisdom and knew that the oceans ended in a waterfall at the ends of the world and beyond that "Thar be dragons."  Only fools failed to accept that Truth!

Believe what you need to believe.  I'll do the same.  I'll respect your decision.  And you?

Yes, I'll respect my decision!

 

I'm not sure that paying 3000 baht is an expensive treatment, well it certainly is not in my book, and I will stay with the medical specialists, hundreds of thousands of whom have been trained around the world in different establishments, teaching hospitals and universities and who form their own opinions based on training and what they see and know.

 

There are those out there who are anti large pharmaceutical companies, and although a few of these pharmaceutical companies do slip up from time to time, in the main they have to be trusted. 

 

Following on from that, and the many, many doctors and specialists who train on various aspects of the medical profession (my son and ex-wife included) one has to trust them to make the right decisions with regards to the right drugs and see through any "shonky" practices.

 

I also have several friends who are doctors back in NZ, as well as a couple of very good friends who work in the research department of a major drug company, and I trust them, and I cannot for the life of me get my head around those people who consistently say that there is a conspiracy out there with regard to this drug, or that drug, because all of these medical folk are able to make up their own minds, and it would be preposterous to think that at the flick of a switch, they all lineup and prescribe/make a drug that is not in the best interests of the human race.

 

It would surprise many people to know how much drug companies spend on researching and testing various drugs before they get to market, and a great many of them never do, so that is millions or billions of dollars wasted.

 

In answer to your question about my "personal gameplan", well it is to wear a mask, stay away from crowded places don't interact too closely with other folk, and if I should get Covid 19, hope that the vaccines have done their job, and of course fight it off.

 

I've worked in many countries around the world, including some of the poorest, dirtiest and disease ridden, especially in Africa, and I've had many vaccinations against various diseases, and I've managed to pull through, so hopefully I will do likewise with this pandemic..........and of course keep drinking red wine!

[ArcticFox]

25 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Yes, I'll respect my decision!

I expected nothing other then hubris.  I wasn't disappointed.

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by ArcticFox

[xylophone]

2 minutes ago, ArcticFox said:

I expected nothing different.  Hubris.  Ignis aurum probat.

I expected nothing different from you either, and whereas I respect the medical profession and the doctors, nurses and frontline staff in what they're trying to do, all you can do is to knock them.

 

In your case, "ignorantia sit beatitudo", so keep on believing that an anti-worm pill will save the world – – yeah right!
 

[rumak]

On 7/24/2021 at 7:25 AM, canthai55 said:

When I was undergoing treatment for Hep-C I was on two different pills once a day.

One of them cost the Gov't $1000 each

An entire course of treatment, with generic pills manufactured in India, was US $200. But you could not buy them in N. America - Hmmm I wonder why ?

555

correct.   the one a day pill , usually taken for 3 months, in the US will cost close to 100 thousand dollars.

And hep c  positive people are often turned down by their insurance companies .  It is one big mafia.....

 

Where is mr gates on this disease ?    the "foundation" could easily eradicate hep c if it pleased them

[rumak]

5 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

Those who distrust the profit motives of large pharmaceutical companies and who can comprehend the massive sums of money that facilitate legislative, media, and regulatory capture and who are open to reading observational studies and who have serious questions about the new practice of banning the voices of preeminent scientific voices who have views counter to the NIH, WHO, and CDC narratives

you get it.    unfortunately the VAST majority who even attempt to think critically about what you just wrote will never go any further.       

just want to let you know that one other guy here knows what you are saying.   

 

[partington]

7 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

Peer-reviewed study of the efficacy of Ivermectin published in the American Journal of Therapeutics: July/August 2021 - Volume 28 - Issue 4

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

This meta analysis is untrustworthy and out of date as it actually contains, and is strongly skewed by, the faked data paper by Elgazzar et al, which has been withdrawn because the data was made up. Obviously this meta analysis will have to be re-done  by the authors because it includes known and withdrawn false data, and its conclusions do not count. This is simply unarguable.

 

The Elgazzar  paper showed so such a statistically  strong positive effect for ivermectin (because it was faked) that its inclusion alone in meta-analyses can distort the results  in favour of a positive effect where none exists- especially if the data, as in this meta analysis -is termed low or moderate certainty evidence.  

 

Here is the statement by an epidemiologist reported in the Guardian UK on 16th July this year after the Elgazzar paper was revealed to be false.

 

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

 

"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.”

 

 

I find it really psychologically interesting that people choose to believe, with no evidence at all, and no basis in fact that "big pharma" are somehow suppressing ivermectin use, and yet when it is actually reported with evidence and withdrawal of studies that University research groups have literally been found to be making up data to falsely show ivermectin is effective, this is ignored!

Edited August 1, 2021 by partington

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

I expected nothing other then hubris.  I wasn't disappointed.

 

 

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

2 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

I expected nothing different.  Hubris.  Ignis aurum probat.

I expected nothing different from you either, and whereas I respect the medical profession and the doctors, nurses and frontline staff in what they're trying to do, all you can do is to knock them.

 

In your case, "ignorantia sit beatitudo", so keep on believing that an anti-worm pill will save the world – – yeah right!

This is interesting, from the company which makes Ivermectin....................

 

Interestingly enough even the drugs’ manufacturer doesn’t recommend it be used to treat Covid 19…….

 

The drug’s manufacturer, pharma giant MSD, also warned that its analysis of ivermectin 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 most studies.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/ivermectin-covid-19-antiparasitic-political/

 

[ArcticFox]

Ivermectin.  Disparaged as "a worm medicine." 

When covid hit in 2020, unbiased scientists and doctors started searching for ways to treat it.  "Novel Coronavirus" says it all.  And novel symptomology as well.  Doctors were at their wits end as to what it was and how to treat it.  Inquiring minds on the front lines looked for answers.  Unbiased scientific minds in academia looked for correlations.  "But correlation isn't causation!", the critics cry.  But they do provide signals for further and deeper scientific investigation. 
One of the correlations was that in the global population, the incidences of covid were observed to be lower in certain demographics.  True science asks "why?"  One of those demographics was Africa where a parasite caused "River Blindness" was treated with Ivermectin.  In that population it was observed that there were less incidences of covid.  That's where the connection between Ivermectin and decreased incidences and severity of covid were observed among others. 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33259913/
From there front line doctors in poor, third-world countries began observational studies. Individual studies can be criticized for bias, but the metadata studies establishes a significant signal withing those studies: the reduction of both cases and severity of covid if treated early with Ivermectin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Ivermectin is an inexpensive, widely and safely used for parasitic conditions.   So why is there such a effort to demonize both the drug and the scientists studying the drug's efficacy against SARS-coV-2 espcially considering the positive results of most of the studies?
Money <period>
There is no money in Ivermectin.  There is not money in repurposing existing, safe drugs.  There is only money is creating novel, patented, and extremely expensive new drugs
There is huge money in novel treatments like Remdesivir that costs of between $3000 to $4500 per course of treatment.  A drug like Ivermectin costs about between $15 to $30 per course of treatment. 
There is no money to be made in Ivermectin.  

Then if it works as both a prophylaxis (preventative) as well as a treatment, then it poses competition for the vaccines as well. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

The vaccine industry is posed to rake in hundreds of billions of dollars, if not in the trillions per year.  This for a vaccine that does not provide full immunity like a measles, or mumps, or smallpox vaccination.  And it has side-effects that are being discounted by those with the most to gain.
The problem is conflicts of interests.  There is huge amounts of money to be made if Covid-19 never goes away.  It's a cash cow.  What sane but greedy corporations would want to kill The Cash Cow of the Century?  Covid testing - now a multi-billion dollar industry.  Covid vaccinations - now a multi-billion dollar industry.  Covid hospitalization - now a multi-billion dollar industry.  
And unlimited power for government power-junkies who world-wide have dispensed with constitutional and democratic governance and have replaced it with totalitarian, dictatorial rule - under emergency authorization of course. 

There will be more and more clinical studies conducted on Ivermectin: observational, meta-data, and double-blind, randomized, placebo based.   It won't matter.  Power and profit now trumps public heath.  Scientific debate has been thrown out the window - possibly for good.   And scientific inquiry has been flushed down the toilet.
Sad prospects for our children and grand-children.

[canthai55]

^^^ Excellent post

[beammeup]

So now that we have had to wade through all the BS of the people how love to hear themselves talk, do we know where to find Ivermectin?

[NotEinstein]

4 hours ago, beammeup said:

So now that we have had to wade through all the BS of the people how love to hear themselves talk, do we know where to find Ivermectin?

Take your pick:

 

https://www.lazada.co.th/catalog/?q=Ivermectin&_keyori=ss&from=input&spm=a2o4m.product-not-exist-m.search.go.6190268diuwWhw

[Tony125]

On 7/24/2021 at 11:14 AM, fearless1 said:

Partington,

 

100's of millions of people are taking doses of ivermectin right now that are greater and more frequent than what I outlined. This is happening all over in different areas of India, South America, etc. There have been zero reports of side effects and in every area it has been administered cases of covid have plummeted. I have looked at the graphs of multitude of countries and areas where it has been administered and it is remarkable.

 

Social media is not my guide to anything. The scientists that recommend these protocols have nothing to gain. They are not owned and they are not profiting in any way from their research. They have found, through science, that a nobel prize winning drug has unbelievable anti-viral properties in a lab and have repurposed it in the treatment of covid. I trust uncompromised science much more than science driven by profit.

 

 

Column: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/column-major-study-ivermectin-anti-222751048.html

[suzannegoh]

34 minutes ago, Tony125 said:

Column: Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/column-major-study-ivermectin-anti-222751048.html

Surely this will settle the issue once and for all.

[tonray]

10 minutes ago, suzannegoh said:

Surely this will settle the issue once and for all.

Doubtful it will. They'll be onto the next great super cure that the 'vaccine companies' don't want us to know about...oh brother...maybe Vegemite ?

[suzannegoh]

11 hours ago, tonray said:

Doubtful it will. They'll be onto the next great super cure that the 'vaccine companies' don't want us to know about...oh brother...maybe Vegemite ?

Future president DeSantis is now pushing Regeneron as being the clear alternative to vaccines and masks.

Edited August 13, 2021 by suzannegoh