💰tip ($0.87 in tips)
Back in January I wrote an article about four randomized controlled trials of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19 that had at that time released their results to the public. Each of those four trials had promising results, but each was also too small individually to show any meaningful impact on the hard outcomes we really care about, like death. When I meta-analyzed them together however, the results suddenly appeared very impressive. Here’s what that meta-analysis looked like: It showed a massive 78% reduction in mortality in patients treated with covid-19. Mortality is the hardest of hard end points, which means it’s the hardest for researchers to manipulate and therefore the least open to bias. Either someone’s dead, or they’re alive. End of story.You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.That hasn’t happened.Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.In spite of this, trial results have continued to appear. That means we should now be able to conclude with even greater certainty whether or not ivermectin is effective against covid-19. Since there are so many of these trials popping up now, I’ve decided to limit the discussion here only to the ones I’ve been able to find that had at least 150 participants, and that compared ivermectin to placebo (although I’ll add even the smaller trials I’ve found in to the updated meta-analysis at the end).As before, it appears that rich western countries have very little interest in studying ivermectin as a treatment for covid. The three new trials that had at least 150 participants and compared ivermectin with placebo were conducted in Colombia, Iran, and Argentina. We’ll go through each in turn. ...What we see is a 62% reduction in the relative risk of dying among covid patients treated with ivermectin. That would mean that ivermectin prevents roughly three out of five covid deaths. The reduction is statistically significant (p-value 0,004). In other words, the weight of evidence supporting ivermectin continues to pile up. It is now far stronger than the evidence that led to widespred use of remdesivir earlier in the pandemic, and the effect is much larger and more important (remdesivir was only ever shown to marginally decrease length of hospital stay, it was never shown to have any effect on risk of dying).I understand why pharmaceutical companies don’t like ivermectin. It’s a cheap generic drug. Even Merck, the company that invented ivermectin, is doing it’s best to destroy the drug’s reputation at the moment. This can only be explained by the fact that Merck is currently developing two expensive new covid drugs, and doesn’t want an off-patent drug, which it can no longer make any profit from, competing with them.The only reason I can think to understand why the broader medical establishment, however, is still so anti-ivermectin is that these studies have all been done outside the rich west. Apparently doctors and scientists outside North America and Western Europe can’t be trusted, unless they’re saying things that are in line with our pre-conceived notions.
Comments 1 - 40 of 497 Next » Last »
They hate Trump more than they love their fellow humans.
Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial View ORCID ProfileAsaf Biber, Michal Mandelboim, Geva Harmelin, Dana Lev, Li Ram, Amit Shaham, Ital Nemet, Limor Kliker, Oran Erster, Eli Schwartzdoi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081 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.AbstractFull TextInfo/HistoryMetrics Preview PDFAbstractBackground Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic agent, also has anti-viral properties. Our aim was to assess whether ivermectin can shorten the viral shedding in patients at an early-stage of COVID-19 infection.Methods The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3 days vs. placebo in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RT-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab was obtained at recruitment and then every two days. Primary endpoint was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day (third day after termination of treatment) as reflected by Ct level>30 (non-infectious level). The primary outcome was supported by determination of viral culture viability.Results Eighty-nine patients were eligible (47 in ivermectin and 42 in placebo arm). Their median age was 35 years. Females accounted for 21·6%, and 16·8% were asymptomatic at recruitment. Median time from symptom onset was 4 days. There were no statistical differences in these parameters between the two groups.On day 6, 34 out of 47 (72%) patients in the ivermectin arm reached the endpoint, compared to 21/ 42 (50%) in the placebo arm (OR 2·62; 95% CI: 1·09-6·31). In a multivariable logistic-regression model, the odds of a negative test at day 6 was 2.62 time higher in the ivermectin group (95% CI: 1·06–6·45). Cultures at days 2 to 6 were positive in 3/23 (13·0%) of ivermectin samples vs. 14/29 (48·2%) in the placebo group (p=0·008).Conclusions There were significantly lower viral loads and viable cultures in the ivermectin group, which could lead to shortening isolation time in these patients.
They needed the "vaccine" to gain profit and power.There is nothing more to it.
Patrick saysThey needed the "vaccine" to gain profit and power.There is nothing more to it.I don't think profit is an incentive anymore. It's only power.The Federal Reserve can create as much money as they goddamned please.
The Federal Reserve can create as much money as they goddamned please.
richwicks saysThe Federal Reserve can create as much money as they goddamned please.And they know their days are numbered. Fiat money only has value until it doesn't.
I don't think profit is an incentive anymore. It's only power.
Twitter I think rarely makes a profit. WaPo also. They are "Loss Leaders" whose costs are paid to push a certain line, rather than traditional profit-seeking entities.
Many of the COVID-19 infections are in tourists (who have not gotten lots of UVB), not locals"....Cusco, 6.7 % of men are obese, compared to Lima, where 24.4 % are."
Doctors Raise Awareness on Ivermectin Treatment for COVID-19BY MEILING LEE July 24, 2021In an effort to help end the pandemic, an international coalition of medical experts is holding worldwide events Saturday to raise awareness about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial
Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/dayDouble-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness
Twenty countries are using Ivermectin to treat Covid-19. They include Mexico, Guatemala, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Nigeria, and Egypt. In South Africa doctors are allowed to prescribe Ivermectin, but it is not being rolled out everywhere and in hospitals and clinics. According to Jackie Stone, a doctor in Zimbabwe, since January – when Ivermectin began to be used – it has cut COVID hospital admissions and deaths over 70%. “The death rate rose sharply in January and peaked on the 25th at 70 deaths per day. Official authorisation for the use of Ivermectin was granted on 26th January. Just one month later, on 26th February, the COVID death rate had fallen to zero”.
When co-morbidities are removed from the study ...
DURHAM, N.C. -- A new study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute is looking at whether three existing medications would treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19 effectively. (More information on the study is available here.)The three repurposed medications, already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for other uses, are:Ivermectin, used to treat parasitic infections;Fluticasone, an inhaled steroid commonly prescribed for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; andFluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), often prescribed for depression.On Tuesday, institute executive director Adrian Hernandez discussed the study with reporters in a virtual media briefing, where he touched on the need for COVID-19 therapies and making it easy for people across the country to take part in the study.Watch the briefing on YouTube.Here are excerpts:TREATING MILD-TO-MODERATE COVID-19A study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute has expanded its testing platform to evaluate three repurposed medications in the search for effective, safe treatments for mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Repurposed medications are those already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for other indications.READ MOREOn the importance of testing COVID therapies“We are in another surge here and it’s important to get answers for people who have mild to moderate COVID-19. What has been set up is a platform that will allow people anywhere across the country to join together to get those answers.”“As we see COVID-19 surge, how can we actually address those issues by understanding what drugs work the best way and the easiest way for people to take at home if they, unfortunately, get COVID-19. We’ll be able to evaluate a number of different drugs that have a proven safety track record.”On why the clinical trial matters now“We are all interested in making sure we protect and prevent people from getting COVID-19 through vaccination and other efforts, but there are going to be cases when people get COVID-19 either through breakthrough cases or because someone hasn’t been vaccinated.”“We have new variants that have developed over the last several months and we need to understand what are the best treatments that will make people feel better, faster, and also prevent them from going to the hospital or having any other poor outcomes.”
@QMichelle174hReplying to @CCoxley @RWMaloneMD @alexandrosMWhy are we expecting effective and appropriate trials when we have read the Pfizer contracts? No treatment can be found.
His primary care doctor and his urgent care doctor both refused to prescribe Ivermectin. Once I found a doctor who would prescribe it, we had to get PERMISSION from the pharmacists to fill it. Then, this decades-old generic drug cost $120 (prices have gone up since then), when a comparable dose for my horses would cost less than $10. Here is the story.
Mom took 2 doses of HCQ and no more
WineHorror1 saysMom took 2 doses of HCQ and no moreShe needs to take zinc with HCQ since HCQ is the vehicle to get zinc into the cells to kill the virus.
I believe this is what they have been offered..
WineHorror1 saysI believe this is what they have been offered..Antibodies are pretty safe as far as I know. For example that's what lots of cancer drugs are: antibodies matched with the cancer to guide the immune system to go in for the kill.As opposed to chemotherapy which is basically just poison that one hopes kills the weaker cancer cells more than the normal cells.
Nope, totally different thing. Read up on humanized monoclonal antibodies if you're interested in the tech. It's not mRNA, spike protein or any of that crap.They gave this to Trump when he had the coof.It's expensive as all hell.
Comments 1 - 40 of 497 Next » Last »