Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

People die all the time from aspirin overdose, does that mean people should stop taking it? Come on. 

But at least aspirin is proven to be effective for pain, and, as it turns out, in the case of heart patients, lifesaving. And there is solid research now for it to be extremely powerful, in the case of Covid, in both preventing infection and hospitalization, and mitigating the severity of symptoms and lessening mortality. What's more it and other over the counter painkillers are used a lot more often than Ivermectin. So the frequency of poisonings is an issue too.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen any of the Ivermectin proponents rejoicing in the good news. Another indication of cultish beliefs.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Why the need to polarize into for and against?

 

Some take Invermectin as they have heard from experts that it can save death from Covid.  Nothing cultish about that! 

No credible expert has said this drug works. Not one.

[Jeffr2]

58 minutes ago, Saanim said:

I am no true believer in anything, just amazed by the strong statements debunking studies of a medicine administered in billions over 30 years using some newspaper stories of 2 - 3 cases. (still looking for the link of the 110% jump in UP...).  Did the patients die because of IVM? Or just by Covid or by another cause as it is at the almost  5 M deaths, never by any wrong treatment or medicine? Perhaps the studies were debunked by a medical student as reported by The Guardian 2 months ago? And obviously, the doctors at Oxford Uni do not read The G. , so they just started with a large scale research inviting anybody for the trial, as it can be found on their web, surely no "dodgy" one. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial   

 

Were the 121 studies found fraudulent by FDA that has been so happy with it over 30 years?  However, what was fraudulent were few cases proven by court at Pfizer, one of them some 10 years ago having to pay a record fine over $2B.  But nobody is now concerned when Pfizer is about to come up with a new Covid-19 pill.  Similarly as Merck with their new pill "Molnupiravir".  Hopefully, the new pills will have nothing in common with the deadly IVM (also by Merck) and it will be well proven within a short time.  The problem will be only the price, unlike as at IVM.

 

 

 

     

Your confusing a trial with proven results. So far, zip evidence it works. Unless you get your news from social media or Rogan. LOL

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Saanim said:

I am no true believer in anything, just amazed by the strong statements debunking studies of a medicine administered in billions over 30 years using some newspaper stories of 2 - 3 cases. (still looking for the link of the 110% jump in UP...).  Did the patients die because of IVM? Or just by Covid or by another cause as it is at the almost  5 M deaths, never by any wrong treatment or medicine? Perhaps the studies were debunked by a medical student as reported by The Guardian 2 months ago? And obviously, the doctors at Oxford Uni do not read The G. , so they just started with a large scale research inviting anybody for the trial, as it can be found on their web, surely no "dodgy" one. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial   

 

Were the 121 studies found fraudulent by FDA that has been so happy with it over 30 years?  However, what was fraudulent were few cases proven by court at Pfizer, one of them some 10 years ago having to pay a record fine over $2B.  But nobody is now concerned when Pfizer is about to come up with a new Covid-19 pill.  Similarly as Merck with their new pill "Molnupiravir".  Hopefully, the new pills will have nothing in common with the deadly IVM (also by Merck) and it will be well proven within a short time.  The problem will be only the price, unlike as at IVM.

 

 

 

     

Yes, Ivermectin has been brilliant at treating parasitic disease. What relevance does that have to treating a viral disease?

"Were the 121 studies found fraudulent by FDA that has been so happy with it over 30 years?"

Again, what have these studies to do with Ivermectin's efficacy in treating parasitic diseases?

And while the FDA may be enchanted with Ivermectin's effectiveness against parasites', against Covid not so much

 

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

• The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
• Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. 

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

Edited October 11, 2021 by placeholder

[Jeffr2]

A virus isn't a parasite. Some seem to not understand this.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

A virus isn't a parasite. Some seem to not understand this.

Better watch out when you make a categorical statement like that. It's bound to attract someone who claims that viruses are parasites' since they live, if that's the right word, off of another living thing.  But scientifically speaking, no one refers to viruses as parasites. That term is reserved for eukaryotic organisms both single celled and multicellular. Eukaryotic organisms are those organisms  that have a nucleus enclosed in a nuclear envelope. Viruses and bacteria are not eukaryotic organisms so aren't reckoned to be parasites'.

Edited October 11, 2021 by placeholder

[Jeffr2]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Better watch out when you make a categorical statement like that. It's bound to attract someone who claims that viruses are parasites' since they live, if that's the right word, off of another living thing.  But scientifically speaking, no one refers to viruses as parasites. That term is reserved for eukaryotic organisms both single celled and multicellular. Eukaryotic organisms are those organisms  that have a nucleus enclosed in a nuclear envelope. Viruses and bacteria are not eukaryotic organisms so aren't reckoned to be parasites'.

But but, but...I saw a video on YouTube. A non medical "expert" said it cured covid! LOL

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, Saanim said:

A complex overview daily updated with results, summary and references of the studies, also with declarations of FDA, Merck, etc. 

And without any biased opinion:

 

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies

Covid Analysis, Oct 11, 2021

https://ivmmeta.com/#table_whoapproval

 

Everybody can see for himself the robust information and consider whether it is a "dodgy" site.

 

 

 

Right you can always trust a website where the authors don't even identify themselves.

And there's this:

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 

Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol."

 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

 

Apart from that and a few other problems precluded from quotation by the 3 sentence rule, you clearly have stumbled on to a sterling website.

 

 

 

[Scott]

I do believe this topic has passed it's use-by date.  //CLOSED//