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.
Forget trying to force everyone to get a shot that wears off in 6 months.
Just worry about YOU. Vax up, mask up and then stock up on paxlovid in your medicine cabinet.
I genuinely do not understand your post. First you say the "vaccine" wears off in 6 months, but then you say Vax up as if to imply people should take these shots biannually for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genesiss23
You know what they say an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. The vaccine is free for most with insurance. This drug will not be.
First of all, I think it is "free" period, having nothing to do with insurance. Sure we tax payers are footing the bill, so it is only free for those who pay no taxes.
Regardless, if something is potentially harmful to your health, why would you take it just because it is "free". I'd rather pay for something that works, and is has no immediate and/or long term side effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel350z
I know, Ivermectin is a great drug to get rid of those pesky parasites.
Did you not watch the video?
Clearly it does more than get rid of parasites. Whether it is effective against covid or not is still in question, as some studies show it is, others not so much.
However if the Paxlovid drug combined with that other AIDS drug is 89% effective in treating those with covid, maybe the IVM combined with the same drug might also be more effective. I just do not see anyone with a financial interest being willing to fund studies on a drug they cannot make that much money on.
Did you not watch the video?
Clearly it does more than get rid of parasites. Whether it is effective against covid or not is still in question, as some studies show it is, others not so much.
Yes, I did say in another post it does more than get rid of parasites.
Quote:
However if the Paxlovid drug combined with that other AIDS drug is 89% effective in treating those with covid, maybe the IVM combined with the same drug might also be more effective. I just do not see anyone with a financial interest being willing to fund studies on a drug they cannot make that much money on.
There are over 50 trials currently going on for Ivermectin, some combining it with other drugs to see if there is any significant benefit in using it against COVID. So to say there is no one willing to do the studies is just a false statement. NIH with it's current ACTIV program is looking into many different low cost therapeutics to treat COVID. Fluvoxamine is one of those that does appear to have a lower reduction in deaths.
It's 91% compared to the arbitrary threshold set at 95%. Close enough. None of their other data was even that close, and has the odds of a coin toss.
No it's not close enough, it's simply not significant. To date we have no studies showing a significant effect of Ivermectin in reduction of mortality.
Yes, I did say in another post it does more than get rid of parasites.
There are over 50 trials currently going on for Ivermectin, some combining it with other drugs to see if there is any significant benefit in using it against COVID. So to say there is no one willing to do the studies is just a false statement. NIH with it's current ACTIV program is looking into many different low cost therapeutics to treat COVID. Fluvoxamine is one of those that does appear to have a lower reduction in deaths.
Quote:
There are currently around 50 clinical trials taking place registered on clinicaltrials.gov, which study the effect of IVM as a prophylactic or therapeutic drug (35). Five studies have completed testing at Phase 1, 2 or 3 and three have posted their real-time results, which are included in Table 1.One of the most promising outcomes include 0% mortality in COVID-19 patients who developed pneumonia (National Clinic Trial Number NCT04343092), however there is no report of an adequate control group and its corresponding rate of mortality. Another ongoing trial (NCT04523831) on COVID-19 hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients also demonstrated 0% mortality, in the IVM group, compared to 1.67% mortality in the control group. Like published studies, ongoing clinical trials also do not present thorough outcomes and the significance statistics are still lacking. As such, more trials are needed which include proper placebo control groups, testing of various doses and records of numerous outcomes.
Quote:
Another recently published clinical study in Florida involved 280 hospital-admitted patients who developed COVID-19 during admission (53). However, it was based on a retrospective analysis of patients and therefore lacked adequate controls. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they received a single dose of IVM (200 μg/kg body weight) and standard care (hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, unspecified dose) or those who only received standard care. It was not stated, though, at which day post-PCR testing that patients received the drug. The most prominent effect of IVM was the reduction in mortality in the treatment group (15% mortality, p= 0.03) compared to the control group (25% mortality). Mortality was especially reduced in the severe subgroup of patients receiving oxygen support (38.% mortality in IVM group, compared to 80.7% mortality in non-IVM group; p = 0.001). In fact, hospital stay was similar in both groups, as was the rate of viral clearance. However, data was lacking for clinical symptoms as it was not a main outcome (53). In contrast to the previous study, this trial included patients with comorbidities and no adverse drug events were reported. Although this study is limited because it is retrospective, it suggests that IVM may be beneficial in reducing mortality almost by one half, especially for patients receiving oxygen support. Nevertheless, it remains ambiguous as to how soon after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, patients received IVM, which would have been an important guideline. The results of the few addition published IVM trials are summarized in Table 1.
Quote:
The available data thus far suggests a favorable outcome when using IVM in specific doses and in particular drug combinations. It remains imperative to establish the most effective doses, combination, and timing of drug administration as it may largely determine the therapeutic outcome. Although vaccines are currently being distributed, they do not guarantee complete protection against SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, it is important to establish therapeutic alternatives in the event that viral re-infection occurs. Given the promising emerging clinical data from IVM studies and the unprecedented public health threat that the pandemic poses, it is critical that further specific and well-designed studies are carried out to validate the therapeutic potential of IVM.
No it's not close enough, it's simply not significant. To date we have no studies showing a significant effect of Ivermectin in reduction of mortality.
I will let the reader decide for themselves. You didn't even know what these p-values meant until I pointed them out to you.
Their reduction in mortality has a statistical chance of reoccurring 91% from chance provided the assumptions are true.
None of their other data had anywhere near that. In fact, p values were at the base level of a coin toss. Which means, none of their other data has any utility whatsoever.
Yes, I did say in another post it does more than get rid of parasites.
There are over 50 trials currently going on for Ivermectin, some combining it with other drugs to see if there is any significant benefit in using it against COVID. So to say there is no one willing to do the studies is just a false statement. NIH with it's current ACTIV program is looking into many different low cost therapeutics to treat COVID. Fluvoxamine is one of those that does appear to have a lower reduction in deaths.
I specifically said combined with the same AIDS drug used in the Paxlovid studies/trial, not anything else. If they are testing IVM with those other drugs great. However, if a similar drug to IVM combined with e AIDS drug (cannot remember it's name) has a genuine 89% ability to keep patients with at least one comorbidity out of the hospital, that is the one I want to see combined with IVM.
I specifically said combined with the same AIDS drug used in the Paxlovid studies/trial, not anything else. If they are testing IVM with those other drugs great. However, if a similar drug to IVM combined with e AIDS drug (cannot remember it's name) has a genuine 89% ability to keep patients with at least one comorbidity out of the hospital, that is the one I want to see combined with IVM.
Agreed, if there is utility there with that specific drug then lets see the data to see if it works.
I will let the reader decide for themselves. You didn't even know what these p-values meant until I pointed them out to you.
Their reduction in mortality has a statistical chance of reoccurring 91% from chance provided the assumptions are true.
None of their other data had anywhere near that. In fact, p values were at the base level of a coin toss. Which means, none of their other data has any utility whatsoever.
We don't have to let any readers know because if Ivermectin did indeed show significant reduction in mortality health depts and ministries all over the world would have been using it with success.
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.
