Ivermectin-Disinformation of the century

[photofly]

https://www.onedaymd.com/2021/08/what-c ... n.html?m=1

Japan latest country to green light IVM.

That's great. I'm not sure how that fits in with the whole "the establishment is hiding this wonder-drug from the world" theme being pushed in this thread (hint: it doesn't.) Let's hope that some reliable double-blind trials show it's effective, and then we can use it here, too.

[Posthumane]

Large numbers of people in Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and several other south american countries have been taking ivermectin since last winter. How has it worked out for them?

https://journals.lww.com/americantherap ... _of.7.aspx

Good post Eric.

You're absolutely right.

The narrative is being controlled and censorship is rampant.

People don't want to open their eyes and question anything and they shout down anyone challenging their dogma rather than engaging and looking at the other side of the issue

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.

First you have to account for the fact that one of the trials included in this meta-study is the now-infamous one that was pulled for basically fabricating their data (Elgazzar 2021). It was weighted as 17.7% contribution to the meta study and rated with a high degree of confidence. Taking that out yields rather different results.
Second, 8 of the 10 studies that contributed to the overall risk of all cause mortality in that meta-study had Risk Reduction confidence intervals that exceeded 1 on the high end. In other words, only 2 of 10 studies found a statistically significant reduction in deaths. So there may be some signal there, but it's been exceeding difficult to eek out.

The meta-study being quoted said that while the authors have moderate confidence in a reduction in deaths, they have a low to very-low confidence in any reduction in recovery time, hospital admissions, ICU admissions, or the increase in serious adverse events.

[2R]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion ... 19364.html

Do yourself a favour and read the article . As for medical data coming from India . Try using Pink , Yellow , Green in a sentence .
India today has some of the Top Cardiologists and Surgeons in the world . North American Hospitals depend on foreign trained medical personnel .

Sorry, But I, Probably Won’t , Listen to You.. . ., .

Your smarter than you look !

[deadbear]

https://c19ivermectin.com/

Probability results from ineffective treatment as of August 11th, 1 in 1 trillion. Yep pretty sure IVM has been proven to work.

[photofly]

What confidence do you have that it is not the case that a bunch of trials with negative results weren’t reported, or were missed out from the lovely graphic?

[CpnCrunch]

https://c19ivermectin.com/

Probability results from ineffective treatment as of August 11th, 1 in 1 trillion. Yep pretty sure IVM has been proven to work.

Random website vs cochrane. If your analysis is better than cochrane feel free to publish. Otherwise im calling bs on your bs website. Do you understand science? If you did you wouldnt be posting that site.

[deadbear]

What confidence do you have that it is not the case that a bunch of trials with negative results weren’t reported, or were missed out from the lovely graphic?

100% confident with 1 in 1 trillion. I know IVM works and so does 1/3 of the rest of the world. Japan green lighting IVM and Canada sitting on the sidelines not following the science got to love it.

Zinc and zinc ionophores for the win. I also believe in the benefits of EGCG or Quercetin and Zinc. Not as good as IVM but an alternative.

Also not a random website. It lists each and every IVM study. Read them. Find it funny how when the data is presented you are afraid to read and analyze for yourself. This is science. Not calling BS but discussing and learning from the work of others. If the work is BS prove it. Again hard to dispute 1 in 1 trillion.

[montado]

I heard you can’t authorize a vax for emergency use in the USA if you have a treatment for a disease available. If that’s true, that would add some fuel to the fire. Basically make it so there’s no treatment except for trials to make sure you can sell the vaccines first.

Who knows… but I’m certain money is a huge motivation. Wouldn’t be the first time profit came before lives.

[Posthumane]

Deadbear, did you read and analyze the data yourself as you are telling others to do?

I read a few of the studies related to Invermectin. There are only a handful of RCTs that looked at mortality outcomes of treatment of invermectin (often combined with other treatments such as doxycycline) vs standard treatment, and almost all of them have very wide confidence intervals due to small sample sizes. The meta-studies on the subject all look at the same RCTs (Elgazzar, Lopez-Medina, Mahmud, Ravikirti, Galan, Gonzales, Hashim, Okumus, Niaee) with different weightings of the data to come up with slightly different RR values. The largest of those studies (400 people) which also had the highest signal (0.1 RR) was retracted as it was falsified, but the meta-studies continue to include it.

The 1 in a trillion figure is basically saying that it's likely there is SOME effect from the drug, but it doesn't specify what that effect is - could be a 5% reduction in recovery time. Treatments are chosen based on clinical significance in their effects. Now, if someone is about to die, I can't blame a doctor for throwing a cocktail of everything they have available to try to save the person, but even the best trial results haven't shown this treatment coming close to having the efficacy of the vaccines available and none of the people studying them are advocating the drug as a replacement for vaccination, only as a possible addition to the variety of treatments on offer.

[CpnCrunch]

Find it funny how when the data is presented you are afraid to read and analyze for yourself. This is science. Not calling BS but discussing and learning from the work of others. If the work is BS prove it. Again hard to dispute 1 in 1 trillion.

Ok, let me know why you disagree with Cochrane. They say evidence quality is low or very low, and IIRC very low certainty of evidence for efficacy. It's basically shit evidence.

And let's look at the actual studies on that site you gave. It shows López-Medina as 67% improvement, but the actual study found no significant difference between treatment and control groups:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2777389

"Conclusion and Relevance Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes."

So not only do you not understand the science, but you posted a site that misrepresents the actual data, and you seem to be too lazy to even bother checking it yourself (never mind looking at the Cochrane or other high quality reviews).

[deadbear]

Well IVM and HCQ need zinc as they are both zinc ionophores. Like having a great gun to kill the virus and no bullet.

Here is an interesting study on the modes of action of IVM. Lists 20 modes of action.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

Don't you find it funny that IVM is being blocked and in the U.S. they are pushing Remdesivir. Which is known to kill. After watching the video below what would you want to get if you get hospitalized with Covid an IVM protocol or Remdesivir. Early treatment with the right protocols is the key not vaccinations.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 71206&_rdr
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/202 ... -maladies/

[photofly]

It isn’t being blocked. It merely is not approved.

[photofly]

I heard you can’t authorize a vax for emergency use in the USA if you have a treatment for a disease available. If that’s true, that would add some fuel to the fire. Basically make it so there’s no treatment except for trials to make sure you can sell the vaccines first.

In your world, do people really behave like this? I mean, is that just off-the-cuff cynicism to look big, or do you deep down think this is truly how people behave?

In my world, this doesn't happen. I think my world is a much nicer place to live than yours.

[geodoc]

.

"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"

— General Jack D. Ripper

General Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.


Everything old is new again!

.

[‘Bob’]

Group Captain Mandrake was a prevert.

[geodoc]

Group Captain Mandrake was a prevert.

What was the nature of his perversion? Maybe it's something we have in common.



.

[montado]

I heard you can’t authorize a vax for emergency use in the USA if you have a treatment for a disease available. If that’s true, that would add some fuel to the fire. Basically make it so there’s no treatment except for trials to make sure you can sell the vaccines first.

In your world, do people really behave like this? I mean, is that just off-the-cuff cynicism to look big, or do you deep down think this is truly how people behave?

In my world, this doesn't happen. I think my world is a much nicer place to live than yours.

Of course they do. Even if it’s not blatantly intentional, people have bias. Check out the conditions for emergency use and you will see how stringent the criteria are.

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedn ... uaguidance

So whether a group of people are intentionally blocking and spreading disinformation to prevent a treatment being available so that the vaccine was used, I have no idea. The world is not a nice place. Life is full of tragedy, life is difficult, life is not fair, and I don’t think all decisions made at the “top” are purely about public health. I don’t necessarily believe the intentions are completely evil either. I’m just sceptical to take some mainstream beliefs at face value.

[2R]

Trust

A self confessed liar lies to Congress . What else is he lying about ?

[shinysideup]

I have moved to Mexico over COVID. I have many friends that have tested positive for COVID, vaccinated and unvaccinated!! When you test positive for COVID in Mexico the doctors [u]PRESCRIBE[/u] Ivermectin (in addition to a few other things). It is saving lives and reducing the hospitalizations here in Mexico. If you believe Ivermectin to be just a horse dewormer, you are ignorant. Two people I know that got COVID, had it really bad and took Ivermectin. Their doctors both said, it probably saved their lives!!

It may not be a 100% cure, but it has saved lives. Canada and the US just want to push vaccines, letting people die on ventilators, by not allowing any alternative treatments.

Ivermectin has a higher safety record than Tylenol.

[photofly]

Ivermectin has a higher safety record than Tylenol.

Well that's a completely dumb comparison, because Tylenol has a terrible safety record and if was a new drug today it probably wouldn't be permitted. Per Wikipedia:

Paracetamol poisoning is the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western world, and accounts for most drug overdoses in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.[43][44][45]

Two people I know that got COVID...

We don't choose drugs based on cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. We pick them based on controlled studies.