Large Ivermectin study shows it works
Large Ivermectin study shows it works
https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-i ... e-matching
Yet another study that shows Ivermectin works.
Yet another study that shows Ivermectin works.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
You joined this forum two weeks ago and have made sixteen posts, every single one about COVID and from an antivax perspective.
Do you have anything to do with aviation at all?
Do you have anything to do with aviation at all?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
I don't see you calling out the posters on the other side of that statement as well.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
No it doesn't. It's an observational study. Large RCTs show it doesn't work.JonMom wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:50 pm https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-i ... e-matching
Yet another study that shows Ivermectin works.
- Old fella
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
I believe 2022 is going to be the best year yet for this site on the entertainment value, the comedy acts here are going to be much better than live concerts if topics like this are of any indication. I am for sure gonna stick around and tune in.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
I don’t understand this nonsense, however fill yer boots, go ahead and take ivermectin(maybe if you combine it with the urine treatment) despite numerous studies showing it’s useless for Covid. The bottom paragraph I’ve bolded for you is the real important part. I’ll continue with the vaccine treatment, it continues to show real world success in the outcome.JonMom wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:50 pm https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-i ... e-matching
Yet another study that shows Ivermectin works.
You go ahead and hitch your horse(pun intended) to the ivermectin wagon, good luck to you!
From the disputed study you posted,
“Since vaccines for COVID-19 were not available in Brazil until 2021, and because of the lack of prophylactic alternatives in the absence of vaccines, Itajaí, a city in the southern Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, initiated a population-wide government program for COVID-19 prophylaxis.”
Disputing the study you posted, yet again! If you were on Facebook with this nonsense, you would join Trump, banned for misinformation!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415510/
“Inaccurate Real-World Data Does Not Provide Real-World Answers”
“Some Brazilian cities (such as Macapa and Itajai) where ivermectin was widely used became the cities with the highest case fatality rate at the beginning of 2021, while Ivermectin continued to be administered to the population”
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
So here are the choices
1) Take a vaccine approved by the health authorities in over 80 countries and which has efficacy and side effects data from over 1 Billion people, or
2) Take a drug designed to deworm horses that is “approved” by various internet influencers, none of which have credible medical credentials.
Wow of course I am going to go with the horse deworming drug because I love horses and a friend of friend who he thinks is a doctor says it’s the best
1) Take a vaccine approved by the health authorities in over 80 countries and which has efficacy and side effects data from over 1 Billion people, or
2) Take a drug designed to deworm horses that is “approved” by various internet influencers, none of which have credible medical credentials.
Wow of course I am going to go with the horse deworming drug because I love horses and a friend of friend who he thinks is a doctor says it’s the best
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2083
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 6:21 am
- Location: The Lake.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
…
Last edited by Just another canuck on Sat Feb 19, 2022 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did do.
So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover.
So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
1) Are Comirnaty and Spikevax what are being offered in Canada?Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:52 pm So here are the choices
1) Take a vaccine approved by the health authorities in over 80 countries and which has efficacy and side effects data from over 1 Billion people, or
2) Take a drug designed to deworm horses that is “approved” by various internet influencers, none of which have credible medical credentials.
Wow of course I am going to go with the horse deworming drug because I love horses and a friend of friend who he thinks is a doctor says it’s the best
2) Do you believe that Ivermectin is designed to deworm horses?
and...
3) How much Comirnaty/Spikevax do you believe you can take? For how long?
4) Do you support any treatment being adopted for covid? Or are vaccines the only hope?
Last edited by altiplano on Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
Interesting read, thanks for posting the study.
Observational studies, while not as good as RCTs, shouldn't be dismissed as meritless. However, care should be taken in interpreting their results, especially if it contradicts those of RCTs.
On first read there were a few things than jumped out at me about this study:
- The title of the study says it's a prospective study of 223,128 subjects. However, the body of the study states that it is a retrospective analysis and that 159,561 subjects were included in the study (out of a city population of 223,128). Again, a retrospective analysis is not without merit but it doesn't hold the same weight as a prospective one due to the possibility of bias; retrospective studies are easy to tailor to the data even if unintentionally.
- The discrepancy in the number of subjects was odd until i got the to the supplemental information in the appendix which showed that the trial protocol was changed mid-analysis. The original version did use the full population as subjects in the study and found a 7% reduction in infection. The trial protocol was then changed to exclude a portion of the population from the "non-users" side of the equation which increased the apparent reduction in infection to 44%. There may be a good reason for this protocol change, but it is not stated.
- The intervention group had 4197 infections and the control group had 3034 infections. 3034 infected persons from the intervention group were matched to the persons from the control group and included 25 deaths in the intervention group vs 79 in the control group (0.8% and 2.6% respectively). However, the total deaths in the intervention group was 62, which means the remaining unmatched group of 1163 had 37 death for a rate of 3.2%. This points to a potential selection bias in the matching.
- There were no controls for other treatments that people in the study used either prior to or after infection. The control group is stated to be made up of people who refused or were not offered ivermectin. It is not specified why some people were not offered the treatment and highlights a potential difference in the availability of other treatments to those persons (e.g. if the treatment was not available to them because of socioeconomic factors).
I know these comments won't mean much to the "vaccine bad, ivermectin good" camp (or the "horse dewormer" camp), but there are some people on this forum with research backgrounds so I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Observational studies, while not as good as RCTs, shouldn't be dismissed as meritless. However, care should be taken in interpreting their results, especially if it contradicts those of RCTs.
On first read there were a few things than jumped out at me about this study:
- The title of the study says it's a prospective study of 223,128 subjects. However, the body of the study states that it is a retrospective analysis and that 159,561 subjects were included in the study (out of a city population of 223,128). Again, a retrospective analysis is not without merit but it doesn't hold the same weight as a prospective one due to the possibility of bias; retrospective studies are easy to tailor to the data even if unintentionally.
- The discrepancy in the number of subjects was odd until i got the to the supplemental information in the appendix which showed that the trial protocol was changed mid-analysis. The original version did use the full population as subjects in the study and found a 7% reduction in infection. The trial protocol was then changed to exclude a portion of the population from the "non-users" side of the equation which increased the apparent reduction in infection to 44%. There may be a good reason for this protocol change, but it is not stated.
- The intervention group had 4197 infections and the control group had 3034 infections. 3034 infected persons from the intervention group were matched to the persons from the control group and included 25 deaths in the intervention group vs 79 in the control group (0.8% and 2.6% respectively). However, the total deaths in the intervention group was 62, which means the remaining unmatched group of 1163 had 37 death for a rate of 3.2%. This points to a potential selection bias in the matching.
- There were no controls for other treatments that people in the study used either prior to or after infection. The control group is stated to be made up of people who refused or were not offered ivermectin. It is not specified why some people were not offered the treatment and highlights a potential difference in the availability of other treatments to those persons (e.g. if the treatment was not available to them because of socioeconomic factors).
I know these comments won't mean much to the "vaccine bad, ivermectin good" camp (or the "horse dewormer" camp), but there are some people on this forum with research backgrounds so I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
I make no claim on ivermectin’s ability or not to impact covid. But point 2 above is the bull that makes people mistrust media and others.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:52 pm So here are the choices
1) Take a vaccine approved by the health authorities in over 80 countries and which has efficacy and side effects data from over 1 Billion people, or
2) Take a drug designed to deworm horses that is “approved” by various internet influencers, none of which have credible medical credentials.
Wow of course I am going to go with the horse deworming drug because I love horses and a friend of friend who he thinks is a doctor says it’s the best
If prescribed by a doctor, it is not horse dewormer. Don’t muddy the waters. Make the case.Ivermectin (/ˌaɪvərˈmɛktɪn/, EYE-vər-MEK-tin) is an antiparasitic medication[6][7] used to treat infestations in humans include head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.[6][8][9][10] In veterinary medicine, it is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications.[9] It works through many mechanisms to kill the targeted parasites,[6] and can be taken orally, or applied to the skin for external infestations.[6][11] It belongs to the avermectin family of medications.[6]
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:29 am
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
I dare not speak of the false "I" god again, lest I incur some serious wrath, but is it "anti-vax" to discuss treatment options? I'm still not clear on this part of my new religion. As a person who has accepted Pfizer into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour, when I catch covid, am I allowed to accept treatments or is that haram? Will I still get my 72 virgins, or will that make me anti-vax?
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
If you have any clue how racist that last post is, you'll fix it, pronto.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
Well you deliberately post weird unscientific bullshit here, so I'm not sure what that makes you. You admitted previously you got the IVM study wrong, and realised it wasn't actually peer-reviewed (after I pointed out that they were basically lying). I think antivaxxers are of the same ilk as you.Vaticinator wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:56 pm
I dare not speak of the false "I" god again, lest I incur some serious wrath, but is it "anti-vax" to discuss treatment options? I'm still not clear on this part of my new religion. As a person who has accepted Pfizer into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour, when I catch covid, am I allowed to accept treatments or is that haram? Will I still get my 72 virgins, or will that make me anti-vax?
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
I belive there is now an effective Pfizer pill that has been approved.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:29 am
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
Are you one of those people who think certain religions equate to race? In your world, what races are allowed to be what religions? Do you have any idea what race I am? If you have any idea how racist your post is, you'll fix it, pronto.
Are you interested in actually answering the question? Is it "anti-vax" to discuss non-vaccine prophylaxis or treatments, as your original response implies? Or are you just here for ad hominem attacks and name calling in response to what you view as heresy?
Last edited by Vaticinator on Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:40 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:29 am
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
You think anti-vaxxers are fully vaccinated and also hopeful for effective treatment options? If that's the case they sound pretty reasonable.
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
The same misunderstandings about pretty straightforward science.Vaticinator wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:21 pmYou think anti-vaxxers are fully vaccinated and also hopeful for effective treatment options? If that's the case they sound pretty reasonable.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:29 am
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
What misunderstandings about what science?
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
- Location: The Okanagan
Re: Large Ivermectin study shows it works
If it can be proven that COVID 19 is carried by a parasite, we're off to the races.
Until then...
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021 ... cines.html
Until then...
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021 ... cines.html