Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

[Temujin]

If 1 says you don't have cancer, and 99 say you do - it is much more likely the 99 are right.

You forgot to switch accounts before replying to yourself

 

[JangoFett]

Not saying that. The fact that you didn't bother to read up on who they are, shows your interest in what they do and the relevance to the discussion is non-existent. It goes back to my point that I don't think you really care about IVM, you are here just to punt anti-science theories in an a ti-science thread.

This is nothing but a bunch of motivated reasoning. But assuming it was legitimate, who was the genius who didn't do the research regarding IVM before characterising it as sheep dip? Nice self-ownage you've got going there.

I do care about IVM enough to know that clinical trials were not approved by Merck, and that they have had a financial conflict of interest against getting the research done, and I cited sources to demonstrate as much.

It's clowns like you who've been attempting to shout down everyone who was in favour of having proper investigations into the drug done, using BS about peer-review as an excuse to not look into it in the first place.

There's nothing that I've said or done regarding IVM that could reasonably be construed as anti-science.

What red herrings? What lies? You have demonstrated that you have missed a massive chunk of the discussions held over Ivermectin dosage concentrations.

Baaaaaa, barrel of oil, baaaaaaa.

So clearly you could not have possibly followed the context of the various posts, if you somehow have completely forgotten how Geoff has spoken about the topic on the dosage based on a petri dish study done in Australia.

Perhaps you do, but you are gaslighting here?

How could I forget something that I apparently never saw? Did your brain take the evening off, or what?

 

[buka001]

This is nothing but a bunch of motivated reasoning. But assuming it was legitimate, who was the genius who didn't do the research regarding IVM before characterising it as sheep dip? Nice self-ownage you've got going there.

I do care about IVM enough to know that clinical trials were not approved by Merck, and that they have had a financial conflict of interest against getting the research done, and I cited sources to demonstrate as much.

It's clowns like you who've been attempting to shout down everyone who was in favour of having proper investigations into the drug done, using BS about peer-review as an excuse to not look into it in the first place.

There's nothing that I've said or done regarding IVM that could reasonably be construed as anti-science.


Baaaaaa, barrel of oil, baaaaaaa.


How could I forget something that I apparently never saw? Did your brain take the evening off, or what?

Ivermectin Sheep Drench for Animal Use - Drugs.com

Learn about Ivermectin Sheep Drench for Animal Use including: active ingredients, directions for use, precautions, and storage information.

www.drugs.com

 

[JangoFett]

Ivermectin Sheep Drench for Animal Use - Drugs.com

Learn about Ivermectin Sheep Drench for Animal Use including: active ingredients, directions for use, precautions, and storage information.

www.drugs.com

Yes, it works for many mammals, including humans. Nobody disputed that. The point is that you were trying to make as if IVM was unfit for human consumption, and when you got called out on your deception, you went ballistic!

 

[HS2000]

So what is the key message?
I don't do YT videos.

Dr Tess calls out the hypocrisy of the system & these authoritative bodies.

She says that there is a double standard being applied to the requirements for Ivermectin studies.

She also says that these entities are cherry picking bad studies to justify a narrative.

She also seems shocked when a well respected researcher, Helen Rees used a flawed study in her Ivermectin argument.

Dr Tess finds it concerning that the Pfizer antiviral will be pushed through the system & approved easily vs the uphill battle of Ivermectin.

She says Ivermectin has shown promising results for possibly treating other conditions & "long covid".

She ends by saying we need to be responsible for our health & not completely rely on the government etc.

 

[buka001]

Yes, it works for many mammals, including humans. Nobody disputed that. The point is that you were trying to make as if IVM was unfit for human consumption, and when you got called out on your deception, you went ballistic!

I didn't.

I just said its ironic, that people who call those who get vaccinated sheeple, while arguing for people to take medicine that is actually used for sheep as well.

Did I say it was unfit for human consumption because it is used for sheep?

Where?

 

[Geoff.D]

Pfizer moves towards an oral anti-COVID-19 therapyOral SARS-CoV-2 specific therapeutics that are applicable for treatment of the broad population upon COVID-19 diagnosis are urgently needed,” writes Owen and colleagues.​

“Such a treatment approach may prevent more severe disease, hospitalizations and deaths. Indirectly, it may also reduce further transmission from infected individuals.”​

Pfizer moves towards an oral anti-COVID-19 therapy

Researchers in the United States have described a novel antiviral agent against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) currently being evaluated in clinical trials as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

www.news-medical.net

So now we have two big Pharma busy with their own novel treatment clinical trials, Merck and Pfizer.
This one is the Pfizer one.

Both use the same two "reports" to justify the need based on the "failure" to find viable repurposed compounds. The one covered the usual 4 we all know about ( Remdevisir, HCQ , etc)
and the other study scanned ~ 12000 existing medications. This one also does not even mention IVM. In fact, IVM is conspicuous by its absence as it would appear that the researchers went out of their way to deliberately ignore it ----- I wonder why.

Now Pfizer is busy with a trial by healthy humans to try and determine effective dosages and make sure that the dosages do not have any safety issues.

And maybe @ buka001 should read the study to see where the magic "5" comes from and what it means and what the units are, and how that is related to the process of determining dosage levels when a drug is evaluated?

The scope of the trial is precisely what IVM should be exposed to BUT without Big Pharma involvement, it would/will never happen.

They are too busy with coming up with a novel new compound for a novel new virus!

You can see the $ signs radiating out of every line in the trial report as it stands at the moment.

And btw for Buka001's benefit, you should read the part dealing with the human mice selection process to see how they have battled since February to recruit enough human mice for their trials!

 

[HS2000]

So now we have two big Pharma busy with their own novel treatment clinical trials, Merck and Pfizer.
This one is the Pfizer one.

Both use the same two "reports" to justify the need based on the "failure" to find viable repurposed compounds. the covered the usual 4 we all know about ( Remdevisir, HCQ , etc)
and the other study scanned ~ 12000 existing medications. This now also does not even mention IVM. In fact, IVM is conspicuous by its absence as it would appear that the researchers went out of their way to deliberately ignore it ----- I wonder why.

Now Pfizer is busy with a trial be healthy humans to try and determine effective dosages and make sure that the dosages do not have any safety issues.

They are doing all of this whilst an inexpensive drug has an established safety profile.

 

[JangoFett]

I didn't.

I just said its ironic, that people who call those who get vaccinated sheeple, while arguing for people to take medicine that is actually used for sheep as well.

Did I say it was unfit for human consumption because it is used for sheep?

Where?

Sure Jan.

Dude calling it sheep dip who then demands evidence when someone says it has been approved for use in humans is totes not lying about why he brought it up.

 

[Howdy]

... moving goal posts ....

Don't you have a peer reviewed Chernobyl to go build? I need to go take a dip in my warm sheep dip while I try reprogram my rooted Pfizer chips to filter Mybb. I simply can't keep up with your BS.

PS: Please use a peer reviewed hammer, we can't have you hurting your fingers.

 

[Howdy]

The point is that the analysis of the evidence came from a gigantic group, and not just one individual. It is much more likely one individual or small group could all be wrong, then a larger group.

Yes

Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex Into Journals (Published 2018)

Three academics tested a theory about the intellectual integrity of peer-reviewed “grievance studies” by cooking up, and publishing, their own.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Geoff.D]

Dr Tess finds it concerning that the Pfizer antiviral will be pushed through the system & approved easily vs the uphill battle of Ivermectin

This. It is 100% obvious that Pfizer wants two slices of pie, one half their vaccine and that other half, their novel new unproven and untested antiviral (in case their vaccine does not work I suppose).

Their report (as I said in my other post) goes to great lengths not to mention ANY existing repurposed drug such as IVM. In my opinion, it is because their fancy new novel antiviral is already showing it will require dosages as high if not higher than the current dosages used in IVM trials (the high end 10 - 12 x existing dosage levels).

 

[Swa]

...and yet when someone posts a scientific study that claims IVM has no real benefit, your mate Geoff is the first one to call the qualified people out as heretics and that they are misinformed. Yes, the hypocrisy is real because you have yet to call him out for that.
Whoosh...flying off now.

Which study? We've shown why the specific one in the OP for instance is flawed. Your only response to that is that we are not qualified even though it's the sentiment being echoed throughout research circles. You are acting like scientists aren't people. Like they can't be biased. Like they can't have agendas in some cases. Like their research aren't sometimes flawed or contains errors. The issue here is when pointing this out you see it as an attack on scientists and their qualifications.

...and actually, science is there to prove or disprove something. A hypothesis, an idea, whether or not something exists. And it does just that. It's cold, hard facts that are the end result. It either does or doesn't prove what it purports to study.
Hence science is, at times, proving that IVM works (if the numbers aren't faked and fudged), as well as disproving it has benefits against Covid (as the topic of this forum thread suggests). But I have yet to see anyone on this thread who believes IVM is the only way actually subscribe to the ideas that prove IVM might not do what people want it to do.
That's clearly a case of ignoring science with a blinkered view or belief, and choosing what scientific outcomes are correct or not.

Prove or disprove a hypothesis yes. Or actually confirm or not confirm one. Whether that is proof for or against something is not actually a scientific statement but a human judgement. Science is not about taking sides and making divisions, it's people doing that.

 

[pouroverguy]

Yes

Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex Into Journals (Published 2018)

Three academics tested a theory about the intellectual integrity of peer-reviewed “grievance studies” by cooking up, and publishing, their own.

www.nytimes.com

What does that have to with medical science?

 

[Swa]

I know.

People should rather stay infectious, pass it on, die - just don't take Ivermectin. Even if they don't have access to the vaccines.

This whole crap show has long since been politicized by experts' egos.

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day

Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use

www.jpost.com

Guess I can just root the chips I got, see if I can use them to run a proxy to watch the US Netflix.

"to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment"
I guess we don't need the vaccines then

 

[buka001]

Don't you have a peer reviewed Chernobyl to go build? I need to go take a dip in my warm sheep dip while I try reprogram my rooted Pfizer chips to filter Mybb. I simply can't keep up with your BS.

PS: Please use a peer reviewed hammer, we can't have you hurting your fingers.

Lol which sock puppet are you?

Techne?

 

[Geoff.D]

What does that have to with medical science?

The irony! He cant see what the hackers are trying to show, How immensely ironic and funny!

 

[JangoFett]

Lol which sock puppet are you?

Techne?

Lemme guess, it's not a conspiracy theory when you do it?

 

[Howdy]

Lol which sock puppet are you?

Techne?

Oh darn - busted not. You keep getting it wrong, just keep going.

"to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment"

That quote is from one of the peers?

Question for you, Mr Peer Review: Who reviews the peers?

Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex Into Journals (Published 2018)

Three academics tested a theory about the intellectual integrity of peer-reviewed “grievance studies” by cooking up, and publishing, their own.

www.nytimes.com

 

[buka001]

Lemme guess, it's not a conspiracy theory when you do it?

Dude joined a week ago, somehow knows I build nuclear power stations, which I last posted about 6 months ago ...