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

[pouroverguy]

You're behind he's now claiming 6000 patients. In an interview days ago he was asked

"But at the moment Shankara with regards to your numbers and I'm saying this because I know how important it is for this number you've seen over 6000 patients now in rural, semi-rural South Africa - Have you had any deaths?"

Dr Shankara Chetty:

"No Philip, When we talk 6000 patients I've abandoned the PCR test a long time ago so I tend to count those patients who come back on the 8th day. The rest are just colds and flu. So a patient with who comes back on the 8th day is considered a positive whether I test him or not."

LOLOLOL. Just to add he's seen critical ill patients but no hospitalizations. I'd love to understand his definition of critically ill.

One doctor has seen six THOUSAND patients. Can people not realise how ridiculous that is? Not to mention how dodgy the scientific methodology of this doctor actually is.

 

[JohnStarr]

I have watched interviews with them and read up on their protocols, so no, nothing like what he did, complete ignorance on his part.

Try again.

Feather in the cap then. Another one.

 

[JohnStarr]

You're behind he's now claiming 6000 patients. In an interview days ago he was asked

"But at the moment Shankara with regards to your numbers and I'm saying this because I know how important it is for this number you've seen over 6000 patients now in rural, semi-rural South Africa - Have you had any deaths?"

Dr Shankara Chetty:

"No Philip, When we talk 6000 patients I've abandoned the PCR test a long time ago so I tend to count those patients who come back on the 8th day. The rest are just colds and flu. So a patient with who comes back on the 8th day is considered a positive whether I test him or not."

LOLOLOL. Just to add he's seen critical ill patients but no hospitalizations. I'd love to understand his definition of critically ill.

Does he use his finger to do the test then? Or just make a frame with his hands around their face and say: You're positive, go to the line on the left!

 

[JohnStarr]

He seems to have muted me, but I'll just point out that he has issues with personal attacks against him while saying things like "suck on this all of you idiots." Also - loads of things have antiviral properties, that doesn't mean they're effective treatments. Pretty certain bleach, chlorhexadine etc will all kill IVM - doesn't mean we should be putting them in our bodies daily.

He put me on Ignore, and then goes and mentions me in a comment knowing I won't see it unless tagged. What...a...joke!

What he seemingly forgets is that I'd simply go to people I know and who are qualified to ask them what the research shows. Not spend my free time, of which he seemingly has a lot, trying to convince myself I know anything about the research.

Moving on.

 

[buka001]

Ok I'll play. Give me any 3 studies you feel are quality from the 60 odd bunch with at least 1000 participants and let's take a look at them.

I asked for this a month back. Got nothing.

 

[buka001]

Did you look into your crystal ball and make that statement, a soothsayer? How in the heck do you know ANYTHING about the success rate of someone you don't even know. Shows that you will say anything to make a point even if from a TOTAL point of complete ignorance.

100% success rate for 4000 cases would be phenomenal, world breaking stuff. Literally noble prize winning stuff.

So where is this guy to claim his rewards?

 

[ScrooV]

Geoff.D must be tired - he's always very busy here.
I think we should give him a few days off?
It might even save a life or two...

 

[Spizz]

Is that even a serious question.

Yes.

Shows what you know.

Okay.

Because the WHO aren't interested, they have their own protocols. They're not interested in some lone Dr in SA.

I don't understand, why not?

And why are other doctors not following him if he has 100% success rate? Surely they are interested?

What is this amateur hour, silly childish questions Spizzy.

I really do not follow your logic at all. Maybe you can explain and educate me.

 

[buka001]

I have been patiently waiting for someone else to post this link to new research about IVM. And a few minutes ago in another thread, a fellow forum member obliged.

SUCK ON THIS ALL OF YOU IDIOTS who have been refusing to acknowledge that IVM actually DOES have antiviral properties and works against the coronavirus!

Yes CD, JohnStarr and Buka001, this statement is aimed directly at you lot!

Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach

Aim: COVID-19 is currently the biggest threat to mankind. Recently, ivermectin (a US FDA-approved antiparasitic drug) has been explored as an anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. Herein, we have studied the possible mechanism of action of ivermectin using in silico ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But be warned, especially our only legally allowed person to interpret the contents, it is an extremely complicated technical article that has kept me very busy since it was published in March 2021.

That is IF any of you get past the abstract before your minds that can only insult and denigrate others don't get swamped with some real chemical research!

An exercise in self-study and education of note!

Suck what exactly?

Anyway if this study turns out to be good, happy days.

I'll wait for the peer reviews by suitably qualified and experienced people to judge and examine the results.

A month ago I was told to suck it at the Israeli study. Which to my incompetent eyes looked ok. Turns out it was a poor study, with inconsistencies in the data from pre-reg to final study.

 

[buka001]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435524740123398146

Hitting the nail on the head here.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

WTF man, are you slow today or are you like this all the time???

It is Dr Chetty's protocols, what HE USES to treat Covid.

Use it, don't use it I really don't care. I posted it because we are talking about him and it is solely for informational purposes to show what HE USES. Unless you want to continue to argue from a point of ignorance then DON'T read it.

So it's believable because it's published in an advertising medium? Why not in a research paper?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Is that even a serious question. Shows what you know.

Because the WHO aren't interested, they have their own protocols. They're not interested in some lone Dr in SA.

What is this amateur hour, silly childish questions Spizzy.

Evidence for this or is this your conclusion?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Geoff.D must be tired - he's always very busy here.
I think we should give him a few days off?
It might even save a life or two...

@Swa seems to have run away...

 

[ScrooV]

That he predicted 9/11 before it happened and what America would turn into puts Alex way above other completely clueless talking heads.

If I ever get depressed, I will think of this post. It would definitely cheer me up.
I think this is my favourite post.

 

[Geoff.D]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435524740123398146

Hitting the nail on the head here.

Well if they keep it up, and publish their stats somewhere else as well instead of only on Twitter we might be able to track the facts in the longer term.

But I am not surprised they picked up flack, given the similarities with the stats from some or other place in the World.

Why could they not have come up with their own representation, colours, etc?

I trust you are going to keep us up to date , given your love affair with Twitter?

I see MSM did not believe it either:

“It’s definitely not fake news,” said hospital spokesperson Alaric Jacobs.

Jacobs declined to comment further, saying the province was preparing a similar infographic to show Covid-19 admissions in Western Cape hospitals.

“Better to show the provincial stats than just one hospital,” he said.

Now, why would he not want to comment further???

If the stats are genuine what not take the shine? Scared they will pick up more flack based on what happened the first time around?

 

[SlinkyMike]

I have been patiently waiting for someone else to post this link to new research about IVM. And a few minutes ago in another thread, a fellow forum member obliged.

SUCK ON THIS ALL OF YOU IDIOTS who have been refusing to acknowledge that IVM actually DOES have antiviral properties and works against the coronavirus!

Yes CD, JohnStarr and Buka001, this statement is aimed directly at you lot!

Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach

Aim: COVID-19 is currently the biggest threat to mankind. Recently, ivermectin (a US FDA-approved antiparasitic drug) has been explored as an anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. Herein, we have studied the possible mechanism of action of ivermectin using in silico ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But be warned, especially our only legally allowed person to interpret the contents, it is an extremely complicated technical article that has kept me very busy since it was published in March 2021.

That is IF any of you get past the abstract before your minds that can only insult and denigrate others don't get swamped with some real chemical research!

An exercise in self-study and education of note!

Dude, you are still telling others to read technical papers when you can't even read the title of this thread.

IVM/HCQ/Voodoo could be announced as the undisputed total and utter solution to the pandemic tomorrow and you would still be dead fscking wrong about everything you have said in this thread.

Allow me to reiterate: ivermectin balance of evidence shows no benefit against covid-19.

Maybe you can tell us what you think a "balance of evidence" is?

 

[quovadis]

But be warned, especially our only legally allowed person to interpret the contents, it is an extremely complicated technical article that has kept me very busy since it was published in March 2021.

You do know what in silico means? You're happy with modelled data based on current understanding and assumptions to support determinations?

 

[Geoff.D]

You do know what in silico means? You're happy with modelled data based on current understanding and assumptions to support determinations?

Of course. I looked it up in March ---
A typical medical fraternity ploy to glamourise everything they do to make it more mysterious to outsiders. A fancy term for a computer simulation. But here is the medical definition on PMC (I subscribe BTW)

Here is the link. in case you don't know what it means.

In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling

Pharmacology over the past 100 years has had a rich tradition of scientists with the ability to form qualitative or semi-quantitative relations between molecular structure and activity in cerebro. To test these hypotheses they have consistently used traditional ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Or are you trying to suggest that pharmacological researchers must all abandon modern tools and revert to boiling concoctions on an open fire?

or, worse, are you suggesting that modern research facilities don't use the technique all the time? Which means most of the work done to represent the genome studies are now also invalid because of the techniques they use?
Scratching the bottom of the barrel as usual in a desperate attempt to discredit? Better watch out you are on the point of falling through the bottom.

 

[Turtle]

This meta-analysis of over 60 separate, individual scientific studies found most of the scientific studies listed show some improved outcomes with early treatment protocols for Ivermectin:

https://ivmmeta.com/

"Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 69% [54‑79%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials"

The data is open and anyone can read/study with their own eyes, look at the list of scientific studies, read the scientific studies, and they also provide the data for replicating the meta-analysis, so anyone can check with their own eyes. ("All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix")

The scientific studies are all listed for anyone to check with their own eyes.

Important: This does not show Ivermectin is 'definitely going to save you' if you have severe covid - it's not a 'magic bullet'. What it seems to show is that around 60 independent studies appear to show some increased likelihood of positive outcomes. (Also, it's based on early treatment protocols, meaning the benefit may only be if you start taking it as soon as you have symptoms, not when you're on death's door.)

It does appear to show that at least 60 separate, independent scientific studies found non-negligible chance of improved outcomes if correct early treatment protocols are followed.

They also address some of the controversies, and show that even if they entirely remove the most controversial Ivermectin studies from the meta-analysis it doesn't affect the overall result showing benefit (because it's a meta-analysis of about 64 studies, removing a few doesn't have much effect on the averages ... that's what a meta-analysis is, a study of the results of many other studies to show the overall result of what most of them show):

https://ivmmeta.com/#elgazzar

Let's try stick to real science, not mainstream media analyses. E.g. look at the list of scientific studies they list. Read the scientific studies. Check the methodology. Not just hand-wave the entire list of 60-something studies away as some seem to do.

 

[SlinkyMike]