Started By
Message

re: Something was happening around ivermectin, and Big Pharma’s fingerprints were all over it

Posted on 7/17/23 at 12:27 pm to
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22059 posts
Posted on 7/17/23 at 12:27 pm to
The only thing 'happening' with ivermectin was that gullible rubes like yourself are easy as shite for right-wing grifters to dupe.

LINK

quote:

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: evidence beyond the hype


quote:

Background

The role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and “standards of care” (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

RCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471).


quote:

Results

Twenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52–1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48–1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84–1.35).

Conclusions

The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.



This post was edited on 7/17/23 at 12:27 pm
Posted by Warboo
Enterprise Alabama
Member since Sep 2018
2516 posts
Posted on 7/17/23 at 12:42 pm to
quote:

The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.


So if it does not help but also does not hurt then why did the government come so hard after anyone that prescribed it or used it? I figured it out but I bet BamaAlt has not. I think I know who the rube is in this thread. Most if not all know who the RUBE is.
Posted by CubsFanBudMan
Member since Jul 2008
5120 posts
Posted on 7/17/23 at 4:38 pm to
quote:

Our search retrieved 379 studies and 14 registers in progress through four selected database searches and the L.OVE platform. After excluding 52 duplicates, 341 titles and abstracts were screened. Full-text articles for the remaining 33 records were retrieved, of which two were excluded for testing the drug for COVID-19 prophylaxis; [42, 43] four for retraction [21–24], two due to the study design (not RCT) [44, 45], one for including children [46], and one for a too short follow-up, having not assessed patients until recovery or death [47] (Fig. 1). One study was found through hand searching reference lists. Therefore, 25 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. No additional articles were retrieved from the reference lists of the included studies. Of the 25 included studies, 06 were available as preprints upon the time of submission of the present study [48–53].



Does this mean that you linked a study of 25 out of 379 other studies, and their conclusion of those 25 studies is that Ivermectin didn't help?

I remember following things pretty closely, and most of the studies that showed no benefit were conducted on patients that had been hospitalized many days, and it was a last ditch effort. That doesn't disprove that early treatment is effective.

My personal story, tested positive in April 2022 both at home and at urgent care. I took the tractor supply horse paste for 4 days. Donated blood in May 2022, and tested negative for covid antibodies. So, either it was a false positive since my blood didn't contain antibodies, which is what the blood center told me, or the horse paste worked so well that there was no trace of covid left in my body a month later.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram