Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems many countries are now using it with proven clinical results. The FDA is usually behind the curve on these things. This is just one of many articles on many countries using it that I easily found.
A citywide initiative in Mexico City to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients resulted in a plunge in hospitalizations and deaths, two studies found.
Hospitalizations were down by as much as 76%, according to research by the Mexican Digital Agency for Public Innovation, Mexico’s Ministry of Health and the Mexican Social Security Institute, according to a TrialSiteNews report highlighted by LifeSiteNews.
Earlier this month, as WND reported, a significant decrease in cases in India coincided with the national health ministry’s promotion of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine treatments.
Correlation does not equal causation, and that's the least of the issues with the "evidence" contained in that article.
The unarguable reality is that the valid COVID-related trials that have been done on Ivermectin so far have not shown efficacy.
I hope Ivermectin is the magic bullet, I truly do. Hoping doesn't make it so, however.
1. In a situation like this people don't have the luxury to wait for those.
2. Peer-reviewed means what to you? Which medical papers do you accept as peer-reviewed?
3. All the studies I saw on Ivermectin were peer reviewed and clinically randomized (placebo). What do you mean by the "highest quality" give me your criteria?
In a situation like what, exactly?
Uh, peer-reviewed has an accepted definition in the context of pharma trials (and other scientific settings). You're free to look it up if you like.
Highest quality = most scientifically rigorous. For new drugs, that is accepted to be double-blind, randomized and placebo controlled. The closer the trials get to that methodology, the higher the quality of the data.
Uh, peer-reviewed has an accepted definition in the context of pharma trials (and other scientific settings). You're free to look it up if you like.
Highest quality = most scientifically rigorous. For new drugs, that is accepted to be double-blind, randomized and placebo controlled. The closer the trials get to that methodology, the higher the quality of the data.
You're pretty naïve about pharma trials. Remdesivir was approved by the FDA following those "highest quality" trials that were peer-reviewed by Gilead's own people as it turned out. And as it turned out Remdesivir was found to be completely useless in treating Covid-19 by other non-conflict of interest independent trials (WHO's large Solidarity trial for one). Besides being completely useless - and costing $3000/treatment - Remdesivir can also cause fatal liver and kidney failure.
Remember when OxyContin was approved by the FDA as a non-addictive opiate. Fast forward 20 years...
No, I'm not. I have a very close friend that runs drug trials for an international pharma company that is not involved with COVID. We've spoken at length about drug trials over the past 18+ mos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easternman
Remdesivir was approved by the FDA according to those "highest quality" trials that were peer-reviewed by Gilead's own people as it turned out. And as it turned out Remdesivir was found to be completely useless in treating Covid-19 by other non-conflict of interest independent trials (WHO's large Solidarity trial for one). Besides being completely useless - and costing $3000/treatment - Remdesivir can also cause fatal liver and kidney failure.
Remember when OxyContin was approved by the FDA as a non-addictive opiate. Fast forward 20 years...
High quality doesn't mean infallible. They're a lot better than anecdotes and retrospective studies, though.
Feel free to actually answer any of my questions that you quoted.
No, peer-reviewed means it was published in some accepted paper. I think you need to realize the terms you're using.
LMAO! No, that's not what "peer reviewed" means. I'm not the one that needs to understand the terms I'm using.
...The peer-review process subjects an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (peers) and is considered necessary to ensure academic scientific quality...
Uh no, it's a fact that we still do not know if Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID. Your anecdotes are not evidence for it's effectiveness.
They aren't MY anecdotes, they're the anecdotes of thousands of doctors. And again, in peer-reviewed journals, Ivermectin has been shown to be effective against viruses for years.
You don't trust it and that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to take it. I don't know why you have such a problem with what others are doing. You're vaccinated, aren't you? Trust the science.
LMAO! No, that's not what "peer reviewed" means. I'm not the one that needs to understand the terms I'm using.
You can laugh, but you're only laughing at yourself since you didn't understand the definition you posted.
Quote:
have been precise. It's in the part that you edited out of my post when you quoted it, not coincidentally.
You consider the three terms
"double-blind"
"randomized"
"placebo controlled"
to be precise? Which Ivermectin studies don't live up to those standards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
