Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
- shinysideup
- Rank 1
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:48 am
- Location: YWG
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
[quote] Two people I know that got COVID...[/quote]
We don't choose drugs based on cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. We pick them based on controlled studies.
[/quote]
This was just an example. There are lots of controlled studies, but are ignored by the USA and CAN, but excepted in Mexico. That is my point. You need to think worldwide, not in your little bubble.
We don't choose drugs based on cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. We pick them based on controlled studies.
[/quote]
This was just an example. There are lots of controlled studies, but are ignored by the USA and CAN, but excepted in Mexico. That is my point. You need to think worldwide, not in your little bubble.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
That's the point. We don't pick drugs based on "just an example" - so mentioning "just an example" is entirely irrelevant and should play zero part in persuading people what drugs to take. You know that, and you know that it was improper to mention "just an example".
Because they're not accepted in Canada as reliable. I love to think worldwide, and I'm very happy for Mexicans and people who live in Mexico to take drugs recommended by Mexican authorities. Good for them. I live in Canada, and I trust Canadian health authorities. I'm not venue shopping for Covid treatments.There are lots of controlled studies, but are ignored by the USA and CAN, but excepted in Mexico.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
I'm hopeful about ivermectin, as I would like to have a treatment for this just as much as anybody else. But the trials that have been done on it in regards to a covid treatment, in mexico and other places, are incredibly small and have a weak enough signal to be largely inconclusive. If you have some examples of prospective randomized control trials that show a conclusive positive effect where the error bars are not crossing over the "no effect" point I would love to read them. There are still a number of ongoing trials which may show a stronger signal, in due time.
I've heard a number of anecdotes about people being "saved" by taking ivermectin, including in Canada and the US (so clearly the drug is being used quite a bit here too). But looking globally, the countries with the highest use of the drug tend to correlate with the countries having the highest mortality rate from the disease, which doesn't speak well for its effectiveness. Mexico has an excess mortality of over 600k during this pandemic (about 0.5% of the total population, almost 3x the reported covid mortality), whereas Canada has had an excess mortality of less than 40k (0.1% of the population). This doesn't jive with the conclusion that Mexican doctors are saving lives whereas Canadian ones are letting people die.
I also don't see where this false dichotomy of vaccine vs treatment is coming from. Vaccines and treatments are both appropriate, at different times. The fact that we have treatments for other diseases (such as antibiotics for bacterial diseases or antivirals for HIV treatment) has never been a reason to give up on avoiding getting sick in the first place.
I've heard a number of anecdotes about people being "saved" by taking ivermectin, including in Canada and the US (so clearly the drug is being used quite a bit here too). But looking globally, the countries with the highest use of the drug tend to correlate with the countries having the highest mortality rate from the disease, which doesn't speak well for its effectiveness. Mexico has an excess mortality of over 600k during this pandemic (about 0.5% of the total population, almost 3x the reported covid mortality), whereas Canada has had an excess mortality of less than 40k (0.1% of the population). This doesn't jive with the conclusion that Mexican doctors are saving lives whereas Canadian ones are letting people die.
I also don't see where this false dichotomy of vaccine vs treatment is coming from. Vaccines and treatments are both appropriate, at different times. The fact that we have treatments for other diseases (such as antibiotics for bacterial diseases or antivirals for HIV treatment) has never been a reason to give up on avoiding getting sick in the first place.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
- shinysideup
- Rank 1
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:48 am
- Location: YWG
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
Wow, photofly, your statements make no sense at all.
I'm just giving an example of Ivermectin working. Not mandating it on anyone. The world doesn't revolve around CAN and the USA. This is a global forum. Just living in your bubble!! Enjoy your sterile life.
Do you have personal experiences of Ivermectin not working??
I'm just giving an example of Ivermectin working. Not mandating it on anyone. The world doesn't revolve around CAN and the USA. This is a global forum. Just living in your bubble!! Enjoy your sterile life.
Do you have personal experiences of Ivermectin not working??
- shinysideup
- Rank 1
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:48 am
- Location: YWG
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-cont ... gazzar.pdf
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
https://ivmstatus.com/
Unfortunately Mexico has very large population of poor and underdeveloped areas. The local free hospitals are not the best. Most COVID cases arrive at the hospital too late for early treatment. There is the argument about testing and counting actual deaths attributed to COVID and not just underlying conditions. From main stream media, the "reported" numbers and how they report the situation here in Mexico, in my opinion, it sure feels like the numbers and news articles really don't correlate to the actual situation here.
Just my two cents.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
https://ivmstatus.com/
Unfortunately Mexico has very large population of poor and underdeveloped areas. The local free hospitals are not the best. Most COVID cases arrive at the hospital too late for early treatment. There is the argument about testing and counting actual deaths attributed to COVID and not just underlying conditions. From main stream media, the "reported" numbers and how they report the situation here in Mexico, in my opinion, it sure feels like the numbers and news articles really don't correlate to the actual situation here.
Just my two cents.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
So here is a cold hard slap of reality:
An elderly family member was sick with pneumonia and hosptilized this spring. Then they magically tested positive for Covid during their hospital stay. We( two immediate family members) requested a meeting with the attending doctor. After he had gone through his standard delivery on the case and ,basically, said there was nothing that could be done we asked him several questions. Two of these questions were as follows.
#1: Is Ivermectin available at this hospital?
#2: Will you administer it to this patient?
His reply to #1 was to state that Ivermectin was not recommended by his governing body but it was not illegal either. He refused to answer #2 until he looked into the situation a little more to see if Ivermectin was available to the hospital. He said he would call us back. 1 hour later he called us back and he was singing a different tune. #1 Ivermectin doses in Canada were in short supply but there were doses on their way to this hospital and he would try to set some aside for our relative. #2 And, yes, he would administer it. Unfortunately this family member passed away before the Ivermectin arrived. But a very interesting situation regarding Ivermectin which was not expected.
An elderly family member was sick with pneumonia and hosptilized this spring. Then they magically tested positive for Covid during their hospital stay. We( two immediate family members) requested a meeting with the attending doctor. After he had gone through his standard delivery on the case and ,basically, said there was nothing that could be done we asked him several questions. Two of these questions were as follows.
#1: Is Ivermectin available at this hospital?
#2: Will you administer it to this patient?
His reply to #1 was to state that Ivermectin was not recommended by his governing body but it was not illegal either. He refused to answer #2 until he looked into the situation a little more to see if Ivermectin was available to the hospital. He said he would call us back. 1 hour later he called us back and he was singing a different tune. #1 Ivermectin doses in Canada were in short supply but there were doses on their way to this hospital and he would try to set some aside for our relative. #2 And, yes, he would administer it. Unfortunately this family member passed away before the Ivermectin arrived. But a very interesting situation regarding Ivermectin which was not expected.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
It woudn't matter if I did, because that would be anecdotal, and irrelevant.shinysideup wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:15 am Do you have personal experiences of Ivermectin not working??
A close relative of mine once took part in a clinical trial for a novel treatment from a tiny pharma company for a condition from which they suffered. The treatment "worked", and the condition was cured. When the results of the test were correlated, the treatment had no demonstrable effect, and the treatment was not approved.
I didn't get on the internet about conspiracies or make youtube videos about how big pharma was deliberately preventing the world receiving the benefit of this new idea.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
SSU, those are the studies I was talking about. Take a look at the first link you posted, which was a response by Bryant et al to the removal of Elgazzar data from the meta-study. The four trials they used for treatment in mild cases and four for treatment in severe cases all had results that were not statistically significant, and their pooling was also not statistically significant (p=0.12 and 0.42 respectively). Only one RCT (Niaee 2020) had a statistically significant effect, but unfortunately it is a pre-print with both a small sample size and considerable heterogeneity between the control and treatment groups. Also, while that particular study showed a correlation between the use of ivermectin and reduced mortality, it showed a correlation between the dosage and increased mortality.
Several other countries (Brazil, Peru) have seen extensive use of the ivermectin, to the point where it is difficult for researchers to find control groups for trials when excluding for previous use of the drug. Their mortality figures imply that, even if there is some effect for some people, it is not a ready substitute for other treatments that have been shown to have a more definitive effect.
Several other countries (Brazil, Peru) have seen extensive use of the ivermectin, to the point where it is difficult for researchers to find control groups for trials when excluding for previous use of the drug. Their mortality figures imply that, even if there is some effect for some people, it is not a ready substitute for other treatments that have been shown to have a more definitive effect.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
Sorry I'm not following the lesson that you're giving in your cold dose of reality.palebird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:38 am So here is a cold hard slap of reality:
An elderly family member was sick with pneumonia and hosptilized this spring. Then they magically tested positive for Covid during their hospital stay. We( two immediate family members) requested a meeting with the attending doctor. After he had gone through his standard delivery on the case and ,basically, said there was nothing that could be done we asked him several questions. Two of these questions were as follows.
#1: Is Ivermectin available at this hospital?
#2: Will you administer it to this patient?
His reply to #1 was to state that Ivermectin was not recommended by his governing body but it was not illegal either. He refused to answer #2 until he looked into the situation a little more to see if Ivermectin was available to the hospital. He said he would call us back. 1 hour later he called us back and he was singing a different tune. #1 Ivermectin doses in Canada were in short supply but there were doses on their way to this hospital and he would try to set some aside for our relative. #2 And, yes, he would administer it. Unfortunately this family member passed away before the Ivermectin arrived. But a very interesting situation regarding Ivermectin which was not expected.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
Definitive proof that almost taking Ivermectin kills people.palebird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:38 am So here is a cold hard slap of reality:
An elderly family member was sick with pneumonia and hosptilized this spring. Then they magically tested positive for Covid during their hospital stay. We( two immediate family members) requested a meeting with the attending doctor. After he had gone through his standard delivery on the case and ,basically, said there was nothing that could be done we asked him several questions. Two of these questions were as follows.
#1: Is Ivermectin available at this hospital?
#2: Will you administer it to this patient?
His reply to #1 was to state that Ivermectin was not recommended by his governing body but it was not illegal either. He refused to answer #2 until he looked into the situation a little more to see if Ivermectin was available to the hospital. He said he would call us back. 1 hour later he called us back and he was singing a different tune. #1 Ivermectin doses in Canada were in short supply but there were doses on their way to this hospital and he would try to set some aside for our relative. #2 And, yes, he would administer it. Unfortunately this family member passed away before the Ivermectin arrived. But a very interesting situation regarding Ivermectin which was not expected.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
As well as analysis of recent studies for use against covid, this article offers interesting background information on the very successful use of ivermectin to treat serious viral infections in humans over the last 30+ years.
As well as analysis of recent studies for use against covid, this article offers interesting background information on the very successful use of ivermectin to treat serious viral infections in humans over the last 30+ years.
It is really disheartening to see how easily most of the population has become politicized over science and medicine. Our politicians and media should be ashamed of themselves for their role in this, as should we for allowing ourselves to be so easily manipulated. These covid discussions seem to bring out the absolute worst in people.Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
One presumes the irony was intentional?shimmydampner wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:20 am It is really disheartening to see how easily most of the population has become politicized over science and medicine. Our politicians and media should be ashamed of themselves for their role in this, as should we for allowing ourselves to be so easily manipulated. These covid discussions seem to bring out the absolute worst in people.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
No. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please elaborate.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
I wouldn't have thought I would need to spell it out.
Your post blames politicians, and media: you thereby make it a political issue. You try to summarize scientific data that you know full well is not widely accepted, and is full of nuance, as simple and settled, quoting only a brief conclusion that suits your agenda. In this way, you seek to manipulate. When you say "[o]ur politicians and media should be ashamed of themselves" that hypercritical judgment does rather appear to demonstrate the worst in you. On all counts therefore your post is guilty of everything it critiques in COVID discussions.
Hence, I wondered if the clear irony was deliberate, or unknowing.
Your post blames politicians, and media: you thereby make it a political issue. You try to summarize scientific data that you know full well is not widely accepted, and is full of nuance, as simple and settled, quoting only a brief conclusion that suits your agenda. In this way, you seek to manipulate. When you say "[o]ur politicians and media should be ashamed of themselves" that hypercritical judgment does rather appear to demonstrate the worst in you. On all counts therefore your post is guilty of everything it critiques in COVID discussions.
Hence, I wondered if the clear irony was deliberate, or unknowing.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
You're assigning malicious intent where there was none. I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available. Because to many people, it's not about facts, it's about being in a certain camp and only accepting what fits that camp's agenda and rejecting what does not. There is no critical thinking. No willingness to look at anything from a perspective beyond one's own. Your adversarial response to my benign post serves to prove that point. Did you read the study before you went on the attack?
After refreshing my memory of why I have taken to not visiting this site as of late, I think I'll go back to that. Enjoy your day and stay healthy.
After refreshing my memory of why I have taken to not visiting this site as of late, I think I'll go back to that. Enjoy your day and stay healthy.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
I'm afraid that's 'par for the course' on this site, which has become weird and pathetic.
Kinda like the country..
Kinda like the country..
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
Shimmydamper, I have read the study, along with a number of the studies that underlie their meta-analysis (specifically the ones that focus on morality as the outcome). I would be happy to discuss with you my thoughts on it, although I'll say up front that I'm not very bullish on their conclusions. Since, as you say, this site does not allow for any kind of nuanced discussions without people interrupting with baseless hyperbole, I would suggest PMs or some other means.shimmydampner wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:52 am You're assigning malicious intent where there was none. I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available. Because to many people, it's not about facts, it's about being in a certain camp and only accepting what fits that camp's agenda and rejecting what does not. There is no critical thinking. No willingness to look at anything from a perspective beyond one's own. Your adversarial response to my benign post serves to prove that point. Did you read the study before you went on the attack?
After refreshing my memory of why I have taken to not visiting this site as of late, I think I'll go back to that. Enjoy your day and stay healthy.
Cheers!
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
No malice is imputed. I was pointing out that it's not possible objectively to critique the style of a debate while simultaneously engaging in it.shimmydampner wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:52 am You're assigning malicious intent where there was none.
Well, let's look at that statement. You are implying that *your* selection of which facts are "readily available" and *your* interpretations of them, are the ones that we should agree on, are you not?I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available.
Is that not seeking to manipulate? I merely ask.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
Well put.shimmydampner wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:52 am You're assigning malicious intent where there was none. I was merely posting an interesting scientific analysis on the topic at hand, and making a relevant observation that we can't even seem to agree on what the facts are, even when they are readily available. Because to many people, it's not about facts, it's about being in a certain camp and only accepting what fits that camp's agenda and rejecting what does not. There is no critical thinking. No willingness to look at anything from a perspective beyond one's own. Your adversarial response to my benign post serves to prove that point. Did you read the study before you went on the attack?
After refreshing my memory of why I have taken to not visiting this site as of late, I think I'll go back to that. Enjoy your day and stay healthy.
Being on the popular side of an argument is the most important thing to these people, and anyone that disagrees, that questions, that pushes back - censored/cancelled/fired.
Science and realty isn't dictated by consensus, it isn't driven by dogma. We're going back to the dark ages the way people are(n't) thinking.
Re: Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century
The disease is the enemy , not those who are confused by the evolving and incongruous media stories .
Attempts to be civil and cheerful are greatly appreciated.
Attempts to be civil and cheerful are greatly appreciated.