- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Per a peer-reviewed study, "Horse paste" (Ivermectin) reduced CV19 mortality rate by 70%
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:10 am
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:10 am
quote:
Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.
quote:
Results
A detailed description of the data considered for the present analysis is illustrated in Figure 1. Of the 220,517 citizens of Itajaí without COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, 159,561 were above 18 years old. Of the 159,561 citizens above 18 years old without COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, 113,845 (71.3% of the population above 18 years old) received ivermectin before being infected by COVID-19. A total of 45,716 citizens (28.7%) did not receive or did not want to receive ivermectin during the program, including as a prophylactic or as a treatment after having COVID-19.
quote:
As described in Table 2, after employing PSM, of the 6,068 subjects (3,034 in each group), there were 44 hospitalizations among ivermectin users (1.6% hospitalization rate) and 99 hospitalizations (3.3% hospitalization rate) among ivermectin non-users, a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63). When adjustment for variables was employed, the reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).
quote:
There were 25 deaths among ivermectin users (0.8% mortality rate) and 79 deaths among non-ivermectin users (2.6% mortality rate), a 68% reduction in mortality rate (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49). When PSM was adjusted, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001).
Study
This post was edited on 1/19/22 at 8:14 am
36
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:12 am to stout
I look for the 270 “scientists” to come out and discredit this as misinformation and should be scrubbed from the media like the hunter Biden laptop story
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:13 am to stout
One study isn’t enough
Just wear your 3 masks & take a shot every 6 months & maybe in 2 weeks we can flatten the curve
Just wear your 3 masks & take a shot every 6 months & maybe in 2 weeks we can flatten the curve
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:15 am to stout
This will be near the top of the priority list for the new CNN "misinformation" team.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:17 am to stout
New! (And under patent) from Pfizer!
It’s ZORSE PASTE!
Definitely not the same!
It’s ZORSE PASTE!
Definitely not the same!
This post was edited on 1/19/22 at 8:18 am
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:23 am to stout
Not possible the MSM said so.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:28 am to stout
I think we all knew horse pills worked, it's why Fauci said not to take them. You lose control if people don't die.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:29 am to stout
These doctors are all Brazilian....
How about just get the damn shot and not have to rely on horse paste to save your life while you are laying there dying?
How about just get the damn shot and not have to rely on horse paste to save your life while you are laying there dying?
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:30 am to stout
quote:
Per a peer-reviewed study, "Horse paste" (Ivermectin) reduced CV19 mortality rate by 70%
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:30 am to stout
I thought less than 1 percent of people were dying. The math doesn't add up of you put all of them in the same bucket. Survival rate would be 98.3 percent.
This post was edited on 1/19/22 at 8:31 am
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:46 am to stout
For fricks sake. At least pull data from an actual Journal. This is just a pay to publish bullshite.
You know the journal is garbage when they have this statement.
You know the journal is garbage when they have this statement.
quote:
Cureus does not consider impact factor to be a reliable or useful metric of individual article importance. Cureus is a signer of DORA – the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment – and does not promote the use of journal impact factors. We instead use article-level metrics such as reads, downloads and citations. Cureus also encourages all readers to submit an SIQ (Scholarly Impact Quotient) score for each article. SIQ is our unique post-publication peer review system that assesses article importance and quality by embracing the collective intelligence of the Cureus community-at-large. The following stats are from the prior six months. Averages are displayed for monthly reads, submission to publication time, and accepted articles published for free.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:49 am to stout
If you truly want knowledge, this is the best publication so far on Ivermectin
14 ivermectin studies summarized
14 ivermectin studies summarized
quote:
Main results: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias. Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days.
Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:55 am to stout
quote:
stout
Thanks for the study. I will add it to my list of medical studies to read this week.
ETA: I just skimmed the article and two things jumped out at me.
1. The number of individuals who used ivermectin is 3x's the number who did not use it.
2.
quote:
Being a prospective observational study that allowed subjects to self-select between treatment vs. non-treatment instead of relying on randomization, important confounders may have been differentially present, which could otherwise explain the differences observed. Given that the benefits measured occurred despite negative risk factors being more present in the treatment group, this suggests the benefits are likely accurate and unbiased. Further, studies relying on PSM techniques have been shown to consistently agree with those employing randomization [37,38], again supporting the likelihood that the benefits measured are accurate. The prevailing type of SARS-CoV-2 in the city was unknown due to the lack of genotyping surveillance during the period of the program. Whether the prophylaxis proposed in this program would be as effective in other SARS-CoV-2 variants is unclear. Also, there was no strict control on whether infected subjects used any specific drug in case of COVID-19 infection, and this allows the possibility that the differences may be explained by differences in the use of ivermectin or other medications as treatment.
The limitations of this study are pretty strong so it's not the game changer that some of you are thinking it will be. I'm still going to read it more throughly with an open mind when I get the time.
This post was edited on 1/19/22 at 9:05 am
Posted on 1/19/22 at 8:55 am to stout
quote:
There were 25 deaths among ivermectin users
Doesn’t work.
Says it right there in the study.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 9:20 am to stout
One of the most effective ways to decrease viral load and lessen infection is povidine mouth wash. Just told a doctor I work with that and he laughed. Then I showed him the studies and he had no idea. It’s amazing how simple cost effective treatments that can, and do, significantly decrease mortality when used early in infection are being ignored.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 9:20 am to stout
quote:
Horse paste
Is that the same as fromunda butta?
Posted on 1/19/22 at 9:21 am to stout
You're a sheep if you put this experimental drug inside your body.
Tell me what are the long-term side effects.
Tell me what are the long-term side effects.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 9:23 am to stout
Gupta and CNN need to answer for this.
And no, I don't mean by wheeling out Big Bird.
And no, I don't mean by wheeling out Big Bird.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 9:32 am to stout
the fact that this study claims the non users, who skewed younger and healthier, had a 2.6% mortality rate should send up some red flags no?
also in Fig 1, it shows a 6.6% infection rate among non users, but Fig 2, which they derived their conclusions from, shows a 8.2% infection rate and I can't find anything in the actual report describing why they changed it
also, if they include the <18 year old age group to the non user group, the infection rate difference drops from 44% to 7%, which seems significant, no?
also in Fig 1, it shows a 6.6% infection rate among non users, but Fig 2, which they derived their conclusions from, shows a 8.2% infection rate and I can't find anything in the actual report describing why they changed it
also, if they include the <18 year old age group to the non user group, the infection rate difference drops from 44% to 7%, which seems significant, no?
Posted on 1/19/22 at 9:39 am to stout
This thread tells me there are still some true believers (of what the government and MSM are feeding them). Everyone who disagrees is just a dumb redneck who ignores the science.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News