Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[T-Shirt]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Because I don't think you have even a basic understanding of the things you are quoting such that you can critically evaluate what's being said on that page.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/

You don't know me or what I know.  Talk about judgmental.  I repeat, what did I get wrong in my brief summary?  Did you even read the links?

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You don't know me or what I know.  Talk about judgmental.  I repeat, what did I get wrong in my brief summary?  Did you even read the links?

Yes, I did.  I also asked you a question to which your only response was to ask me questions, along with your links to data that have been repudiated and withdrawn.  You would know that, had you actually read the links I provided to you.

Edited September 3, 2021 by ttribe

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you think it is not?  

I have heard of it happening.  I don't how widespread it really is.  There are always a few crazy people that do stupid things.  I read all of your links.  The first one was essentially useless.  It claims there has been a five fold increase for calls to poison control about ivermectin.  However, no actual numbers are given nor does it actually say why the calls were made.  For example, one of the articles quoted a poison control person saying in 2020, they received 10 calls for ivermectin.  Nine were due to accidental exposure while administering the drug to an animal and the other one had nothing to do with Covid.  So calls for this do occur that are not Covid related.  The fourth article said that in 2020 Texas had received 23 calls about ivermectin in a State that has ten times the population of Utah, so extrapolating, a five fold increase in Utah could mean five to ten calls, and even then the article does not say why the calls were made.  One of the articles only mentions one person who actually took the animal drug.  It then goes on to say there has been an increase in prescriptions for ivermectin.  Is that a bad thing?  Should doctors be shamed for prescribing the drug?  One of the articles interviewed farm supply stores who said they did not see an increase in sales of the animal medication and had no problem ordering it from suppliers.  One man was quoted as saying that this time of year is when a lot of ranchers treat their animals for worms so an uptick at this time would be expected.

I am not saying it isn't happening, I'm sure it is, but at the same time I can't help but believe that this story is sensationalized by the media.  However, even if it was happening on a large scale (which I don't believe) why would that be a reason for a doctor to not prescribe a legitimate drug to his patient?

Edited September 3, 2021 by T-Shirt

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, T-Shirt said:

I have heard of it happening.  I don't how widespread it really is.  There are always a few crazy people that do stupid things.  I read all of your links.  The first one was essentially useless.  It claims there has been a five fold increase for calls to poison control about ivermectin.  However, no actual numbers are given nor does it actually say why the calls were made.  For example, one of the articles quoted a poison control person saying in 2020, they received 10 calls for ivermectin.  Nine were due to accidental exposure while administering the drug to an animal and the other one had nothing to do with Covid.  So calls for this do occur that are not Covid related.  The fourth article said that in 2020 Texas had received 23 calls about ivermectin in a State that has ten times the population of Utah, so extrapolating, a five fold increase in Utah could mean five to ten calls, and even then the article does not say why the calls were made.  One of the articles only mentions one person who actually took the animal drug.  It then goes on to say there has an increase in prescriptions for ivermectin.  Is that a bad thing?  Should doctors be shamed for prescribing the drug?  One of the articles interviewed farm supply stores who said they did not see an increase in sales of the animal medication and had no problem ordering it from suppliers.  One man was quoted as saying that this time of year is when a lot of ranchers treat their animals for worms so an uptick at this time would be expected.

I am not saying it isn't happening, I'm sure it is, but at the same time I can't help but believe that this story is sensationalized by the media.  However, even if it was happening on a large scale (which I don't believe) why would that be a reason for a doctor to not prescribe a legitimate drug to his patient?

Because a medical doctor has an ethical obligation to not prescribe it if it is going to be misused.  There is no approval, whatsoever, by the FDA for using Invermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.  Not emergency approval, and certainly not full approval.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

[T-Shirt]

52 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yes, I did.  I also asked you a question to which your only response was to ask me questions, along with your links to data that have been repudiated and withdrawn.  You would know that, had you actually read the links I provided to you.

I don't think you read them at all.  Your articles mention one Egyptian study that was retracted.  The link I provided shows 63 different studies and specifically exclude the Egyptian study that was retracted.  If you had read it, you would have known this.  So, again, I ask what specifically did I get wrong?

Edited September 3, 2021 by T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Because a medical doctor has an ethical obligation to not prescribe it if it is going to be misused.  There is no approval, whatsoever, by the FDA for using Invermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.  Not emergency approval, and certainly not full approval.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.

[ttribe]

Just now, T-Shirt said:

I don't think yo read them at all.  Your articles mention one Egyptian study that was retracted.  The link I provided shows 63 different studies.  So, again, I ask what specifically did I get wrong?

Oh, my...do you know what a meta-analysis is?  A meta-analysis combines the results of a number of other research papers into a single analysis for additional statistical review.  The link you are providing is the very meta-analysis that was retracted.  It was found to include improper data and was methodologically unsound.  Your original anti-Nehor post that included those links had quotes criticizing another study for methodological problems and tried to make the case that @The Nehor had both been "lied to" and that there was significant evidence supporting the effectiveness in a proper (by implication) study.  Based on that post, I asked you what experience you have with statistical sampling and research methodologies.  I asked that question because I suspected you were cherry picking articles that supported the conclusions you wanted to be true without really understanding what was being said.  So far, you've done nothing to relieve me of my suspicion.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.

And they would need to defend that decision.  The data simply do not exist to support that decision, at this point.

[bsjkki]

Interesting. 83% and we still don’t have herd immunity. 

 

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Interesting. 83% and we still don’t have herd immunity. 

 

The number is derived from blood donations.  There will be bias in the sample preventing generalization to the population.

Edited September 3, 2021 by ttribe

[T-Shirt]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, my...do you know what a meta-analysis is?  A meta-analysis combines the results of a number of other research papers into a single analysis for additional statistical review.  The link you are providing is the very meta-analysis that was retracted.  It was found to include improper data and was methodologically unsound.  Your original anti-Nehor post that included those links had quotes criticizing another study for methodological problems and tried to make the case that @The Nehor had both been "lied to" and that there was significant evidence supporting the effectiveness in a proper (by implication) study.  Based on that post, I asked you what experience you have with statistical sampling and research methodologies.  I asked that question because I suspected you were cherry picking articles that supported the conclusions you wanted to be true without really understanding what was being said.  So far, you've done nothing to relieve me of my suspicion.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Your articles referred to one Egyptian study that was withdrawn.  The link I provided does not include that study for the very reason that it was withdrawn.  I don't think you read it.

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

The number is derived from blood donations.  There will be bias in the sample preventing generalization to the population.

Yes. It did say that. 

[T-Shirt]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And they would need to defend that decision.  

To who?

And yet doctors are prescribing it for Covid.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Sorry, but you are wrong.  Your articles referred to one Egyptian study that was withdrawn.  The link I provided does not include that study for the very reason that it was withdrawn.  I don't think you read it.

Let me help you, from the link I provided:
 

Quote

“That almost entirely reverses any argument for using ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz explained in response to Brown and Sheldrick’s findings because “the Elgazzar study is the single biggest piece of research” conducted on ivermectin.

He was also keen to rerun the results of two recent meta-analyses that found an overall positive effect for ivermectin, this time without the Elgazzar data. (A meta-analysis is a type of scientific paper that summarises the existing evidence on a specific topic by aggregating the results of smaller trials). After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease. Meyerowitz-Katz later also reran the analysis while excluding an additional poor-quality study and found that after this ivermectin showed no effect in treating COVID-19.

Asked whether he thought ivermectin may still turn out to have some benefits, Meyerowitz-Katz granted that better-designed trials might find some benefit. Adding “but it’s extraordinarily unlikely that ivermectin will have the sort of benefits being proposed by the groups who want everyone to use it.”

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by ttribe

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, T-Shirt said:

To who?

And yet doctors are prescribing it for Covid.

To their state medical licensing boards.

If there are doctors prescribing it for Covid, despite the FDA's warning, they are at risk of losing their licenses.

[T-Shirt]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And they would need to defend that decision.  The data simply do not exist to support that decision, at this point.

Incidentally, why are you treating me so rudely?  What did I say that set you off?  I don't understand the anger and invective over this.  I don't think you and I have ever conversed, heck, I rarely even post anymore.  I have not once encouraged the use of ivermectin, but at the same time I don't understand why people are so quick to pass judgment on medical studies that don't ally with their own opinions.  I don't understand why a nondoctor feels he is more knowledgeable than doctors to justify criticizing and shaming them for prescribing medication.  As I said before, I wish everyone would get vaccinated, but, at the same time let's get all the possible treatments possible to fight this.

[T-Shirt]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let me help you, from the link I provided:
 

 

If you had read the article, you would know that it mentions this very thing and shows how it is a flawed argument.

[T-Shirt]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

To their state medical licensing boards.

If there are doctors prescribing it for Covid, despite the FDA's warning, they are at risk of losing their licenses.

CFR please

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Incidentally, why are you treating me so rudely?  What did I say that set you off?  I don't understand the anger and invective over this.  I don't think you and I have ever conversed, heck, I rarely even post anymore.  I have not once encouraged the use of ivermectin, but at the same time I don't understand why people are so quick to pass judgment on medical studies that don't ally with their own opinions.  I don't understand why a nondoctor feels he is more knowledgeable than doctors to justify criticizing and shaming them for prescribing medication.  As I said before, I wish everyone would get vaccinated, but, at the same time let's get all the possible treatments possible to fight this.

You are reading things into my posts that simply aren't there.  I'm not "set off" nor am I using any invective.  I asked you a very straightforward question.  You have dodged at every opportunity.

24 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

If you had read the article, you would know that it mentions this very thing and shows how it is a flawed argument.

And there's the confirmation bias I spoke of.  You appear to be willing to accept any evidence which supports your favored conclusion, but you dismiss evidence which does not.  That is the very reason I asked my very first question.

23 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

CFR please

Are you really asking me to pull disciplinary rules for 50 state medical boards?  State medical boards are responsible for the oversight and discipline - https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/role-state-medical-boards/2005-04

What you are talking about is off-label use of a prescription drug.  It is not illegal, but it does have its risks.  One of those risks, especially regarding use of a controversial treatment, is that the doctor will get hauled in front of a medical board to answer questions about their decision to prescribe the medicine for an off-label use.  I've had to read through medical board investigations in connection with my job.  I'm not just making things up.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a football game to watch.

Edited September 3, 2021 by ttribe

[T-Shirt]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And there's the confirmation bias I spoke of.  You appear to be willing to accept any evidence which supports your favored conclusion, but you dismiss evidence which does not.  That is the very reason I asked my very first question.

In other words, you didn't read it. 

By the way, your assumption about me above, is nonsense.  I could say the same thing about you.  However, I have not advocated for anything in any of my posts except vaccinations and the development of therapeutics that can help in battling Covid.  I was simply pointing out research that is favorable to ivermectin and it gets attacked.  I don't understand this.  I thought that was the whole purpose of this thread.  There is much that can be disagreed with but I do not understand bullying.  I frankly don't trust most of what I see and hear in the media and when people use bullying tactics to shut down debate, I don't trust them either.

[T-Shirt]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you really asking me to pull disciplinary rules for 50 state medical boards?  State medical boards are responsible for the oversight and discipline - https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/role-state-medical-boards/2005-04

No, I want you to show evidence that a doctor could lose his medical license for simply prescribing or administering ivermectin for the purpose of treating Covid.  I am perfectly willing to accept it if you can provide it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

No, I want you to show evidence that a doctor could lose his medical license for simply prescribing or administering ivermectin for the purpose of treating Covid.  I am perfectly willing to accept it if you can provide it.

I don't live in America, but I just checked our local policies. It is legal for doctors to prescribe 'off-label'. Most of our prescription medications are subsidised. An off-label prescription results in the consumer paying full price for the medication. In addition, if there is an adverse effect, the doctor's decision will be scrutinised by the medical board and could result in all kinds of punishments, including loss of licence.

My personal experience: I developed an infection in my nasal lining in December. My GP referred me to a specialist, who prescribed a topical ointment in addition to oral antibiotics. When I went to the chemist to fill this prescription, the chemist noticed that the ointment had been prescribed for an off-label application. He said he couldn't fill it until he had confirmed this with the prescribing doctor. He then rang the specialist's office and consulted directly with the doctor before agreeing to fill the prescription.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

The number is derived from blood donations.  There will be bias in the sample preventing generalization to the population.

I just checked. Only 2 per cent of our population here donate blood. I suspect we are a rather biased sample!

[Chum]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I just checked. Only 2 per cent of our population here donate blood.

I got up to 17 gallons before I quit. It got to be more and more of an ordeal.

One of my favorites was when I was blackballed and no one would tell me why. After a week I finally got a staff Dr to disclose it was SOP because my girlfriend had called in asking for the results of my AIDS test.  After a pause I mentioned that my wife would be fascinated to know I had a girlfriend. Into the Dr's silence, I asked if donation #s were sequential. They were.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Chum

[Chum]

33 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

No, I want you to show evidence that a doctor could lose his medical license for simply prescribing or administering ivermectin for the purpose of treating Covid.  I am perfectly willing to accept it if you can provide it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/doctor-who-used-ivermectin-treat-covid-patients-inmates-under-investigation-n1277826