You’re linking us to a refuted paper.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...ersial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505
Exactly.Oof, it's just the Kory paper.
You’re linking us to a refuted paper.
Exactly.Oof, it's just the Kory paper.
Setting aside your ridiculous moving of the goalposts (2 billion patients a year initially was the claim ), the whole point is that it has no impact on COVID when used at safe dosages, so if it's used at high doses then the previous safety profile is completely irrelevant.Oh the irony.
I have literally posted so many sources verifying that it is used by millions every year.
Supply chain? How the feck do you know how many of those have actually went to/were used by people? again the original point was that it is a safe and widely used drug - and not just a horse dewormer.
But apparently facts, statements and links from your arse are the only correct source of information.
That's me done in this thread.
Crap. Wish I had seen this before wasting time this morning reading that shit.You’re linking us to a refuted paper.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...ersial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505
Exactly.
Yep.the whole point is that it has no impact on COVID when used at safe dosages, so if it's used at high doses then the previous safety profile is completely irrelevant.
Haha sorry I wasn’t quicker on the post.Crap. Wish I had seen this before wasting time this morning reading that shit.
How's the head this morning?
If you figure it out let me know, I have a feeling that the WCQ game tonight is going to send me over the edge.Haha sorry I wasn’t quicker on the post.
Never felt better. I’ve not had a hangover since about 2009. I don’t know why, I just don’t get them.
Hey, we're not using snapchat. Our posts don't disappear. 2 billion since it's discovery was the claim which is 40 years. It's not ridiculous to suggest that and I've posted over a dozen articles citing that.Setting aside your ridiculous moving of the goalposts (2 billion patients a year initially was the claim ), the whole point is that it has no impact on COVID when used at safe dosages, so if it's used at high doses then the previous safety profile is completely irrelevant.
I'm not suggesting that. I was merely agreeing with the poster for the sake of argument. Ivermectin has been used by billions of people since it was discovered. Prove me wrong. (without plucking sources from your collective arses)You suggesting tens of millions and several billions are even in the same fcuking ballpark tells me all I need to know.
So you think on average 50 million patients are being prescribed ivermectin every year for the past 40 years? Statins are the most prescribed class of drug, and are taken by about 200 million people per year. You genuinely think that ivermectin is taken by only 4 times fewer people than statins?Hey, we're not using snapchat. Our posts don't disappear. 2 billion since it's discovery was the claim which is 40 years. It's not ridiculous to suggest that and I've posted over a dozen articles citing that.
First resorting to ridiculing a drug and it's creators, then saying you know more than Merck, people at Oxford etc., then lying... and you're apparently from the medical fraternity. Excellent! Thank you for settling the debate!
I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.Honestly, thank feck.
I understand the point you were trying to make but a drug that has not been clinically tested sufficiently for the specific purpose of treating CV19 infection, irrespective of the fact that it has been used at appropriate dosages to treat other conditions, but being advocated strongly as a treatment for said illness by prominent non medical media celebrities resulting in people literally taking doses of the drug designed for the veterinary treatment of an animal that is considerably more massive is a bad thing.
This does not mean Ivermectin is not safe for human use at appropriate dosages for certain conditions (which has been medically tested, proven and the side effects understood - somewhat like the vaccine as an aside) and Seth fecking Rogan may have taken a sensible dosage to treat the disease he has contracted (and let's not even go into his positions on this matter) but that changes absolutely none of the above paragraph.
So, yes, laughing at Rogan for being a (dangerous) idiot is entirely appropriate as he is doing something far more risky than taking the vaccine he is so sceptical about and the fact that humans have used Ivermectin for other purposes is, literally, fecking irrelevant.
There's no point in reaching out to them. Triage them appropriately and de-prioritise them for beds and other resources.I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.
You don't reach out to the anti vax idiots by "not" telling the truth. The messaging should have been: Ivermectin is being trialed and results are awaited - however vaccination is absolutely necessary because Delta is on the rise.
I think the kicking you’ve got in this thread is a little harsh. And I agree with this post. With the one proviso that vaccination was necessary long before delta came on the scene.I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.
You don't reach out to the anti vax idiots by "not" telling the truth. The messaging should have been: Ivermectin is being trialed and results are awaited - however vaccination is absolutely necessary because Delta is on the rise.
Well that sentence is a bit paradox.I agree with you word to word. The point I was trying to raise was that the messaging has to be truthful and correct. I have seen a somewhat coordinated attack against Ivermectin by calling it just a "horse dewormer" in the media. It is a lie.
You don't reach out to the anti vax idiots by "not" telling the truth. The messaging should have been: Ivermectin is being trialed and results are awaited - however vaccination is absolutely necessary because Delta is on the rise.
Not really. If you try to push back against antivaxxers with demonstrably untrue implications (ivermectin is a medicine only used on horses) it just makes them feel even more vindicated and superior to the “sheeple” who “aren’t doing their research”Well that sentence is a bit paradox.
Well that was kind of my point: people who have subscribed to their own reality won't accept anything from the regular channels, no matter how accurate. Trump's ramblings outweigh a million scientists.Not really. If you try to push back against antivaxxers with demonstrably untrue implications (ivermectin is a medicine only used on horses) it just makes them feel even more vindicated and superior to the “sheeple” who “aren’t doing their research”
EDIT: Although this only matters if you can actually change the mind of strangers who argue about this shit online all day. I’m inclined to think that’s not possible.
Add the medium article someone posted said, removing that study lowered the efficacy from 62% to 52%. It only works in the first two days of infection, so all these studies looking at giving it to very sick people are wasting their time and muddying the waters, throw a bunch of very sick people not getting well on top of the good results and it will look like it’s barely working.You’re linking us to a refuted paper.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...ersial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505
Exactly.
What exactly do you mean by that?It only works in the first two days of infection
At the top of that article, you can see that it’s conclusions are also in dispute.Here’s something in Nature about Ivermectin being effective:
Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5
This is the Journal of Antibiotics, not Nature. Doesn't make the article any better/worse, but Nature is famous even to non-science people and the name itself carries some weight.Here’s something in Nature about Ivermectin being effective:
Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5
Because in addition to going from 62 to 52 it increases the variance a lot, almost reaches statistical insignificance, and does reach it when including newer studies.I'll have to look into it more, the claims are complicated, but I do take exception with this:
"The problem is, if you look at those large, aggregate models, and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses almost all of its purported benefit. Take the recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al. that has been all over the news — they found a 62% reduction in risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin compared to controls when combining randomized trials.
However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide"
First of all, no one had ever said it works on people with severe COVID, it's a prophylactic, it prevents the infection from taking place, it can't fight an infection that's already there.
Second, 52% is a big deal to me, I don't understand why they're saying 62% is amazing but 52% is equal to "loses almost all of its purported benefit."
But I'll check the rest out. I haven't paid attention to all this for a while so I don't have everything to hand, but if I can muster the energy I'll check out some of the old Peak Prosperity videos on the info and studies that have come out and post the data.
As I recall, you really have to take it in the first 48 hours to get the benefit, and it doesn't work once you're quite sick. That's always been the case, and any study that only tests people already 2 days into symptoms will find little benefit. As I recall, it binds to the site that COVID wants to bind to, I think that's it.
What do you make of this statement by Merck the makers of Ivermectin?Here’s something in Nature about Ivermectin being effective:
Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5
I'm going to suspect it does feck all for Covid as we already know and may be dangerous.What do you make of this statement by Merck the makers of Ivermectin?
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
While Martin-Donald celebrates, however, the run on Ivermectin has not been without its victims. Horse Red Excalibur said, “I’ve got a terribly itchy arse but people with Don’t Tread On Me car stickers have eaten all my medicine.”
1.15 is right there with ‘write an article with automatically generated text, submit it, and see it accepted’.That is an absolute joke of a study and is completely meaningless mate. First of all, they didn't do this in a double-blinded fashion - if you want to show an impact, you have to do so vs. placebo. Furthermore, they didn't age, gender, or role-match their participants and are comparing cohorts of completely different sizes AND did nothing to control for prior COVID infection. The impact factor of the journal it's been published in is 1.15 - this is pretty much Facebook-tier nonsense.
If we assume what you say there is true (which is an enormous “if”) how many people are diagnosed before the first two days of infection have passed? Basically none.Add the medium article someone posted said, removing that study lowered the efficacy from 62% to 52%. It only works in the first two days of infection, so all these studies looking at giving it to very sick people are wasting their time and muddying the waters, throw a bunch of very sick people not getting well on top of the good results and it will look like it’s barely working.
I’ve been following all this over YouTube, so I don’t have a bunch of links handy, but I’ll spend some time looking at the Peak Prosperity videos and see if I can find some of the data showing it works of given early.
It’s very strange.Is Ivermectin the new hydroxychloroquine? Why do the right wing people feel the need to glorify a completely useless drug (for covid purposes, not in general) every few months?
People do like the idea of secret knowledge, of knowing things that the experts don't. Plus they like the idea of self care, of having their own solution - whether that's a vegan diet, a healthy chakra, no-comorbidities (they know about) or access to a pill that covers the rest of the risk.It’s very strange.
I think it’s more a conspiracy theory mindset than right wing politics. The common theme is that pharma companies don’t want the secret getting out that cheap, off patent treatments are available for covid. So they can continue to make millions from flogging vaccines. You’d expect right wingers to be on the side of big business here.
There’s also a libertarian twist to it as well. We don’t want the government and the regulators telling us what medicines we can and can’t take. We know what’s best for our own health. We do our own research. Blah blah blah.
Christ on a bikeAdd the medium article someone posted said, removing that study lowered the efficacy from 62% to 52%. It only works in the first two days of infection, so all these studies looking at giving it to very sick people are wasting their time and muddying the waters, throw a bunch of very sick people not getting well on top of the good results and it will look like it’s barely working.
I’ve been following all this over YouTube, so I don’t have a bunch of links handy, but I’ll spend some time looking at the Peak Prosperity videos and see if I can find some of the data showing it works of given early.
1.15 is right there with ‘write an article with automatically generated text, submit it, and see it accepted’.
True. Though I think that these groups highly intersect with each other.It’s very strange.
I think it’s more a conspiracy theory mindset than right wing politics. The common theme is that pharma companies don’t want the secret getting out that cheap, off patent treatments are available for covid. So they can continue to make millions from flogging vaccines. You’d expect right wingers to be on the side of big business here.
There’s also a libertarian twist to it as well. We don’t want the government and the regulators telling us what medicines we can and can’t take. We know what’s best for our own health. We do our own research. Blah blah blah.
Cureus as a truly peer reviewed platform is pretty useless to hang any hat on, and lacks credibility.I posted this in the SARS thread a bit ago:
Peer reviewed study from India:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Posted before that the impact factor of the journal is right there with Facebook nonsense and just publishing there would be seen as a negative for good scientists.I posted this in the SARS thread a bit ago:
Peer reviewed study from India:
Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.
Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.
https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers
I've just done a quick read through so I'll give my first impressions on the study. It was conducted in October 2020, and everyone in the world was looking for solutions. The doctors involved in the study felt they had one, one so popular that it was already in short supply in their area.I posted this in the SARS thread a bit ago:
Peer reviewed study from India:
Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.
Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.
https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers
I’m very sorry to hear that. Was your younger friend vaxxed at all?Been a real crappy week with regards to covid.
Have two friends. One had the AZ a while back and has been in hospital with suspected stroke. Months since he had the AZ. Don't know if linked. He is in early 40's. Being investigated for blood clots etc.
Another friend early 30's hospitalized due to covid. Seemed to be pulling through now in coma and critical. Don't think will pull through. Absolutely brilliant lad. Very fit and active. No underlying conditions.
Hope you get better soon.I got my second yesterday and I had a really weird side effect. It's not really an issue, it doesn't hurt and it isn't even really uncomfortable, but my eyes have blown up to the extent that if it worsens just a little bit I can't see. It looks like an allergic reaction, but I've gotten reactions like this before several times (15-20 years ago all of them) and they were always itchy, I don't feel this at all. In my very unprofessional opinion it just looks like fluid buildup of some sort. I'm not worried or anything, but considering what people sung about Diego Costo I'll stay inside for a couple of days.
(Seeing as it looks like an allergic reaction I've had several times before it's not at all certain that it has anything to do with the vaccine. It would be a weird coincidence, both because it hasn't happened for a very long time and because it didn't itch, but coincidences do happen. And if it was because of the vaccince then it's not really a problem, it's just weird and I already have improved from Diego Costa to someone who just got his face punched in.)
edit: I've talked to a doctor just in case, they said to chug anti-histamines just because, stay upright because fluilds, and get in contact again if it either gets worse or stays the same for a long time. They didn't seem too worried, so I'm sure it's fine. I look proper weird, though.
Up until very recently I worked for a company that was in the digital health passes for travel marketplace. Pretty much everything you list almost always caused a rejection which travellers couldn’t understand, especially double vaxxed but with different vaccines. What’s good for one destination was a strict no for another.Because I have a vested interest, I have to mention:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Unfortunately I fear international agreement on vaccine passports has bigger fish to fry than just the triallist issue - though it's nice of the UK to ask
Just looking at G20 countries we have different policies on:
- age group eligibility
- mixed vaccines (AZ first dose, Pfizer second)
- assumed protection period
- single or double dose policy following past infection
- vaccine types that are fully approved vary between countries
- boosters
- option to use recent negative test as an alternative
- option to use recovery following a PCR positive test as an option
- use of quarantine with vaxxed travellers v test regime for the vaxxed
etc etc etc...