447 replies to this topic

[joesixpack]

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how people on this forum are incapable of understanding basic science. This simple fact that even if a vaccine reduces cases by a factor of 20, you will still get some vaccinated people getting sick.

 

The promise from Pfizer was 95% effective, based on Science. This was jumped on by government and the CDC. The same people that claimed masks were useless, then a few months later mandated masks and suggested wearing two masks. These scientists then claimed the 95% effective vaccine needed a booster after 6 months. Now they are suggesting a third and 4th "booster".

 

I was suggesting that a study they are using to suppress use of Ivermectin also has information indicating that the vaccine is less than 50% effective in keeping people out of the hospital, let alone catching the disease.

 

Why don't the authors of this scientific study mention that?

 

In fact the CDC scientists have admitted that they never had a clue about Covid and followed no science. They just accepted Pfizer's questionable trial information and ran with it.

 

Here is the CDC director talking about their giddiness at the news from Pfizer, and indicating they did not question it, or ask logical questions.

 

Here is the Video: 

 

Here is a short transcript of what she says.

 

I can tell you where I was when the CNN feed came that it was 95 percent effective, the vaccine. So many of us wanted to be hopeful, so many of us wanted to say, okay, this is our ticket out, right, now we’re done. So I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism for some good things that came our way. I really do. I think all of us wanted this to be done.

Nobody said waning, when when you know, oh this vaccine’s going to work. Oh well, maybe it’ll work - (laughs) it’ll wear off.

Nobody said what if the next variant doesn’t, it doesn’t, it’s not as potent against the next variant.

[Dorian Grey]

Oh Jeeze, it just keeps on coming.  Two new studies (not RCTs).  One IVM vs remdesivir, showing 70% lower mortality rate in the IVM group compared to remdesivir.  

 

 

The second, a (low dose) prophylaxis study showing less infection, less hospitalization, and AGAIN a 70% reduction in mortality compared to control.  

 

Dr John wonders why this isn't big news (and so do I)

[Gal220]

"One IVM vs remdesivir, showing 70% lower mortality rate in the IVM group compared to remdesivir."

 

Hard to know what to make of this one, other than the black eye for Fauci.   Is Remdesivir that lethal, IVM that effective, or some combination?

 

However, most IVM studies show 69ish% improvement in mortality

Edited by Gal220, 07 March 2022 - 06:36 AM.

[Mind]

The willful suppression of beneficial early treatment for COVID is a crime, I think. Hundreds of thousands of people could have been saved. Facebook/Google/Snopes/CNN, Fauci and Collins (who privately conspired to crush any talk of alternative treatments) are to blame.

[Hip]

The second, a (low dose) prophylaxis study showing less infection, less hospitalization, and AGAIN a 70% reduction in mortality compared to control.  

 

This second study John Campbell mentions, from Itajai, Brazil, is interesting, because it apparently resulted in 3 times less deaths in the ivermectin group, compared to those not taking ivermectin. Yet the amount the ivermectin group was taking was minuscule, about 15 mg taken for two days in a row, a repeated once every 15 days (so around 60 mg per month).

 

Some people have been saying that certain ivermectin studies were "designed to fail", because they used low doses, or did not continue to the doses for long enough. However, if this Brazilian study to be believed, then taking ivermectin about once every two weeks is sufficient.

Edited by Hip, 09 March 2022 - 12:25 AM.

[Hip]

The willful suppression of beneficial early treatment for COVID is a crime

 

I agree, that's why we need to prosecute antivaxers from suppressing the truth about the efficacy of vaccines with their smokescreen of fake news.

[Mind]

I agree, that's why we need to prosecute antivaxers from suppressing the truth about the efficacy of vaccines with their smokescreen of fake news.

 

There is a substantial legal difference here.

 

No one who is asking questions about the efficacy or side effects has any power to prevent anyone from taking the COVID injections. The major worldwide media outlets are overflowing with effusive praise about how awesome the COVID injections are. PSAs are running constantly. Governments are giving the injections out for free, anywhere, anytime. Some of them are even forcing people to TAKE them.

 

In contrast, people are actively being prevented from taking Ivermectin. Doctors trying to save their patients by using ivermectin are being fired. The supply has been restricted. People noting the beneficial results in multiple studies are being censored. It has been a scorched-earth take down of ivermectin.

[Mind]

You can finally watch Tess Lawrie's conversation with Andrew Hill (the person primarily responsible in preventing people from taking Ivermectin - and probably leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world)

 

The introduction to the conversation begins around 26:00 to 27:00 into the video.

 

Andrew Hill makes an appearance at 28:00.

 

He is obviously uncomfortable when Lawrie mentions all the people that will die because of his illogical study conclusions. He squirms. He doesn't make eye contact.

 

He eventually tells Lawrie that he was essentially forced by UNITAID to write a conclusion dismissive of Ivermectin (contrary to the actual data).

 

https://rumble.com/v...ivermectin.html

[Daniel Cooper]

I agree, that's why we need to prosecute antivaxers from suppressing the truth about the efficacy of vaccines with their smokescreen of fake news.

 

Let's carry your line of thought to it's logical conclusion, shall we?

 

It's now widely recognized that aside from N95 masks, regular surgical masks and cloth masks are minimally effective at preventing the spread of covid. This fact was well known for years before covid appeared on the scene.

 

Yet, we had numerous health officials in most western countries advising the use of masks and promoting government enforced mandates for their wearing.

 

Given that the ineffectiveness of these mask was known before this pandemic, this has all the appearance of being some sort of kabuki theater to placate the masses - to make everyone feel a little better.

 

But, it's certainly true that some people relied on these masks and ventured out into the public more than they would have otherwise and as a result got sick. And percentage of those people died.

 

So, should we put Fauci and his counterparts in the UK and Europe in the dock up on similar changes?

 

The logic is inescapable.

[Mind]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. More positive results for Ivermectin.

 

Just think back about how any talk about using Ivermectin was vilified. Doctors were fired. Hospitals and pharmacies prevented its use. What a sick episode in human history. Perhaps a million or more unnecessary deaths around the world. Why?

[Hip]

There is a substantial legal difference here.

 

No one who is asking questions about the efficacy or side effects has any power to prevent anyone from taking the COVID injections. The major worldwide media outlets are overflowing with effusive praise about how awesome the COVID injections are. PSAs are running constantly. Governments are giving the injections out for free, anywhere, anytime. Some of them are even forcing people to TAKE them.

 

In contrast, people are actively being prevented from taking Ivermectin. Doctors trying to save their patients by using ivermectin are being fired. The supply has been restricted. People noting the beneficial results in multiple studies are being censored. It has been a scorched-earth take down of ivermectin.

 

Patients were not just asking for ivermectin, they were asking for all sorts of drugs touted to help COVID, without there being much evidence for benefit. A hospital is not a candy store where you can order any confectionary you like.

 

 

If there is any benefit to ivermectin, then the ivermectin advocates shot themselves in the foot in terms of rolling out this drug to the public, in multiple ways:

 

First of all, some ivermectin advocates were proposing ivermectin should be used instead of the vaccine. They had a pro-ivermectin, and strongly anti-vaccine stance. That is never going to go down well with the authorities. If you want the authorities to listen to you, best not to fiercely criticize the approach the authorities are taking. At best, it is stupidly untactful. At worst it is downright ignorant. 

 

Any person who is not a social leper knows that you need to work with the authorities if you want their support. Trying to undermine the authorities by rioting in the streets against them is only going to lead to those authorities clamping down. 

 

Secondly, the advocates in third world countries faked the good results in their ivermectin studies. What a very stupid thing to do! If there are benefits to be had with ivermectin, those benefits are going to be overshadowed by the fact that ivermectin researchers were shown to be dishonest. 

 

Finally, researchers kept pushing the idea that ivermectin is antiviral based on in vitro studies, which tell you nothing about whether ivermectin might be antiviral in vivo. Ivermectin may have no antiviral effect at all, but might benefit COVID for other reasons, such as its anti-inflammatory mechanism. Pushing flawed antiviral science forward does not help move things forward.

Edited by Hip, 17 March 2022 - 08:55 PM.

[Hip]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. More positive results for Ivermectin.

 

Just think back about how any talk about using Ivermectin was vilified. Doctors were fired. Hospitals and pharmacies prevented its use. What a sick episode in human history. Perhaps a million or more unnecessary deaths around the world. Why?

 

Just think about how the vaccine was vilified: some erroneously the laughably unscientific idea that it changed your genes. Others said it secretly implanted microchips in you. They made up all sorts of stories to try to frighten the general public. This led to the death of millions. What reprehensible group these antivaxers are.

[Mind]

Just think about how the vaccine was vilified: some erroneously the laughably unscientific idea that it changed your genes. Others said it secretly implanted microchips in you. They made up all sorts of stories to try to frighten the general public. This led to the death of millions. What reprehensible group these antivaxers are.

 

One can say that crazy alien anti-vaxx stories are....crazy!

 

AND

 

Say that the denial of beneficial treatments to people was a bad thing.

 

They are both true. No need to ignore one of them.

 

At least in New Hampshire, they are now trying to make it easier for people to get Ivermectin, proven in multiple studies to improve COVID outcomes. Cheap and safe as well. Why not?

Edited by Mind, 19 March 2022 - 02:39 PM.

[Hip]

New study finds ivermectin was only effective for COVID in areas where parasitic diseases like strongyloidiasis are endemic. The benefits of ivermectin came from treating the strongyloidiasis, not coronavirus.

 

Researchers who conducted ivermectin studies all made serious mistakes by not accounting for strongyloidiasis.

 

 

[Mind]

New study finds ivermectin was only effective for COVID in areas where parasitic diseases like strongyloidiasis are endemic. The benefits of ivermectin came from treating the strongyloidiasis, not coronavirus.

 

Researchers who conducted ivermectin studies all made serious mistakes by not accounting for strongyloidiasis.

 

"ALL". That is a sweeping statement, considering the author only looked at 12 studies. The study only looked at studies in a handful of countries in one region of the world. Also, correlation does not mean causation. Finding correlations in large data sets is easy and not gold standard research, just the starting point.

 

Still, it is an interesting theory at this point.

[Mind]

The CDC continues to irrationally fear-monger about Ivermectin. While their current statement about the drug is not false, it gives the false impression that you will "be harmed" by taking it. It is a very safe drug that has been prescribed billions of times since its discovery.

[geo12the]

New ivermectin study just published:

https://www.nejm.org...6/NEJMoa2115869

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post 197

 

From the cited study:

 

"On presentation to one of the trial outpatient care clinics, potential participants were screened to identify those meeting the eligibility criteria. Inclusion criteria were an age of 18 years or older; presentation to an outpatient care setting with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after symptom onset."

"The mean (±SD) number of days with Covid-19 symptoms before randomization was 3.8±1.9"

"Patients were advised to take the pill on an empty stomach"

From the protocol used in the study:

 

"Considering the available evidence, including in patients with COVID-19, we are proposing
the administration of ivermectin at an average dose of 400 mcg/kg/day, not to exceed a dose of
mcg/kg/day470 in a single dose for 03 consecutive days"

 

The protocol recommended by the FLCCC Alliance says ivermectin should be taken with or after a meal. The study cited in post #197 says to take on an empty stomach.

 

FLCCC says: "Ivermectin2: 0.4–0.6 mg/kg per dose (take with or after a meal) — one dose daily, take for 5 days or until recovered. Use upper dose if: 1) in regions with aggressive variants (e.g. Delta); 2) treatment started on or after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary phase; or 3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors."

 

The study cited in post 197 allows up to 7 days of symptoms for admission to the study (see mean and SD above). Ivermectin should be administered at onset of symptoms.

 

The post #197 study doses ivermectin for only 3 days whereas the FLCCC recommends 5 days at 0.4 mg/kg (same as the cited study's 400 micrograms/kg) and a higher dosage of 0.6 mg/kg as stipulated above.

 

The study should have administered the higher FLCCC dose of 0.6 mg/kg for those participants who were admitted to the study on or after 5 days of symptoms.

 

So, I give the study a personal rating of "designed to fail".

 

Take with a meal--FAIL

Dose for up to 5 days--FAIL

Use higher dosage on or after 5 days of symptoms--FAIL

 

 

 

 

[geo12the]

Re: post 197

From the cited study:

"On presentation to one of the trial outpatient care clinics, potential participants were screened to identify those meeting the eligibility criteria. Inclusion criteria were an age of 18 years or older; presentation to an outpatient care setting with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after symptom onset."

"The mean (±SD) number of days with Covid-19 symptoms before randomization was 3.8±1.9"

"Patients were advised to take the pill on an empty stomach"

From the protocol used in the study:

"Considering the available evidence, including in patients with COVID-19, we are proposing
the administration of ivermectin at an average dose of 400 mcg/kg/day, not to exceed a dose of
mcg/kg/day470 in a single dose for 03 consecutive days"

The protocol recommended by the FLCCC Alliance says ivermectin should be taken with or after a meal. The study cited in post #197 says to take on an empty stomach.

FLCCC says: "Ivermectin2: 0.4–0.6 mg/kg per dose (take with or after a meal) — one dose daily, take for 5 days or until recovered. Use upper dose if: 1) in regions with aggressive variants (e.g. Delta); 2) treatment started on or after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary phase; or 3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors."

The study cited in post 197 allows up to 7 days of symptoms for admission to the study (see mean and SD above). Ivermectin should be administered at onset of symptoms.

The post #197 study doses ivermectin for only 3 days whereas the FLCCC recommends 5 days at 0.4 mg/kg (same as the cited study's 400 micrograms/kg) and a higher dosage of 0.6 mg/kg as stipulated above.

The study should have administered the higher FLCCC dose of 0.6 mg/kg for those participants who were admitted to the study on or after 5 days of symptoms.

So, I give the study a personal rating of "designed to fail".

Take with a meal--FAIL
Dose for up to 5 days--FAIL
Use higher dosage on or after 5 days of symptoms--FAIL

Problem is people say "designed to fail" when they don't like the results of a study. The results are what they are. I've been agnostic about Ivermectin. I don't root for medical treatments to succeed or fail, I follow the science. Take with a meal or not I don't think is a deal breaker. The dosage was the same as the FLCCC. But given for 3 days not 5. If they gave it to people with a meal for 5 days instead of 3 or given it sooner would it have made a huge difference? I wouldn't bet on it.

[Hip]

People who say "designed to fail" tend to be those who don't understand science, so then try to switch to paranoid politics, suggesting that the outcome of all scientific experiments is planned in advance. These people should test themselves for schizotypy, a common mental illness affecting 4% of the population which makes you paranoid. And maybe join the thousands of other Longecity readers who post in the Longecity mental health sub-forums.

 

As for the idea that low dosing of ivermectin is "designed to fail", well the Brazilian very large scale study on around 160,000 people only used a dose of around 30 mg given once every two weeks, yet that still showed significant positive results, no less positive than any other study. 

 

 

Incidentally, what does that very low dose Brazilian study tell you about the likely mechanism of action of ivermectin for COVID? How is it that such a low dose could have such a strong effect for COVID? If you are smart, you'll work it out. Think about it. 

[Mind]

New ivermectin study just published:

https://www.nejm.org...6/NEJMoa2115869

 

What is more interesting than the study results, is that the people who have vitriolic raging hatred for any COVID treatments outside of the "official guidance", cite it as being a "nail in the coffin", or "undeniable evidence against" Ivermectin.

 

For real scientists, it is just another piece of the puzzle, among many other data points. This one is not as favorable-looking for Ivermectin, however, if you look at the headline numbers of those with a "primary COVID outcome" and drill down into the subgroups as well, the Ivermectin groups did better than placebo (except for smokers, which is a weird COVID story since the beginning), just that it did not reach statistical significance. This is similar to the HCQ study (University of MN) from 2020 in which the HCQ group did better on every metric, but did not reach statistical significance.

[geo12the]

however, if you look at the headline numbers of those with a "primary COVID outcome" and drill down into the subgroups as well, the Ivermectin groups did better than placebo (except for smokers, which is a weird COVID story since the beginning), just that it did not reach statistical significance. This is similar to the HCQ study (University of MN) from 2020 in which the HCQ group did better on every metric, but did not reach statistical significance.

Now you've done it Mind you've pushed my stats buttons and I will go off on my soapbox. I will take a closer look at the data but I do agree that "statistical significance" is misused in science publications and this has been the case for ages. To set p values and then say if you are above this number the effect is real if you are below this number the effect is not real is not always a useful reflection of reality. I remember sitting in on meetings in a company I worked for once and this on-the-spectrum stats wiz would always say p value shows statistical significance and people would believe it and I was always like yes that's true but the controls are not valid so it's meaningless. Most science folks, even smart ones, put too much faith in p<.5 without looking at the big picture

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #200

 

"As for the idea that low dosing of ivermectin is "designed to fail", well the Brazilian very large scale study on around 160,000 people only used a dose of around 30 mg given once every two weeks, yet that still showed significant positive results, no less positive than any other study."

 

You are apparently confused by your conflation, and comparison, of treatment, geo12the's cited study: "Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19", with prophylaxis: "Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching"--the study you link to. When making comparisons it's generally a good idea to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

 

As you note, there are "significant positive results"--reported in the study: "Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.".

.

.

 

geo12the, you might want to run your following assertions (from post #199): "Take with a meal or not I don't think is a deal breaker. The dosage was the same as the FLCCC. But given for 3 days not 5. If they gave it to people with a meal for 5 days instead of 3 or given it sooner would it have made a huge difference? I wouldn't bet on it." by your brother, so he can tell you why you're wrong.

 

If you've ever been prescribed a course of antibiotics, the prescribing doctor more than likely stressed the importance of taking the full course, and at those dosages which are known to be effective.

 

Analogous to the post #197 study, would be a hypothetical study in which one stent (the treatment "dose" used) was inserted into a patient that had two partially blocked coronary arteries and then coming to the conclusion that stents don't work because the patient subsequently suffered a heart attack as a result of a full blockage of the untreated artery. The correct "dose" to have been used in the "study", would have been two stents.

 

[Dorian Grey]

New ivermectin study just published:

https://www.nejm.org...6/NEJMoa2115869

 

"Patients who had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 were eligible for participation in the trial".

 

Whoa, did the randomization insure vaccinated patients were equally divided between treated & control? 

 

Any imbalance here would truly bugger the results in a pre-omicron trial.  

[Dorian Grey]

The plot thickens!  Apparently some of the "hospitalized patients" in this study (with the primary outcome of "hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days"), were in fact not hospitalized.  

 

"Because many patients who would ordinarily have been hospitalized were prevented from admission because of limited hospital capacity during peak waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, the composite outcome was developed to measure both hospitalization and a proxy for hospitalization, observation in a Covid-19 emergency setting for more than 6 hours."

 

"The 6-hour threshold referred only to periods of time that were recommended for observation by a clinician and was discounted for wait times."

 

----------------------------

 

So some of the patients were vaccinated, while others were not; and some of the hospitalized patients were actually not crumping into hospital in critical condition, but merely in observational triage for 6 hours or more.  

 

Good grief!  This passed peer review, and actually got published in the New England Journal of Medicine.  

 

We live in interesting times!  

[Gal220]

Personally I would not rely solely on IVM and the FLCCC/Kory were very open about having to change their protocol/dosing for Delta

 

What basis did they have for using the dosing they chose?

 

 

[joesixpack]

Here is a study that explains how Ivermectin works against the Covid - 19 virus. This has been know since the fall of 2020, and Ivermectin is still being withheld from people who need it.

 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/32871846/

 

In Vivo

 

•  
•  
•  

. Sep-Oct 2020;34(5):3023-3026.

 doi: 10.21873/invivo.12134.

Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2

Steven Lehrer # 1, Peter H Rheinstein # 2

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 32871846
•  
• PMCID: PMC7652439
•  
• DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12134

Free PMC article

[APBT]

[joesixpack]

This study has been brought up before, and is flawed.

 

Unfortunately, they did not follow the FLLC protocol, which is give it within 5 days of getting symptoms, take Ivermectin and zinc, for 5 days. So Ivermectin was doomed to failure by the structure of the study.

 

They gave the medication late, they did not give the medication with zinc, and they only gave the medication for 3 days, not 5.

 

So, set up to fail.

[Mind]

One of the safest drugs in the world, along with others, are now being allowed to be used for COVID, without consequence, in Missouri.

 

One of the strangest and disturbing trends in this whole COVID pandemic episode is the unhinged hatred levelled against any doctor that wanted to use early treatments that seemed useful and were safe. It makes me scared for the next health concern. Will the reactions against doctors be even more extreme? Will health bureaucrats call for imprisonment, or worse?