25 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Shh ... don't tell the people, or MSM,  The drug companies, they probably already know.

 

"Conclusions: 

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."

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

That was in 2021. The science has obviously moved on and shown ivermectin to not be useful.

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Shh ... don't tell the people, or MSM,  The drug companies, they probably already know.

 

"Conclusions: 

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."

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

Here a review of that meta study by a governmental body:

 

Quote

The Bryant et al. review contains data not yet available for peer review, includes in the primary analysis studies labeled by the authors themselves as at high risk of bias, and found low or very low quality evidence for all endpoints except mortality.

After removal of trials at high risk of bias or with active comparators, the few remaining studies, with very few total events, are insufficient to provide reliable information.

The sensible and responsible conclusion from this review is not that ivermectin is likely to be effective, but rather that there is currently insufficient evidence to justify recommending widespread use of this agent.

https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rapid-review-of-Ivermectin-for-COVID-19_2-July-2021-ADDENDUM.pdf

 

It was a low quality meta study. The "mederate-certainty evidence" should have raised a flag already.

16 hours ago, eisfeld said:

Sure, don't think anyone is disputing that. They just have no use for preventing or treating Covid.

I think it's fairly conclusive that Ivermectin is ineffective at treating Covid, but what about as a pre-exposure prophylaxis?  Have there been any trials of that?

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Shh ... don't tell the people, or MSM,  The drug companies, they probably already know.

 

"Conclusions: 

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."

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

Carried out by researchers, despite claiming to have no conflicts of interest, are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) Group.

 

Another dodgy meta analysis study, I note you missed out in your quotes what it goes on to say:

 

"We included preprint and unpublished data from completed but not yet published trials 

There are a number of limitations with this review. Several of the studies contributing data did not provide full descriptions of methods, so assessing risk of bias was challenging."

 

And from an independent fact check

 

Study’s underpinnings 

Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it."

 

Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.

"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims. 

 

Read more on its failings here:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/

 

 

The research into effectiveness of Ivermectin in fighting Covid continues.

 

It should be remembered that not all clinical trials are equal. Some clinical trials are poorly conducted. Some are not peer reviewed. The Ivermectin proponents tend to design their studies to support Ivermectin.

 

Sample size is important, the larger the better.

 

Random selection of participants is a critical factor. 

 

To the extent that a clinical trial is conducted optimally, the worse the results for Ivermectin.

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think it's fairly conclusive that Ivermectin is ineffective at treating Covid, but what about as a pre-exposure prophylaxis?  Have there been any trials of that?

There might have been a few party get together's at their local Vet's to see what they could try.........

 

And the madness continues:- (notice the common thread linking these)...........

 

1). Doctors who supported ivermectinopens in a new tab or window as a treatment for COVID-19 -- despite all the evidence against itopens in a new tab or window -- now claim it can treat flu and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as well. (Washington Post).

 

2). Meanwhile, the Lee County Republican Party in Florida passed a conspiracy-laden resolution that would ban all COVID-19 vaccinesopens in a new tab or window in the state if passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. (Cape Coral Breeze).

 

3). And more madness: If two Idaho state lawmakers get their way, it would become a criminal misdemeanor to administer a Covid-19 mRNA vaccine in Idaho. Yep, you heard that correctly. State Senator Tammy Nichols and State Representative Judy Boyle, both Republicans, have co-sponsored House Bill (HB) 154 for Idaho, otherwise known as the “Gem State.”

8 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think it's fairly conclusive that Ivermectin is ineffective at treating Covid, but what about as a pre-exposure prophylaxis?  Have there been any trials of that?

According to the NIH Pre-Exposure trials are ongoing. Post-Exposure Prophylaxis trials have shown it is ineffective. Personally I don't see how Ivermectin could help in a pre-exposure setting either but it's good they are doing trials.

 

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/overview/prevention-of-sars-cov-2/

14 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

According to the NIH Pre-Exposure trials are ongoing. Post-Exposure Prophylaxis trials have shown it is ineffective. Personally I don't see how Ivermectin could help in a pre-exposure setting either but it's good they are doing trials.

 

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/overview/prevention-of-sars-cov-2/

Here's another from NIH

 

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

10 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Here's another from NIH

 

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

You are confusing several subsites of the NIH. What you linked to is a page on the National Library of Medicine, the PubMed service which just hosts and indexes papers. It does not evaluate or check anything. You can read their disclaimer here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disclaimer/

 

You can find all kinds of bogus studies on there. It's like Google for medical papers if you will.

 

The page I linked to on the other hand is a review and guideline by NIH itself.

 

Regarding the study you linked to: at the very top you may find "Erratum" and if you click through to see the full text you will find that the authors of the study for some reason have all chosen to hide their conflict of interests as working for an Ivermectin manufacturer as well as some anti-vax and pro-Ivermectin marketing groups. This is a no-go and does not happen by accident.

23 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Here's another from NIH

 

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

Its published on NIH does not mean they endorse it:

 

Study in Brazil on ivermectin as a COVID-19 prevention is flawed, experts say

Concerns about methodology

Dr. Nikolas Wada, an epidemiologist with the Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium at Johns Hopkins, raised concerns about the study's uncertainty over who was "truly taking ivermectin and vice versa" and poor control for factors that may predispose someone to catch COVID-19, among other issues.

"My primary takeaway," Wada said, "is that this paper adds nearly nothing to the knowledge base regarding ivermectin and COVID-19, and certainly does not prove its effectiveness as a prophylaxis."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/facebook-posts/study-brazil-ivermectin-covid-19-prevention-flawed/

 

Plenty more facts in the article

 

Thanks for that, I thought it was odd

On 2/28/2023 at 3:39 PM, JBChiangRai said:

Here's another from NIH

 

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

Well known crappy study:

 

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-study-itajai-contains-methodological-weaknesses-questionable-conclusions/

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-ivermectin-covidmortality-idUSL1N30K205

 

https://cedmohub.eu/experts-say-study-on-ivermectin-covid-19-death-risk-is-flawed/

 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/ivermectin-2659588780/

 

Ivermectin advocate dies from horrifying side effects — and followers report 'severe' symptoms

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

https://www.rawstory.com/ivermectin-2659588780/

 

Ivermectin advocate dies from horrifying side effects — and followers report 'severe' symptoms

I just read that, it's more likely he died from Lyme disease.  Lyme disease is from the same family of spirochete bacteria as Syphilis, I'm not sure why anyone would take Ivermectin for a bacterial infection.

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by JBChiangRai

I had completely forgotten about this silliness until I saw a certain obnoxious Brit comedian on tv a few weeks ago.  It sounds like this stuff is going to be the new go-to cure for any malady that may come along. 

 

 

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I just read that, it's more likely he died from Lyme disease.  Lyme disease is from the same family of spirochete bacteria as Syphilis, I'm not sure why anyone would take Ivermectin for a bacterial infection.

His heart was destroyed by Ivermectin.

On 2/24/2023 at 10:28 AM, samuttodd said:

Um hmm,  worked for me without giving me a Heart attack or Myocarditits, or a stroke, or even an embolism. 

 

There's a famous line from Walt Whitman "I contain multitudes" I don't think he believed it literally. Apparently, you do. Clearly you haven't a clue as to how clinical studies work.

On 2/24/2023 at 12:28 PM, greg71 said:

My wife both had the original strain covid and were given invermectin at the hospitel here in bangkok at the time .In 3 days both were fine as gold . Those who say horse medicine etc have there heads firmly planted in the ground.

To be fair - I got COVID and was good as gold in 2.5 days without Ivermectin. Mind you - it was Omicron and I was vaxxed with a booster at the time. 

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Well known crappy study:

 

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-study-itajai-contains-methodological-weaknesses-questionable-conclusions/

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-ivermectin-covidmortality-idUSL1N30K205

 

https://cedmohub.eu/experts-say-study-on-ivermectin-covid-19-death-risk-is-flawed/

 

 

There's also this which reveals the ethical standards of several of those involved in the study:

Correction: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching

It has come to the attention of the journal that several authors failed to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest when submitting this article. As a result, Cureus is issuing the following erratum and updating the relevant conflict of interest disclosures to ensure these conflicts of interest are properly described as recommended by the ICMJ:

https://europepmc.org/article/med/35371877

Among the authors cited was  Pierre Kory probably the preeminent ivermection supporter and a notable lowlife.

 

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by placeholder

There were a bunch of low-quality and/or biased/faulty studies done on Ivermectin in the earlier times of the pandemic... often by authors who had commercial/financial interests in promoting/selling the drug.

 

Over time, the medical/scientific community caught up with most of those, eventually pointing out their flaws and faults.... and ultimately producing a series of legitimate, non-conflicted studies that told a consistent result.

 

Ivermectin is NOT an effective treatment for or preventive medication against COVID.

 

New England Journal of Medicine Editorial

Time to Stop Using Ineffective Covid-19 Drugs

August 18, 2022

 

"During the Covid-19 pandemic, some of the early treatment trials were rushed, leading to studies that were badly conducted¹ or had too few patients.² As a result, initial evidence of the efficacy of some Covid-19 treatments could not be replicated,^3,4 but these drugs were already in widespread use by then, and some clinicians have been reluctant to change to proven efficacious alternatives.

 

Ivermectin and fluvoxamine, in particular, are still widely prescribed, even though evidence has been steadily accumulating to indicate that both treatments at acceptable doses are not effective for Covid-19."

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2209017

 

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

My understanding is this about Ivermectin...

 

As a Cure

Several poor quality studies suggest its efficacy

Many good quality studies suggest it's no better than a placebo

QED It doesn't work

 

As a Prophylaxis

Two questionable studies suggest it's efficacious (Brazil & India)

No good quality studies performed (yet, probably never will)

QED It may work, no scientific evidence to suggest it doesn't

 

Feel free to correct me

15 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

QED It may work, no scientific evidence to suggest it doesn't

No credible scientific evidence has been produced thus far that show it DOES work for COVID prophalaxsis.

 

You don't take or approve medications in the absence of facts that show they work. You take or approve medications once you have facts that show they DO work for the intended purpose.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/09/scicheck-clinical-trials-show-ivermectin-does-not-benefit-covid-19-patients-contrary-to-social-media-claims/

 

"Ivermectin not effective in treating Covid-19".............I've heard it is, but you have take it with bleach.......prove I'm wrong....I dare you.

47 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

No credible scientific evidence has been produced thus far that show it DOES work for COVID prophalaxsis.

 

You don't take or approve medications in the absence of facts that show they work. You take or approve medications once you have facts that show they DO work for the intended purpose.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/09/scicheck-clinical-trials-show-ivermectin-does-not-benefit-covid-19-patients-contrary-to-social-media-claims/

 

I think you're agreeing with me, I said there were no good studies to say it does work as a prophylaxis, only questionable ones (not credible, if you prefer) that say it works and NONE that says it doesn't work.

 

I did say it doesn't work to treat Covid-19.

 

What I would like to see, is a credible study, preferably several, to prove or disprove its efficacy as a prophylactic and put the matter to bed with scientific evidence.

 

This is straight up propaganda!  Check Japans official stance on Invermectin.  Then follow the MONEY!

2 hours ago, The Tree said:

This is straight up propaganda!  Check Japans official stance on Invermectin.  Then follow the MONEY!

Back down the rabbit hole you go...............

 

Ivermectin is not shown to be effective against Covid-19 in clinical trials according to the findings of a joint University of Oxford and Mahidol University study.

 

The study that was published on the peer-reviewed eLife medical journal found that high doses of the drug ivermectin, controversially recommended by some high-profile political and media figures during the pandemic, is ineffective at treating the virus.

 

Conducted at the Center for Tropical Diseases in Bangkok, the study is part of the ongoing PLATCOV trial the study hoped to assess the antiviral effectiveness of medicines in treating early symptomatic Covid-19 infections. 

 

The findings support claims that the drug has little antiviral activity against the virus.

On 3/14/2023 at 4:04 PM, Will B Good said:

"Ivermectin not effective in treating Covid-19".............I've heard it is, but you have take it with bleach.......prove I'm wrong....I dare you.

 

you go first.  

 

all those in favor say 'I'

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Back down the rabbit hole you go...............

 

Ivermectin is not shown to be effective against Covid-19 in clinical trials according to the findings of a joint University of Oxford and Mahidol University study.

 

The study that was published on the peer-reviewed eLife medical journal found that high doses of the drug ivermectin, controversially recommended by some high-profile political and media figures during the pandemic, is ineffective at treating the virus.

 

Conducted at the Center for Tropical Diseases in Bangkok, the study is part of the ongoing PLATCOV trial the study hoped to assess the antiviral effectiveness of medicines in treating early symptomatic Covid-19 infections. 

 

The findings support claims that the drug has little antiviral activity against the virus.

 

Same as the WHO and U.S. FDA's ongoing guidance re ivermectin:

 

"The update also includes a strong recommendation against the use of ivermectin for patients with non-severe COVID-19. WHO continues to advise that in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, ivermectin should only be used in clinical trials."

 

https://www.who.int/news/item/10-11-2023-who-updates-guidelines-on-treatments-for-covid-19

 

 

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."

...

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19.

...

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay."

 

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

 

New England Journal of Medicine editorial

August 18, 2022

 

Time to Stop Using Ineffective Covid-19 Drugs

"Ivermectin and fluvoxamine, in particular, are still widely prescribed, even though evidence has been steadily accumulating to indicate that both treatments at acceptable doses are not effective for Covid-19.^3-5

^...

For ivermectin, a meta-analysis of 16 trials⁸ involving 2407 patients with both severe and nonsevere illness showed no reliable evidence of reductions in mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization, clinical severity, or mortality; in addition, the investigators found no effect related to the dose of ivermectin. In light of this available evidence of nonefficacy for ivermectin and fluvoxamine, how much evidence of nonefficacy is enough?"

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2209017