- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
New recent study on the use of Ivermectin for Covid
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:14 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:14 am
Sharing for discussion
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies
I do see people downplaying it because it isn't "peer-reviewed" but the truth is any actual studies into it are being met with aggression by our oppressive regime in control.
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies
quote:
•Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 72% [55-82%] and 86% [75-92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.
•Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 27 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies is estimated to be 1 in 1 trillion.
I do see people downplaying it because it isn't "peer-reviewed" but the truth is any actual studies into it are being met with aggression by our oppressive regime in control.
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 7:57 am
15
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:17 am to stout
Actual studies need to be funded
Pharma isn’t going to fund something that would kill the cash cow
The NIH and the CDC aren’t going to fund a study that reduces the “emergency powers” and over reach of the government
Pharma isn’t going to fund something that would kill the cash cow
The NIH and the CDC aren’t going to fund a study that reduces the “emergency powers” and over reach of the government
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:19 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Pharma isn’t going to fund something that would kill the cash cow
The NIH and the CDC aren’t going to fund a study that reduces the “emergency powers” and over reach of the government
No doubt and any group trying to do it are discredited and harassed much like the Frontline Drs.
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 7:21 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:23 am to stout
Peer review is bullshite. Peer review is more anti-science than science. It's how they can take opinion to override data driven conclusions.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:27 am to stout
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:29 am to Landmass
quote:
Conclusion
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 63 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 trillion. As expected for an effective treatment, early treatment is more successful, with an estimated reduction of 72% in the effect measured using random effects meta-analysis (RR 0.28 [0.18-0.45]). 37% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.63 [0.38-1.04] and 0.04 [0.00-0.59]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of heterogeneous studies is remarkable, with 92% of the 63 studies reporting positive effects (27 statistically significant in isolation).
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:34 am to stout
My only questions are, were these studies cherry picked, or randomized in the selection of studies to include in the analysis? How many Ivermectin controlled studies have there been? What percentage of Ivermectin studies against Covid-19 do these represent? There doesn't seem to be an answer here. I'll have to dig into the article.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:35 am to stout
Thanks for this. Ive been keeping up with these studies, and this summarizes all of the results thus far. It's so crazy that no-one wants to believe real science, only Faucian "science".
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:41 am to Landmass
quote:
Peer review is bullshite. Peer review is more anti-science than science. It's how they can take opinion to override data driven conclusions.
Okay, let's go with that.
I have a study that proves that walking a mile per day backwards cures covid. Now, are we going to just accept that? I can add that the odds of a study like mine of a random variable, turning up such positive results are 1 in 10 trillion.
Now is it evident to you why we need the peer review process? Without it we have propaganda, not science.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:42 am to theunknownknight
quote:
The NIH and the CDC aren’t going to fund a study that reduces the “emergency powers” and over reach of the government
And yet the CDC funded a recent study which demonstrated the most educated people are the most vaccine hesitant.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:47 am to stout
Y’all think that bitch Catherine O’Neil or any of the other totalitarian medical “experts” are going to take this into consideration?
Of course not, doesn’t fit the Marxist narrative
Of course not, doesn’t fit the Marxist narrative
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 7:48 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:48 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
And yet the CDC funded a recent study which demonstrated the most educated people are the most vaccine hesitant.
So they know how to design their marketing propaganda going forward.
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 7:49 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:52 am to stout
quote:Right. Resistance to safe approaches such as HCQ or ivermectin (as opposed to DOING NOTHING) early in the CV19 disease course makes no medical sense.
Ivermectin for Covid
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:54 am to stout
OP may want to change title of post. This isn't a "small" study (unless this was sarcasm lol.)
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:57 am to Droplinebacker
Done
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:57 am to Bourre
How are you gonna get those rookie hospitalization and death numbers up if you treat covid patients early in an outpatient setting?
It's been estimated that 85% of the 600K covid deaths in America could have been prevented with early treatment with Ivermectin and HCQ.
These murderous greedy bureaucrats should be rounded up and executed.
It's been estimated that 85% of the 600K covid deaths in America could have been prevented with early treatment with Ivermectin and HCQ.
These murderous greedy bureaucrats should be rounded up and executed.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:57 am to stout
This is one of the biggest scandals of our lives.
How many needless deaths occurred because we have ignored what is right in front of us?
How many needless deaths occurred because we have ignored what is right in front of us?
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:58 am to Penrod
quote:
Now is it evident to you why we need the peer review process? Without it we have propaganda, not science.
Well, respectfully ... therein lies the problem. Much of what passes for "peer review" in "science" these days has been bastardized to reflect the influence of payola
Yes, true, unbiased peer review is useful ..... but that's not really what passes as science these days ...
This post was edited on 8/18/21 at 7:59 am
Posted on 8/18/21 at 7:58 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Right. Resistance to safe approaches such as HCQ or ivermectin (as opposed to DOING NOTHING) early in the CV19 disease course makes no medical sense.
The higher percentages, when taken as a Prophylaxis, is the real statistic to me. That proves that it does what many have been saying which is this...
quote:
IVERMECTIN prevents viral entry into the nucleus of the cells.
The virus attaches on a heterodimer protein Importin a / Importin ß-1 which serves as a transport system in order for it to gain entry into the nucleus. Then the virus shuts down the nucleus thereby immune responses against it is practically suppressed. IVERMECTIN inhibits this heterodimer protein and the virus is prevented from latching onto it and is thus prevented from being transported into the nucleus, thereby disabling the virus from performing this critical function.
Posted on 8/18/21 at 8:00 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Right. Resistance to safe approaches such as HCQ or ivermectin (as opposed to DOING NOTHING) early in the CV19 disease course makes no medical sense.
When the HCQ stuff came out and Trump mentioned it, there was almost an immediate hit piece out against it. It was literally baffling bc there was essentially NOTHING TO LOSE. There were no vaccines and it was CLEAR that there were NO SAFETY concerns with the levels of HCQ being prescribed. There was LITERALLY DECADES of data saying the drug was EXTREMELY SAFE at the levels prescribed.
Above Statement is the main reason for vaccine hesitancy imo. People don’t trust the medical community.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News