447 replies to this topic

[Dorian Grey]

"But for all other age brackets, the benefits outweigh the risks."

 

Historically true perhaps, but doubtful today.  Are we all really in grave danger if we don't run out & get our bivalent jab?  

 

The evidence speaks for itself!  Bivalent vaccine uptake is minimal, and so are caseloads.  

[gamesguru]

"But for all other age brackets, the benefits outweigh the risks."

 

Historically true perhaps, but doubtful today.  Are we all really in grave danger if we don't run out & get our bivalent jab? 

No, we are not all really in grave danger just for avoiding future COVID-19 vaccinations.

 

But we are technically marginally safer if we do continue to get updated vaccinations. That's the point.

 

If in other age brackets the risk of fatality or complication due to myocarditis or thrombosis is lower in those who are recently vaccinated, this reduces to the ethics of the trolley problem and makes a compelling case for vaccination being a net good.

 

I would argue we ought to continue "saving lives", but that the lack of urgency today (in mid-2023) contributes to a lack of strict adherence. We are all just getting complacent by my assessment. Many people do not want to get the coronavirus vaccine, just like they don't want to bother with the flu vaccine.

[gamesguru]

Recent pre-print study finds "ivermectin... did not improve time to recovery... [or] hospitalization rates."

 

References

 

[1] Effect of Ivermectin 600 μg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Susanna Naggie, David R. Boulware, Christopher J. Lindsell, Thomas G. Stewart, Stephen C. Lim, Jonathan Cohen, David Kavtaradze, Arch P. Amon, Ahab Gabriel, Nina Gentile, G. Michael Felker, Russell L. Rothman, Dushyantha Jayaweera, Matthew W. McCarthy, Mark Sulkowski, Sybil Wilson, Allison DeLong, April Remaly, Rhonda Wilder, Sean Collins, Sarah E. Dunsmore, Stacey J. Adam, Florence Thicklin, George J. Hanna, Adit A. Ginde, Mario Castro, Kathleen McTigue, Elizabeth Shenkman, Adrian F. Hernandez, the Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 Study Group and Investigators

medRxiv 2022.12.15.22283488; doi: https://doi.org/10.1....12.15.22283488

[Dorian Grey]

Recent pre-print study finds "ivermectin... did not improve time to recovery... [or] hospitalization rates."

 

References

 

[1] Effect of Ivermectin 600 μg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Susanna Naggie, David R. Boulware, Christopher J. Lindsell, Thomas G. Stewart, Stephen C. Lim, Jonathan Cohen, David Kavtaradze, Arch P. Amon, Ahab Gabriel, Nina Gentile, G. Michael Felker, Russell L. Rothman, Dushyantha Jayaweera, Matthew W. McCarthy, Mark Sulkowski, Sybil Wilson, Allison DeLong, April Remaly, Rhonda Wilder, Sean Collins, Sarah E. Dunsmore, Stacey J. Adam, Florence Thicklin, George J. Hanna, Adit A. Ginde, Mario Castro, Kathleen McTigue, Elizabeth Shenkman, Adrian F. Hernandez, the Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 Study Group and Investigators

medRxiv 2022.12.15.22283488; doi: https://doi.org/10.1....12.15.22283488

 

"confirmed COVID-19, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days, were enrolled"

 

Wait, they were sick for A WEEK before they were even enrolled? Viral replication and loads are peaking within a couple days of symptom onset.  Why not just wait a month or so before enrolling these patients in your trial?  

 

How well would Tamiflu work if you waited till patients were sick for a week before you gave them their first dose?  

 

We can do better!  I've got IVM & HCQ standing by in my medicine cabinet.  I will start on both on day 1 or 2 of symptoms.  Isn't this how Tamiflu works?  Start treatment within 48 hours, or don't bother taking it?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 07 July 2023 - 06:28 AM.

[gamesguru]

It says 7 days OR LESS. For something that supposedly expedites the viral clearance, I would expect some benefit outside the window of prophylaxis. Additionally, many of the studies on https://c19ivm.org/ suffer from similar methodological flaws to the extent of warranting their exclusion.

 

Although there are some studies examining potential therapeutic mechanisms behind Ivermectin (secondary parasitic infection [1], anti-inflammatory [2], antihelminthic [4])... the overall effect size remains small [3][4]. It's important to await more quality studies to confirm and strengthen this finding, to consider any potential negatives, as well as alternative treatment methods (zinc [7], astragalus [6], CBD [5]).

 

If some of these mechanisms are true, you would need to start taking it BEFORE symptoms begin for ideal effects... but that may carry risks of its own.

 

Ivermectin drug-induced liver injury
1 Jun 2023
https://journals.co....2023.v113i6.624

Approximately 3 weeks after starting the ivermectin, she noted darkening of her urine, followed by jaundice. She presented to her family practitioner. Her nasopharyngeal COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab was negative. He initiated several investigations that revealed the following (normal range in brackets): total bilirubin 129 μmol/L;[5,6] conjugated bilirubin 114 μmol/L;[5,6] alkaline phosphatase 463 (40 - 160) U/L; gamma glutamyl transpeptidase 740 (<40) U/L; alanine transaminase 1 098 (<40) U/L; aspartate transaminase 811 (<40) U/L. Her international normalised ratio was 1.3. Ultrasound of the liver was normal and all initial viral markers, including hepatitis A IgM, hepatitis B surface antigen and core IgM, and hepatitis C antibody, were negative. She was referred to us for evaluation.

We performed additional investigations that included a negative hepatitis E PCR and normal immunoglobulin levels, and autoantibodies associated with autoimmune liver disease (anti- nuclear factor, anti-smooth muscle antibody, anti-liver kidney microsome type 1 and antimitochondrial antibody) were all negative.

Given the absence of other causality, a preliminary diagnosis of ivermectin DILI was considered. We advised that she stop ivermectin, and a liver biopsy was performed.

Liver biopsy (Figs 1 and 2) demonstrated portal inflammation and interface activity. Portal triaditis with interface hepatitis comprising lymphocytes, plasma cells, histiocytes and eosinophils was evident. Mild ductular reaction with secondary ductulitis was also noted. Scattered lobular necroinflammatory foci were evident with prominent zone 3 cholestasis. The liver biopsy injury pattern was compatible with a DILI.

 

 

References

 

[1] Llenas-García J, del Pozo A, Talaya A, Roig-Sánchez N, Poveda Ruiz N, Devesa García C, Borrajo Brunete E, González Cuello I, Lucas Dato A, Navarro M, et al. Ivermectin Effect on In-Hospital Mortality and Need for Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Pneumonia: Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Study. Viruses. 2023; 15(5):1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15051138

 

[2] Uematsu, T., Takano, T., Matsui, H. et al. Prophylactic administration of ivermectin attenuates SARS-CoV-2 induced disease in a Syrian Hamster Model. J Antibiot 76, 481–488 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1...429-023-00623-0

 

[3] Ragó, Z., Tóth, B., Szalenko-Tőkés, Á. et al. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of early studies on ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection. GeroScience (2023). https://doi.org/10.1...357-023-00756-y

 

[4] Zaidi, A.K., Dehgani-Mobaraki, P. The mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2—an extensive review. J Antibiot 75, 60–71 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1...429-021-00491-6

 

[5] Nguyen, L. C., Yang, D., Nicolaescu, V., Best, T. J., Ohtsuki, T., Chen, S. N., Friesen, J. B., Drayman, N., Mohamed, A., Dann, C., Silva, D., Gula, H., Jones, K. A., Millis, J. M., Dickinson, B. C., Tay, S., Oakes, S. A., Pauli, G. F., Meltzer, D. O., Randall, G., … Rosner, M. R. (2021). Cannabidiol Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Replication and Promotes the Host Innate Immune Response. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2021.03.10.432967. https://doi.org/10.1...21.03.10.432967

 

[6] Lee, D. Y. W., Li, Q. Y., Liu, J., & Efferth, T. (2021). Traditional Chinese herbal medicine at the forefront battle against COVID-19: Clinical experience and scientific basis. Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology, 80, 153337. https://doi.org/10.1...med.2020.153337

 

[7] Tabatabaeizadeh S. A. (2022). Zinc supplementation and COVID-19 mortality: a meta-analysis. European journal of medical research, 27(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.1...001-022-00694-z

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

It says 7 days OR LESS. For something that supposedly expedites the viral clearance, I would expect some benefit outside the window of prophylaxis. Additionally, many of the studies on https://c19ivm.org/ suffer from similar methodological flaws to the extent of warranting their exclusion.

 

Although there are some studies examining potential therapeutic mechanisms behind Ivermectin (secondary parasitic infection [1], anti-inflammatory [2], antihelminthic [4])... the overall effect size remains small [3][4]. It's important to await more quality studies to confirm and strengthen this finding, to consider any potential negatives, as well as alternative treatment methods (zinc [7], astragalus [6], CBD [5]).

 

If some of these mechanisms are true, you would need to start taking it BEFORE symptoms begin for ideal effects... but that may carry risks of its own.

 

 

 

References

 

[1] Llenas-García J, del Pozo A, Talaya A, Roig-Sánchez N, Poveda Ruiz N, Devesa García C, Borrajo Brunete E, González Cuello I, Lucas Dato A, Navarro M, et al. Ivermectin Effect on In-Hospital Mortality and Need for Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Pneumonia: Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Study. Viruses. 2023; 15(5):1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15051138

 

[2] Uematsu, T., Takano, T., Matsui, H. et al. Prophylactic administration of ivermectin attenuates SARS-CoV-2 induced disease in a Syrian Hamster Model. J Antibiot 76, 481–488 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1...429-023-00623-0

 

[3] Ragó, Z., Tóth, B., Szalenko-Tőkés, Á. et al. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of early studies on ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection. GeroScience (2023). https://doi.org/10.1...357-023-00756-y

 

[4] Zaidi, A.K., Dehgani-Mobaraki, P. The mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2—an extensive review. J Antibiot 75, 60–71 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1...429-021-00491-6

 

[5] Nguyen, L. C., Yang, D., Nicolaescu, V., Best, T. J., Ohtsuki, T., Chen, S. N., Friesen, J. B., Drayman, N., Mohamed, A., Dann, C., Silva, D., Gula, H., Jones, K. A., Millis, J. M., Dickinson, B. C., Tay, S., Oakes, S. A., Pauli, G. F., Meltzer, D. O., Randall, G., … Rosner, M. R. (2021). Cannabidiol Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Replication and Promotes the Host Innate Immune Response. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2021.03.10.432967. https://doi.org/10.1...21.03.10.432967

 

[6] Lee, D. Y. W., Li, Q. Y., Liu, J., & Efferth, T. (2021). Traditional Chinese herbal medicine at the forefront battle against COVID-19: Clinical experience and scientific basis. Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology, 80, 153337. https://doi.org/10.1...med.2020.153337

 

[7] Tabatabaeizadeh S. A. (2022). Zinc supplementation and COVID-19 mortality: a meta-analysis. European journal of medical research, 27(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.1...001-022-00694-z

 

I recall Dr Zelenko stating the turnaround on PCR tests back in the early days when he was working with HCQ was up to 5 days, and he started treating symptomatic patients immediately, before the PCR results even came back, as all his patients had been symptomatic for at least a day or two before he even saw them.  

 

This may be the problem with many of the trials on repurposed meds, as every large scale trial I've seen required a positive PCR before patients are even enrolled, and for outpatient studies, it may take yet another day or so to actually get patients started on the med.  

 

Don't know how they managed to trial Paxlovid at 2-5 days max, but if they can do this with Paxlovid, they can damn well do it with HCQ & IVM too.  

 

The disparagement of the front line docs reporting success is also a bit dodgy.  I worked on the front lines of healthcare (Surgical Technologist) for 35 years, & I never saw anyone making wild & crazy claims about procedures or cures.  Those who opine front line doctors actually treating patients are not to be trusted, but government researchers & bureaucrats are beyond reproach is a bit unwise.  There are literally billions of dollars at stake, & those who stand to make the money have more than enough bias to fiddle with studies.  

 

I tend to trust what I hear from front line docs, & treat the government researchers with skepticism.  

[gamesguru]

While the anecdotes of front line doctors no doubt have value, it's important to weigh them against available clinical evidence, to examine potential biases, and to consider other promising therapies [1] [2] [3].

 

I think 5 days is not that different from 7 days. Perhaps the turnaround has decreased as the demand for testing has dropped & supply of PCR machines has grown, and not too many new studies are being done on Ivermectin? It seems studies have shifted to more promising options, and not much literature is available on Ivermectin & Omicron

[Advocatus Diaboli]

From the link given in post 303:

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.". My emphasis.

 

NO PEER REVIEW

From the "Limitations" section of the report (click on the "Full Text" option in the link to see the limitations section):

"Also, due to the remote nature of the trial, 60% of participants received study drug within 5 days of symptom onset."

In other words, 40% of participants did not receive the study drug within 5 days. That's a huge percentage of participants left untreated for at least 5 days (up to 7 days) in a study which purports to gauge the effectiveness of Ivermectin.

 

For interesting reading, have a look at the authors' disclosures. Samples: NIH (sponsor of the study), CDC, Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, NCATS, DoD, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, AHRQ, Pfizer, Janssen, Viiv, NHLBI.


My conclusion: YASDTF (yet another study designed to fail). N.B.--YASDTF is pronounced "BS"

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 07 July 2023 - 08:32 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

While the anecdotes of front line doctors no doubt have value, it's important to weigh them against available clinical evidence, to examine potential biases, and to consider other promising therapies [1] [2] [3].

 

I think 5 days is not that different from 7 days. Perhaps the turnaround has decreased as the demand for testing has dropped & supply of PCR machines has grown, and not too many new studies are being done on Ivermectin? It seems studies have shifted to more promising options, and not much literature is available on Ivermectin & Omicron

 

Dr Zelenko's paper (PMC7587171) is more than just an anecdote; it's a peer reviewed & published retrospective study.  Risk stratified cohort, early outpatient treatment, utilizing the required co-factor (zinc).  Amazingly, no one has ever cared to followup on this work completed in the spring of 2020.  The study has never been disproved or retracted.  

 

5 days may not seem all that different from 7, but with Tamiflu, and another fast moving respiratory virus (influenza), 48 hours can make all the difference in the world.  All it takes to sabotage the study is to bump it into statistical insignificance. 

 

If this is the same one Dr Kory was talking about, they actually moved the end-point mid study, from symptom recovery in 14 days, to symptom recovery in 28.  At 28 days the placebo group felt about as good as the IVM group, but then who wouldn't?  A month is all it takes to recover from omicron!  

[Daniel Cooper]

No, we are not all really in grave danger just for avoiding future COVID-19 vaccinations.

 

But we are technically marginally safer if we do continue to get updated vaccinations. That's the point.

 

If in other age brackets the risk of fatality or complication due to myocarditis or thrombosis is lower in those who are recently vaccinated, this reduces to the ethics of the trolley problem and makes a compelling case for vaccination being a net good.

 

I would argue we ought to continue "saving lives", but that the lack of urgency today (in mid-2023) contributes to a lack of strict adherence. We are all just getting complacent by my assessment. Many people do not want to get the coronavirus vaccine, just like they don't want to bother with the flu vaccine.

 

I think that very depends on age and health status.

 

Take the average 12 year old kid. Assuming they have no obvious health issue - i.e. they aren't morbidly obese, have diabetes or high blood pressure, etc. etc. their risk of a serious outcome from covid was always very very low. Even more so as covid evolved and the later variants became less severe.

 

For the vaccine, the test is does the vaccine itself have a lower risk of serious complications versus actually getting the disease. I submit that for a very young person, the answer to that question is almost certainly no. Even if the vaccine is very safe, the risk of a serious outcome from covid in that age group is even lower. So it's all downside and little upside (unless of course the child has a serious underlying health condition). 

 

Where is the breakeven point? Assuming no underlying health issue, where do the risks from the vaccine vs the risks from getting covid become equal? I don't know. But it would not surprise me if it were somewhere north of 20. Maybe even 30 years old. But there *is* such a point somewhere such that taking the vaccine below a certain age never made any sense unless that person had a health issue that created special risk.  

 

The Moderna bivalent vaccine is authorized for use in children as young as 6 months and the government was encouraging it's use in very young children (2 years old and above at one point).  This never made rational sense. Even a very safe vaccine would have more risks than the very small risk from covid in this age group.

 

That is my problem with this whole vaccine issue - it quickly became a point of dogma all the way round. From the "no one should take the vaccine" crowd to the official government position of "(almost) everyone should take the vaccine".  That's not science, that's religion. 

 

But of course, only one side in that religious war had the power to enforce their will on the public.

[Dorian Grey]

Recent pre-print study finds "ivermectin... did not improve time to recovery... [or] hospitalization rates."

 

References

 

[1] Effect of Ivermectin 600 μg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Susanna Naggie, David R. Boulware, Christopher J. Lindsell, Thomas G. Stewart, Stephen C. Lim, Jonathan Cohen, David Kavtaradze, Arch P. Amon, Ahab Gabriel, Nina Gentile, G. Michael Felker, Russell L. Rothman, Dushyantha Jayaweera, Matthew W. McCarthy, Mark Sulkowski, Sybil Wilson, Allison DeLong, April Remaly, Rhonda Wilder, Sean Collins, Sarah E. Dunsmore, Stacey J. Adam, Florence Thicklin, George J. Hanna, Adit A. Ginde, Mario Castro, Kathleen McTigue, Elizabeth Shenkman, Adrian F. Hernandez, the Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 Study Group and Investigators

medRxiv 2022.12.15.22283488; doi: https://doi.org/10.1....12.15.22283488

 

Here's Dr Kory commenting on the "Fraud in Ivermectin Trial", where they changed the end point on the fly to avoid showing benefit for IVM in the NIH ACTIVE-6 RCT gamesguru linked to at the end of his post.  

 

 

They truly couldn't care less about the obvious shenanigans, as they know the mainstream media will not cotton-on, but simply run the headline IVM Fails Again!  

 

We live in interesting times!  

[gamesguru]

utilizing the required co-factor (zinc).

 

Unfortunately that's what we call an "independent variable" in science. Controlled experiments can only have one independent variable if they wish to draw definitive conclusions. Since zinc has demonstrated significant therapeutic value of its own against COVID—often hastening viral clearance and decreasing hospital stays—it's necessary to delineate the effect of Zinc from any that Ivermectin may have.

 

When performing a meta-analysis it's best practice to pool studies based on shared methodology and design. So the anonymous website claiming to be a huge meta-analysis doesn't meet peer-reviewed standards. Additionally many of its studies suffer from similar limitations to the 7 day rule you critiqued the recent pre-print on. But it seems fine to include them, as long as the result is confirmatory the limitations are not a concern? I'm sorry, but it's plainly NOT science to discard conflicting results and keep only the ones you like.

 

I think that very depends on age and health status.

 

Yes, it probably doesn't make sense for people under 25 given the current data. Given natural exposure and prior vaccinations, it's probably not absolutely imperative that anyone under 55 receive boosters going forward. The COVID vaccine going forward may mostly benefit the elders and vulnerable populations. No one is forcing us to take it, however. At the beginning of the pandemic is where compulsory vaccination was far more sensible.

 

I think the excessive marketing of vaccines today is due to capitalism. Any company has its own self-preservation and fruition in mind. And pharmaceutical or vaccine companies are no exception. It's well-known that the automotive company colluded against electric cars in the 1980s and 1990s. The petroleum industry has a big foot in the recycling narrative, coddling the public into thinking recycling is totally effective, when most of the materials aren't economically recyclable & end up disposed of anyways. If we're going to address issues, let's address them systemically at the base level, and not just point to specific instances.

Edited by gamesguru, 08 July 2023 - 01:50 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Unfortunately that's what we call an "independent variable" in science. Controlled experiments can only have one independent variable if they wish to draw definitive conclusions. Since zinc has demonstrated significant therapeutic value of its own against COVID—often hastening viral clearance and decreasing hospital stays—it's necessary to delineate the effect of Zinc from any that Ivermectin may have.

 

When performing a meta-analysis it's best practice to pool studies based on shared methodology and design. So the anonymous website claiming to be a huge meta-analysis doesn't meet peer-reviewed standards. Additionally many of its studies suffer from similar limitations to the 7 day rule you critiqued the recent pre-print on. But it seems fine to include them, as long as the result is confirmatory the limitations are not a concern? I'm sorry, but it's plainly NOT science to discard conflicting results and keep only the ones you like.

 

 

Yes, it probably doesn't make sense for people under 25 given the current data. Given natural exposure and prior vaccinations, it's probably not absolutely imperative that anyone under 55 receive boosters going forward. The COVID vaccine going forward may mostly benefit the elders and vulnerable populations. No one is forcing us to take it, however. At the beginning of the pandemic is where compulsory vaccination was far more sensible.

 

I think the excessive marketing of vaccines today is due to capitalism. Any company has its own self-preservation and fruition in mind. And pharmaceutical or vaccine companies are no exception. It's well-known that the automotive company colluded against electric cars in the 1980s and 1990s. The petroleum industry has a big foot in the recycling narrative, coddling the public into thinking recycling is totally effective, when most of the materials aren't economically recyclable & end up disposed of anyways. If we're going to address issues, let's address them systemically at the base level, and not just point to specific instances.

 

I guess it's a good thing the pharma friendly folks who trialed Paxlovid didn't know they were supposed to test nirmatrelvir without the required co-factor ritonavir, as that created an independent variable.  They don't even compound the two agents into a single pill, but present them in separate blister-packs.  We'd still be at remdesivir & a vent if they had.  

 

Different rules for thee, but not for me!  If we can't get around the logic of avoiding the futility of using a zinc ionophore on zinc deficient patients, then all is lost.  Perhaps this is where front line doctors who simply treat patients with what they need to get better differ from government researchers, and get different results.  

 

Speaking of different rules for thee, what did you make of Dr Kory's observations about the Fraud in the ACTIVE-6 Ivermectin Trial?

Edited by Dorian Grey, 08 July 2023 - 03:14 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I think the excessive marketing of vaccines today is due to capitalism. Any company has its own self-preservation and fruition in mind. And pharmaceutical or vaccine companies are no exception. It's well-known that the automotive company colluded against electric cars in the 1980s and 1990s. The petroleum industry has a big foot in the recycling narrative, coddling the public into thinking recycling is totally effective, when most of the materials aren't economically recyclable & end up disposed of anyways. If we're going to address issues, let's address them systemically at the base level, and not just point to specific instances.

 
I think it's easy to blame capitalism for the pushing of vaccines beyond reason. It very likely played a role. The biggest role is that the major pharmaceutical have thoroughly co-opted the FDA for some time now. A well known phenomena in economics called regulatory capture.
 
But I think it's naive to think that was the only issue driving what occurred. I think a major driver is that the government health bureaucracy became heavily invested - to the point of being emotionally invested - in promoting these vaccines.
 
Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, Deborah Brix, Fancis Collins, et. al.
 
These people were hawking the vaccines for everyone multiple times per day on national media. By the time we were well into the pandemic, they had staked an enormous amount of their public reputation on the vaccine. That's not something someone like this steps back from lightly. Once they were committed to the vaccine in such a vociferous and public way, they were not prepared to simply step back, admit that the vaccine might have more risks than they originally represented, and acknowledge that the vaccine simply wasn't necessary for every person and in fact might be counter productive in some demographics.

 

Fauci in particular liked to wrap himself in the cloak of "the science", like some on the right like to wrap themselves in the flag, but what he was doing was far more based on him maintaining his position as "America's Doctor" than anything to do with "the science". For Fauci, "the science" has always been something that's taken a back seat to his personal ego, going back to the way he handled the HIV epidemic back in the 1980s.

 

 

 

 

[gamesguru]

I guess it's a good thing the pharma friendly folks who trialed Paxlovid didn't know they were supposed to test nirmatrelvir without the required co-factor ritonavir, as that created an independent variable.  They don't even compound the two agents into a single pill, but present them in separate blister-packs.  We'd still be at remdesivir & a vent if they had.  

 

Different rules for thee, but not for me!  If we can't get around the logic of avoiding the futility of using a zinc ionophore on zinc deficient patients, then all is lost.  Perhaps this is where front line doctors who simply treat patients with what they need to get better differ from government researchers, and get different results.  

 

Speaking of different rules for thee, what did you make of Dr Kory's observations about the Fraud in the ACTIVE-6 Ivermectin Trial?

 

If they want to combine two proprietaries into one and call it a single independent formulation, that's fine.

 

Zinc is not a proprietary medicine. Nor are ventilators. Ventilators represent a standard of care in advanced pneumonia, and would have been a shared variable common to all scientific studies (not controlling for the particular brand of ventilator, overall cleanliness of the nursing staff, or severity of illness at time of intubation).

 

Let's suppose I'm going to make the claim that Fukitol® improves symptoms of anxiety. But in defending this claim, the vast majority of studies I appeal to show a positive result only in combination with Magnesium L-Threonate (especially those with a highly significant positive result). Now, what can I rightly conclude about Fukitol® in isolation? It turns out nothing. Magnesium is a putative antidepressant of its own, and all of my confirmatory studies have been polluted with this extra independent variable. Due to inter-population differences, the magnitude of placebo effect cannot be correlated across studies... and so there is no practical way to compare the magnitude of effect with Magnesium-only studies.

 

I think Dr. Kory, sadly, like many "scientists" today, is eager to speak outside his domain of expertise and to cause controversy. His claims are often lacking in credibility and accuracy. His use of steroids and intravenous Vitamin C remains an uncommon and risky approach to treating COVID. Later on in the pandemic he downplayed the effectiveness of vaccines and exaggerated their risks on multiple conservative podcasts. Regrettably he seems to be another laughing stock in the field of science. He's not a serious figure, about as far from a Nobel nominee as humanly possible.

 

I think it's easy to blame capitalism for the pushing of vaccines beyond reason. It very likely played a role. The biggest role is that the major pharmaceutical have thoroughly co-opted the FDA for some time now. A well known phenomena in economics called regulatory capture.
 
I think a major driver is that the government health bureaucracy became heavily invested - to the point of being emotionally invested - in promoting these vaccines.
 
Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, Deborah Brix, Fancis Collins, et. al.
 
These people were hawking the vaccines for everyone multiple times per day on national media.

The reason this isn't a case of regulatory capture is the "alphabet agencies" aren't endorsing or mandating vaccines anymore (e.g. once the evidence for their ongoing use was weakened). If there are no more cases of lobbying or secret contracts, wouldn't any endorsement today be due to the pharmaceutical agencies themselves directly?

 

I agree that scientists in positions of authority become increasingly irrelevant in terms of breaking scientific research, and tend to become mouthpieces and marketing agents for bureaucracy.

 

I do not myself listen to doctors on television. If Fauci makes a claim, I verify or refute it independently with my own research. I understand this is not how most people operate, but that is a defect with them not me.

 

The inextricable link and unsupervised interplay between capitalism and the "constitutional" republic, suggests the implication of both as a source of evil. IMO we are wrong to hang the question mark on one, but not the other, when both are guilty.

[Dorian Grey]

Let's suppose COVID had a 50% case fatality rate, & Dr Zelenko was keeping 95% of his patients out of hospital with outpatient zinc + ionophore.  

 

What scientific method would be suitable to properly trial Dr Z's protocol?  Or would this be impossible, and we'd simply sit by and watch half the world's population dead in order to preserve proper scientific protocols?  

 

Regarding Dr Kory, & the ACTIV-6 trial; did they, or did they not change the primary endpoint on the fly from symptom resolution at 14 days to symptom resolution at 28 days?  What do you think the rationale for this might have been?  

[gamesguru]

Let's suppose COVID had a 50% case fatality rate, & Dr Zelenko was keeping 95% of his patients out of hospital with outpatient zinc + ionophore.  

 

What scientific method would be suitable to properly trial Dr Z's protocol?  Or would this be impossible, and we'd simply sit by and watch half the world's population dead in order to preserve proper scientific protocols?  

 

Regarding Dr Kory, & the ACTIV-6 trial; did they, or did they not change the primary endpoint on the fly from symptom resolution at 14 days to symptom resolution at 28 days?  What do you think the rationale for this might have been?  

 

Firstly COVID was nowhere near 50% fatal, so extreme measures weren't really used, society didn't completely erode, and proper scientific protocols were preserved.

 

Regardless of the degree of scientific stringency enforced, I would expect a highly efficacious compound to consistently improve outcomes. That's more than can be said of Ivermectin. Zinc seems far more effective. And while I am puzzled by recommendations against it within the medical community, I am puzzled by much of human activity, and I have more pressing concerns generally.

 

Regarding the ACTIV-6 trial I wasn't able to find significant deviations between the original trial proposal and yet-to-be-released pre-print studies (see attached image from 2021 release vs. a recent study design). Primary objective is still symptom reduction over 14 days. If this is extended to 28 days, likely rationales include a fuller evaluation of the course of illness, as well as allowing the benefits of the pharmaceutical therapy to fully work their way through (even if primary treatment isn't this long).

 

Inhaled Fluticasone for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19: A Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical Trial
2022 Aug 11

Methods: ACTIV-6 is an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial testing repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Non-hospitalized adults aged ≥30 years, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days were randomized to inhaled fluticasone furoate 200 μg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Secondary outcomes included composites of hospitalization or death with or without urgent care or emergency department visit by day 28.

Conclusions: Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in improved time to recovery among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States during the delta and omicron variant surges.

 

There was a correction issued on Pierre Kory's study. Some conflicts of interest were identified. It definitely raises additional concerns for me, and makes this whole narrative seem even more likely to be propped up on stilts.

 

Correction: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching
2022 Mar 24

Monitoring Editor: Alexander Muacevic and John R Adler
Lucy Kerr,1 Flavio A Cadegiani,corresponding author2,3 Fernando Baldi,4 Raysildo B Lobo,5 Washington Luiz O Assagra,6 Fernando Carlos Proença,7 Pierre Kory,8 Jennifer A Hibberd,9 and Juan J Chamie-Quintero10

This corrects the article "Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching" in volume 14, e21272.
It has come to the attention of the journal that several authors failed to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest when submitting this article. As a result, Cureus is issuing the following erratum and updating the relevant conflict of interest disclosures to ensure these conflicts of interest are properly described as recommended by the ICMJ:

• Lucy Kerr: Paid consultant for both Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer, and Médicos Pela Vida (MPV), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
• Flavio A. Cadegiani: Paid consultant ($1,600.00 USD) for Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer. Dr. Cadegiani is a founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
• Pierre Kory: President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Dr. Kory reports receiving payments from FLCCC. In February of 2022, Dr. Kory opened a private telehealth fee-based service to evaluate and treat patients with acute COVID, long haul COVID, and post-vaccination syndromes.
• Jennifer A. Hibberd: Co-founder of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and World Council for Health, both of which discourage vaccination and encourage ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
• Juan J. Chamie-Quintero: Contributor to the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and lists the FLCCC as his employer on his LinkedIn page.

Attached Files

•  Screenshot from 2023-07-09 02-09-13.png   182.86KB   0 downloads

[gamesguru]

Supposedly the largest controlled study of Ivermectin for COVID so far, finding a negative result again.

 

I've also attached the controversial 14 day vs. 28 day measure, and honestly based on that graph, no matter how you slice it Ivermectin is no miracle cure. CBD is probably far more effective, lol.

 

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19
October 21, 2022
https://jamanetwork....article/2797483

Conclusions and Relevance  Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

 

Attached Files

•  joi220112f3_1673037324.42993.png   29.05KB   0 downloads

[Dorian Grey]

Don't believe I ever said COVID was 50% fatal...  I said "LET"S SUPPOSE" COVID had a 50% case fatality rate, & Dr Zelenko was keeping 95% of his patients out of hospital with outpatient zinc + ionophore.  What scientific method would be suitable to properly trial Dr Z's protocol?

 

Is it possible to trial a repurposed drug with an essential co-factor?  Or would we sit and watch half the world's population die in order to preserve the precious scientific method?  

[gamesguru]

No, as I said. In a situation extreme as that society and the need for such standards would probably erode. Given that COVID was nowhere near that fatal, we didn't see such compromises being made.

 

Yes it's possible to trial a repurposed drug with other minerals or supplements. But there needs to be evidence for benefits of both, and ideally mechanisms explaining the benefits too. If you can't show that Ivermectin is effective alone—nor elucidate a powerful biological mechanism—grounds for its inclusion become shaky, and attention is shifted toward more promising therapies.

[Dorian Grey]

Supposedly the largest controlled study of Ivermectin for COVID so far, finding a negative result again.

 

I've also attached the controversial 14 day vs. 28 day measure, and honestly based on that graph, no matter how you slice it Ivermectin is no miracle cure. CBD is probably far more effective, lol.

 

Mild to Moderate COVID-19???  I'm interested in staying out of the hospital, and death also a factor.  For God's sake, please through these garbage studies in the rubbish where they belong.  

 

Risk Stratify...  Keep me out of the hospital...  Keep me from dying.   Try to focus on what is truly important here.  

[gamesguru]

I think studies evaluating any sort of complication are valuable, and that shortening the overall duration of illness which requires hospitalization (though not necessarily ventilation or resulting in likely death) is a useful metric which likely has many parallels with mortality indices (although, they should obviously be weighted and analyzed independently).

 

Studies are all valuable and shouldn't be thrown away. They need to be categorized and analyzed based on methodology, sure. They should be scrutinized for any biases or sources of error, definitely. But to say they are trash unworthy of any consideration is pure arrogance.

Edited by gamesguru, 09 July 2023 - 07:03 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

No, as I said. In a situation extreme as that society and the need for such standards would probably erode. Given that COVID was nowhere near that fatal, we didn't see such compromises being made.

 

Yes it's possible to trial a repurposed drug with other minerals or supplements. But there needs to be evidence for benefits of both, and ideally mechanisms explaining the benefits too. If you can't show that Ivermectin is effective alone—nor elucidate a powerful biological mechanism—grounds for its inclusion become shaky, and attention is shifted toward more promising therapies.

 

Again, I never said COVID was that fatal...  I said "LET"S SUPPOSE" COVID had a 50% case fatality rate".  

 

Evidence of benefit is here: COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study (PMC7587171), 2020 “Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.”  

[gamesguru]

I understand that this was a hypothetical thought experiment. I'm just pointing out that even if this did happen, scientific procedures wouldn't change drastically enough to render an ineffective drug apparently effective.

 

The study you reference is but one study. When considered in the grander scheme of thorough meta-analyses, there is no consistent benefit. You can even find studies showing increased mortality if you choose.

 

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials
15 April 2021
https://www.nature.c...467-021-22446-z

The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

 

[Dorian Grey]

I understand that this was a hypothetical thought experiment. I'm just pointing out that even if this did happen, scientific procedures wouldn't change drastically enough to render an ineffective drug apparently effective.

 

The study you reference is but one study. When considered in the grander scheme of thorough meta-analyses, there is no consistent benefit. You can even find studies showing increased mortality if you choose.

 

"Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY"

 

Oh dear, not these again.  Hospitalized patients?  Don't know that anyone ever imagined HCQ as an effective salvage med for cytokine storm in respiratory failure.  The massive trials on hospitalized patients was part of the propaganda campaign to produce a steady supply of failure for the news media.  

 

Let's take a quick look at  https://c19hcq.org/ 

 

"496 HCQ COVID-19 studies, 403 peer reviewed, 401 comparing treatment and control groups. Late treatment and high dosages may be harmful, while early treatment consistently shows positive results. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment delay. Some In Vitro evidence suggested therapeutic levels would not be reached, however that was incorrect [Ruiz]. Recent:

Finkelstein 

 

Al-Bari 

 

Shang 

 

Milan Bonotto 

 

Rathod 

 

Krishnan 

 

Cárdenas-Jaén. HCQ/CQ was adopted in all or part of 42 countries (57 including non-government medical organizations)"

[gamesguru]

Hospitalized patients?  Don't know that anyone ever imagined HCQ as an effective salvage med for cytokine storm in respiratory failure.

 

Plenty of "prophylactic" studies out there showing a negative or insignificant effect. I think the magnitude of effect needs to be weighted against the possible negatives, such as liver or kidney complications (with extended prophylactic use) and supply chain disruption (for those needing the medicine for its approved anti-parasite uses). For most people the benefits likely do not hugely outweigh the risks.

 

If HCQ or Ivermectin were curing COVID-related illness with nearly the same level of reliability as antiretroviral medicines attenuate HIV, we would be constantly hearing about it in multiple academic journals.

 

We need more evidence to determine Ivermectin's effectiveness. Until then we cannot recommend prophylactic use as a safe alternative to vaccination.

 

Ivermectin - an antiviral drug for the COVID-19 pandemic?
2023 January
https://pulmonarychr...ticle/view/1141

 

Multiple studies have been published examining the use of ivermectin against COVID-19. While several studies suggested it could be an effective therapeutic, most of these studies were insufficiently robust, had design flaws, or did not report any changes in important clinical outcomes, such as mortality. A smaller number of more robust studies did not support ivermectin use for COVID-19 treatment.

Edited by gamesguru, 09 July 2023 - 04:34 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

"Plenty of "prophylactic" studies out there showing a negative or insignificant effect"

 

Yep...  Again, HCQ isn't to prevent infection, just like Paxlovid is not a prophylactic, and Tamiflu is not a prophylactic for influenza.  

 

BUT...  If staying out of the hospital, where you'll likely get remdesivir & a vent is a top priority for you, then HCQ is your go-to med.  

 

Billions of doses taken safely for over half a century.  Ask for it by name!  

[gamesguru]

Luckily I was able to avoid hospitalization, potentially due to my vaccination status and use of CBD. With currently circulating variants being less virulent, and my immunity being reinforced by an infection last October... I do not think I will be needing any HCQ or Ivermectin at this time. I may consider a vaccine booster if I'm going to be around my grandparents, but even that seems unnecessary.

[Dorian Grey]

Luckily I was able to avoid hospitalization, potentially due to my vaccination status and use of CBD. With currently circulating variants being less virulent, and my immunity being reinforced by an infection last October... I do not think I will be needing any HCQ or Ivermectin at this time. I may consider a vaccine booster if I'm going to be around my grandparents, but even that seems unnecessary.

 

Hokey Smokes gg, we have a consensus!  I'm not afraid of the big bad omicron either.  I still thank God every day I was able to get my stash of the forbidden fruits back in 2020/21.  Call me crazy, but if I came down with plague, I'd rather try something than do nothing any old day.  Something about the psychology of "trying", rather than standing like a deer in the headlights made all the difference; particularly when I got sick in January 2022.  

 

Am actually surprised this area of the forum is still as active as it is, but I'm retired, so I can't help but surf through every day.  

 

Cheers Mate!  

[Mind]

Another peer-reviewed study showing benefits when taking Ivermectin for COVID.

 

It still remains the case that the vast majority of Ivermectin/COVID studies showed benefits. The couple of studies that did not rise to statistical relevance still indicated small benefits.

 

It is just bizarre that there was such vitriolic hatred leveled toward anyone, any doctor, any patient using or discussing treating COVID with Ivermectin. It is an extremely safe and extremely cheap drug. What is that motivation that hatred? It is beyond my capacity to understand, except "follow the money".

Edited by Mind, 16 August 2023 - 05:14 PM.