User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:41:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Lots of people will tell you it absolutely works. Lot of people will tell you it's a huge fraud.
The truth is it's political and really good data is hard to get. There are a bunch of flawed studies on both sides. There are two high quality studies running but they haven't published results yet. Maybe soon. However what's true is that Ivermectin is pretty safe, and if taken as directed by a doctor is very unlikely to make anything worse. And it MIGHT do some good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:59:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Some early flawed studies raised false hopes. We have better information now. Unfortunately, ivermectin is ineffective against COVID-19.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/ivermectin-is-a-nobel-prize-winning-wonder-drug-but-not-for-covid-19-168449 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 1:03:49 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Ok. I have posted that the wife and I had covid in august and used ivermectin along with the Math+ protocol. Although it was no easy ride, we both came through with O2 sats never going below 95. We both had about a week of feeling like shit. But here is the question: Do any of you know someone that did the Math+ with ivermectin and still had to go to ICU or worse? I know of one person who took it, still got Covid, it got worse, and he ended up taking the monocular antibodies and recovered. I also know a lot of people that got Covid and took it, and got better on their own. In a way it's pointless to ask these types of questions for confirmation either-which-way. 99 out of 100 people, on average, will survive covid, with or without taking ivermectin. You are going to get way more responses saying it worked than saying it didn't, just because they wouldn't have died or been hospitalized anyway. (not to mention survivorship bias, and other confounders) That's why we need large RCTs to be able to detect if there is a statistically significant benefit. As the poster above mentioned, every RCT conducted that showed any benefit for IVM has been shown to be fraudulent or have been retracted. (Several had the same patient data just copy/pasted over and over again) There are a lot of meta analysis's and observational studies, but they are really low quality and full of holes. (Someone will almost definitely post a link to ivmmeta or one of those websites below... it happens in every ivm thread) Together Trial will have their preprint posted soon, Principle and Activ6 are in process... We will have an answer soon |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 1:10:28 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some early flawed studies raised false hopes. We have better information now. Unfortunately, ivermectin is ineffective against COVID-19. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/ivermectin-is-a-nobel-prize-winning-wonder-drug-but-not-for-covid-19-168449 1st. google 2nd. bbc 3rd. the conversation There you have it, settled science |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 1:11:45 AM EDT
[#5]
https://ivmmeta.com/
Analysis of 63 studies suggests it helps if taken early or as a prophylactic; "Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 66% [52-76%] and 86% [75-92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis..." "Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation" Lots of anecdotes for it. It's not gonna work for everyone. Not a harmful drug, so best case it helps, worst case you wasted $10 and are not any worse off that you would've been without it. Personally I'm in favor of the kitchen sink approach; be already taking D/Z/Querc, then early treatment (don't wait a week between feeling rough and taking action), increase supplement use and include C, Iver, HCQ, Regeneron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 5:49:47 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Ok. I have posted that the wife and I had covid in august and used ivermectin along with the Math+ protocol. Although it was no easy ride, we both came through with O2 sats never going below 95. We both had about a week of feeling like shit. But here is the question: Do any of you know someone that did the Math+ with ivermectin and still had to go to ICU or worse? I've seen it work first hand and that was enough for me. 21mg of Ivermectin Vitamin D and C Zinc. Friend was having breathing problems, took that and was doing a hell out of a lot better 24 hours later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 5:56:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some early flawed studies raised false hopes. We have better information now. Unfortunately, ivermectin is ineffective against COVID-19. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/ivermectin-is-a-nobel-prize-winning-wonder-drug-but-not-for-covid-19-168449 And all of the wuhan shots are ineffective and cause quite harmful side effects and have caused death to many. So your shots are much more dangerous, risky, unproven, untested ….very unlike the results from ivermrctin I know several people who used ivermectin to get over wuhan. And all of them had shots, got sick anyways and ivermectin helped them. Unlike the shots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 6:00:42 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some early flawed studies raised false hopes. We have better information now. Unfortunately, ivermectin is ineffective against COVID-19. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/ivermectin-is-a-nobel-prize-winning-wonder-drug-but-not-for-covid-19-168449 I know you think you are the arbitrator of covid approved knowledge, but your not. You have no credibility. Go away Troll |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 6:10:24 AM EDT
[#9]
they are all in on Gubment news.....BS
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 7:03:30 AM EDT
[#10]
How successful was it in India?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 7:16:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Anybody have a link to that Israeli study?
The one where they took 90-100 inmates in a Covid That study showed that for a lot of people it's just the flu, and Ivermectin is better than nothing to a p-value of .0001 or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 7:38:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know of one person who took it, still got Covid, it got worse, and he ended up taking the monocular antibodies and recovered. I also know a lot of people that got Covid and took it, and got better on their own. In a way it's pointless to ask these types of questions for confirmation either-which-way. 99 out of 100 people, on average, will survive covid, with or without taking ivermectin. You are going to get way more responses saying it worked than saying it didn't, just because they wouldn't have died or been hospitalized anyway. (not to mention survivorship bias, and other confounders) That's why we need large RCTs to be able to detect if there is a statistically significant benefit. As the poster above mentioned, every RCT conducted that showed any benefit for IVM has been shown to be fraudulent or have been retracted. (Several had the same patient data just copy/pasted over and over again) There are a lot of meta analysis's and observational studies, but they are really low quality and full of holes. (Someone will almost definitely post a link to ivmmeta or one of those websites below... it happens in every ivm thread) Together Trial will have their preprint posted soon, Principle and Activ6 are in process... We will have an answer soon Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ok. I have posted that the wife and I had covid in august and used ivermectin along with the Math+ protocol. Although it was no easy ride, we both came through with O2 sats never going below 95. We both had about a week of feeling like shit. But here is the question: Do any of you know someone that did the Math+ with ivermectin and still had to go to ICU or worse? I know of one person who took it, still got Covid, it got worse, and he ended up taking the monocular antibodies and recovered. I also know a lot of people that got Covid and took it, and got better on their own. In a way it's pointless to ask these types of questions for confirmation either-which-way. 99 out of 100 people, on average, will survive covid, with or without taking ivermectin. You are going to get way more responses saying it worked than saying it didn't, just because they wouldn't have died or been hospitalized anyway. (not to mention survivorship bias, and other confounders) That's why we need large RCTs to be able to detect if there is a statistically significant benefit. As the poster above mentioned, every RCT conducted that showed any benefit for IVM has been shown to be fraudulent or have been retracted. (Several had the same patient data just copy/pasted over and over again) There are a lot of meta analysis's and observational studies, but they are really low quality and full of holes. (Someone will almost definitely post a link to ivmmeta or one of those websites below... it happens in every ivm thread) Together Trial will have their preprint posted soon, Principle and Activ6 are in process... We will have an answer soon This is complete and utter drivel coupled with deliberate falsehoods. There have been numerous studies, including randomized controlled studies, showing IVM is effective. There are also studies that analyze outcomes based on treatment or lack thereof. While these are not RCTs, they are just as useful. The poster above obviously hasn't read any of them otherwise he would not have made such a breathtakingly stupid comment. Anyway, read for yourself: https://ivmmeta.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 7:53:16 AM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 8:44:07 AM EDT
[#14]
Maybe do a little research into the website people constantly link to in ivermectin threads:
“Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19… Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, 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 show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread of spurious or fallacious findings.” https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 8:49:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe do a little research into the website people constantly link to in ivermectin threads: “Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19… Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, 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 show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.” https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 Again, more complete and utter drivel. Pay no attention to the propaganda being peddled by the rat and the bat. Go read the actual studies for yourself. Make up your own mind. What I've found since this whole business got started is that roughly half of the studies I've read are crap. They make conclusions that aren't supported by the data, they make fatal methodological flaws, or they purport to answer a question the study was not designed to answer so it would be impossible to do so. Once you throw out the crap studies and look at the preponderance of evidence, one can rapidly come to the conclusion that IVM is both safe and effective as both a prophylaxis and as a treatment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 8:54:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How successful was it in India? People believed that it was wildly effective until good data came in and it turned out that the pandemic there burned out for other, coincidental reasons. India stopped recommending and issuing ivermectin. Same thing happened in Peru. Now, ironically, this Third-World folk-medicine “cure” has taken hold in America. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 8:55:36 AM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 9:07:38 AM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 9:09:15 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some early flawed studies raised false hopes. We have better information now. Unfortunately, ivermectin is ineffective against COVID-19. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/ivermectin-is-a-nobel-prize-winning-wonder-drug-but-not-for-covid-19-168449 it worked great for me. But you better listen to your 4 star medical admiral that got its dick cut off for the job |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 9:16:46 AM EDT
[#20]
LOL at Google and BBC news on studies as credible evidence.
The fact that the FDA and Government attacked ivermectin so hard, being a safe known human drug for decades, as horse paste, tells me all I need to know. The fact that the entire pandemic they’ve been against doctors even daring to seek alternative treatments than the vaccine, including the year before the vaccine existed, also tells me something. They want one solution, their solution. Anything else that has some credibility to it will be attacked. So if they’re against it, you probably want it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 9:59:58 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lots of people will tell you it absolutely works. Lot of people will tell you it's a huge fraud. The truth is it's political and really good data is hard to get. There are a bunch of flawed studies on both sides. There are two high quality studies running but they haven't published results yet. Maybe soon. However what's true is that Ivermectin is pretty safe, and if taken as directed by a doctor is very unlikely to make anything worse. And it MIGHT do some good. Very good answer. The part in red is very important. I would not hesitate to take ivermectin prescribed by my doctor but would not self prescribe veterinary ivermectin. Why would anyone ignore the medical advise of your own doctor just because some internet medical ”expert” you who don’t know from jack $### tells you to do something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 10:30:39 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once you throw out the crap studies and look at the preponderance of evidence, one can rapidly come to the conclusion that IVM is both safe and effective as both a prophylaxis and as a treatment. I did that and came to the conclusion that it's not known. Once you throw out the problematic studies there are NONE left. Ivermectin is safe when prescribed by a doctor, but whether or not it helps with COVID? That's not currently answered by "the science". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 10:34:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Vaccine effectiveness study: we injected the test subjects and none died within the 15min observation window. 100% effective.
Ivermectin study: failed to revive dead covid patients. 100% ineffective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 10:55:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I did that and came to the conclusion that it's not known. Once you throw out the problematic studies there are NONE left. Ivermectin is safe when prescribed by a doctor, but whether or not it helps with COVID? That's not currently answered by "the science". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Once you throw out the crap studies and look at the preponderance of evidence, one can rapidly come to the conclusion that IVM is both safe and effective as both a prophylaxis and as a treatment. I did that and came to the conclusion that it's not known. Once you throw out the problematic studies there are NONE left. Ivermectin is safe when prescribed by a doctor, but whether or not it helps with COVID? That's not currently answered by "the science". Nonsense. You obviously haven't read the studies if you came to that conclusion. Since I've been a follower of this from the beginning and an active participant in the big Kung Flu thread, I've read countless studies on both sides of the issue. If you read them all with a critical eye, and you should, you will come to the same conclusion I did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:08:42 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once you throw out the crap studies and look at the preponderance of evidence, one can rapidly come to the conclusion that IVM is both safe and effective as both a prophylaxis and as a treatment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:10:17 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nonsense. You obviously haven't read the studies if you came to that conclusion. Since I've been a follower of this from the beginning and an active participant in the big Kung Flu thread, I've read countless studies on both sides of the issue. If you read them all with a critical eye, and you should, you will come to the same conclusion I did. I actually did. On the pro IVM side it's a lot of preprints that were never submitted to peer review, or got published in pay for play journals that have very low standards. Then there are some deeply flawed "meta analysis" studies done on top of all this--garbage in, garbage out, basically On the flip side there was one small randomized controlled trial that showed Ivermectin was ineffective. However, they had a screw up during the study and accidentally gave a dose of Ivermectin to the control group. There are also a bunch of non peer reviewed preprints no less problematic than the pro ones. Anyone claiming you can draw definitive conclusions from that pile of garbage has an agenda and isn't objective. ETA: one conclusion you CAN draw is that at a minimum it's safe and doesn't make things WORSE, so it falls into the "no harm in giving it a try" bucket if you want to. Just don't count on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:20:41 AM EDT
[#27]
funny you ask. There was yet another abstract published TODAY confirming the science behind why Ivermectin works against covid and other viruses.
Given the totality of evidence, in short, yes, it works and helps. It's not a "cure", but has efficacy in shortening recovery time, lessening chances of hospitalization/death. There's also another study that has shown it has shortened time for people to re-gain their smell/taste after infection. If given EARLY it has high efficacy, but time is the big factor to see high efficacy results. Anybody telling you "it doesn't work" either is completely ignorant or has a narrative built in their mind. For some people, the in-vivo, in-vitro and in-silico science, the dozens of RCTs, total of 65+ studies and countless clinical observations from doctors using in their practice isn't enough, but an experimental vaccine where it's only been studied for a bit over a year is plenty of evidence of it's efficacy and safety  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925443921002271 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:36:12 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very good answer. The part in red is very important. I would not hesitate to take ivermectin prescribed by my doctor but would not self prescribe veterinary ivermectin. Why would anyone ignore the medical advise of your own doctor just because some internet medical ”expert” you who don’t know from jack $### tells you to do something? Because many doctors are not allowed to recommend, let alone prescribe, ivermectin by their corporate overlords. They have to toe the line. Many of them actually believe the "horse-paste" propaganda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:39:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is complete and utter drivel coupled with deliberate falsehoods. There have been numerous studies, including randomized controlled studies, showing IVM is effective. There are also studies that analyze outcomes based on treatment or lack thereof. While these are not RCTs, they are just as useful. The poster above obviously hasn't read any of them otherwise he would not have made such a breathtakingly stupid comment. Anyway, read for yourself: https://ivmmeta.com/ I've seen ivmmeta, it's total psuedo-science nonsense. You can actually pull up some of the studies it lists that found no benefit for IVM, and they've cherry-picked data out of it and used it to try to say the study showed a benefit.... if anyone does ANY amount of cursory digging, it's VERY clear it's b.s. It's also anonymous... that should be a huge red-flag to anyone... I'm sorry you are allowing yourself to be fooled by it. Chochrane, who is the gold-standard for meta-analysis (not some anonymous website) actually did a real meta-analysis of IVM and couldn't find a benefit with IVM https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full QUESTION: Why would you trust a random website that could be ANYONE (russian / chinese hackers, some guy in his mom's basement, etc), over experts in meta-analysis, that are willing to put their name behind a published paper? That makes zero sense. Regarding the Ivm RCT's, and the fraud and problems with them: This is a good-one pager that discusses all the problems with ivmmeta and these RCTs: https://onepagericu.com/blog/debunking-ivermectin-a-complete-guide Here are some more specific links explaining the some of problems: Elegazzard et al RCT was withdrawn after the data was shown to be fabricated. here. Carvallo has been investigated and it doesn't look like it was performed at all here Niaee was not randomized correctly, or is fraudulent here Here is a good 5-part series going through the debunking on the above and other ivm RCTs. ivmmeta is an anonymous website, full of cherry-picked data, mixed endpoints and all sorts of statistical errors... but it's a pretty website and fools lots of people. Instead of just blinding following a pretty-website with some graphs that fits your bias, go do some reading from real scientists that are willing to debunk this "dribble" and actually have the balls to put their name to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:46:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryTLDR: there are some reasons why it could work but we don't know if it really will |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 11:49:35 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've seen ivmmeta, it's total psuedo-science nonsense. You can actually pull up some of the studies it lists that found no benefit for IVM, and they've cherry-picked data out of it and used it to try to say the study showed a benefit.... if anyone does ANY amount of cursory digging, it's VERY clear it's b.s. It's also anonymous... that should be a huge red-flag to anyone... I'm sorry you are allowing yourself to be fooled by it. Chochrane, who is the gold-standard for meta-analysis (not some anonymous website) actually did a real meta-analysis of IVM and couldn't find a benefit with IVM https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full QUESTION: Why would you trust a random website that could be ANYONE (russian / chinese hackers, some guy in his mom's basement, etc), over experts in meta-analysis, that are willing to put their name behind a published paper? That makes zero sense. Regarding the Ivm RCT's, and the fraud and problems with them: This is a good-one pager that discusses all the problems with ivmmeta and these RCTs: https://onepagericu.com/blog/debunking-ivermectin-a-complete-guide Here are some more specific links explaining the some of problems: Elegazzard et al RCT was withdrawn after the data was shown to be fabricated. here. Carvallo has been investigated and it doesn't look like it was performed at all here Niaee was not randomized correctly, or is fraudulent here Here is a good 5-part series going through the debunking on the above and other ivm RCTs. ivmmeta is an anonymous website, full of cherry-picked data, mixed endpoints and all sorts of statistical errors... but it's a pretty website and fools lots of people. Instead of just blinding following a pretty-website with some graphs that fits your bias, go do some reading from real scientists that are willing to debunk this "dribble" and actually have the balls to put their name to it. yet you literally just cherry picked which RCT is valid in your mind...the problem with almost all of these RCTs is that recruiting for the trials are done in hospital settings where IVM is given 6+ days after onset of symptoms which means any anti-viral benefits of the drug won't see any efficacy. It's why the NIH put up a 9 figure sum of money to study in a very large non-hospitalized patient study that is ongoing which probably won't see results of the trial until end of 2022. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:02:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People believed that it was wildly effective until good data came in and it turned out that the pandemic there burned out for other, coincidental reasons. India stopped recommending and issuing ivermectin. Same thing happened in Peru. Now, ironically, this Third-World folk-medicine "cure" has taken hold in America. "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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:02:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TLDR: there are some reasons why it could work but we don't know if it really will read the in-vivo, in-vitro and in-silico abstracts as well. Yes, it's proven it has anti-viral properties, the biggest question is that is there sufficient dosing in humans to achieve efficacy in reducing viral loads. That hasn't fully been studied to say for sure. Clinical observational numbers say yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:04:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yet you literally just cherry picked which RCT is valid in your mind...the problem with almost all of these RCTs is that recruiting for the trials are done in hospital settings where IVM is given 6+ days after onset of symptoms which means any anti-viral benefits of the drug won't see any efficacy. It's why the NIH put up a 9 figure sum of money to study in a very large non-hospitalized patient study that is ongoing which probably won't see results of the trial until end of 2022. That's the reality though: we will probably not get a good answer until some data comes out of the NIH study, or another like it. That's the way it is. People want to rely on "the science", but the hard truth is that good science takes time. Meanwhile all sides throw around garbage studies claiming they are science and by the time the good studies get published everything is political and the average person doesn't know what to believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:13:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the reality though: we will probably not get a good answer until some data comes out of the NIH study, or another like it. That's the way it is. People want to rely on "the science", but the hard truth is that good science takes time. Meanwhile all sides throw around garbage studies claiming they are science and by the time the good studies get published everything is political and the average person doesn't know what to believe. Then they should let docs prescribe if they want because worst case there is no benefit and no harm done. Instead there's a massive disinfo campaign around IVM coming from media, our own govt and big pharma, large corp pharmacies ordering pharmacists not to fill and docs being threatened with their licenses for prescribing off-label...I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but why such a massive campaign to discredit a drug that is safe? I can think of a few reasons. How do we know some of these "credible" RCTs aren't bought and paid for to come to the conclusion of being "no benefit"? I hate to go there, but seeing the fuckery of this whole pandemic, everything has to be questioned at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:33:52 PM EDT
[#36]
I think the answer to your question on how we know what we can trust, for better or worse, is that we need to rely on peer review. The top journals are pretty good at that. Not infallible, but pretty good.
As to why it's become so political, I don't know. I think it has something to do with Trump promoting hydroxychloroquine, and that somehow shifted to Ivermectin even though Trump never said anything about IVM. It's political BOTH ways now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:41:07 PM EDT
[#37]
reminder that IVM has been studied for at least a decade on various viruses and that it was known to have anti-viral properties against covid since early 2020. It took until mid 2021 before it became political because it started threatening pharma profits with their novel products that have a large profit margin. re-purposed drugs shouldn't be political. There's been doctors using them in their practices for a year or more in combination with other drugs and therapies. Many of them have never lost one patient and have seen very few clinical deteriorations when treated early.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/678291 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:48:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the answer to your question on how we know what we can trust, for better or worse, is that we need to rely on peer review. The top journals are pretty good at that. Not infallible, but pretty good. Unless they've improved greatly in recent years, there's plenty of statistically illiterate bullshit published in Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, etc. You have to read the paper, not the summary, and with a very critical eye. One time (not in medicine) a bunch of first year phd students were told to review a paper which had won an annual contest in the profession's top journal. I thought we wouldn't come up with anything, but we ended up tearing it to pieces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 12:53:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because many doctors are not allowed to recommend, let alone prescribe, ivermectin by their corporate overlords. They have to toe the line. Many of them actually believe the "horse-paste" propaganda. Exactly! Our doctor would not prescribe it, but with a little wink said, "bit I am not going to tell you not to take it" BYW: I kinda started this thread as a rat trap. Caught him on the third post!  I know, I know 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 1:47:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly! Our doctor would not prescribe it, but with a little wink said, "bit I am not going to tell you not to take it" BYW: I kinda started this thread as a rat trap. Caught him on the third post! I know, I know Better yet, how about doing a survey on the covid forum and see how many he has NOT posted in vs has? I'm sure the ratio would be pretty lopsided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 2:53:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL at Google and BBC news on studies as credible evidence. The fact that the FDA and Government attacked ivermectin so hard, being a safe known human drug for decades, as horse paste, tells me all I need to know. The fact that the entire pandemic they’ve been against doctors even daring to seek alternative treatments than the vaccine, including the year before the vaccine existed, also tells me something. They want one solution, their solution. Anything else that has some credibility to it will be attacked. So if they’re against it, you probably want it. Could it be the vaccines are the final solution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 2:56:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those who actually know how to read data will reach the opposite conclusion. You should @ one of them to this thread. You should stick to driving your bus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 2:56:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Don't know if it works, but my doctor seems to think so, at least enough to prescribe me some just in case. If/when I catch it, I'll be taking anything that won't do more harm than good, and Ivermectin falls into that category.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 2:58:13 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those who actually know how to read data will reach the opposite conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Once you throw out the crap studies and look at the preponderance of evidence, one can rapidly come to the conclusion that IVM is both safe and effective as both a prophylaxis and as a treatment. I'm quite certain I can read data and interpret results much, much better than you and most others here with a few exceptions (like @exponentialpi). So, you're comments are specious at best, stupid at worst. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 2:59:23 PM EDT
[#45]
I had terrible horse worms this summer and ivermectin cleared it right up. So that helped.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 3:04:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I actually did. On the pro IVM side it's a lot of preprints that were never submitted to peer review, or got published in pay for play journals that have very low standards. Then there are some deeply flawed "meta analysis" studies done on top of all this--garbage in, garbage out, basically On the flip side there was one small randomized controlled trial that showed Ivermectin was ineffective. However, they had a screw up during the study and accidentally gave a dose of Ivermectin to the control group. There are also a bunch of non peer reviewed preprints no less problematic than the pro ones. Anyone claiming you can draw definitive conclusions from that pile of garbage has an agenda and isn't objective. ETA: one conclusion you CAN draw is that at a minimum it's safe and doesn't make things WORSE, so it falls into the "no harm in giving it a try" bucket if you want to. Just don't count on it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nonsense. You obviously haven't read the studies if you came to that conclusion. Since I've been a follower of this from the beginning and an active participant in the big Kung Flu thread, I've read countless studies on both sides of the issue. If you read them all with a critical eye, and you should, you will come to the same conclusion I did. I actually did. On the pro IVM side it's a lot of preprints that were never submitted to peer review, or got published in pay for play journals that have very low standards. Then there are some deeply flawed "meta analysis" studies done on top of all this--garbage in, garbage out, basically On the flip side there was one small randomized controlled trial that showed Ivermectin was ineffective. However, they had a screw up during the study and accidentally gave a dose of Ivermectin to the control group. There are also a bunch of non peer reviewed preprints no less problematic than the pro ones. Anyone claiming you can draw definitive conclusions from that pile of garbage has an agenda and isn't objective. ETA: one conclusion you CAN draw is that at a minimum it's safe and doesn't make things WORSE, so it falls into the "no harm in giving it a try" bucket if you want to. Just don't count on it. There have been two peer-reviewed RCTs that showed there was an improvement and two that didn't that were not peer-reviewed. There have also been peer-reviewed meta-analyses and retrospective studies done showing effectiveness which are valid analyses. The only problem I've seen with a lot of these RCT studies in general is small sample size. One of the docs who is a big fan of HCQ did a very nice comparison of the efficacy of HCQ vs IVM. His conclusion was that HCQ had a roughly equivalent positive signal to IVM. The video I watched gave his rationale for including or excluding certain studies and it was sound. He showed there is sound evidence for both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 3:06:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've seen ivmmeta, it's total psuedo-science nonsense. You can actually pull up some of the studies it lists that found no benefit for IVM, and they've cherry-picked data out of it and used it to try to say the study showed a benefit.... if anyone does ANY amount of cursory digging, it's VERY clear it's b.s. It's also anonymous... that should be a huge red-flag to anyone... I'm sorry you are allowing yourself to be fooled by it. Chochrane, who is the gold-standard for meta-analysis (not some anonymous website) actually did a real meta-analysis of IVM and couldn't find a benefit with IVM https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full QUESTION: Why would you trust a random website that could be ANYONE (russian / chinese hackers, some guy in his mom's basement, etc), over experts in meta-analysis, that are willing to put their name behind a published paper? That makes zero sense. Regarding the Ivm RCT's, and the fraud and problems with them: This is a good-one pager that discusses all the problems with ivmmeta and these RCTs: https://onepagericu.com/blog/debunking-ivermectin-a-complete-guide Here are some more specific links explaining the some of problems: Elegazzard et al RCT was withdrawn after the data was shown to be fabricated. here. Carvallo has been investigated and it doesn't look like it was performed at all here Niaee was not randomized correctly, or is fraudulent here Here is a good 5-part series going through the debunking on the above and other ivm RCTs. ivmmeta is an anonymous website, full of cherry-picked data, mixed endpoints and all sorts of statistical errors... but it's a pretty website and fools lots of people. Instead of just blinding following a pretty-website with some graphs that fits your bias, go do some reading from real scientists that are willing to debunk this "dribble" and actually have the balls to put their name to it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is complete and utter drivel coupled with deliberate falsehoods. There have been numerous studies, including randomized controlled studies, showing IVM is effective. There are also studies that analyze outcomes based on treatment or lack thereof. While these are not RCTs, they are just as useful. The poster above obviously hasn't read any of them otherwise he would not have made such a breathtakingly stupid comment. Anyway, read for yourself: https://ivmmeta.com/ I've seen ivmmeta, it's total psuedo-science nonsense. You can actually pull up some of the studies it lists that found no benefit for IVM, and they've cherry-picked data out of it and used it to try to say the study showed a benefit.... if anyone does ANY amount of cursory digging, it's VERY clear it's b.s. It's also anonymous... that should be a huge red-flag to anyone... I'm sorry you are allowing yourself to be fooled by it. Chochrane, who is the gold-standard for meta-analysis (not some anonymous website) actually did a real meta-analysis of IVM and couldn't find a benefit with IVM https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full QUESTION: Why would you trust a random website that could be ANYONE (russian / chinese hackers, some guy in his mom's basement, etc), over experts in meta-analysis, that are willing to put their name behind a published paper? That makes zero sense. Regarding the Ivm RCT's, and the fraud and problems with them: This is a good-one pager that discusses all the problems with ivmmeta and these RCTs: https://onepagericu.com/blog/debunking-ivermectin-a-complete-guide Here are some more specific links explaining the some of problems: Elegazzard et al RCT was withdrawn after the data was shown to be fabricated. here. Carvallo has been investigated and it doesn't look like it was performed at all here Niaee was not randomized correctly, or is fraudulent here Here is a good 5-part series going through the debunking on the above and other ivm RCTs. ivmmeta is an anonymous website, full of cherry-picked data, mixed endpoints and all sorts of statistical errors... but it's a pretty website and fools lots of people. Instead of just blinding following a pretty-website with some graphs that fits your bias, go do some reading from real scientists that are willing to debunk this "dribble" and actually have the balls to put their name to it. Ah, yes, the usual pablum from the ignorant and uninformed. In case it escaped your notice, there are links to each of the studies that one can read for yourself. Since you haven't bothered as evidenced by your ignorant posting, I'll just suggest you do your homework before coming back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 3:09:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless they've improved greatly in recent years, there's plenty of statistically illiterate bullshit published in Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, etc. You have to read the paper, not the summary, and with a very critical eye. One time (not in medicine) a bunch of first year phd students were told to review a paper which had won an annual contest in the profession's top journal. I thought we wouldn't come up with anything, but we ended up tearing it to pieces. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the answer to your question on how we know what we can trust, for better or worse, is that we need to rely on peer review. The top journals are pretty good at that. Not infallible, but pretty good. Unless they've improved greatly in recent years, there's plenty of statistically illiterate bullshit published in Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, etc. You have to read the paper, not the summary, and with a very critical eye. One time (not in medicine) a bunch of first year phd students were told to review a paper which had won an annual contest in the profession's top journal. I thought we wouldn't come up with anything, but we ended up tearing it to pieces. I recall that Lancet "peer reviewed" study that they had to retract because it turned out the data was completely made up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 3:21:04 PM EDT
[#49]
It helped a cousin and her husband who is pre-diabetic.
Was a lower dose and taken within 4-5 days of testing positive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2021 3:21:58 PM EDT
[#50]
 at all of you who think that just because it's peer reviewed that makes it unquestionably true.Because there's no chance that the peer-review process could possibly be corrupted, like everything else. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
