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.
Politicizing a drug just makes it more difficult to study scientifically because the question of bias becomes the elephant in the room. Even if it does prove efficacious, just how effective would it be? It's not a panacea; at most it might improve the survival odds somewhat. More likely it's not at all. They really need to just keep studying the problem and look at a variety of potential treatments. The more tools in the medical toolbox, the better they can treat patients at different stages of the disease progression.
You know what definitely has not been a panacea? The vaccines.
Ivermectin needs to be made OTC.
Americans dumb enough to listen to Fauci, can skip it, for all I care. But it needs to be readily available to those who need and want it, without a doctor's prescription standing in their way.
I'm curious as to what you consider "high quality studies", please cite them. Also, is efficacy the sole parameter for which you'd consider whether 'a treatment' is effective or not? It would be a very narrow-minded approach if this were the case.
There are currently 64 Ivermectin/ COVID studies (44 of which are peer reviewed) and when this drug is used as prophylaxis, early treatment or late treatment, success in recovery rates are astronomically better than any other current option: vaccines, remdesivir, vents, etc.
The probability that an ineffective treatment such as Ricola cough drops, spoiled yogurt (probably vaccines) or plain ole' palliative care might achieve a success rate similar to Ivermectin as recorded in these studies is estimated at 1 in 222 Billion.
No, correlation does not imply causation. Any why rely on that when already have a plethora of RCT's and Meta-analysis showing no significant benefits in treating COVID?
You know what definitely has not been a panacea? The vaccines.
Ivermectin needs to be made OTC.
Americans dumb enough to listen to Fauci, can skip it, for all I care. But it needs to be readily available to those who need and want it, without a doctor's prescription standing in their way.
Americans are dumb enough to listen to grifters and quacks on Youtube and Facebook to take alternative treatments that have not been shown to provide any benefits.
Please cite a source that claims the 'some' studies in the meta analysis are flawed or fraudulent. Curious to know exactly how many are claimed as flawed and who's money is behind the claim.
My conclusion in a non-professional capacity after a cursory review of each. Did you google the 'Top six studies that prove Ivermectin is an ineffective COVID-19 treatment'?
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-06348-5
Supplemental section in this studies leans toward fewer hospitalization for Ivermectin vs placebo and that co-morbidities are over weighted in the Ivermectin group (Hypertension 3 to 1, cancer 2 to 1, diabetes 9 to 7). Another way of putting it is that the statistics cited in the study run contrary to the words in the study that tell us Ivermectin doesn't work.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/9/1645
Concludes evidence is limited and warrants further study. Also, from the study "Data on mortality were reported in all nine studies evaluating ivermectin treatment. There were 10 deaths out of 796 patients in the ivermectin group compared to 39/791 in the control group". In other words (if the entire world hinged on the ratio of this study) one could say, "If you have COVID-19 you are 4 times more likely to die if you don't have IVM too. Are you trying to prove MY point?
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...iab591/6310839
Supplementary tables: All cause mortality rate for Ivermectin - 2% Placebo - 6%, mild adverse event on par, IVM shows fewer cases of serious adverse events. Again, stats in the study run contrary to Author's conclusions.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...5017.pub2/full Oh my gosh, this gets better and better. Please head over to the summary of findings in this study.
All cause mortality up to 28 days - Standard care 9.6% IVM 5.8%
Ventilator risk - Standard care 8.5% IVM 4.7%
And all the while, Authors are Whaa, Whaa, Whaa... We looked and looked but can't find anything that shows a positive disposition on IVM use for COVID-19 treatment.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2777389
Inconclusive but there are two key points to consider: 1 Wrong dosage - clinicians are bombarding cases with a daily mega dose rather than the recommended 3-5 smaller doses per day 2 Author received both grants and personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen. Note, this is the only conflict of interest disclosed in any of the sources provided.
You know what definitely has not been a panacea? The vaccines.
Ivermectin needs to be made OTC.
Americans dumb enough to listen to Fauci, can skip it, for all I care. But it needs to be readily available to those who need and want it, without a doctor's prescription standing in their way.
No the vaccines are not a panacea. But considering that most of the hospitalizations now are non-vaccinated people, I'd say it's pretty clear that vaccines have been effective. The efficacy of Ivermectin remains unconfirmed. If that was a panacea, the more reliable studies should have shown stronger results.
No the vaccines are not a panacea. But considering that most of the hospitalizations now are non-vaccinated people, I'd say it's pretty clear that vaccines have been effective. The efficacy of Ivermectin remains unconfirmed. If that was a panacea, the more reliable studies should have shown stronger results.
You guys keep saying more 'reliable' when in actuality what you mean is someone told you one study was more reliable because they liked the results.
There was a study of all the studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin. Unsurprisingly their conclusion was that the studies showing ivermectin was effective in treating covid 19 were flawed or falsified.
Among the previous supporters of using ivermectin, Prof Andrew Hill, from the University of Liverpool, wrote an influential positive review of ivermectin, originally saying the world should "get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [the drug]". Now he says the studies don't stand up to scrutiny.
"[The researchers] formed a group looking deeper into ivermectin studies after biomedical student Jack Lawrence spotted problems with an influential study from Egypt. Among other issues, it contained patients who turned out to have died before the trial started. It has now been retracted by the journal that published it.
The group of independent scientists examined virtually every randomised controlled trial (RCT) on ivermectin and Covid - in theory the highest quality evidence - including all the key studies regularly cited by the drug's promoters.
Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".
Major problems included:
The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people
Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random
Numbers unlikely to occur naturally
Percentages calculated incorrectly
Local health bodies unaware of the studies"
im sitting here patiently waiting for the actual studies that are currenlty underway by reputable scientists, to complete. once that happens I will be on aboard with the science.
geez.
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.
