Ivermectin not effective in treating Covid-19, joint Mahidol-Oxford study shows

[Rimmer]

A troll / misleading post has been removed , the post replying to it has been left up but the quote removed

[eisfeld]

6 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

Interesting that positive articles about Ivermectin are immediately deleted but not the negative articles.  I would point out though that the trial involved only 46 people for the Ivermectin arm.

Maybe because the positive articles are not factual or from questionable sources? I haven't seen anything proper showing that Ivermectin does indeed help with Covid-19.

 

The study referenced here involved a total of 205 patients. If you look at the results and calculate the margin of error it's still unlikely that the results are significantly wrong. A bigger sample size would help sure but you made it sound like you are questioning the result due to the sample size. On pages 10-11 they talk about this and explain the exact math which shows at what number of patients you can stop because the result is statistically significant.

[Drumbuie]

On 2/24/2023 at 12:30 PM, ozimoron said:

There was anecdotal evidence that vaccinations saved all their lives or at least didn't let them get very ill and hospitalised. Why do you reject that anecdotal evidence?

Not just anecdotal evidence. Unequivocal statistical evidence that the vaccinated were significantly less likely to be infected and if infected statistically less likely to die. 

 

However despite the Finnish longitudinal 18 year study of every child in the country showing clearly that vaccinations did not cause autism (or anything else for that matter), there are still people who would rather trust unqualified influencers, quacks and snake oil salesmen.

 

Perhaps we should teach statistical analysis in schools. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

The larger the sample size, the more likely a clinical trial will show no benefit for Covid protection from Ivermectin.

 

The more random the study, the more likely that a study will show no benefit from Ivermectin.

 

Even the hard core Ivermectin supporters should admit they rely on clinically proven medical procedures and medications for other medical situation.

[jaywalker2]

29 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Maybe because the positive articles are not factual or from questionable sources? I haven't seen anything proper showing that Ivermectin does indeed help with Covid-19.

 

The study referenced here involved a total of 205 patients. If you look at the results and calculate the margin of error it's still unlikely that the results are significantly wrong. A bigger sample size would help sure but you made it sound like you are questioning the result due to the sample size. On pages 10-11 they talk about this and explain the exact math which shows at what number of patients you can stop because the result is statistically significant.

How would you know what's valid if you're not even allowed to see the evidence? The corporate media, social media, all of these sources have put a blanket restriction on any positive news about Ivermectin. On the other hand, the worst studies that put it in a negative light (such as the infamous Together trial which was funded by Pfizer and the Gates Foundation) are given uncritical support. No wonder so many people are suspicious.

 

And the study in quesition had four different components. The Ivermectin component was based on 46 participants and wasn't set up to assess Ivermectin's effect on Covid, just the viral load.  And for some reason the major media has decided to ignore this story.

 

Oddly, Oxford University announced back in 2021 that it was launching a major RCT for Ivermectin. It was supposed to be completed by now but after being postponed several times, it appears it has been dropped.

 

I suggest you look into who is funding these negative Ivermectin studies.

 

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, jaywalker2 said:

How would you know what's valid if you're not even allowed to see the evidence? The corporate media, social media, all of these sources have put a blanket restriction on any positive news about Ivermectin. On the other hand, the worst studies that put it in a negative light (such as the infamous Together trial which was funded by Pfizer and the Gates Foundation) are given uncritical support. No wonder so many people are suspicious.

 

And the study in quesition had four different components. The Ivermectin component was based on 46 participants and wasn't set up to assess Ivermectin's effect on Covid, just the viral load.  And for some reason the major media has decided to ignore this story.

 

Oddly, Oxford University announced back in 2021 that it was launching a major RCT for Ivermectin. It was supposed to be completed by now but after being postponed several times, it appears it has been dropped.

 

I suggest you look into who is funding these negative Ivermectin studies.

 

You surely do believe in conspiracy theories now don't you.

[eisfeld]

5 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

How would you know what's valid if you're not even allowed to see the evidence? The corporate media, social media, all of these sources have put a blanket restriction on any positive news about Ivermectin. On the other hand, the worst studies that put it in a negative light (such as the infamous Together trial which was funded by Pfizer and the Gates Foundation) are given uncritical support. No wonder so many people are suspicious.

Just sounds like conspiracy babble to me. Show me one trustworthy study that shows Ivermectin does help with Covid. You are just throwing around accusations without substantiating them.

 

7 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

And the study in quesition had four different components. The Ivermectin component was based on 46 participants

I showed you where you can read in the study the exact math that explains why the results are still statistically significant. Can you please explain why you think the number is too low?

 

10 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

wasn't set up to assess Ivermectin's effect on Covid, just the viral load.

 

If it has no effect on viral load then in what way would it be effective in treating Covid-19? Please explain.

 

20 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

Oddly, Oxford University announced back in 2021 that it was launching a major RCT for Ivermectin. It was supposed to be completed by now but after being postponed several times, it appears it has been dropped.

Why do you claim it has been dropped? That study you are referring to ("PRINCIPLE" trial) is a large scale multi-year study that investigates multiple potential treatments. The last update from 2022 shows the trial for Ivermectin is on-going after a few others had been finished. https://www.principletrial.org/news/the-principle-trial-two-years-on

 

"The PRINCIPLE Trial has led the way in evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in the community over the past two years. It has tested five potential treatments so far, with a further two, favipiravir and ivermectin, still being studied in the trial."

 

23 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

I suggest you look into who is funding these negative Ivermectin studies.

No, what I look into is if the results have been properly peer reviewed and seem to gather consensus amongst the medical science community. I don't care who funded it, if the name of the researcher started with an A or if it was done in a pink building. What matters is if the methodology was correct and ideally others can reproduce the results to form a concensus.

[freedomnow]

Joe Rogan trumpeted that for quite a while....can't stand him....overpaid bouncer.

[eisfeld]

1 minute ago, freedomnow said:

Joe Rogan trumpeted that for quite a while....can't stand him....overpaid bouncer.

Without saying anything about Joe Rogan specifically because I haven't seen much from him... I'll never understand why so many people take medical advice from an entertainer. I suggest they go to the nearest circus next time they have a broken bone. Just baffling.

[xylophone]

9 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

Interesting that positive articles about Ivermectin are immediately deleted but not the negative articles.  I would point out though that the trial involved only 46 people for the Ivermectin arm.

Here is another trial using more than 1200 outpatients...............

 

Higher Dose of Ivermectin, and for Longer, Still No Help Against COVID

 

SEATTLE -- A higher dose of ivermectin given for a longer duration still failed to offer any benefit in mild to moderate COVID-19, data from a large randomized U.S. trial showed, reported Susanna Naggie, MD, MHS, of the Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

"These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in outpatients with COVID-19," said Naggie.

 

But despite THE MANY clinical studies stating that Ivermectin is not effective against Covid, the skeptics want to believe!! No hope for them, but they can join The Flat Earth Society if they want something to believe in!

 

[xylophone]

58 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Here is another trial using more than 1200 outpatients...............

 

Higher Dose of Ivermectin, and for Longer, Still No Help Against COVID

 

SEATTLE -- A higher dose of ivermectin given for a longer duration still failed to offer any benefit in mild to moderate COVID-19, data from a large randomized U.S. trial showed, reported Susanna Naggie, MD, MHS, of the Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

"These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in outpatients with COVID-19," said Naggie.

 

But despite THE MANY clinical studies stating that Ivermectin is not effective against Covid, the skeptics want to believe!! No hope for them, but they can join The Flat Earth Society if they want something to believe in!

 

PS.  Results of the trial were published simultaneously in JAMAopens in a new tab or window.

[transam]

11 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

Interesting that positive articles about Ivermectin are immediately deleted but not the negative articles.  I would point out though that the trial involved only 46 people for the Ivermectin arm.

46 horses...   

[sometime]

Just think and take this in , Oxford & vaccine go hand in hand, they have their own vaccine.

Money talks Oxford-AstraZeneca just google

[ThailandRyan]

12 minutes ago, sometime said:

Just think and take this in , Oxford & vaccine go hand in hand, they have their own vaccine.

Money talks Oxford-AstraZeneca just google

So it's all a conspiracy then...hmmm, please tell me more.  So are you saying that If I supported McDonalds by donating millions for research of new items I would be accused of creating an obesity epidemic....

 

Donating to research does not make it a one way street as you assume.

[sometime]

7 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

So it's all a conspiracy then...hmmm, please tell me more.  So are you saying that If I supported McDonalds by donating millions for research of new items I would be accused of creating an obesity epidemic....

 

Donating to research does not make it a one way street as you assume.

I did not say its a conspiracy, you have just gone of at a tangent

[Mark Nothing]

Several posters have reported excellent results with the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent covid. 

 

I have more confidence in actual life experience successes over bogus clinical trials with predetermined negative results paid for by those with ulterior motives, which does not include what is best for us.

 

Being an extremely dissatisfied former customer of medical science I also found extremely effective natural alternatives.

[zzaa09]

For every researched study, there are the odd dozen to legitimately counter said theories.......and then again, another odd dozen of other "scientific" studies to challenge their distractors - and so and so forth. 

 

The cycles of what is true and was is not appears to be mangled in centric-based standards.

Not such beast as an absolute.

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Several posters have reported excellent results with the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent covid. 

 

I have more confidence in actual life experience successes over bogus clinical trials with predetermined negative results paid for by those with ulterior motives, which does not include what is best for us.

 

Being an extremely dissatisfied former customer of medical science I also found extremely effective natural alternatives.

Absolute tosh, and then some!!????

[ozimoron]

9 hours ago, Drumbuie said:

Not just anecdotal evidence. Unequivocal statistical evidence that the vaccinated were significantly less likely to be infected and if infected statistically less likely to die. 

 

However despite the Finnish longitudinal 18 year study of every child in the country showing clearly that vaccinations did not cause autism (or anything else for that matter), there are still people who would rather trust unqualified influencers, quacks and snake oil salesmen.

 

Perhaps we should teach statistical analysis in schools. 

 

 

They do and I did learn statistical analysis at school. In a regional public school in the 60's to boot.

 

8 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

How would you know what's valid if you're not even allowed to see the evidence? The corporate media, social media, all of these sources have put a blanket restriction on any positive news about Ivermectin. On the other hand, the worst studies that put it in a negative light (such as the infamous Together trial which was funded by Pfizer and the Gates Foundation) are given uncritical support. No wonder so many people are suspicious.

 

And the study in quesition had four different components. The Ivermectin component was based on 46 participants and wasn't set up to assess Ivermectin's effect on Covid, just the viral load.  And for some reason the major media has decided to ignore this story.

 

Oddly, Oxford University announced back in 2021 that it was launching a major RCT for Ivermectin. It was supposed to be completed by now but after being postponed several times, it appears it has been dropped.

 

I suggest you look into who is funding these negative Ivermectin studies.

 

Not allowed to see the evidence. Beyond ridiculous. There is nothing untoward about a pharmaceutical company funding research into it's products as required by law.

 

4 hours ago, sometime said:

Just think and take this in , Oxford & vaccine go hand in hand, they have their own vaccine.

Money talks Oxford-AstraZeneca just google

How about you produce a link? If "just google" was so easy you'd do that wouldn't you? You can't that's your problem. All you can do is find whack job links to conspiracy theories. Posts like this deserve to be ridiculed.

[eisfeld]

5 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

Several posters have reported excellent results with the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent covid. 

 

I have more confidence in actual life experience successes over bogus clinical trials with predetermined negative results paid for by those with ulterior motives, which does not include what is best for us.

 

Being an extremely dissatisfied former customer of medical science I also found extremely effective natural alternatives.

So you trust a few anonymous random people on the internet who have no relevant education or work experience nor do they use any kind of proper methodologies more than thousands of people who spend their life researching in the relevant field, have had proper medical education, put their names behind their results and publish these together with the exact methods and setups they used for others to scrutinize. Got it.

 

BTW from one random internet fella to another: I've had really good results with this new Raspberry Schweppes. Haven't been sick a single day since I started drinking it.

[BritManToo]

6 hours ago, eisfeld said:

So you trust a few anonymous random people on the internet who have no relevant education or work experience nor do they use any kind of proper methodologies more than thousands of people who spend their life researching in the relevant field,

Almost every important discovery was made by someone that didn't it in the corporate world.

IMHO corporate research drones don't add much knowledge of worth to the world.

[zzaa09]

53 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Almost every important discovery was made by someone that didn't it in the corporate world.

IMHO corporate research drones don't add much knowledge of worth to the world.

We're so hardwired and indoctrinated to go along with officialdom and established convention without questioning or critique. This is what we are. 

It's quite creepy how dumbed down [generally speaking] we are.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

We're so hardwired and indoctrinated to go along with officialdom and established convention without questioning or critique. This is what we are. 

It's quite creepy how dumbed down [generally speaking] we are.

Medical experts and scientists are not "officialdom". They are part of the human condition which is the ability to build on collective knowledge through academic learning and research. Those of us who are dumbed down reject that philosophy.

 

Your  allusion to "established convention" in novel medical research is a meaningless throwaway.

[Misty]

18 hours ago, Drumbuie said:

Not just anecdotal evidence. Unequivocal statistical evidence that the vaccinated were significantly less likely to be infected and if infected statistically less likely to die. 

 

However despite the Finnish longitudinal 18 year study of every child in the country showing clearly that vaccinations did not cause autism (or anything else for that matter), there are still people who would rather trust unqualified influencers, quacks and snake oil salesmen.

 

Perhaps we should teach statistical analysis in schools. 

 

 

"Perhaps we should teach statistical analysis in schools" - completely agree.  Passing a class called "Probability & Statistics" was part of the general curriculum needed to graduate with an undergraduate degree at my university.  Many struggled with that course and some only passed with help from additional summer classes. Maybe it needs to be taught earlier in life.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Misty said:

"Perhaps we should teach statistical analysis in schools" - completely agree.  Passing a class called "Probability & Statistics" was part of the general curriculum needed to graduate with an undergraduate degree at my university.  Many struggled with that course and some only passed with help from additional summer classes. Maybe it needs to be taught earlier in life.

I took a math unit in year 12 at high school in 1971 entitled exactly that.

[jaywalker2]

16 hours ago, eisfeld said:

Just sounds like conspiracy babble to me. Show me one trustworthy study that shows Ivermectin does help with Covid. You are just throwing around accusations without substantiating them.

 

I showed you where you can read in the study the exact math that explains why the results are still statistically significant. Can you please explain why you think the number is too low?

 

 

If it has no effect on viral load then in what way would it be effective in treating Covid-19? Please explain.

 

Why do you claim it has been dropped? That study you are referring to ("PRINCIPLE" trial) is a large scale multi-year study that investigates multiple potential treatments. The last update from 2022 shows the trial for Ivermectin is on-going after a few others had been finished. https://www.principletrial.org/news/the-principle-trial-two-years-on

 

"The PRINCIPLE Trial has led the way in evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in the community over the past two years. It has tested five potential treatments so far, with a further two, favipiravir and ivermectin, still being studied in the trial."

 

No, what I look into is if the results have been properly peer reviewed and seem to gather consensus amongst the medical science community. I don't care who funded it, if the name of the researcher started with an A or if it was done in a pink building. What matters is if the methodology was correct and ideally others can reproduce the results to form a concensus.

As I mentioned, references to any source that is not linked to the government or the corporate media is not permitted on this forum. But there are several metaanalyses of the dozens of RCT's and observational studies on Ivermectin if you choose to make an effort. There is also an excellent webpage that provides real time data on all of the therapuetics being used to treat covid.

 

The Oxford-Mahidol study was published in elife. Ever heard of it? I didn't think so. 

 

The Ivermectin study was launched at Oxford in 2021. The results, I believe, have been delayed at least twice. No indication of when they will finally be released.

 

The same thing happened with the Together trial. The release of the Ivermectin trial was delayed 8 months without explanation. When the results were finally released, the methodological lapses were so bad, over 100 doctors petitioned the New England Journal of Medicine to retract the study (which none of the major seemed to have reported on)

 

I would have a lot more confidence in Oxford if after having pledged to donate the rights to its vaccine to drugmakers all over the world it actually sold exclusive rights to Astrazeneca in a deal brokered by the Gates Foundation. It receives enormous funding from big pharma and has a clear conflict of interest.

 

I have no idea if Ivermectin is the wonder drug for covid that its proponents have claimed. But I do find the censorship, government interferance in the doctor/patient relationship , the failure of organizations like the CDC and the NAID to offer any guidance on treatment of covid other than the flawed vaccines, the threats made against doctors by hospital administrations, proposed legislation to discipline any medical professional who contradicts the government narrative, to be inexcusable.

 

To understand how absurd the situation is, Satoshi Omura, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on Ivermectin along with William Campbell, mentioned in a conversation on youtube that Ivermectin does have antiviral properties and he believed it was effective in treating Covid (which led the Japanese government toa approve the drug for covid treatment). The video was of course deleted by youtube for spreading misinformation.

 

The saddest aspect of this fiasco is the demonization of Ivermectin which is probably the greatest wonder drug since penicillian. It has now villified as "dewormer" and only fit for animals.

[Danderman123]

18 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

How would you know what's valid if you're not even allowed to see the evidence? The corporate media, social media, all of these sources have put a blanket restriction on any positive news about Ivermectin. On the other hand, the worst studies that put it in a negative light (such as the infamous Together trial which was funded by Pfizer and the Gates Foundation) are given uncritical support. No wonder so many people are suspicious.

 

And the study in quesition had four different components. The Ivermectin component was based on 46 participants and wasn't set up to assess Ivermectin's effect on Covid, just the viral load.  And for some reason the major media has decided to ignore this story.

 

Oddly, Oxford University announced back in 2021 that it was launching a major RCT for Ivermectin. It was supposed to be completed by now but after being postponed several times, it appears it has been dropped.

 

I suggest you look into who is funding these negative Ivermectin studies.

 

For someone making strong claims, you don't show any evidence.

 

You claim there is a lack of information about Ivermectin, but you ignore something called "Google". Let me suggest that the reason you can't find much positive info about Ivermectin and Covid is because Ivermectin is useless against Covid.

 

As far as focusing on one planned study about Ivermectin, the Google will show dozens of high quality studies showing Ivermectin doesn't work:

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

 

https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html

 

Yeah, all of these organizations are in on a grand conspiracy to denigrate Ivermectin, because reasons.

[Danderman123]

43 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

As I mentioned, references to any source that is not linked to the government or the corporate media is not permitted on this forum. But there are several metaanalyses of the dozens of RCT's and observational studies on Ivermectin if you choose to make an effort. There is also an excellent webpage that provides real time data on all of the therapuetics being used to treat covid.

 

The Oxford-Mahidol study was published in elife. Ever heard of it? I didn't think so. 

 

The Ivermectin study was launched at Oxford in 2021. The results, I believe, have been delayed at least twice. No indication of when they will finally be released.

 

The same thing happened with the Together trial. The release of the Ivermectin trial was delayed 8 months without explanation. When the results were finally released, the methodological lapses were so bad, over 100 doctors petitioned the New England Journal of Medicine to retract the study (which none of the major seemed to have reported on)

 

I would have a lot more confidence in Oxford if after having pledged to donate the rights to its vaccine to drugmakers all over the world it actually sold exclusive rights to Astrazeneca in a deal brokered by the Gates Foundation. It receives enormous funding from big pharma and has a clear conflict of interest.

 

I have no idea if Ivermectin is the wonder drug for covid that its proponents have claimed. But I do find the censorship, government interferance in the doctor/patient relationship , the failure of organizations like the CDC and the NAID to offer any guidance on treatment of covid other than the flawed vaccines, the threats made against doctors by hospital administrations, proposed legislation to discipline any medical professional who contradicts the government narrative, to be inexcusable.

 

To understand how absurd the situation is, Satoshi Omura, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on Ivermectin along with William Campbell, mentioned in a conversation on youtube that Ivermectin does have antiviral properties and he believed it was effective in treating Covid (which led the Japanese government toa approve the drug for covid treatment). The video was of course deleted by youtube for spreading misinformation.

 

The saddest aspect of this fiasco is the demonization of Ivermectin which is probably the greatest wonder drug since penicillian. It has now villified as "dewormer" and only fit for animals.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/10/02/national/science-health/kowa-ivermectin-covid-19/

 

Kowa says Ivermectin not effective against Covid

 

https://pj.jiho.jp/article/247544

 

Ivermectin Fails in Investigator-Led COVID Trial Too

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/01/26/fact-check-no-ivermectin-didnt-cure-covid-19-in-japan-and-india.html

 

Fact check: No, ivermectin didn’t cure COVID-19 in Japan and India

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, zzaa09 said:

We're so hardwired and indoctrinated to go along with officialdom and established convention without questioning or critique. This is what we are. 

It's quite creepy how dumbed down [generally speaking] we are.

and yet, science is advanced by researchers questioning established knowledge. Funny how that works.

[JBChiangRai]

Ivermectin cured my Covid and my amputated leg grew back.

 

On a serious note, if the people in Isaan took it occasionally, it would probably kill the liver flukes they catch from eating raw marinated meat/fish etc that eventually lead to Liver Cancer.