- 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
re: New study proves ivermectin works
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:35 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:35 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Remdesivir has limited uses - it's not a cure-all.
You are lying or stupid. probably both.
It has negative effects not positive effects. Unless you are saying murder is one of its limited uses.
This post was edited on 1/25/22 at 10:47 am
0
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:35 am to GumboPot
I wonder if those of you critical of this study could direct us to a quality study that indicates low or no efficacy?
Does one exist?
And if not, why not?
Does one exist?
And if not, why not?
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:39 am to the808bass
quote:
Both?
Fraud happens at all levels.
I don’t like the study design changing and I don’t like the fact that so few of the treatment group completed their treatment.
That was my earlier point. There is no such thing as reliable scientific sources for this very reason. The source really does nothing to legitimize the research. This study maybe complete shite, but to definitively say its more shite than studies that confirm BamaATL's biases is presumptuous AF.
But I'm a numbers guy, so to illustrate that point, I've highlighted the massive discrepancy in potential financial incentives for those pushing generics versus those pushing patented drugs (since this was Bama's argument). I also highlight the fact that there have already been anti-HCQ scientific hack pieces exposed in esteemed journals like Lancet, so we cant pretend like that cant happen.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:39 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Most likely it's a paid piece for the manufacturer of ivermectin
Yea its a conspiracy! The manufacturer is big pharmaceutical company Merck, which has said that IVM isn't an effective treatment but dont worry Merck is working on a designer version for only 1,000 times the cost!
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:41 am to Mike Honcho
he showed his ignorance with that one. Ivm has been a widely manufactured generic for decades. It would be very difficult to ensure a profit windfall without 100 or so global firms colluding, but who really knows anymore.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:43 am to TBoy
TBOY change your name to lowTBOY.
Yes to get a preventative effect you have to take it BEFORE exposure. duh.
But it can be taken before you are likely to be exposed or when you immune system is lower (winter). AND ivermectin works to slow the virus replication. So you can take it once you become sick. So it isn't an either or situation.
quote:
But the only way to replicate this "success" is by taking this stuff all the time.
Yes to get a preventative effect you have to take it BEFORE exposure. duh.
But it can be taken before you are likely to be exposed or when you immune system is lower (winter). AND ivermectin works to slow the virus replication. So you can take it once you become sick. So it isn't an either or situation.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:44 am to RiverCityTider
quote:
I wonder if those of you critical of this study could direct us to a quality study that indicates low or no efficacy?
It really doesn't matter. They will never be convinced ivermectin works.
With that said I do believe they believe as the evidence shows that it is a harmless drug with zero side effects when properly prescribed.
I wish they would take their logical science minds to the next step. A harmless drug that does not work (in their minds), why am I fighting so hard against this? It's like fighting against sugar pills. Let them take it if it makes them feel better.
But this is not the case. There is an entire government and medical established anti-early treatment brigade against ivermectin.
It's an illogical response to a drug that doesn't work (in there minds). The anti-early treatment brigade is twisted in knots.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:44 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I also highlight the fact that there have already been anti-HCQ scientific hack pieces exposed in esteemed journals like Lancet, so we cant pretend like that cant happen.
Agreed.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:49 am to the808bass
quote:
anti-HCQ scientific hack pieces
The official date that the anti-early treatment brigade began in earnest was March 19, 2020. That's when President Trump mentioned the three letters HCQ.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:51 am to GumboPot
quote:
But this is not the case. There is an entire government and medical established anti-early treatment brigade against ivermectin.
This is the weirdest part.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 10:52 am to Revelator
I got covid last week. Ivermectin....
Posted on 1/25/22 at 11:18 am to GumboPot
quote:
If no improvement after Monoclonals (which is rare), add:
Spironolactone
First I’ve heard of this! I’ve been taking this for 2-3 yrs,
Posted on 1/25/22 at 1:01 pm to CasualBystander
quote:
Legitimate journals
Don't charge for the distribution of government funded scientific studies.
quote:
Legitimate journals
Don't depend only on "accredited" peers to review. They recognize valid critique regardless of the source.
quote:
Legitimate journals
Don't pick and choose studies to publish. The peer review process is supposed to skim the cream from the top.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 1:03 pm to GhostOfFreedom
quote:
Yes, but it isn't as profitable as the vaccines
The markup on vaccines is about 50%. The markup on pharmacy ivermectin is 5000%.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 1:05 pm to smh4wg
Medical groups have been reaching out to veterinarians to get it
Posted on 1/25/22 at 1:30 pm to TBoy
quote:
Then they compared Covid outcomes between the 100,000 people who received constant maintenance doses and those who refused to take it.
That's not what they did.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 1:32 pm to the808bass
quote:
Remdesivir has no statistically significant effect on mortality.
That's just wrong.
Meta-analysis on the effects of remdesivir on mortality
Like I said, had you bothered to pay attention, limited benefits.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 7:06 pm to Revelator
Ask for the cash price.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 8:23 pm to xxTIMMYxx
quote:
The pharmacies are getting massive fines from the government if they do
No they aren't. My wife has a pharmacy. Shitheaded pharmacists trying to play doctor need to have this shoved up their arse. We've had zero issues at any time, but we're in Arkansas and we don't put up with that shite.
Posted on 1/25/22 at 8:25 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
The markup on vaccines is about 50%. The markup on pharmacy ivermectin is 5000%.
More bullshite. Wholesalers have jacked up the price of ivermectin. 5000%? You're either purposely spreading false info or you're a fricking moron.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News