Covid III: Delta Force

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

They certainly do in the reports I have read, self medicating by using such. They are not saying people are being poisoned by prescriptions given them by doctors.   Thus the horse dewormer narrative. 

The little blurb in the link from the AMA doesn't say it. That is all I was saying. They realize it is from people inappropriately dosing themselves with Vet meds, but they didn't actually say that in the link. As far as I know no persons who have been prescribed ivermectin have called the poison control center. Maybe there are a handful of cases. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not going to look it up. Here is what the AMA statement was: "Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients. Calls to poison control centers due to ivermectin ingestion have increased five-fold from their pre-pandemic baseline."

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

After debunking the Ivermectin studies again you are back with “many studies”. You are hopeless.

You have not "debunked" them. All you are doing is pointing to known issues with some of them. That leaves "many studies" undebunked. Even the studies which found no efficacy suffer from issues. They are not double-blind, randomized controlled trials. 

So debunk these epidemiological studies:

Even as our own NY newspaper was musing over the mysterious drop in Covid in India, they had implemented ivermectin in their covid patients 

 

There are many countries who have had similar results - without vaccines:

 

 

 

similar results in Mexico, and other countries. How many do you want? Better not report these in the MSM though. We wouldn't want the truth to get out. It is obviously much better to scare the public by calling ivermectin a dangerous horse dewormer.

Edited November 12, 2021 by RevTestament

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is also how many anti-Mormons operate. Throw everything at the wall. Sure, the apologists can disprove most of it but the person questioning things sees that there is so much stuff and assumes based on volume that some of it must be true.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, one of the most enlightening things to me during this pandemic has been observing all the parallels between how anti-Mormonism is constructed and disseminated and how the discourse of anti-public health measures has been constructed in the US and disseminated (in some cases around the world). Truly fascinating stuff. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Very different from the first six months or so when we were asking each other “do you know anyone who got sick?”  Now I could be asking “are you lucky enough not to know anyone who has died of covid?”, but it is too depressing to do. 

We had stake council last night, and our stake president reported on his recent CCM, which includes stake presidents in other jurisdictions. He pointed out that our stake has been relatively unscathed by the pandemic. One stake president in the meeting had lost a counsellor to Covid, and another said that, at one point, so many stake members were in hospital with the disease that they could only track the ones in ICU. Dreadful stuff.

What a difference the arrival of sufficient vaccine supplies has made! In my jurisdiction yesterday, we hit 95.8 per cent of the population age 12+ fully vaccinated. And for the first time in months, we had zero people in hospital with an active Covid infection. So sweet!

We also got an update at stake council last night that our stake member who spent six weeks intubated in ICU is home now with her husband and two little girls. Her path to recovery will be long, sadly, but we all wept as we listened to a message she had sent to us about how grateful she was for our prayers, fasting, faith, and support.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You have not "debunked" them. All you are doing is pointing to known issues with some of them. That leaves "many studies" undebunked. Even the studies which found no efficacy suffer from issues. They are not double-blind, randomized controlled trials. 

So debunk these epidemiological studies:

Even as our own NY newspaper was musing over the mysterious drop in Covid in India, they had implemented ivermectin in their covid patients 

 

There are many countries who have had similar results - without vaccines:

 

 

 

similar results in Mexico, and other countries. How many do you want? Better not report these in the MSM though. We wouldn't want the truth to get out. It is obviously much better to scare the public by calling ivermectin a dangerous horse dewormer.

Just looking at the India graph the number of cases go down and the number of deaths go down. Ivermectin doesn’t prevent Covid cases. It was used as a treatment for people who have it so it was given to people who are a case. So the argument is that cases and deaths fell at roughly the same time when Ivermectin was only given to the people with cases? Do you not see the obvious logical problem there?

Same thing with Peru. The red is the bad people of Lima that weren’t using Ivermectin for people diagnosed with Covid and cases rise over the good people who use Ivermectin…..which would have nothing to do with the Ivermectin as Ivermectin wouldn’t impact transmission of the virus.

This is cherry-picked data presented in a way designed to convince people of something that isn’t there. If you understand the data it is obvious that Ivermectin is not behind the decrease in cases. It is deceptive. Whoever created this tripe is a liar and is going to hell unless they repent. They are deliberately trying to deceive you. How can you not be angry at them for that? Why do you keep listening to them? Why do you trust them? Why do you repeat their lies?

Edited November 12, 2021 by The Nehor

[Calm]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The little blurb in the link from the AMA doesn't say it. That is all I was saying. They realize it is from people inappropriately dosing themselves with Vet meds, but they didn't actually say that in the link. As far as I know no persons who have been prescribed ivermectin have called the poison control center. Maybe there are a handful of cases. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not going to look it up. Here is what the AMA statement was: "Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients. Calls to poison control centers due to ivermectin ingestion have increased five-fold from their pre-pandemic baseline."

 

But you wouldn’t call poison control if you were prescribed a drug, took it like you were supposed to, but had a bad reaction to it, you would call your doctor. It seems like a given to me. No need to make the distinction explicit.  I have had way too much experience in that area. It never occurred to me to call Poison Control even when I thought a prescribed drug was causing a brain hemorrhage.  I wasn’t poisoned, after all, just suffering the worst side effect ever.   I have called Poison Control for misuse of drugs, such as when a visiting kid wandered into my room and ate a handful of melatonin (my kids never even went into my room on their own, so I had gotten careless).  She was fine after they pumped her stomach, just took a very long nap.  First ever report of melatonin overdose in Calgary, maybe Alberta as not in their database. They didn’t have a clue. I am so proud. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What a difference the arrival of sufficient vaccine supplies has made! In my jurisdiction yesterday, we hit 95.8 per cent of the population age 12+ fully vaccinated. And for the first time in months, we had zero people in hospital with an active Covid infection. So sweet!

Out of curiosity, is ivermectin being used at all in your area, either by doctors or self medicating?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

. Vitamin D has no studies showing it is efficacious(or at least conflicting studies), but are we going to disallow it? It is about the same logic.

I didn’t see a response to my question, going to rephrase it: if Vitamin D is in a similar situation, why is it not being denounced and ivermectin is in your view?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

They realize it is from people inappropriately dosing themselves with Vet meds

How do you know that it is only vet meds that are causing the issues?  It is not like no one ever overdoses on prescribed or self medicated drugs.

This report may not be accurate, but is says most ER visits are a result of the veterinary drugs, which suggests some of the patients are there because of the human version. 
 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers

In fact from the article:

Quote

"Of the calls, 75% were from people who bought ivermectin from a feed store or farm supply store and treated themselves with the animal product," Webb said. The other 25% were people who had a prescription, she added.

There are way too many people who think if a little is helpful, more has to be better. 
 

The AMA statement refers to overdosing in the same paragraph as the Poison Control comment. This is apparently consistent with what is happening.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Just looking at the India graph the number of cases go down and the number of deaths go down. Ivermectin doesn’t prevent Covid cases. It was used as a treatment for people who have it so it was given to people who are a case. So the argument is that cases and deaths fell at roughly the same time when Ivermectin was only given to the people with cases? Do you not see the obvious logical problem there?

No. I don't. The graph shows the number of deaths falling but lagging behind the number of cases. You would expect the death rate to continue to rise after the initial distribution of Ivermectin because as you note, Ivermectin does not stop the transferability of the disease, but as the cases fall, the death rate would eventually fall. The same happens here in the states. Nothing to commit suicide over here.... 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Same thing with Peru. The red is the bad people of Lima that weren’t using Ivermectin for people diagnosed with Covid and cases rise over the good people who use Ivermectin…..which would have nothing to do with the Ivermectin as Ivermectin wouldn’t impact transmission of the virus.

I think you are misinterpreting the first set of graphs. The red does not represent "the bad people of Lima that weren't using ivermectin." They were administered ivermectin four months later than the blue, and the covid cases peaked about 3 months later. I would refer the reader to the second set of graphs for Peru. The rise and fall of the death rate is much more clearly associated with the distribution of ivermectin. The second rise was at a completely different time of year, and was after a new president restricted the distribution of ivermectin.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is cherry-picked data presented in a way designed to convince people of something that isn’t there. If you understand the data it is obvious that Ivermectin is not behind the decrease in cases. It is deceptive. Whoever created this tripe is a liar and is going to hell unless they repent. They are deliberately trying to deceive you. How can you not be angry at them for that? Why do you keep listening to them? Why do you trust them? Why do you repeat their lies?

You are full of yourself. Go to the websites the data was gotten from. They are given. You don't like it, because data is just data, and it is difficult to debunk data. You can check the data for yourself on these governmental sites. Now you are going to have to say all these governments are liars... international governmental conspiracy!! ... but I forget... only The Nehor can twist things in his "own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing." I would say the last graph is the most compelling. It compares total deaths in areas where ivermectin was used versus areas where it was not. Is it possible that the former just had a smaller outbreak of Covid? I suppose. More detail may prove useful, but the implication is clear. Deaths rose a lot more where Ivermectin was not used in the whole northern end of Argentina.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But you wouldn’t call poison control if you were prescribed a drug, took it like you were supposed to, but had a bad reaction to it, you would call your doctor. It seems like a given to me. No need to make the distinction explicit.  I have had way too much experience in that area. It never occurred to me to call Poison Control even when I thought a prescribed drug was causing a brain hemorrhage.  I wasn’t poisoned, after all, just suffering the worst side effect ever.   I have called Poison Control for misuse of drugs, such as when a visiting kid wandered into my room and ate a handful of melatonin (my kids never even went into my room on their own, so I had gotten careless).  She was fine after they pumped her stomach, just took a very long nap.  First ever report of melatonin overdose in Calgary, maybe Alberta as not in their database. They didn’t have a clue. I am so proud. 

So what you are saying here is that they really gave no reason for claiming that ivermectin has "been demonstrated to be harmful to patients." Now they are just being misleading. That is like saying aspirin has been shown to be harmful to patients because some people overdose with it. C'mon. People use various meds to overdose all the time. They don't call those drugs "Harmful." As far as I know no one has died from overdosing ivermectin in the pandemic. I find it misleading. Used appropriately, it is safe, but yeah, I would say taking horse dewormer is not safe. Let's be clear about it can we?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No. I don't. The graph shows the number of deaths falling but lagging behind the number of cases. You would expect the death rate to continue to rise after the initial distribution of Ivermectin because as you note, Ivermectin does not stop the transferability of the disease, but as the cases fall, the death rate would eventually fall. The same happens here in the states. Nothing to commit suicide over here.... 

That makes no sense at all. The reason that deaths lag behind cases is that you get the cases and then the deaths. That is how all these graphs work. If you have a treatment that drastically cuts the number of deaths then the death rate should follow the case rate on a smaller scale.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think you are misinterpreting the first set of graphs. The red does not represent "the bad people of Lima that weren't using ivermectin." They were administered ivermectin four months later than the blue, and the covid cases peaked about 3 months later. I would refer the reader to the second set of graphs for Peru. The rise and fall of the death rate is much more clearly associated with the distribution of ivermectin. The second rise was at a completely different time of year, and was after a new president restricted the distribution of ivermectin.

No, you are misinterpreting it and so is the person who wrote up the description you are using….because they are a liar.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You are full of yourself. Go to the websites the data was gotten from. They are given. You don't like it, because data is just data, and it is difficult to debunk data. You can check the data for yourself on these governmental sites. Now you are going to have to say all these governments are liars... international governmental conspiracy!! ... but I forget... only The Nehor can twist things in his "own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing." I would say the last graph is the most compelling. It compares total deaths in areas where ivermectin was used versus areas where it was not. Is it possible that the former just had a smaller outbreak of Covid? I suppose. More detail may prove useful, but the implication is clear. Deaths rose a lot more where Ivermectin was not used in the whole northern end of Argentina.

It is twisted data. I am also assuming that the people who created this website are not lying about the data. I would not be surprised at all if they were.

It is not an international conspiracy. It is one or maybe a few sophists who made this website. I don’t trust it. The experts don’t trust it. They put up warnings about these websites but no, all the international health organizations are in Pfizer’s pocket somehow and only this one brave nut is out there telling the truth. Claiming I am a conspiracy nut is pure projection.

The implication is clear? It is because the data was picked out solely because it backs the contention the author wants it to. The data is not complete. Those details that might explain why the data appears that way are important. There is a reason medical studies are peer-reviewed to check for errors. You are supposed to also be clear and open about potential weaknesses in your data. This website does not take that approach. There are other basic questions that can be asked. Are those all the regions of northern Argentina or were they carefully picked to display these results? Why only northern Argentina? Does southern Argentina tell a different story? Why do you believe whoever wrote this has discovering the facts as their primary goal when they obfuscate like this?

I suppose I could take the time to try to find the answers to some of those questions but why? The creator of this website doesn’t have any credibility left with me after the first graph. They are trying to deceive and arguing about the nuts and bolts of the data gives it credibility it doesn’t deserve. I can’t discuss it with the author and I am not convinced I can with you either. Your read on what the data means doesn’t inspire confidence that we could have a discussion if we did have all the information.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, is ivermectin being used at all in your area, either by doctors or self medicating?

By doctors, no. And in fact, any physician caught prescribing it for anything other than scabies or a parasitic infection would be delicenced. (I just looked this up.)

I just did a search about self-medicating, and it's not available for purchase through vets here either, though apparently people have been trying to import it. If detected by customs agents, it is confiscated and destroyed. Some has got through, though, since a man in the neighbouring jurisdiction has been hospitalised for poisoning himself with it.

Nothing in my jurisdiction, however -- which is probably not surprising in light of our vaccine uptake (96 per cent as of today).

By the way, this is our second consecutive day with no positive Covid cases in hospital. It'll be interesting to see how long this can last. We're still experiencing transmission, though overwhelmingly amongst schoolchildren, it seems.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[pogi]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I never claimed a conspiracy - I don't really appreciate your attempts to paint me as a conspiracy theorist. Maybe there is some conspiracy between Pfizer and CNN, but I think not. I think CNN is just pandering to the money, and rehashing some sound bites. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I think our medical establishment is sometimes overly cautious about medications. I don't really see a need for that in this case. It is not like ivermectin is some unknown dangerous drug. That characterization does make me suspicious of ulterior motives when it is demonstrably false. Calling it a horse dewormer is in the same category. It is a false narrative formed by someone, and I have to question who, and why.

You have suggested a conspiracy in that big pharma is suppressing the life saving facts and evidence about Ivermectin while American's die of Covid so that they can profit from their own vaccines and other antivirals in development.  That is a conspiracy if true.  That fact that it is just a theory means that you are spreading conspiracy theories online.  To add to that conspiracy, you suggest that the corrupt media are involved. You mention "ulterior motives" along with verifiably false narratives being spun by the media for profit.  How is that not a conspiracy theory?

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 I could understand the caution if ivermectin was actually dangerous and had substantial risks - but it does not(maybe if you are pregnant, etc). The link you gave to the AMAs new position again calls ivermectin "harmful" citing a 5 fold increase in calls to poison control centers. What they do not say is those calls are all from people taking stronger formulations of horse dewormer and other veterinary versions. Well, any drug can be abused. If they could get prescriptions, I'm sure people wouldn't be resorting to such ill-advised tactics. Vitamin D has no studies showing it is efficacious(or at least conflicting studies), but are we going to disallow it? It is about the same logic. At least ivermectin has many studies showing at least some efficacy. There are many practitioners dealing with their patients who feel it is efficacious. Your insistence that other equally questionable studies found no efficacy, and no medical organizations are willing to recommend ivermectin without double blind, randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed places is not persuasive to me. I don't claim some kind of "conspiracy." I think they are just demanding a quality of evidence that is not there yet. If anything, I'd say you are the conspiracy theorist since you believe all 64 studies are somehow ignoring or skewing the evidence. So, I'd say the burden is on you to show that - a handful of studies that showed no efficacy just aren't enough.

All drugs are harmful for some people.  There is a percentage of the population that absolutely will have severe allergic reactions and may have other harmful side effects from this medicine.  This is true for every drug.  Even your basic over-the-counter aspirin can be deadly and must be used with caution.   If there is no demonstrable benefit through solid studies of the drug, then known risk outweighs the known benefit.   The FDA also says it can be harmful and even deadly.  It is no just the media and drug companies.  https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

You are right about the medical institutions and advisory boards, they are "demanding a quality of evidence that is not there yet."  You said it perfectly.  Thank God for their reasonable approach when the drug absolutely can and does have known negative effects which can be deadly, rarely.  Even if one person dies from an adverse or allergic reaction, or overdose of the drug for treatment of Covid, it is not worth it if it can't be shown to be effective using good and reasonable standards for studies.  

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I see no reason to limit myself to partially efficacious vaccines - that do have risks. We are never going to reduce the risks to 0. I am just ready to move on, and I would rather our whole society do so, but obviously that is not in my power, so I can only do what I feel is right for me. I took the precautions. I used a mask. I got double vaccinated. I respected the elderly, and practiced social distancing. I will still do that around the elderly or compromised individuals, and even wear a mask if they want me to, but I feel its time to get on with our lives. I tell you what. When Novavax's vaccine is approved, message me, and I will consider taking it, but until then, I'm good. I resent the federal government ignoring its constitutional mandate (that it received from the states) and trying to force this partially efficacious vaccine down our throats. Their messaging to the public outright sucked, and was practically the opposite of what it should have been - but that is not surprising from this inept administration. I find the current policy to not only be offensive, but unconstitutional, irrational, and not even based on the available science. Thanks.

This is the dangerous narrative being spun that is influencing so many people to choose Ivermectin over the vaccine.  How do you not see the danger in your words?

1) You say Ivermectin is "safe" and "effective"

2) You say the vaccine has "risks" and is only "partially effective".

3) You use personal anecdotes to convince others that Ivermectin is effective, even when studies show that it is not effective when used late as was the case in your anecdote.   Anecdotes are powerful when told as stories of personal experience.  It makes it seem real.  People understand and empathize/relate with stories more than hard data.  It truly is careless to spread this anecdote as evidence that Ivermectin works.  Again, your own studies show that it is not effective when used as it was used in your anecdote.  You can't get around that.  I think it is best you stop spreading this story.  It is demonstrably false that Ivermectin is effective when used late in the disease process.  You know this.  Yet, you continue to use this story as evidence.  Why?  Shouldn't you be holding yourself to the same high standard that you hold the media to?  While the story may be true, the conclusions you are making go against all data published.  I think you would be skinning the media over making careless conclusions like that. 

3) You say that policy surrounding the vaccine is offensive, unconstitutional, irrational, and not based on science.  That kind of language will automatically cause people to resist the vaccine for the sole purpose that it is mandated.   You are simply adding to a narrative that makes alternatives to the vaccine like Ivermectin and Paxlovid seem like the safer and more effective choice.  They are not.  Even though you were vaccinated, you suggest that you would rather have Paxlovid.  That is just based on misinformation and a resistance to mandates and not based on science and risk/benefit analysis. 

These kind of beliefs are needlessly killing Americans.  That is a fact. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by pogi

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

You have suggested a conspiracy in that big pharma is suppressing the life saving facts and evidence about Ivermectin while American's die of Covid so that they can profit from their own vaccines and other antivirals in development.  That is a conspiracy if true.  That fact that it is just a theory means that you are spreading conspiracy theories online.  To add to that conspiracy, you suggest that the corrupt media are involved. You mention "ulterior motives" along with verifiably false narratives being spun by the media for profit.  How is that not a conspiracy theory?

All drugs are harmful for some people.  There is a percentage of the population that absolutely will have severe allergic reactions and may have other harmful side effects from this medicine.  This is true for every drug.  Even your basic over-the-counter aspirin can be deadly and must be used with caution.   If there is no demonstrable benefit through solid studies of the drug, then risk outweighs the benefit.   The FDA also says it can be harmful and even deadly.  It is no just the media and drug companies.  https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

You are right about the medical institutions and advisory boards, they are "demanding a quality of evidence that is not there yet."  You said it perfectly.  Thank God for their reasonable approach when the drug absolutely can and does have known negative effects which can be deadly, rarely.  Even if one person dies from an adverse or allergic reaction, or overdose of the drug for treatment of Covid, it is not worth it if it can't be shown to be effective using good and reasonable standards for studies.  

This is the dangerous narrative being spun that is influencing so many people to choose Ivermectin over the vaccine.  How do you not see the danger in your words?

1) You say Ivermectin is "safe" and "effective"

2) You say the vaccine has "risks" and is only "partially effective".

3) You use personal anecdotes to convince others that Ivermectin is effective, even when studies show that it is not effective when used late as was the case in your anecdote.   Anecdotes are powerful when told as stories of personal experience.  It makes it seem real.  People understand and empathize/relate with stories more than hard data.  It truly is careless to spread this anecdote as evidence that Ivermectin works.  Again, your own studies show that it is not effective when used as it was used in your anecdote.  You can't get around that.  I think it is best you stop spreading this story.  It is demonstrably false that Ivermectin is effective when used late in the disease process.  You know this.  Yet, you continue to use this story as evidence.  Why?  Shouldn't you be holding yourself to the same high standard that you hold the media to?  While the story may be true, the conclusions you are making go against all data published.  I think you would be skinning the media over making careless conclusions like that. 

3) You say that policy surrounding the vaccine is offensive, unconstitutional, irrational, and not based on science.  That kind of language will automatically cause people to resist the vaccine for the sole purpose that it is mandated.   You are simply adding to a narrative that makes alternatives to the vaccine like Ivermectin and Paxlovid seem like the safer and more effective choice.  They are not.  Even though you were vaccinated, you suggest that you would rather have Paxlovid.  That is just based on misinformation and a resistance to mandates and not based on science and risk/benefit analysis. 

These kind of beliefs are needlessly killing Americans.  That is a fact. 

👍

And if Rev spreads it on Facebook, that is scary. My children would swallow it whole, along with all the other conspiracy crap.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You have suggested a conspiracy in that big pharma is suppressing the life saving facts and evidence about Ivermectin while American's die of Covid so that they can profit from their own vaccines and other antivirals in development.  That is a conspiracy if true.  That fact that it is just a theory means that you are spreading conspiracy theories online.  To add to that conspiracy, you suggest that the corrupt media are involved. You mention "ulterior motives" along with verifiably false narratives being spun by the media for profit.  How is that not a conspiracy theory?

Conspiracy necessarily involves multiple individuals or entities. If corporate minions are merely doing what they have been told, they are not conpirators. If Pfizer tells CNN ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer, and CNN just repeats that, then they are not conspirators. However, Don Lemon was confronted  about this by a doctor, and just doubled down on it. Even when the doctor informed him that ivermectin has been safely prescribed to people for years. It is just an incorrect characterization of the drug. It is an untrue spin... a lie. So if big pharma did this, they are only bringing this scrutiny on themselves, and are causing the problem, yet you want to criticize me for noticing that they are liars. Why not just tell the damn truth? That would obviate all the flack.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

All drugs are harmful for some people.  There is a percentage of the population that absolutely will have severe allergic reactions and may have other harmful side effects from this medicine.  This is true for every drug.  Even your basic over-the-counter aspirin can be deadly and must be used with caution.   If there is no demonstrable benefit through solid studies of the drug, then risk outweighs the benefit.   The FDA also says it can be harmful and even deadly.  It is no just the media and drug companies.  https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

You know, too much water can be deadly. What we are talking about here are the every day uses of the terms in medicine. The very purpose of the FDA is to make sure drugs are safe. If they are approved, they are typically considered safe enough to warrant the risks. What is happening here is that they are flipping the narrative, to try to say one of the safest drugs around is 'dangerous" and "harmful." It is just not honest. So again that only arouses the suspicion of the public. Perhaps it is part of the ineptness of this administration, but I feel it is more likely other things. Anyway, things like this are why people don't want to be forced to make a decision.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are right about the medical institutions and advisory boards, they are "demanding a quality of evidence that is not there yet."  You said it perfectly.  Thank God for their reasonable approach when the drug absolutely can and does have known negative effects which can be deadly, rarely.  Even if one person dies from an adverse or allergic reaction, or overdose of the drug for treatment of Covid, it is not worth it if it can't be shown to be effective using good and reasonable standards for studies.  

This is the dangerous narrative being spun that is influencing so many people to choose Ivermectin over the vaccine.  How do you not see the danger in your words?

1) You say Ivermectin is "safe" and "effective"

I have repeatedly said that the studies show it is at least partially efficacious, because that is what they show. I have said repeatedly that Ivermectin is not a cure all. Please stop mischaracterizing me. I have said I didn't come on this thread to be a champion for ivermectin, because I believe Paxlovid will be much more effective. Ivermectin is "safe" as far as normal medical use goes. And yes, all drugs can be misused, and have risks. That goes without saying.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

2) You say the vaccine has "risks" and is only "partially effective".

That is true. I took the vaccines because at that point I believed any medical risks of the vaccines were minor, and I did not wish to incur the risks and costs of a hospitalization.... or give the disease to my family. I felt the risks these vaccines presented were acceptable. But yes, they do have risks, because as you note all medicines do. Some people had anaphylactic reactions to them, and having experienced two anaphylactic reactions myself the prior year it was a concern for me. Now, other risks have surfaced. Thrombosis, myocarditis, and other risks are easily googled. They are deadly. See, I can say that about the vaccines in the same way it is being said about ivermectin. Could I have died from the vaccine I took? Yes. If I had anaphylactic shock alone some place, I could potentially die. See how easily I turned your point around? You are obviously calling the vaccines safe - the same way I am calling ivermectin safe. How about we stop with this game?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

3) You use personal anecdotes to convince others that Ivermectin is effective, even when studies show that it is not effective when used late as was the case in your anecdote.   Anecdotes are powerful when told as stories of personal experience.  It makes it seem real.  People understand and empathize/relate with stories more than hard data.  It truly is careless to spread this anecdote as evidence that Ivermectin works.  Again, your own studies show that it is not effective when used as it was used in your anecdote.  You can't get around that.  I think it is best you stop spreading this story.  It is demonstrably false that Ivermectin is effective when used late in the disease process.  You know this.  Yet, you continue to use this story as evidence.  Why?  Shouldn't you be holding yourself to the same high standard that you hold the media to?  While the story may be true, the conclusions you are making go against all data published.  I think you would be skinning the media over making careless conclusions like that. 

As a general rule, yes, the studies tend to show ivermectin is best used early, and is not as efficacious otherwise. I agree. However, in all studies there are outliers. I believe my mother was clearly an exception, but there are other reported cases in which ivermectin had an immediate effect on the covid patient. So, my conclusion only goes against the statistical norm. I feel my mom was very lucky that she had me for a son, or she might be dead. I informed her it was a low risk drug which had support in international studies, and she took it. It is the same process used in taking every drug.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

3) You say that policy surrounding the vaccine is offensive, unconstitutional, irrational, and not based on science.  That kind of language will automatically cause people to resist the vaccine for the sole purpose that it is mandated.   You are simply adding to a narrative that makes alternatives to the vaccine like Ivermectin and Paxlovid seem like the safer and more effective choice.  They are not.  Even though you were vaccinated, you suggest that you would rather have Paxlovid.  That is just based on misinformation and a resistance to mandates and not based on science and risk/benefit analysis. 

These kind of beliefs are needlessly killing Americans.  That is a fact. 

If it helps any, I am obviously not anti-vax. I do believe they helped us. I am anti-mandate in the way these vaccines were rolled out. The admin did a shoddy job. They need to be straight forward and not raise suspicions. Being dishonest is a bad idea. Biden has never seemed to have learned that. (Yeah, neither did Trump), which is part of the reasons his ratings are so low, and so many people are resistant to his would-be policies.

Do you really want to get into the constitution? You know the constitution has this article which says that powers not vested in the federal government by the states remain in the states. Nowhere did the states vest power to regulate our general health and welfare to the federal government. That would take an amendment by the states. The federal government was never granted the power to mandate a vaccine or force any medicine on us. Emergency is over folks. Covid is being controlled. It is not going to kill us all. Time to move past the narrative. If anyone has such powers, it is the states... not the federal government.

I generally recommend getting a vaccination, and recommended that to my wife. Two of my sons have already had covid. It was medically documented. Forcing them to take a vaccine is irrational, and incurs unnecessary risks to use your own words. It is possible they might kill them, when it is medically proven they already have better immunity than they will get from one of the present vaccines. Is that rational? No. It is irrational. It is an irrational and unscientific policy. So go away, and leave them alone already, and in your own words do not promote "beliefs that are needlessly killing Americans."

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Conspiracy necessarily involves multiple individuals or entities.

 The law is not consistent across all areas.  An effort that knowingly results in the deaths of thousands, if not millions would likely be criminal, I am guessing.

https://www.nlrg.com/public-law-legal-research/civil-rights-intracorporate-conspiracy-doctrine

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600251

Purdue was charged with conspiracy for one count to defraud the US that looks to me only involved the company by them continuing to provide doctors that they likely (“had good reason”) knew were overprescribing opioids.  That doesn’t sound like the doctors went to Purdue and say “I want to prescribe drugs over the federal limits, can you help me?”, but more like “hey, these guys are breaking the rules, but we don’t care as long as we can make more money” which would be parallel to your suggested Pfizer action along the lines of “hey, CNN is sharing false information about our vaccine, but we don’t care as long as we can make more money”.

The other two counts of conspiracy were kickbacks, so more than one entity…

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/opioid-manufacturer-purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-fraud-and-kickback-conspiracies

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

is medically proven they already have better immunity than they will get from one of the present vaccines

Not always true.  Depends on how it is measured.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

Quote

The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies

Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity

Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination

 

There are studies that show natural immunity plus vaccination is best.

Again though, in regards to vaccination when it is not known if someone has been infected or not, even if natural immunity is better, it has not been demonstrated that the risk of death and serious illness overall, starting from prior to infection is better for natural immunity than vaccination.

For some, it may be true that after they have been infected, they have more antibodies, etc., but that group they belong to (humanity, Americans, a particular state…take your pick) has already lost a number of people because they died while others were acquiring their ‘better’ natural immunity.

That is like saying self made business men are wealthier than those who inherited wealth, so it is better to start by being poor while ignoring all those poor who never became wealthy in the first place (hypothetical situation, I have no clue which group is wealthier among the wealthy, those who started out rich or those who started out poor).

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

However, in all studies there are outliers.

Outliers by their very nature cannot be claimed to be caused by the studied variable…there may be factors that are unique to the outlier that are causing the reaction.  Sure, it may be possible that in the case of your mother she reacted differently than the vast majority of others given the drug, but unless you can show that the likelihood it was the drug and not just a coincidence is higher than the probability of getting one of the known serious side effects, you are putting others in potentially dangerous situations.  How would you feel if one of those you recommended the drug to had a bad reaction….say they got dizzy (a common side effect), fell and cracked their head open? (I had to stop reading personal experiences with Meniere’s for a time because I kept hearing of cases of what is known as “drops”, something I now get to be concerned about).  Are you telling those you recommend it to that they need to be checked for liver or kidney disease or pregnancy first and any immune issues such as cancer could be dangerous with the drug?  Do you know if the remote chance that late intervention with ivermectin working is greater than the chance of an allergic reaction that leaves them unable to breathe?  Are you telling them to make sure they aren’t taking any of the drugs that have interactions with ivermectin and if by chance they are, what they can expect?

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Outliers by their very nature cannot be claimed to be caused by the studied variable…there may be factors that are unique to the outlier that are causing the reaction.  Sure, it may be possible that in the case of your mother she reacted differently than the vast majority of others given the drug, but unless you can show that the likelihood it was the drug and not just a coincidence is higher than the probability of getting one of the known serious side effects, you are putting others in potentially dangerous situations.  How would you feel if one of those you recommended the drug to had a bad reaction….say they got dizzy (a common side effect), fell and cracked their head open? (I had to stop reading personal experiences with Meniere’s for a time because I kept hearing of cases of what is known as “drops”, something I now get to be concerned about).  Are you telling those you recommend it to that they need to be checked for liver or kidney disease or pregnancy first and any immune issues such as cancer could be dangerous with the drug?  Do you know if the remote chance that late intervention with ivermectin working is greater than the chance of an allergic reaction that leaves them unable to breathe?  Are you telling them to make sure they aren’t taking any of the drugs that have interactions with ivermectin and if by chance they are, what they can expect?

Very good points.  The other concern is that others will think that if it worked for his mother it will work for their mother, and they therefore don't need to be vaccinated.  According to all data, Ivermectin taken as it was in this case is not effective and would be too late.   We don't have reliable data to suggest that it works at all, creating a false hope in this medicine is dangerous.  Many vaccine hesitant people may be reassured by stories like Rev's that Ivermectin can save them if they choose not to be vaccinated. 

[T-Shirt]

On 11/11/2021 at 4:48 AM, Calm said:

What is at issue is what appears to be falsified data, duplicate entries, dates that can’t be true, etc. in the study that started it all and is referenced by many of the studies that came later.

The articles are not that long. Please read them. 

The author of the meta analysis gave a thorough response to the article by Meyerowitz-Katz.  You can read it here:

 

Quote

 

GMK response.

 An influential anti-treatment Twitter personality, journalist, and student epidemiologist has made a number of incorrect, misleading, hyperbolic, and unsupported statements. This author is notable in that they are perhaps the only person that claims to have read more than about half of the studies, but does not find the evidence to be positive. However, their opinion appears to have been formed before reading any of the studies — they first referred to ivermectin as "something else to debunk". We note that the author has made very valuable contributions identifying significant issues with some studies, which has helped to improve the quality of the ivermectin evidence base, and has improved the dose-response and treatment delay-response relationships.

Author has been paid for writing anti-treatment articles, and has also referred to ivermectin as a "horse dewormer". Author reports having family members that have died of COVID-19, and may be biased against acknowledging errors in treatment advice. If the author continues to deny effective treatments, we encourage them to at least direct readers to government-approved treatments, for which there are several in the author's country, and many more in other countries (including ivermectin). While approved treatments in a specific country may not be as effective (or as inexpensive) as current evidence-based protocols combining multiple treatments, they are better than no recommendation.

Author's attempt to discredit ivermectin research centers on the fundamentally false assertion that excluding a small number of lower quality trials results in a negative outcome. It should be clear from the forest plot that this is not possible, but we can be more specific. We perform an absolute worst case sensitivity analysis, where positive studies are excluded in order of the effect size, with the largest effect first. How many studies do we need to exclude before the meta analysis RR has a confidence interval exceeding 1.0? 83%, or 54 of 65 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy. As with all data in this paper, this analysis will automatically update as the evidence base evolves. Also note that this is after exclusion of withdrawn papers - one has never been in this analysis, the second was removed on the same day it was withdrawn, and the other two were removed in advance of retraction based on author's notification that retraction is pending (only one has been retracted, the journal for Niaee et al. has reported that no retraction is pending).

Author claims that we include several papers that are already excluded in the 10 exclusion analyses.

Author claims that there is a greater percentage of low quality studies for ivermectin and COVID-19 compared to other treatments. This is unsupported for such a large evidence base, and does not match previous studies.

Author often makes a basic error by equating positive effects that are not statistically significant at a specific level with "no effect", a misunderstanding of statistics [Amrhein]. For example, if a study reports 50% improvement with a p value of 0.1, we cannot say that the study shows the treatment is ineffective, or in the words of the author shows "no benefit at all". Author repeatedly makes false claims in this way.

Author appears to favor pharmaceutical company affiliated/operated trials. For example, the author has no problem with the lack of IPD for many pharmaceutical affiliated COVID-19 trials that support the author's treatment positions, yet considers the lack of IPD in a positive ivermectin trial to be problematic. Author believes the pharmaceutical affiliated Together Trial is the highest quality trial so far, yet not only is there no IPD currently available, there is no preprint, the trial has many documented design, execution, and analysis issues, has extremely high conflicts of interest, and there is a history of inaccurate reporting prior to publication for a previous treatment in the same trial.

Author has an unwarranted focus on a specific outcome (mortality) and a specific subset of trials (RCTs). Other outcomes are also important — accelerating viral clearance, and reducing cases, hospitalization, ICU admission, ventilation, etc. are all very valuable, for example reducing serious "long COVID" problems, reducing transmission of the virus, and reducing the burden on the healthcare system. These outcomes are also likely to correlate with reduced mortality among larger or higher-risk populations. We note that there is extensive evidence for the mortality outcome when not restricting to RCTs. RCTs have mostly been run with relatively low risk populations where mortality is low, leading to limited statistical significance. However RCTs are inherently biased towards low mortality and towards not finding an effect in this case — ivermectin is well-known to be beneficial for COVID-19 and is easily available, therefore participants that believe they may be at serious risk are more likely to decline participation in the RCT and take the recommended medications. Patients that do choose to participate are also more likely to have low adherence. This bias of RCTs is likely to be even larger in locations where ivermectin is widely used in the community and very easily obtained, which correlates with the observed RCT results.

Author suggests that we have chosen the wrong outcome in some cases. While mistakes are possible, for example we corrected errors with Espitia-Hernandez et al. and Jain et al., the claims made suggest that the author has not read the studies and/or our protocol carefully. Details are below. We note that the author disregards the existence of the individual outcome analyses and the primary outcome analysis.

The author's other errors are as follows. None of these have been corrected over two months later. They are all still live, highly-ranked in search results, and highly influential.

•that excluding Elgazzar et al. completely changes the results and could be "the most consequential medical fraud ever committed". Excluding 1 of 68 studies has very little effect, and the exclusion improves the treatment delay-response relationship.

•that Niaee et al. "made a HUGE difference". It has no effect on early treatment or prophylaxis. For late treatment, which is not recommended, the change was relatively minor, and the exclusion improves the treatment delay-response relationship.

•making basic errors suggesting very superficial reading of studies, for example claiming the RR in Szente Fonseca is the risk of being treated

•making basic errors suggesting very superficial reading of this paper, for example claiming that a result for prophylaxis studies is based on the number of patients from all studies

•equating a high degree of COVID-19 in a country partially adopting a treatment with a lack of efficacy, disregarding obvious confounding such as heavily affected areas being more likely to adopt treatment (analysis of results in regions or time periods adopting treatment, while not equivalent to controlled studies, is more informative and shows efficacy [Chamie-Quintero, Chamie-Quintero (B), Merino, Ontai])

•confusing heterogeneity due to dose, treatment delay, etc. and due to bias

•disregarding treatment delay to dilute or obscure effects by including late treatment (author has also used this method with other treatments)

•disregarding the existence of specific outcome analyses, RCT analysis, and exclusion-based sensitivity analysis

•suggesting that efficacy over longer periods is not possible because ivermectin has a half-life of "about a day". Author disregards known efficacy for other conditions over much longer periods, and mischaracterizes the half-life. Antiparasitic efficacy can persist for several months after a single dose [Canga]. Plasma half-life is longer in some studies, and significant plasma concentration can persist for over 2 weeks in some patients [Muñoz]. More importantly, ivermectin is highly lipophilic and may accumulate in the lung and other tissues where concentrations may be many times higher [Chaccour (B), Chiu].

•misunderstanding funnel plot analysis and explanations other than selective reporting (and providing no evidence of unreported negative studies, while there is substantial evidence of difficulty publishing positive studies [Jerusalem Post, Kory (B)])

•suggesting that it is impossible to combine evidence from mortality and hospitalization (for example), but combining late treatment and early treatment in order to obscure efficacy (if a treatment reduces disease severity requiring hospitalization, reduced mortality in at-risk populations logically follows, whereas lack of efficacy several days after onset can not be extrapolated to early treatment — treatments for a viral infection are often less effective when delayed)

•making serious claims about individual studies without contacting authors (for example claiming patients were excluded for reaching the endpoint too quickly, whereas authors report exclusions due to baseline negative status)

•author is unaware of different variants, suggesting that results should be identical for treatment at a given delay, even when the predominant variants have markedly different peak viral load, time to peak viral load [Faria, Karita, Nonaka], and mortality (for example Gamma vs. non-Gamma aHR 4.73 [1.15-19.41] [Zavascki])

The cases where author suggests we have chosen the wrong outcome indicate that the author has not read the studies and/or our protocol carefully:

•suggesting that the risk of a good outcome should be selectively used instead of the risk of a bad outcome (author would like to do this when it reduces the effect size). This would be like using the risk of surviving instead of the risk of death. 99% survival may only be a 4% improvement over 95% survival, but most people would appreciate the 80% lower risk of death.

•suggesting that hospitalization time should be used for symptomatic recovery in a study where discharge is based on viral clearance (and only tested weekly).

•suggesting that a specific symptom such as cough should be used (author would prefer a less positive result for the study)

•suggesting that viral load is more important than symptomatic results

•suggesting that mortality should be used in populations with zero mortality (for low-risk populations with no mortality, reduction in mortality is not possible, this does not mean a reduction in hospitalization, for example, is not valuable)

•suggesting that unadjusted results should be used in a study where the adjustments clearly make a significant difference (author wants to cherry-pick unadjusted cough results)

•suggesting that, for example, in a study of viral load where all patients recover, it is not valuable if treated patients recover faster (or are less likely to transmit the virus to others)

•suggesting that study selected outcomes should have priority rather than using a consistent pre-specified protocol, disregarding the added bias and the fact that this actually improves results for ivermectin (for example the very small event count negative serious outcomes in Krolewiecki, Vallejos, and Buonfrate would no longer have priority)

•suggesting that cough is a more important symptom than low SpO₂ or fever. Cough can persist for a long time after more serious symptoms resolve, and persistent cough may be caused by many conditions.

•suggesting that combined low dose treatment results should be used in a study that had a combined ivermectin/doxycycline arm (single dose ivermectin, 5 days doxycline) and an ivermectin arm with treatment for 5 days

We note that this personality has an extensive history of incorrect advice, including for example:

•claiming that flu is more dangerous than COVID-19

•claiming that SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne

•claiming that it's impossible to improve immune system functioning

•even believing and propagating a made up story that claimed ivermectin overdose was causing gunshot victims to wait at an ER

Author has taken a public position against early treatments for COVID-19 since at least July 2020. Given this longstanding and influential negative position, they may tend to view information with a negative filter and confirmation bias, and may be reluctant to admit errors. They acknowledge not having read all of the studies (and appear to have very superficially read others). They submitted zero feedback to us, suggesting that they know their comments are incorrect or that they have a motivation other than correcting errors. Author claims that they could not contact us, however there are over 50 feedback links throughout this article. We also note that the author is not open to critical feedback and routinely blocks Twitter users correcting mistakes or expressing anything critical on their feed. Reports suggest that the author also pre-emptively blocks people that follow other users that have reported on the author's errors, even when there has been no previous interaction with the author.

The author is also against vitamin D. Of the 53 vitamin D COVID-19 treatment studies, author suggests only one trial is worth looking at [Murai]. This gives us a simple case to examine potential bias. [Murai] is a small trial providing no statistically significant effects (mortality p = 0.43, other outcomes are positive while also not significant). Author acknowledges that the trial is too small for a conclusion. More importantly, this trial provides no information about whether vitamin D reduces the risk of a serious COVID-19 case, because the patients in this trial already had a serious COVID-19 case (90% already on oxygen treatment at baseline). Author does not mention this. The trial also has poorly matched arms in terms of gender, ethnicity, hypertension, diabetes, and baseline ventilation, all favoring the control group. Further, this study uses an inappropriate form of vitamin D — cholecalciferol. In reality physicians would use calcifediol or calcitriol with late stage treatment, because they avoid a very long delay for conversion. We are unaware of a reason to use cholecalciferol in this case (other than to produce a null result). In summary, author's chosen study is the study providing the least useful information from the 53 studies to date, suggesting biased analysis.

Based on many comments, author appears to focus on superficial criteria such as typesetting and quality of writing. While many of the studies have been performed by non-native English speakers with minimal budgets, this does not imply the researchers are less reliable. Indeed, the author is highly critical of the program used to create a graph, for example, but is unable to see flaws in high budget high conflict of interest trials, even when they prompt >100 scientists to write an open letter requesting retraction [Open Letter].

Two months later, the author has still not contacted us, and has only made content-free comments on Twitter such as calling us "sh*tty". Other individuals pointing out errors with detailed and careful feedback get similar treatment, such as being called a "d*ckhead" (and being blocked).

 

 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The author of the meta analysis gave a thorough response to the article by Meyerowitz-Katz. 

In regards to the Elgazzer study I was referring to, it has been retracted and I have read multiple people, not just the one, saying they found what appears to be falsified data and demonstrated likely plagiarism. As far as whether or not, that study slants the meta analyses it was used in to show significant effect when it does not, I can’t do the math and have not read of others doing it yet, so can’t response to that. My other claims of the study itself, one that had influence on the expectations of others, having significant problems still stand as far as I can tell, based on the retraction. 
 

I will be interested to see if the claim about the 83% stands. If I feel interested enough I might see if the 83% is that significant as if the 54 studies were quite small or were poorly done in comparison to the ones that shift the balance to not effective, that 83% is not as meaningful as it might be.  Also if there were only the 54 finding positive significance there were 100 more with negative findings that were not among the remaining 11 they included, again problematic.
 

Your quote comes from what might be relatively new as I saw it either yesterday or early this morning for the first time and it is dated today, so am wondering if that means it was updated in the last 24 hours or if it is brand new. 
 

If not either, I will be interested to see any responses to their claims. Are you aware of any?

added:  so far found one quote dated Oct 4, which means it is an update and there may be responses to it.  Have you seen any other research that supports these claims rather than just repeats them?

Google does not bring up any professional responses, seems to be just reposting by laymen.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

 

Quote

 

Evidence base.

 The evidence supporting ivermectin for COVID-19 far exceeds the typical amount of evidence used for the approval of treatments. [Lee] shows that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America were based on RCTs. Table 3 and Table 4 compare the amount of evidence for ivermectin compared to that used for other COVID-19 approvals, and that used by WHO for the approval of ivermectin for scabies and strongyloidiasis. Table 5 compares US CDC recommendations for ibuprofen and ivermectin.

Indication	Studies	Patients	Status
Strongyloidiasis [Kory (C)]	5	591	Approved
Scabies [Kory (C)]	10	852	Approved
COVID‑19	65	49,127	Pending
COVID‑19 RCTs	31	6,858

Table 3. WHO ivermectin approval status.

Medication	Studies	Patients	Improvement	Status
Molnupiravir (UK)	1	775	50%	Approved
Budesonide (UK)	1	1,779	17%	Approved
Remdesivir (USA EUA)	1	1,063	31%	Approved
Casiri/imdevimab (USA EUA)	1	799	66%	Approved
Ivermectin evidence	65	49,127	66% [57‑73%]	Pending

Table 4. Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals compared with the ivermectin evidence base.

	Ibuprofen	Ivermectin (for scabies)	Ivermectin (for COVID-19)
Lives saved	0	0	>500,000
Deaths per year	~450	<1	<1
CDC recommended	Yes	Yes	No
Based on	0 RCTs	10 RCTs 852 patients	31 RCTs 6,858 patients

Table 5. Comparison of CDC recommendations [Kory (C)].

 

 

[pogi]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Conspiracy necessarily involves multiple individuals or entities. If corporate minions are merely doing what they have been told, they are not conpirators. If Pfizer tells CNN ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer, and CNN just repeats that, then they are not conspirators. However, Don Lemon was confronted  about this by a doctor, and just doubled down on it. Even when the doctor informed him that ivermectin has been safely prescribed to people for years. It is just an incorrect characterization of the drug. It is an untrue spin... a lie.

If a corporation is deceiving the public with lies to make more money, there is no way that only one individual is involved and profiting from this.  What you are describing is a corporate conspiracy to make the corporation more money.  For CNN to knowingly be telling deadly "lies" that may be killing Americans in a profit making scheme between the two companies - that is a scandal and deadly conspiracy. 

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The very purpose of the FDA is to make sure drugs are safe. If they are approved, they are typically considered safe enough to warrant the risks. 

Only if they are used for the purposes indicated.  It is not safe to take what is considered a "safe" drug if it has no benefit for the condition being treated - the risks are not warranted. The risks are greater than the benefit in that case.  Whether or not Ivermectin works for Covid is still being studied.  Premature.  If the evidence is so stinking solid, why are they still actively studying it to see if it works?  Who in their right minds would invest in these studies if they were confident that the data shows that it works?

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The very purpose of the FDA is to make sure drugs are safe.

Based on their conclusions from the data, it is not safe to take for Covid.  Drugs are only "safe" in a very specific context.  The FDA's purpose is not just to say the drug is safe, but its job is to frame that context.  That is why drugs aren't all just over-the-counter.  They are not safe for all conditions and contexts.  Ivermectin has enough risks to require a prescription. 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by pogi

[T-Shirt]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

In regards to the Elgazzer study, it has been retracted and I have read multiple people, not just the one, saying they found what appears to be falsified data and demonstrated likely plagiarism. As far as whether or not, that study slants the meta analyses it was used in to show significant effect when it does not, I can’t do the math and have not read of others doing it yet, so can’t response to that. My other claims of the study itself, one that had influenced on the expectations of others, having significant problems still stand as far as I can tell, based on the retraction. 

II is true that the Elgazzer study was fraudulent.  However, according the authors, this did not affect the data.  I am not taking a stand on the use of Ivermectin, but I am increasingly suspicious of serious shenanigans going on to demonize it.  Here is the meta analysis, it is quite long, but please read the whole thing.  They are very thorough and include thorough responses to those who are critical of their study.

https://ivmmeta.com/#tp

[Calm]

4 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

II is true that the Elgazzer study was fraudulent.  However, according the authors, this did not affect the data.  I am not taking a stand on the use of Ivermectin, but I am increasingly suspicious of serious shenanigans going on to demonize it.  Here is the meta analysis, it is quite long, but please read the whole thing.  They are very thorough and include thorough responses to those who are critical of their study.

https://ivmmeta.com/#tp

I have read much of it. I am not going to assume it is accurate until I see professionals I have more trust in back him up. Analysis is harder to judge than duplicate and otherwise fraudulent entries and plagiarism. I am out of my depth to evaluate what those claims are. Need to rely on others.  So far, haven’t found any. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Calm