Coronavirus

[AngryAnt]

Human trials were overwhelmingly positive. You really shouldn't post when you possess such a paucity of information. Luckily some bloke has produced a timeline of Ivermectin related events (both pro and con). The timeline in the attached runs from April to June 21. But his reference list at items 5 and 6 link to his earlier work detailing the timeline from the commencement of the pandemic. Best to actually draw on some facts before opining.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352853743_A_Continuation_of_a_Timeline_of_Ivermectin-Related_Events_in_the_COVID-19_Pandemic_June_30_2021

There's also this.

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data

www.theguardian.com

Only one study of course, but one of the rules of science is to be dispassionate - don't launch a study because you want to prove a political point. That's not science.

 

[AngryAnt]

You've scanned it have you including the other 100 pages from the earlier timeline and about 500 references in 20 minutes and concluded the results were 'mixed at best'

*smile* wit!

Here you go, from the Guardian article which actually has, you know, a scientist reviewing these sorts of studies.

"Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”. This was concerning because two meta-analyses of ivermectin for treating Covid-19 had included the Elgazzar study in the results. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to determine what the overall scientific literature has found about a treatment or intervention.

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.

“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”"

Keep on believing though bro. You've bought the right-wing anti-vaxxer *smile* spread by the likes of Craig Kelly. Hang ya head in shame mate.

This is my favourite part:

Lawrence said what started out as a simple university assignment had led to a comprehensive investigation into an apparent scientific fraud at a time when “there is a whole ivermectin hype … dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists”.

That's you.

 

[lamb22]

Hey Anty, As an entree scan this

https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf

and for main scan this

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of 262 studies

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of 262 studies

c19ivermectin.com

 

[lamb22]

Here you go, from the Guardian article which actually has, you know, a scientist reviewing these sorts of studies.

So no scientists in the timeline you 'scanned?'

You're still a *smile* wit.

I am aware of the Elgazzar study,

 

[AngryAnt]

Is it yet more *smile* Lamb?

Here's another summary - from Nature no less - casting major doubt on the new Ivermectin cures Covid industry.

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.

www.nature.com

Reliable data needed​

The paper’s withdrawal is not the first scandal to dog studies of ivermectin and COVID-19. Hill thinks many of the other ivermectin trial papers that he has scanned are likely to be flawed or statistically biased. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not randomized or well controlled, he says. And in 2020, an observational study of the drug was withdrawn after scientists raised concerns about it and a few other papers using data by the company Surgisphere that investigated a range of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. “We’ve seen a pattern of people releasing information that’s not reliable,” says Hill. “It’s hard enough to do work on COVID and treatment without people distorting databases.”

You've bought into the bullsh1t, bro.

 

[AngryAnt]

So no scientists in the timeline you 'scanned?'

You're still a *smile* wit.

Dude, as soon as you start calling people *smile* wits you've lost the argument. Neither of us are scientists, so I'm prepared to take the word of real academics who don't have a vested interest in this. They are saying many of these results are very questionable. The largest study which biased the aggregate results has been demonstrated to be fraudulent.

Like I say, ivermectin or other antivirals may have a part to play, but fraudulent and inept studies don't help the cause. Then tying it to anti-vaxxer Trump ideologists weakens your argument further.

Good day to you sir.

 

[RoarEmotion]

We definitely need ways to minimise the damage Covid does once you get it.

Seems pretty compelling that being fully vaccinated helps in this regard as well as not having comorbidities.

Would be good to hear what hospitals have done to help and also see the data on the comorbidities - people can also change their lifestyles to be able improve their chances of surviving etc.

If there are other treatments that can work I don’t think anyone (except maybe vaccine manufacturers) would see this as a bad thing. There are obviously huge dollars at stake here so it is going to be interesting to see how it develops over time.

 

[lamb22]

I know these physicians aren't glorified accountants like Meyerwitz Katz or career bureaucrats like Fauci or Soumya Swaminathan but I know who I'd want treating me if I got Covid.

Our Physicians

Learn more about the FLCCC Alliance's team of physicians, our founding members, clinical advisors, and clinical team.

covid19criticalcare.com

 

[AngryAnt]

One more for you lamby - this one actually looks at the various studies and highlights their strengths and weaknesses as randomised/double-blind or not. I'd actually recommend this site to people who are genuinely interested in the science and not just in some raw count or laundry list of "positive" vs "negative" studies.

COVID-19 Update: Ivermectin - REBEL EM - Emergency Medicine Blog

Clinical Question: Does Ivermectin demonstrate efficacy in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19?

rebelem.com

Read this and tell me what you think. Then you can call me a *smile* wit again if you want.

 

[lamb22]

Is it yet more *smile* Lamb?

Here's another summary - from Nature no less - casting major doubt on the new Ivermectin cures Covid industry.

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.

www.nature.com

Reliable data needed​

The paper’s withdrawal is not the first scandal to dog studies of ivermectin and COVID-19. Hill thinks many of the other ivermectin trial papers that he has scanned are likely to be flawed or statistically biased. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not randomized or well controlled, he says. And in 2020, an observational study of the drug was withdrawn after scientists raised concerns about it and a few other papers using data by the company Surgisphere that investigated a range of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. “We’ve seen a pattern of people releasing information that’s not reliable,” says Hill. “It’s hard enough to do work on COVID and treatment without people distorting databases.”

You've bought into the bullsh1t, bro.

Is it yet more *smile* Lamb?

Here's another summary - from Nature no less - casting major doubt on the new Ivermectin cures Covid industry.

Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.

www.nature.com

Reliable data needed​

The paper’s withdrawal is not the first scandal to dog studies of ivermectin and COVID-19. Hill thinks many of the other ivermectin trial papers that he has scanned are likely to be flawed or statistically biased. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not randomized or well controlled, he says. And in 2020, an observational study of the drug was withdrawn after scientists raised concerns about it and a few other papers using data by the company Surgisphere that investigated a range of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. “We’ve seen a pattern of people releasing information that’s not reliable,” says Hill. “It’s hard enough to do work on COVID and treatment without people distorting databases.”

You've bought into the bullsh1t, bro.

Good article. Did you read it?

 

[AngryAnt]

Good article. Did you read it?

Sure did, also quoted from it.

 

[lamb22]

One more for you lamby - this one actually looks at the various studies and highlights their strengths and weaknesses as randomised/double-blind or not. I'd actually recommend this site to people who are genuinely interested in the science and not just in some raw count or laundry list of "positive" vs "negative" studies.

COVID-19 Update: Ivermectin - REBEL EM - Emergency Medicine Blog

Clinical Question: Does Ivermectin demonstrate efficacy in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19?

rebelem.com

Read this and tell me what you think. Then you can call me a *smile* wit again if you want.

You are just taking the pi$$ now. I give you a timeline which I clearly stated showed pros and cons and actions and arguments going back to the start of the pandemic which you in your absolute brilliance by pure osmosis divine all the answers and complexity in 20 minutes of 'scanning' and then you cherry pick articles because your pride has been pricked because I rightly called you a *smile* wit.

All these con arguments are detailed in the extensive research document I gave you. These are not unknowns to me. You just show yourself to be more and more foolish. Your scurrying around to google to simply recite the position of the Con side that I provided to you is laughable. I take note of those arguments and I assess and reassess. You don't. You post things without understanding them or the context. You don't understand the mechanism of action of Ivermectin, the use of Ivermectin in various countries, the context around criticisms of Ivermectin favourable trials or indeed the critique of unfavourable trials.

You have the gall to lump in some of most distinguished critical care doctors who are pioneers in non invasive ventilation, understanding ARDS (which is what kills you in Covid), the treatment of sepsis (in fact the second most published crtitical care doctor in the world) and groundbreakers in the field of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and therapeutic hypothermia with right wing loonies and you label them conspiracy theorists. You ignore a discussion of the science and like a drowning man grab for validation from anywhere without having the vaguest idea of the complexity of the issue.

I apologise for calling you a *smile* wit. You are more an ignorant bloviating blowhard

 

[mrposhman]

It’s an essential plank, but the problem of how to keep the virus from overwhelming us without lockdowns still looms.

Well initial results look positive. The UK is a great example. The one thing that our botched vaccine programme has done is allow us to observe from afar.

The UK as I've said is a great example. They got to "freedom day" and the experts were warning that it was too risky, some advising the government that cases will expand very quickly to 100k to 200k per day and hospitalisations would rise. The opposite happened and whilst they are still at circa 25k cases per day, the level of hospitalisations and deaths has either plateughed or fallen. In fact Covid is now the 25th reason for the death in the UK. Isn't this what the whole lockdown was about?

We were told going into this there were 2 options

1 - Eradicate Covid
2 - Live with Covid

We can't do 1, thats pretty much out the door, so we need living with Covid is about removing the over burden on the health system that an uncontrolled virus can cause (and did cause in numerous settings around the world, we all saw what was going on in Italy and New York in the 1st half of 2020). Initial indications seem to suggest that the UK aren't getting that overburden and ultimately we have to live with Covid going forward with an acceptable level of fatalities.

As I mentioned above, the 1 good thing about the botched vaccine programme is we can observe rather than being the guinea pigs.

 

[lamb22]

One more for you lamby - this one actually looks at the various studies and highlights their strengths and weaknesses as randomised/double-blind or not. I'd actually recommend this site to people who are genuinely interested in the science and not just in some raw count or laundry list of "positive" vs "negative" studies.

COVID-19 Update: Ivermectin - REBEL EM - Emergency Medicine Blog

Clinical Question: Does Ivermectin demonstrate efficacy in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19?

rebelem.com

Read this and tell me what you think. Then you can call me a *smile* wit again if you want.

So this is like a meta analysis then, Maybe you should copy the link to Dr Tess Lawrie or Dr Andrew Hill.

God you're funny, It's as if you've discovered something new.

Next you'll be telling us about GRADE.

 

[AngryAnt]

I apologise for calling you a *smile* wit. You are more an ignorant bloviating blowhard

thanks, apology accepted

Don't recall commenting on the esteemed clinical physicians in the website you mentioned, so don't know where that particular attack has come from. The rest of your post is ad hominem so I'll disregard it.

Like I said, when the good double-blind randomised clinical trial stuff comes in then I'm sure ivermectin will be proven or disproven as clinically effective, or not. There's a clinical study of 3500 people in Brazil right now which seems to be legitimate so let's see. I fear it's gonna turn out to be hydroxy-whatever 2, but you never know.

Have a good one lamby.

 

[lamb22]

One more for you lamby - this one actually looks at the various studies and highlights their strengths and weaknesses as randomised/double-blind or not. I'd actually recommend this site to people who are genuinely interested in the science and not just in some raw count or laundry list of "positive" vs "negative" studies.

COVID-19 Update: Ivermectin - REBEL EM - Emergency Medicine Blog

Clinical Question: Does Ivermectin demonstrate efficacy in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19?

rebelem.com

Read this and tell me what you think. Then you can call me a *smile* wit again if you want.

Ok Anty I'll play now. I want to take up a few issues from the article with you. At the moment I will start with two. First do you find it strange that Merck the co developer of Ivermectin has issues with the safety of the drug they manufactured seeing its being dispensed 4 billion times and their have been only 16 deaths reportedly associated with it since 1992 (not caused) and is on the WHO's essential drug list.

Secondly what do you think of the strength of the Columbian trial mentioned in your article?

 

[AngryAnt]

Ok Anty I'll play now. I want to take up a few issues from the article with you. At the moment I will start with two. First do you find it strange that Merck the co developer of Ivermectin has issues with the safety of the drug they manufactured seeing its being dispensed 4 billion times and their have been only 16 deaths reportedly associated with it since 1992 (not caused) and is on the WHO's essential drug list.

Secondly what do you think of the strength of the Columbian trial mentioned in your article?

Oh lord, ok.

1. hadn't heard about Merck but read their statement of Feb 2021. Like all drugs, Ivermectin has side effects and risks, which much be balanced against the clinical benefit of using the drug ie the severity of the parasitical infection for which it was designed.

Here's what they write.

"KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

• No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
• No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
• A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Merck.com

KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of...

www.merck.com

They then quote the standard contraindications and precautions for using ivermectin in any circumstances. They didn't just make these up for this press release BTW.

Essentially what they are saying is that ivermectin is a drug that has risks and contraindications. These are well-known. They also say the at the time of this message, they have not seen enough evidence OR benefit to justify prescribing ivermectin for treatment or prophylaxis of covid19. Nothing about that statement is strange if you have ever read any pamphlet or insert in basically any prescribed drug ever. All completely standard stuff - this drug has these side-effects, these risks and these are the contraindications. If nothing else they are following FDA standard duty of care and good prudential legal procedure.

Of course in paranoid conspiracy theory land, this becomes "ZOMG NOW THEY ARE SAYING THEIR DRUG IS NOT SAFE ITS A CONSPIRACY *smile* THEY PRESCRIBE THIS FOR PARASITICAL INFECTIONS EVIL EVIL EVIL". Yes they do prescribe and sell this drug for parasitical infections based on the balanced risk/reward outcomes.

It's this kind of bad-faith argument that immediately turns the skeptical against these kind of conspiracy theories. Please do better Lamb. I'm sure you have some youtube video from some nut job or other making a "strong case" though.

Will look at the columbian study later - could be a great, well -un study with strong evidence. It's just one research study though.

 

[eZyT]

I dont quite get the ivermectin argument?

do people want ivermectin used on people who know it doesnt work?

why dont people who believe in ivermectin just buy some and keep it in the cupboard in case they get covid and let normal people seek their preferred treatment?

i pour it on my cows, but i'll stick with the science for myself.

but i couldnt give a stuff if anyone wants to pour it on themselves. Its easy to get.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Well initial results look positive. The UK is a great example. The one thing that our botched vaccine programme has done is allow us to observe from afar.

An interesting pointer perhaps, but far from a great comparison. 130K of their most vulnerable are already dead. Numbers for the past week are fairly stable at 190K infections with deaths at 600+ and creeping slowly up. Suggest that many with mild symptoms are no longer bothering to get tested.

I'd be surprised if those numbers are what the Australian government is aspiring to.

 

[AngryAnt]

I dont quite get the ivermectin argument?

do people want ivermectin used on people who know it doesnt work?

why dont people who believe in ivermectin just buy some and keep it in the cupboard in case they get covid and let normal people seek their preferred treatment?

i pour it on my cows, but i'll stick with the science for myself.

but i couldnt give a stuff if anyone wants to pour it on themselves. Its easy to get.

Because it's not actually about ivermectin and its effectiveness or otherwise, it's a political argument about the pandemic and who is "responsible" for it. The people pushing the argument are getting political capital out of it.

It's the same as the hydroxy-whatchamacallit thing last year. The Trumpians love it as it shows Fauci is an evil suppressor. The anti-vaxxers love it because it's an argument against 5G vaccination if there is a cheap, easy treatment that means we don't even need to get vaccinated. The alt right love it because of the above reasons. The conspiracy nuts love it because its a cool conspiracy.

Take yer pick.