8
0

Ivermectin


 invite response                
2021 May 9, 10:24pm   81,094 views  629 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (61)   💰tip   ignore  

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/

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.


And HCQ falls into that same bucket. Even worse - to admit HCQ works would be to admit Trump was right about something.

Liberals would rather that millions die than that Trump be allowed to be right about anything. They hate Trump more than they love their fellow humans.

« First        Comments 440 - 479 of 629       Last »     Search these comments

440   Eman   2022 Jan 31, 6:12pm  

Japan's Kowa says ivermectin showed 'antiviral effect' against Omicron in research

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-japan-kowa-idUSL1N2UB0AV
442   zzyzzx   2022 Feb 18, 11:45am  

Spotted at WalMart:

443   stereotomy   2022 Feb 18, 12:54pm  

Shit - that's 60% higher than what I paid at TSC.

Not to mention that Allimed 450mg 100ct Allicin has gone from 36 to almost 44 GBP at allicin.co.uk.
446   EBGuy   2022 Aug 31, 5:19pm  

Here is the dosing info from the paper our fearless leader posted.
Regular use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 led up to 92% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate in a dose-response manner: results of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled population of 88,012 subjects among 223,128 participants.
This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days.
I would be inclined to take it once a week instead of the two consecutive days every 15 days.
448   EBGuy   2022 Aug 31, 6:37pm  

Patrick says

Ivermectin is an extremely safe drug. The normal dose is 150 micrograms (mcg) per kilogram (kg), so 12mg would be the dose for a 176 lb person if I did this right:

Just want to point out that dose, per Mayo Clinic, is for a treatment may be repeated every 3 to 12 months.. So taking ivermectin as a propphylaxis would be at a much greater magnitude (which is what the Kerr, et. al. pre-print participants did).
449   Patrick   2022 Sep 1, 12:19pm  




To be fair, I think there has been a big disconnect for a while already between the public announcements like HORSE DEWORMER! and actual scientific papers on the NIH site showing that it does work.
450   AmericanKulak   2022 Sep 1, 8:07pm  

Hypothesis:

Most of the stuff for mammals is the same shit they give humans.

And unlike Big Pharma lobbying and immunity, generics manufacturers for livestock don't wanna be sued for killing Foal of Legendary Horse or Ms Habersham's precious Foo Foo prize poodle, so the quality level is extremely high.

Just sayin' Neeeeeeigh. Better than GoodRx if you catch my drift.
451   Robert Sproul   2022 Sep 1, 8:49pm  

Nice 15 minute video run-down on 'mectin.
https://rumble.com/v1huyrn-ivermectin-the-truth.html
(P. why won't my videos embed?)
452   Patrick   2022 Sep 1, 9:02pm  

Robert Sproul says

(P. why won't my videos embed?)


@"Robert Sproul" For Rumble videos, you need to paste in the "embed" link, the one labelled "Embed IFRAME URL":





It might be possible for me to automatically pull that out of the html of the web page, but I haven't tried yet. I'll put that on my list.
454   Patrick   2022 Sep 3, 1:15pm  

https://nitter.pussthecat.org/jakeshieldsajj/status/1565395166931914753#m


Jake Shields
@jakeshieldsajj

The study shows 95% decrees In mortality yet they still recommend against its use

These people would rather you die than admit they were wrong and lose money

The study used 88,012 people with 92% reduction in death

This isn’t minor this is massive Decline in deaths



456   Patrick   2022 Sep 16, 2:17pm  

https://www.aflegal.org/news/afl-demands-records-relating-to-the-governments-suppression-of-ivermectin-treatment-for-covid-19


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain records relating to the suppression of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 by federal government bureaucrats.

A new study from August 31, 2022 reveals that regular use of Ivermectin as “prophylaxis for COVID-19 led up to a 92% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate,” and the “hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users.” Yet, Dr. Fauci, the FDA, and the allied media continuously warned against Ivermectin use to fight COVID-19. In fact, the media smeared Ivermectin use by painting it as an anti-parasite “horse drug,” when Ivermectin for livestock differs from Ivermectin for humans. We now know that Ivermectin is highly successful for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19, and yet, since the origins of the pandemic, the government suppressed and deterred its use.

Last month, AFL filed a FOIA request to uncover the government’s suppression of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID-19 treatment. The American people have a right to know why government officials and so-called “trusted” experts like Dr. Fauci suppressed HCQ and Ivermectin, and whether these coordinated discouragement campaigns were politically or financially motivated.
457   Al_Sharpton_for_President   2022 Sep 16, 2:44pm  

This dude bragged about torpedoing HCQ and is now at the Rockefeller Foundation.

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profile/dr-rick-bright/
458   GNL   2022 Sep 16, 4:14pm  

Patrick says

Today, America First Legal (AFL) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S.

Really? Why did they wait over 2 years to do this?
459   richwicks   2022 Sep 16, 5:12pm  

Patrick says





To be fair, I think there has been a big disconnect for a while already between the public announcements like HORSE DEWORMER! and actual scientific papers on the NIH site showing that it does work.




If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

The reason hyperlinks were created was to allow references. If some ASSHOLE is making a claim and not providing a link although they PRESUMABLY just copied a screenshot from that very link, it's FALSE.

I can't find that, so where the fuck is it?

Quit falling for bullshit please. We've had the Internet for 30 years.

It drives me crazy. People have to spend more time DEBUNKING bullshit than learning today, because people are LAZY. Everybody that reads this, if they want to know, will have to look it up, and when they don't find it, it's a question of how much energy they expended to find it. It's DESIGNED to make people who THINK waste time.
460   Karloff   2022 Sep 16, 5:46pm  

The Canadian government knew it worked as well, yet publicly tried to discredit it.

https://scoopsmcgoo.substack.com/p/phac-emails-re-ivermectin-2
461   Karloff   2022 Sep 16, 5:49pm  

richwicks says

If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

The reason hyperlinks were created was to allow references. If some ASSHOLE is making a clai...


Here's the link:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/
462   GNL   2022 Sep 16, 6:35pm  

richwicks says


If there isn't a link to it, and it's not in archive.org - it's 99% probability FALSE, to make people believe it, only to have some twat that understands that our intelligence agencies, news media, and government CONSTANTLY feed us false information, point out it's false information.

What is false, NIH saying Ivermectin is useful for treating Covid or that there was an FOIA request?
Out of curiosity, @richwicks, does that link satisfy you? No sarc intended.
463   richwicks   2022 Sep 16, 8:04pm  

Karloff says


Here's the link:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/


Good. And here's the archive.org link to it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220415000000*/https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

They missed hydroxychloroquine - listed as far back as June 12, 2021.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210612061731/https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/

Claims are fine, but when you claim "the government wrote this on the Intenet", NOT PROVIDING A LINK IS very frustrating. It wastes time and you have no idea how easily it is to fake anything.

Let me demonstrate:



If I had a black enough soul to be a propagandist and disinformation agent, it's trivial. It's just text, it's trivial to falsify.
464   richwicks   2022 Sep 16, 8:41pm  

GNL says


Out of curiosity, @richwicks, does that link satisfy you? No sarc intended.


Yes, it does. I upvoted it, and also demonstrated how trivial it is to falsify a website. My position MUST BE, whatever I see is FALSE until I can prove otherwise. It serves me well, but it's so much work to find a fucking link, going through ADULTERATED search engines that hide this shit.

I used wget. I just changed some text. The hardest part was getting a decent screenshot.

It is SO EASY to peddle false information. You have a source, please link to it. Ivermectin was also mentioned in earlier versions on archive.org.
465   richwicks   2022 Sep 17, 6:58pm  

AmericanKulak says

And unlike Big Pharma lobbying and immunity, generics manufacturers for livestock don't wanna be sued for killing Foal of Legendary Horse or Ms Habersham's precious Foo Foo prize poodle, so the quality level is extremely high.


Quality level between drugs for animals and people are identical, since they are identical drugs.

Stuff can be ADDED for animals though.
466   Patrick   2022 Sep 28, 3:27pm  

https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&query=ivermectin+cancer&commit=Search


Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505114/
On the other hand, ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis. Ivermectin induces apoptosis and ...
Ivermectin as an inhibitor of cancer stem‑like cells - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29257278/
Abstract. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate that ivermectin preferentially inhibited cancer stem‑like cells (CSC) in breast cancer cells ...
Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an ... - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32971268/
Ivermectin is a macrolide antiparasitic drug with a 16-membered ring that is widely used for the treatment of many parasitic diseases such as river ...
Ivermectin has New Application in Inhibiting Colorectal Cancer Cell ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483925/
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and still lacks effective therapy. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been shown ...
Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder ...
Antibiotic ivermectin preferentially targets renal cancer through ...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847725/
We show that ivermectin significantly inhibits proliferation and indu … Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most aggressive type of genitourinary cancer ...
Antitumor effects of ivermectin at clinically feasible ... - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32474842/
Purpose: Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that exhibits antitumor effects in preclinical studies, and as such is currently being repositioned for c ...
467   Patrick   2022 Oct 16, 11:50am  

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fda-misled-public-ivermectin-accountable-144900899.html


The FDA Misled the Public About Ivermectin and Should Be Accountable in Court, Argues the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
469   Patrick   2022 Nov 1, 7:19pm  

https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/activ-6-dosing-and-timing-a-fox-in


Antivirals are like a parachute. If you open them too late, you’re going to get hurt, badly. This doesn’t mean the parachute didn’t work. It means that you didn’t open it in time. Very similarly, if an antiviral is taken too late to effectively check the replication of the virus, any effect will be suboptimal, to say the least.

This is, of course, is very well understood by the people who test antivirals. For instance, the EPIC-HR trial—that led to Paxlovid's approval—as well as the MOVE-OUT trial—that led to Molnupiravir's approval—excluded patients that were over five days from symptom onset. MOVE-OUT had 50% of patients with less than three days from symptom onset. For EPIC-HR that was 68%. ACTIV-6 on the other hand, only had 25% of ivermectin patients with less than five days from symptom onset. As absurd as it may sound, 75% of the patients in ACTIV-6 for ivermectin would have been rejected from the Molnupiravir and Paxlovid trials for having the disease in too advanced a stage.

And let’s not forget that based on what we learned from the ACTIV-6 patient I spoke to, the drug was shipped on the first day of participation in the trial, which means most likely we should add an extra day to all the ACTIV-6 numbers above. Based on the literature review I did in this previous article, the ACTIV-6 trial for ivermectin treated its patient later than all the trials describing themselves as “early treatment” in the New England Journal of Medicine.
473   AmericanKulak   2022 Nov 20, 12:17pm  

I don't know what my horse got yesterday, some respiratory virus, maybe the flu, but my horse took a dose of ivermectin and he's feeling much better with symptoms down about 50% within 16 hours.
475   Patrick   2022 Nov 21, 10:42am  

AmericanKulak says

I don't know what my horse got yesterday, some respiratory virus, maybe the flu, but my horse took a dose of ivermectin and he's feeling much better with symptoms down about 50% within 16 hours.


My horse and my wife's horse had mixed results. I think it's most effective during the initial viral replication phase, but maybe not so much later.
476   AmericanKulak   2022 Nov 21, 10:47am  

Patrick says

My horse and my wife's horse had mixed results. I think it's most effective during the initial viral replication phase, but maybe not so much later.

Symptoms appeared about 48 hours ago, took a dose, 12 hours later felt 50% better. 24 hours ago took another dose, by hour 48 I am 90% better. Just a sniffle and sneeze now and again, otherwise as normal.
477   Patrick   2022 Nov 21, 10:52am  

I've read that some of the studies of ivermectin deliberately waited until the viral replication phase was over and patients were quite ill, in order to have "evidence" that ivermectin doesn't work.
478   stereotomy   2022 Nov 21, 10:53am  

AmericanKulak says


Patrick says


My horse and my wife's horse had mixed results. I think it's most effective during the initial viral replication phase, but maybe not so much later.

Symptoms appeared about 48 hours ago, took a dose, 12 hours later felt 50% better. 24 hours ago took another dose, by hour 48 I am 90% better. Just a sniffle and sneeze now and again, otherwise as normal.


My own personal horse's experience is that Ivermectin shuts down replication and symptoms, but doesn't necessarily elminate the virus on its own. It just makes it much easier for my horse's immune system to mop up, so the duration of the infection is about the same, just 95% easier to deal with.
479   Patrick   2022 Nov 24, 10:25am  


Bret Weinstein
@BretWeinstein
Nov 16
Interesting that the "science" we are supposed to be following on Ivermectin turns out to be riddled with FTX money. It's probably just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the utterly indefensible methods, sensational headlines and still-secret datasets.






« First        Comments 440 - 479 of 629       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste