Clinical trials on Ivermectin now rolling in.

[stonefly-2]

https://c19ivermectin.com/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-alliance-videos/

I never thought I would feel the need to use the term "with tears in my eyes" in a thread.

[SPUTTER]

Hasn't it been around for 60 years?

[WOODY2]

Yes but was used primarily for parasites in animals.

[stonefly-2]

Hasn't it been around for 60 years?

Yes and prescribed over 3 billion times,

won a Nobel peace prize,

has a body count of like 12 people in all that time,

cheap and readily available.

I'll bet 12 people have tipped over dead from the "coincidence" of just getting the jab in this last week.

[as_rocketman]

Here is a more sober analysis of evidence for ivermectin, including discussion of the ivermectin-cheerleading website linked above.

The bottom line is that, much like Plaquenil, evidence for benefits with ivermectin are not zero but are also rather weak. The strongest actual RCT I could find in support is this one, but note the rather small size of the trial and attendant poor statistics.

Anyway, I do support physicians making it an option in their practice, so long as they provide a clear understanding of the tradeoffs and watch for warning signs of toxicity. I would not recommend anyone play home doctor with it, and certainly do not expect miracles.

[stonefly-2]

This message is hidden because as_rocketman is on your ignore list.

[SAN compnerd]

Yes but was used primarily for parasites in animals.

And people. I was prescribed Ivermectin a few years back for a suspected parasite issue. Popular for heart worm treatment/prophylaxes in dogs and also used for horses.

[SAN compnerd]

Here is a more sober analysis of evidence for ivermectin, including discussion of the ivermectin-cheerleading website linked above.

The bottom line is that, much like Plaquenil, evidence for benefits with ivermectin are not zero but are also rather weak. The strongest actual RCT I could find in support is this one, but note the rather small size of the trial and attendant poor statistics.

Anyway, I do support physicians making it an option in their practice, so long as they provide a clear understanding of the tradeoffs and watch for warning signs of toxicity. I would not recommend anyone play home doctor with it, and certainly do not expect miracles.

What are your thoughts on that doctor who testified to congress last year about Ivermectin? Same doctor who found the steroid treatment to reduce hospitalization and mortality with zero studies on it. Pretty sure I posted a link to his tearful testimony about how heartbreaking it was to be so helpless to care for COVID patients since therapeutics were still pretty much non existent after six months battling this pandemic.


Edit: Didn't the BMJ publish and then retract that study on HCQ that turned out to be rigged to show it harmed people, complete with hospital data from non existent hospitals?

Edit2: That piece in the BMJ cites the RECOVERY trial as some solid science. That's the trial where they gave patents lethal doses of HCQ to prove it didn't work.

Did you visit https://c19ivermectin.com/ and go through the 53 studies including the 27 claimed RCT's and review them all for flaws or bad science? Can you point to some of them that you feel lacked proper rigor or had other flaws?

[UCT]

What are your thoughts on that doctor who testified to congress last year about Ivermectin? Same doctor who found the steroid treatment to reduce hospitalization and mortality with zero studies on it. Pretty sure I posted a link to his tearful testimony about how heartbreaking it was to be so helpless to care for COVID patients since therapeutics were still pretty much non existent after six months battling this pandemic.


Edit: Didn't the BMJ publish and then retract that study on HCQ that turned out to be rigged to show it harmed people, complete with hospital data from non existent hospitals?

Edit2: That piece in the BMJ cites the RECOVERY trial as some solid science. That's the trial where they gave patents lethal doses of HCQ to prove it didn't work.

Did you visit https://c19ivermectin.com/ and go through the 53 studies including the 27 claimed RCT's and review them all for flaws or bad science? Can you point to some of them that you feel lacked proper rigor or had other flaws?

He is a LARPER. No point in discussions with him. Animal testing has shown that Ivermectin, at a minimum, reduces symptoms and damage from Covid. That is expected since Ivermectin has been shown to have antiviral effects on other RNA viruses such as those causing Yellow Fever or Dengue Fever

[as_rocketman]

What are your thoughts on that doctor who testified to congress last year about Ivermectin? Same doctor who found the steroid treatment to reduce hospitalization and mortality with zero studies on it. Pretty sure I posted a link to his tearful testimony about how heartbreaking it was to be so helpless to care for COVID patients since therapeutics were still pretty much non existent after six months battling this pandemic.

I need a name, I don't know who you're talking about.

Like I said above, I support compassionate use, even of questionable or unstudied medications, and that includes ivermectin. I only think patients need to have accurate information about what they're getting into. Ivermectin is not harmless, and the off-label usage being suggested for COVID-19 is several times stronger than its normal application.

Edit: Didn't the BMJ publish and then retract that study on HCQ that turned out to be rigged to show it harmed people, complete with hospital data from non existent hospitals?

Edit2: That piece in the BMJ cites the RECOVERY trial as some solid science. That's the trial where they gave patents lethal doses of HCQ to prove it didn't work.

Relevance? Surely you aren't suggesting that no studies are valid, are you?

Did you visit https://c19ivermectin.com/ and go through the 53 studies including the 27 claimed RCT's and review them all for flaws or bad science? Can you point to some of them that you feel lacked proper rigor or had other flaws?

The site you pointed me to, usefully, included statistics summaries in the trials it supports. They're terrible. All very small and weak indications. This is not atypical of exploratory drug trials, but it doesn't present anything like iron-clad proof.

I showed you the best study I could find, and its results are marginal. If you know of a better study, it will be far more useful to identify it and discuss it.

--

He is a LARPER. No point in discussions with him. Animal testing has shown that Ivermectin, at a minimum, reduces symptoms and damage from Covid. That is expected since Ivermectin has been shown to have antiviral effects on other RNA viruses such as those causing Yellow Fever or Dengue Fever

Ad hominem, abusive. Not helpful.

[UCT]

Objection overruled. Not ad hominem because not directed to any arguments made by the LARPER, but rather an attack on his expertise or rather lack thereof in microbiology, immunology, virology, medicine or even biology which is clearly allowed and warranted.

[as_rocketman]

Objection overruled. Not ad hominem because not directed to any arguments made by the LARPER, but rather an attack on his expertise or rather lack thereof in microbiology, immunology, virology, medicine or even biology which is clearly allowed and warranted.

No. You're not addressing my arguments, you're simply labelling me and insisting my argument is incorrect because of the label.

Must be awfully embarrassing when a "LARPer" is right and you're wrong anyway... like, for instance, your insistence that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines would not be effective in subjects with obesity.

Maybe you should just listen instead of labelling people. Actually, that's not a maybe, that's just good sense.

[stonefly-2]

Objection overruled. Not ad hominem because not directed to any arguments made by the LARPER, but rather an attack on his expertise or rather lack thereof in microbiology, immunology, virology, medicine or even biology which is clearly allowed and warranted.

So the "scientist" thing didn't carry any weight?

Be sure to quote him if you see something I shouldn't miss.

[bigmike82]

So the "scientist" thing didn't carry any weight?

Be sure to quote him if you see something I shouldn't miss.

Or maybe you could stop being passive aggressive and take half a step out of your safe space?

[stonefly-2]

Or maybe you could stop being passive aggressive and take half a step out of your safe space?

Not really up on the nuance of how a safe space would work,

care to explain?