Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ badgervike said:
@ Mike Olson said:
The lengths that big science will go to to keep ivermecting down!
Ivermectin didn't protect people from COVID-19, study shows Source: CBS Marketwatch
Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn’t reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic.
Ivermectin has received a lot of attention as a potential treatment for Covid-19 including from celebrities such as podcast host Joe Rogan. Most evidence has shown it to be ineffective against Covid-19 or has relied on data of poor quality, infectious-disease researchers said. Public-health authorities and researchers have for months said the drug hasn’t shown any benefit in treating the disease. Taking large doses of the drug is dangerous, the Food and Drug Administration has said.
The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo.
“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
Lots of studies already out there Mike. The early consensus is that Inververmectin is very effective for Covid if treated early.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherape..._of.7.aspx
Not sure how or why therapeutics for Covid is such a political issue but I guess that's the way it is in this hyperpolitical world we live in these days. After the success of Operation Warp Speed, we took our eye off the prize...namely funding / developing/ qualifying / expediting drugs that can minimize the effects of Covid if taken early. It seems like politics took over. I'm guessing you started this thread because of politics...not because you're disappointed that a potential lifesaving drug might not be effective... Lack of therapeutics / prophylactic drugs that are readily available OTC when you're tested positive for Covid has killed a lot of people and burdened our healthcare system. Take politics out of medicine, identify the drugs that are most effective at keeping Covid effects minimal and get them broadly distributed to supplement our "vaccines" which, unlike real vaccines, don't actually prevent the virus...just minimize the effects. Should have been done by now.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Did you even read the Erratum? Its literally right below the study you posted.
The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern
for Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, Fordham EJ, Mitchell S, Hill SR,
Tham TC. Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A
Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to
Inform Clinical Guidelines. Am J Ther. 2021;28(4): e434-e460.
The decision is based on the evaluation of
allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least 2
primary sources of the meta-analysis performed by Mr. Andrew Bryant and
his collaborators.1,2
These allegations were first made after the publication of this
article. The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to invalidate the
findings regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality
of COVID-19 infection.2 The investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive at this time.
This Expression of Concern
does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his
collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others
is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.1
The American Journal of Therapeutics is
steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest
standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding
this work should more information become available.
American Journal of Therapeutics.
29(2):e232,
March/April 2022.
Mike - I didn't read the erratum nor did I read the erratum in your original OP study which will no doubt be the definitive answer on the subject..without dissent or objection. AGR posted a more extensive list of studies.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Read what I wrote...I don't have a dog in the hunt on Invermectin, or Remdevisir or Regeneron or... How about we take the politics out of it? Just because Trump or Joe Rogan...or Fauci advocated for something...doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Rooting for drugs to lack efficacy doesn't make any sense to me. We should have had qualified, approved and fully available therapeutics long before now. The Admin took their eye off the prize.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ greediron said:
If covid was truly a deadly pandemic to the extent the media hyped it, then any and every solution would be considered. But since it was more about funding for the mega pharma, treatments had to be shut down so they could get emergency vaccines pushed through.
So keep gnawing on that bone Mike, but as I said, please read the memo. Covid has been defeated.
Corona virus has been around in cattle since the beginning of time. Ivermectin has been around almost as long (~1970s). If there was any and I mean ANY therapeutic benefit for worming cattle who were suffering from Corona virus, farmers would have figured that bad boy out decades ago.
Gee I grew up on a beef farm and never realized all those cattle were dying of corona virus. Too bad we didn't have a cow-fauci to help us understand, then this post might have made some sense.
This post and thread are proof of when people get out over their skis in their political beliefs.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ greediron said:
Lol.
As the CDC quietly adjusts its "science" and removes a large chunk of covid deaths. The covid cult just won't quit. Didn't you get the memo that the democrats defeated covid? Yes, there was an actual memo. You should check on that.
Sorry I thought we would stay on topic.
New here?
Quote: @greediron said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ greediron said:
If covid was truly a deadly pandemic to the extent the media hyped it, then any and every solution would be considered. But since it was more about funding for the mega pharma, treatments had to be shut down so they could get emergency vaccines pushed through.
So keep gnawing on that bone Mike, but as I said, please read the memo. Covid has been defeated.
Corona virus has been around in cattle since the beginning of time. Ivermectin has been around almost as long (~1970s). If there was any and I mean ANY therapeutic benefit for worming cattle who were suffering from Corona virus, farmers would have figured that bad boy out decades ago.
Gee I grew up on a beef farm and never realized all those cattle were dying of corona virus. Too bad we didn't have a cow-fauci to help us understand, then this post might have made some sense.
This post and thread are proof of when people get out over their skis in their political beliefs.
I guess you never heard of scourguard? One of the most common treatments for Coronavirus and Rotovirus particularly in baby calves? Or do you not understand the difference between coronavirus and covid-2?
Quote: @badgervike said:
Mike - I didn't read the erratum nor did I read the erratum in your original OP study which will no doubt be the definitive answer on the subject..without dissent or objection. AGR posted a more extensive list of studies.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Read what I wrote...I don't have a dog in the hunt on Invermectin, or Remdevisir or Regeneron or... How about we take the politics out of it? Just because Trump or Joe Rogan...or Fauci advocated for something...doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Rooting for drugs to lack efficacy doesn't make any sense to me. We should have had qualified, approved and fully available therapeutics long before now. The Admin took their eye off the prize.
Badger,
You're a smart guy so you get a pass. There isn't a erratum on Mike's posted study because there isn't one. An erratum is what gets posted to research papers post publishing that say they were written using crap data. They're otherwise know as retractions.
The same crap data was used over and over and over again in these "meta-data" driven Ivermectin research papers. I knew the moment I clicked on the study that it was bullshit. I'm just happy that the publishing companies are finally posting the retraction right on the original research. The original data that everyone cited was found to have used completely made up people, completely fabricated results and plagiarized large portions of otherwise unrelated studies to "consume" for lack of a better word enough pages to make it look like a real study. Kinda like kids in school when they're told to fill 2 pages for their book report. Somebody literally trolled the internet with the original ivermectin study and everyone bought it hook, line and sinker.
There isn't politics in latest study released. They used actual people with actual results. There never was reliable data that showed positive efficacy in ivermectin. Just people on the internet willing to believe anything because they didn't trust the goobernment.
If there would have been a cheap drug that had actual positive efficacy, doctors would have used it. Do you really think those same doctors and nurses that worked +100 hour weeks for 2 years straight wouldn't have gladly used a cheap and available drug off label to alleviate the overloaded healthcare system?
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ badgervike said:
Mike - I didn't read the erratum nor did I read the erratum in your original OP study which will no doubt be the definitive answer on the subject..without dissent or objection. AGR posted a more extensive list of studies.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Read what I wrote...I don't have a dog in the hunt on Invermectin, or Remdevisir or Regeneron or... How about we take the politics out of it? Just because Trump or Joe Rogan...or Fauci advocated for something...doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Rooting for drugs to lack efficacy doesn't make any sense to me. We should have had qualified, approved and fully available therapeutics long before now. The Admin took their eye off the prize.
Badger,
You're a smart guy so you get a pass. There isn't a erratum on Mike's posted study because there isn't one. An erratum is what gets posted to research papers post publishing that say they were written using crap data. They're otherwise know as retractions.
The same crap data was used over and over and over again in these "meta-data" driven Ivermectin research papers. I knew the moment I clicked on the study that it was bullshit. I'm just happy that the publishing companies are finally posting the retraction right on the original research. The original data that everyone cited was found to have used completely made up people, completely fabricated results and plagiarized large portions of otherwise unrelated studies to "consume" for lack of a better word enough pages to make it look like a real study. Kinda like kids in school when they're told to fill 2 pages for their book report. Somebody literally trolled the internet with the original ivermectin study and everyone bought it hook, line and sinker.
There isn't politics in latest study released. They used actual people with actual results. There never was reliable data that showed positive efficacy in ivermectin. Just people on the internet willing to believe anything because they didn't trust the goobernment.
If there would have been a cheap drug that had actual positive efficacy, doctors would have used it. Do you really think those same doctors and nurses that worked +100 hour weeks for 2 years straight wouldn't have gladly used a cheap and available drug off label to alleviate the overloaded healthcare system?
Thanks. I've seen studies both ways with Invermectin. Like I told Mike, I just grabbed one. Because of the politics, therapeutics have become a political / ideological discuss rather than a scientific discussion. I truly don't have a dog in the hunt. I just know that we should have some definitive answers by now on efficacy of various new and old drugs and have an approved therapeutic readily available for use in the early stages of Covid...to keep people out of the hospital.
And...don't get me started on the efficacy and health risks of cloth masks that haven't been washed in two weeks and only ever washed in non antibacterial detergent in warm or cold water. I'll venture a guess....
Quote: @badgervike said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ badgervike said:
Mike - I didn't read the erratum nor did I read the erratum in your original OP study which will no doubt be the definitive answer on the subject..without dissent or objection. AGR posted a more extensive list of studies.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Read what I wrote...I don't have a dog in the hunt on Invermectin, or Remdevisir or Regeneron or... How about we take the politics out of it? Just because Trump or Joe Rogan...or Fauci advocated for something...doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Rooting for drugs to lack efficacy doesn't make any sense to me. We should have had qualified, approved and fully available therapeutics long before now. The Admin took their eye off the prize.
Badger,
You're a smart guy so you get a pass. There isn't a erratum on Mike's posted study because there isn't one. An erratum is what gets posted to research papers post publishing that say they were written using crap data. They're otherwise know as retractions.
The same crap data was used over and over and over again in these "meta-data" driven Ivermectin research papers. I knew the moment I clicked on the study that it was bullshit. I'm just happy that the publishing companies are finally posting the retraction right on the original research. The original data that everyone cited was found to have used completely made up people, completely fabricated results and plagiarized large portions of otherwise unrelated studies to "consume" for lack of a better word enough pages to make it look like a real study. Kinda like kids in school when they're told to fill 2 pages for their book report. Somebody literally trolled the internet with the original ivermectin study and everyone bought it hook, line and sinker.
There isn't politics in latest study released. They used actual people with actual results. There never was reliable data that showed positive efficacy in ivermectin. Just people on the internet willing to believe anything because they didn't trust the goobernment.
If there would have been a cheap drug that had actual positive efficacy, doctors would have used it. Do you really think those same doctors and nurses that worked +100 hour weeks for 2 years straight wouldn't have gladly used a cheap and available drug off label to alleviate the overloaded healthcare system?
Thanks. I've seen studies both ways with Invermectin. Like I told Mike, I just grabbed one. Because of the politics, therapeutics have become a political / ideological discuss rather than a scientific discussion. I truly don't have a dog in the hunt. I just know that we should have some definitive answers by now on efficacy of various new and old drugs and have an approved therapeutic for use in the early stages of Covid...to keep people out of the hospital.
And...don't get me started on the efficacy and health risks of cloth masks that haven't been washed in two weeks and only ever washed in non antibacterial detergent in warm or cold water. I'll venture a guess....
No doubt on cloth masks!!!!! They were and are pointless for a virus.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ greediron said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ greediron said:
If covid was truly a deadly pandemic to the extent the media hyped it, then any and every solution would be considered. But since it was more about funding for the mega pharma, treatments had to be shut down so they could get emergency vaccines pushed through.
So keep gnawing on that bone Mike, but as I said, please read the memo. Covid has been defeated.
Corona virus has been around in cattle since the beginning of time. Ivermectin has been around almost as long (~1970s). If there was any and I mean ANY therapeutic benefit for worming cattle who were suffering from Corona virus, farmers would have figured that bad boy out decades ago.
Gee I grew up on a beef farm and never realized all those cattle were dying of corona virus. Too bad we didn't have a cow-fauci to help us understand, then this post might have made some sense.
This post and thread are proof of when people get out over their skis in their political beliefs.
I guess you never heard of scourguard? One of the most common treatments for Coronavirus and Rotovirus particularly in baby calves? Or do you not understand the difference between coronavirus and covid-2?
Yeah, the common cold is a coronavirus. Probably would get banned from twitter for that, but yes it is common knowledge among the smart people. And yes, scours is a nasty bug for calves. Gets bad when calves are kept too close together. Occasionally we would lose a calf to it, so we started locking the entire herd indoors and made them wear masks. Never used ivermectin though, I heard that stuff doesn't work.
Quote: @badgervike said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ badgervike said:
Mike - I didn't read the erratum nor did I read the erratum in your original OP study which will no doubt be the definitive answer on the subject..without dissent or objection. AGR posted a more extensive list of studies.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Read what I wrote...I don't have a dog in the hunt on Invermectin, or Remdevisir or Regeneron or... How about we take the politics out of it? Just because Trump or Joe Rogan...or Fauci advocated for something...doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Rooting for drugs to lack efficacy doesn't make any sense to me. We should have had qualified, approved and fully available therapeutics long before now. The Admin took their eye off the prize.
Badger,
You're a smart guy so you get a pass. There isn't a erratum on Mike's posted study because there isn't one. An erratum is what gets posted to research papers post publishing that say they were written using crap data. They're otherwise know as retractions.
The same crap data was used over and over and over again in these "meta-data" driven Ivermectin research papers. I knew the moment I clicked on the study that it was bullshit. I'm just happy that the publishing companies are finally posting the retraction right on the original research. The original data that everyone cited was found to have used completely made up people, completely fabricated results and plagiarized large portions of otherwise unrelated studies to "consume" for lack of a better word enough pages to make it look like a real study. Kinda like kids in school when they're told to fill 2 pages for their book report. Somebody literally trolled the internet with the original ivermectin study and everyone bought it hook, line and sinker.
There isn't politics in latest study released. They used actual people with actual results. There never was reliable data that showed positive efficacy in ivermectin. Just people on the internet willing to believe anything because they didn't trust the goobernment.
If there would have been a cheap drug that had actual positive efficacy, doctors would have used it. Do you really think those same doctors and nurses that worked +100 hour weeks for 2 years straight wouldn't have gladly used a cheap and available drug off label to alleviate the overloaded healthcare system?
Thanks. I've seen studies both ways with Invermectin. Like I told Mike, I just grabbed one. Because of the politics, therapeutics have become a political / ideological discuss rather than a scientific discussion. I truly don't have a dog in the hunt. I just know that we should have some definitive answers by now on efficacy of various new and old drugs and have an approved therapeutic readily available for use in the early stages of Covid...to keep people out of the hospital.
And...don't get me started on the efficacy and health risks of cloth masks that haven't been washed in two weeks and only ever washed in non antibacterial detergent in warm or cold water. I'll venture a guess....
Badgervike, have you seen this yet? Never did like stats, so reading some of it makes my eyes glaze over, but it seems like the studies on efficacy lumped the high risk 14 days after the shot in with the unvaccinated and therefore skewing the data?
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/nejm-...cine-study
Quote: @.
Badgervike, have you seen this yet? Never did like stats, so reading some of it makes my eyes glaze over, but it seems like the studies on efficacy lumped the high risk 14 days after the shot in with the unvaccinated and therefore skewing the data?
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/nejm-...cine-study
Greed - I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Beautiful Spring day here in Sconnie....time to get the bike out.
|
