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

[pouroverguy]

So explain the scientific reasons why you think the meta-analysis is incorrect.

You can't just hand-wave over scientific studies away and pretend they all just don't exist.

That's dangerous, and irresponsible, and if early treatment Ivermectin does improve outcomes, then this childish attitude of rejecting and ignoring SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on it may literally be responsible for killing people.

Yet you ignore the scientific studies done that have found no benefit, and conveniently ignore the fraudulent dodgy pro-IVM studies because they don't fit into your agendas and biases.

 

[Geoff.D]

Perhaps explore what constitutes vaccine hesitancy and re-evaluate. Just to mention though that in silico binding efficacy does not always translate into in vivo reality. It's the reason why clinical trial studies are still required and as your study states itself it suggests motivation for such studies.

Well, I am not suggesting that the study is the end of the debate. But at least a proper study structured around investigating the outcomes of lab and and "in-silico" research should eliminate some of the dead ends. Or don't you agree?

But what do we have? A massive residence building up to be able to carry out trials of drugs, with plenty of ethical debates around giving people you are at risk from a novel virus in a pandemic, placebos.

Hence the debate about using alternative means to achieve results faster. Whish was accepted as necessary to develop vaccines, but is all of a sudden unacceptable for new drugs?

And that is where even more suspicion arises about the motives of big pharma.

 

[Geoff.D]

Perhaps explore what constitutes vaccine hesitancy and re-evaluate. Just to mention though that in silico binding efficacy does not always translate into in vivo reality. It's the reason why clinical trial studies are still required and as your study states itself it suggests motivation for such studies. You would think by now there would be a qualitative study without flaws or fraud?

I actually don't have to evaluate anything. had to face plenty of that when I helped people to get their jabs already. Heard and answered and real with plenty of examples personally already.

 

[Turtle]

Yet you ignore the scientific studies done that have found no benefit, and conveniently ignore the fraudulent dodgy pro-IVM studies because they don't fit into your agendas and biases.

My "agenda" of wanting to stick to scientific TRUTH and look at ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which you are deliberately ignoring and pretending don't even exist, my "agenda" of trying to help potentially SAVE LIVES with a drug many doctors agree is a valuable tool in the arsenal against covid, and are prescribing on the frontlines

 

[PsyWulf]

Yet you ignore the scientific studies done that have found no benefit, and conveniently ignore the fraudulent dodgy pro-IVM studies because they don't fit into your agendas and biases.

Confirmation bias

 

[pouroverguy]

My "agenda" of wanting to stick to scientific TRUTH and look at ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which you are deliberately ignoring and pretending don't even exist, my "agenda" of trying to help potentially SAVE LIVES with a drug many doctors agree is a valuable tool in the arsenal against covid, and are prescribing on the frontlines

Most doctors do not agree that IVM works, based on the current state of the evidence.

A proper meta-analysis of IVM done by the Cochrane group - experts in the field of analysing evidence found no evidence that it currently works. This included ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. Your website takes any positive study, repeatedly misrepresents the evidence and has numerous flawed methodologies that have been outlined by a qualified expert and many others.

 

[greg0205]

My "agenda" of wanting to stick to scientific TRUTH and look at ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which you are deliberately ignoring and pretending don't even exist, my "agenda" of trying to help potentially SAVE LIVES with a drug many doctors agree is a valuable tool in the arsenal against covid, and are prescribing on the frontlines

Look around, Turtle.

Your thread has been merged with the IVM thread started in June.

That meta has been picked to the bone here already...

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

My "agenda" of wanting to stick to scientific TRUTH and look at ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which you are deliberately ignoring and pretending don't even exist, my "agenda" of trying to help potentially SAVE LIVES with a drug many doctors agree is a valuable tool in the arsenal against covid, and are prescribing on the frontlines

The "scientific truth" that you are trying to peddle was deleted and merged 10 minutes after it was posted.



I wonder why. Must be some conspiracy over here at MyBB who are bought and paid for by Big Pharma...

 

[Geoff.D]

and "did you know"?

that there are more than 1000 molecular structures similar to IVM already available, with more than144 directly derived from IVM?

Oh of course none of you will admit either way because you don't want to be accused of suffering from "Dunning-Kruger"

 

[quovadis]

Well, I am not suggesting that the study is the end of the debate. But at least a proper study structured around investigating the outcomes of lab and and "in-silico" research should eliminate some of the dead ends. Or don't you agree?

But what do we have? A massive residence building up to be able to carry out trials of drugs, with plenty of ethical debates around giving people you are at risk from a novel virus in a pandemic, placebos.

Hence the debate about using alternative means to achieve results faster. Whish was accepted as necessary to develop vaccines, but is all of a sudden unacceptable for new drugs?

And that is where even more suspicion arises about the motives of big pharma.

And the natural progression would be qualitative trials however there have been no studies to date of a qualitative nature that find for Ivermectin. Even the 60+ studies combined as a meta study do not meet the bar but you're welcome to state which studies do and I'll gladly revisit them (as asked already). This argument regarding a big pharma conspiracy is flawed as stated ad nauseum not only from a cost / resistance perspective but also from a profit perspective.

 

[Geoff.D]

And the natural progression would be qualitative trials however there have been no studies to date of a qualitative nature that find for Ivermectin. Even the 60+ studies combined as a meta study do not meet the bar but you're welcome to state which studies do and I'll gladly revisit them (as asked already). This argument regarding a big pharma conspiracy is flawed as stated ad nauseum not only from a cost / resistance perspective but also from a profit perspective.

That is a subjectively biased opinion. of the existing documented trials.
Been there done that already. No going to fuel the silly fire any further. Go and ask the Twitter nerd expert which trials he wants to tear apart and call fraudulent next.

There are at least 4 trials underway, so we just need to wait for the outcomes. Hopefully, those trials are testing effective dosage levels. Three are easy to find, one isn't, which has been deliberately kept out of the limelight.

None in SA. One was withdrawn due to the funding being withdrawn and the other two not known what stopped them from proceeding.

 

[pouroverguy]

Here's another excellent analysis by someone who knows what he's doing: David Gorski, MD, PhD.

Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 6: More fraud?

Ivermectin has been hyped without evidence as "miracle cure" for COVID-19. It turns out that more widely cited studies were likely fraudulent.

respectfulinsolence.com

 

[buka001]

So explain the scientific reasons why you think the meta-analysis is incorrect.

You can't just hand-wave over scientific studies away and pretend they all just don't exist.

That's dangerous, and irresponsible, and if early treatment Ivermectin does improve outcomes, then this childish attitude of rejecting and ignoring SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on it may literally be responsible for killing people.

What is your position on vaccines?

 

[buka001]

My "agenda" of wanting to stick to scientific TRUTH and look at ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which you are deliberately ignoring and pretending don't even exist, my "agenda" of trying to help potentially SAVE LIVES with a drug many doctors agree is a valuable tool in the arsenal against covid, and are prescribing on the frontlines

Really?

Then why have you failed to do a critical analysis of the ivmeta site?

Why have you not commented on the meta done by the Cochrane group? You seem to be ignoring this?

 

[tetrasect]

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!

Cough cough...

Results: Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2, which could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency. The antiviral action and ADMET profile of ivermectin was on par with the currently used anticorona drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.

WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients

www.who.int

remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on 28-day mortality or the in-hospital course of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients.

Source: https://www.who.int/news/item/15-10...-repurposed-drugs-for-covid-19-in-record-time

 

[Cosmik Debris]

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

Shouldn't all stats be presented in the same format to make them easily comparable? Like we do with the per 100 000 for crime stats so that they can be compared worldwide?

 

[quovadis]

That is a subjectively biased opinion. of the existing documented trials.
Been there done that already. No going to fuel the silly fire any further. Go and ask the Twitter nerd expert which trials he wants to tear apart and call fraudulent next.

There are at least 4 trials underway, so we just need to wait for the outcomes. Hopefully, those trials are testing effective dosage levels. Three are easy to find, one isn't, which has been deliberately kept out of the limelight.

None in SA. One was withdrawn due to the funding being withdrawn and the other two not known what stopped them from proceeding.

Perhaps you should focus on the substance of an argument rather than the source or platform.

It's curious though that you still think that a study needs to be "kept out of the limelight" as if there's a concerted effort to let people die to favour one treatment option over another or that such studies may be flawed due to a lack of correct dosage when there is no study to support what is correct or not or even if it is effective...

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I actually don't have to evaluate anything. had to face plenty of that when I helped people to get their jabs already. Heard and answered and real with plenty of examples personally already.

You, completely unqualified in any medical subject, were allowed to help people get jabs?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

My "agenda" of wanting to stick to scientific TRUTH and look at ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES which you are deliberately ignoring and pretending don't even exist, my "agenda" of trying to help potentially SAVE LIVES with a drug many doctors agree is a valuable tool in the arsenal against covid, and are prescribing on the frontlines

Do you have the qualifications that enable you to evaluate scientific studies?

 

[Aghori]

You, completely unqualified in any medical subject, were allowed to help people get jabs?

Probably a paid shill.