- 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
0
Posted on 1/19/22 at 11:20 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
How I know Ivermectin 100% works:
The "official stance" is ban it, suppress info on it, turn in and threaten doctors and pharmacists for attempting to use it.
INSTEAD OF, allowing it to be widely distributed and used and then having TONS of evidence that it doesn't work and med community and people stop using it organically.
You act like there is nowhere in the world that allowed it to be widely distributed...
Posted on 1/19/22 at 11:20 am to sgallo3
quote:
India used ivermectin, US blocked it.
India - Cases: 37.1M Deaths: 486K
USA - Cases: 65.5M Deaths: 850K
as of 1/16/22
India 0.01309 death rate using Ivermectin and passing it out to citizens
USA 0.012977 death rate not using Ivermectin
India and the US are terrible data comparisons for COVID. They have been since the beginning (2 WEEKS BEHIND INDIA!
ETA*** IT was Italy, I'm dumb)
Also, a BUNCH of people in the US are using Ivermectin. We have a local DR who swears by it in my area, so that's false as well.
This post was edited on 1/19/22 at 11:35 am
Posted on 1/19/22 at 11:23 am to musick
It was 2 weeks behind Italy... India suppressed their numbers early on.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 11:33 am to sgallo3
Yea, I'm a dumbass.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 11:44 am to musick
WGAS? It doesn't hurt you so why not?
Posted on 1/19/22 at 11:54 am to TDTOM
quote:
It doesn't hurt you so why not?
Fair point. If it gives you peace of mind you should take it. Might increase your odds of beating covid from 99.9% to 99.92% just because of the placebo effect
Posted on 1/19/22 at 12:19 pm to sgallo3
quote:
To me those numbers show that ivermectin does not make a significant impact on covid mortality.
What would India's numbers be without Ivemectin?
Posted on 1/19/22 at 12:25 pm to Clames
quote:
What would India's numbers be without Ivemectin?
We don't know what their numbers are anyway. All that we know is that their mortality rate from the cases they are recording is almost identical to ours despite them using what some think is a cure.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 12:30 pm to stout
I have no opinion if it's beneficial or not for Covid, but it's comical how many of my friends think Ivermectin is only meant for horses and has no medical value what so ever for humans.
This post was edited on 1/19/22 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 1/19/22 at 12:31 pm to stout
Sure, the study is published in a pay-to-publish 'journal' with what it claims is peer review.
Sure, the study is a population observational study with limited ability to discern any characteristics that may have subjects self-select into either of the 2 study groups.
Sure, the study didn't have an IRB until data collection was complete, but claimed to have a protocol at the beginning of the study period.
Sure, the study protocol changed halfway through for no reason explained by the authors, and conveniently sliced the non-intervention group n in half.
Sure, the study authors admitted they had no way to track adherence and this prophylaxis dose could have been unused by a significant proportion of the intervention group.
Sure, the study has numerous errors in the data presented in the tables - subgroup counts change with no explanation, and their exclusion criteria don't match up.
Sure, the study used an opaque propensity score matching scheme that wasn't necessary and somehow reduced the intervention mortality n from 62 to 25, but left the non-intervention n preserved at 79.
Sure, the first 2 authors listed on the study disclose that they are being or have been recently funded by the company that produces ivermectin.
Otherwise, good study? Congrats?
Sure, the study is a population observational study with limited ability to discern any characteristics that may have subjects self-select into either of the 2 study groups.
Sure, the study didn't have an IRB until data collection was complete, but claimed to have a protocol at the beginning of the study period.
Sure, the study protocol changed halfway through for no reason explained by the authors, and conveniently sliced the non-intervention group n in half.
Sure, the study authors admitted they had no way to track adherence and this prophylaxis dose could have been unused by a significant proportion of the intervention group.
Sure, the study has numerous errors in the data presented in the tables - subgroup counts change with no explanation, and their exclusion criteria don't match up.
Sure, the study used an opaque propensity score matching scheme that wasn't necessary and somehow reduced the intervention mortality n from 62 to 25, but left the non-intervention n preserved at 79.
Sure, the first 2 authors listed on the study disclose that they are being or have been recently funded by the company that produces ivermectin.
Otherwise, good study? Congrats?
Posted on 1/19/22 at 12:35 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I thought the universal case for ivermectin was it prevents progression to severe disease
So why would healthcare systems matter for this comparison?
I replied to someone who was talking about mortality rate therefore I continued talking about mortality rate. I am sorry if that confused you.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 12:46 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Sure, the first 2 authors listed on the study disclose that they are being or have been recently funded by the company that produces ivermectin.
If you like that, man you're gonna love who Fauci is invested with and has worked with.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 12:59 pm to LoneStar23
quote:
Just like Pfizer’s study that the vaccine is 95% effective at preventing catching covid?
If just one thing comes out of our descent into madness as a result of COVID I sincerely hope it is people understanding the distinction between efficacy and effectiveness vis a vis vaccines.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 1:04 pm to Obtuse1
I've had my eyes open to how easy it is to release a study that only covers parameters that support what you want to find. Then promote that study with a charged title and watch how it spreads.
The studies aren't even invalid, there are 100% facts included. Just invalidating info isn't included.
The studies aren't even invalid, there are 100% facts included. Just invalidating info isn't included.
This post was edited on 1/19/22 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 1/19/22 at 1:28 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
How I know Ivermectin 100% works:
The "official stance" is ban it, suppress info on it, turn in and threaten doctors and pharmacists for attempting to use it.
INSTEAD OF, allowing it to be widely distributed and used and then having TONS of evidence that it doesn't work and med community and people stop using it organically.
ETA: this is a drug that has ZERO negative affects otherwise, so taking it is akin to drinking water if it's ineffective.
This is why the majority of people in the USA don't buy into the covidian fallacy. Add to your list the fact there is NO information available about the effectiveness of natural immunity, which other countries, notably Israel, have proven to be better than the "shot".
Posted on 1/19/22 at 1:29 pm to MikeBRLA
quote:quote:It’s been used in humans for 30 years
Ivermectin has seen widespread used in multiple species, including humans, for various ailments, because it works.
It has. It was originally used and marketed as an anthelmintic and general anti parasitic for veterinary use in 81. As a human anti-parasitic in the late 80s (87-88 timeframe).
quote:
and the scientist who developed it literally won a Nobel prize for it.
Details below
quote:
Half of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded jointly to Campbell and Omura for discovering avermectin, "the derivatives of which have radically lowered the incidence of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis, as well as showing efficacy against an expanding number of other parasitic diseases".
Ivermectin is derived from avermectin by hydrogenation (as I understand it).
On a side note
quote:
In 2013, ivermectin was demonstrated as a novel ligand of the farnesoid X receptor, a therapeutic target for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Info quoted came from Wikipedia article on Ivermectin
Posted on 1/19/22 at 1:32 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
ETA: this is a drug that has ZERO negative affects otherwise, so taking it is akin to drinking water if it's ineffective.
Well as someone who has prescribed Ivermectin many, many times, that is far less true than you think. It is very much dose dependent and can cross the blood brain barrier.
At higher doses, it was used to treat demodectic mange quite often, and even with doing so in a limited number of patients, I saw plenty of side effects, including blindness. You don't see it used for that anymore because there are SAFER treatments available now. And as with dogs with MDR1 mutations, humans I am sure also have a variability in how safely they can take it. A safe dose for one might not be safe dose for another.
By the way, EVERY drug has some side effect- it might not be significant or the benefits outweigh the risk, but there is always a bargain made.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 1:44 pm to stout
It would be nice if this study was blinded, as the lack of blinding can cause biases in the data. Hopefully we can have a well designed double blind RCT soon to put this thing to bed.
Posted on 1/19/22 at 1:48 pm to stout
Mexico is sending everyone Covid Paks
Horse Paste is one of the items you receive in it
Weird huh
Horse Paste is one of the items you receive in it
Weird huh
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News