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

[tetrasect]

lets throw some stats around!

some data from oregon:

then theres still massachusetts!

Dunno if you realize this, but you just made a point in favor of vaccines.

 

[PsyWulf]

Dunno if you realize this, but you just made a point in favor of vaccines.

How dare you read,thats an unfair advantage

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Obesity in itself is a pandemic. Thank Jesus/Mohammed/Xenu/etc that, in spite of the levels of obesity and general poor health, the survival rate is still 99%.

Obesity is a temporary and reversible medical condition. It is not a disease.

The 99%-type that doesn't die from Covid.

Overconfidence may just be your downfall. Dying is just one consequence. You're not aware of the lifelong expensive damage caused to your spleen, liver, heart, arteries, lungs, kidneys and Renin-Antiogensen system? You can't see that damage but it will affect your quality of life and your medical aid contributions, own medical costs, and neurological effects. Want to chance it?

 

[PsyWulf]

elephant in the room

That's not a very nice name to call those chubbies you like to chase and obsess about

 

[PsyWulf]

the survival rate is still 99%.

Imagine if there was a vaccine that reduced those fatalities even more. That would be super nice and an absolute necessity to make use of

 

[JohnStarr]

Obesity in itself is a pandemic. Thank Jesus/Mohammed/Xenu/etc that, in spite of the levels of obesity and general poor health, the survival rate is still 99%.

Problem is, it's clearly not been enough of a wake up call, given how many of you soy-rage over being called fat.

The next one is coming...

Douche bag...obesity can also be genetic. Unless you know how to reverse that, it's got nothing to do with eating a lot.

There is no cure for being a douche bag though. I thought I'd tell you before you started asking around for one.

 

[JohnStarr]

Nice response. That all your tiny brain came up with? Must be pumping full steam for that one.

 

[RiaX]

Imagine if there was a vaccine that reduced those fatalities even more. That would be super nice and an absolute necessity to make use of

imagine. Did you see the other side HIV is a hoax. Bring the asteroid a new dominant life form is needed now on earth.

 

[JohnStarr]

That's not a very nice name to call those chubbies you like to chase and obsess about

Could be one himself, or on the way to being one and it's guilty complex time.

 

[access]

The context was that there is benefit to being vaccinated. Most of the breakthrough cases are Delta which is more recent. But the devil is in the detail regarding Oregon:

Dunno if you realize this, but you just made a point in favor of vaccines.

How dare you read,thats an unfair advantage

ah good, someone actually read it. ..lol

indeed, as stated in that report, these people that were sickly and frail etc. had one foot in the grave.


after the vaccine its okay to say these people were sickly and passing away already,

but before the vaccine its the impact of not being vaccinated.

i dont think thats honest.

lots of stats and info being thrown around without giving the details behind it. making things seem worse than they are. on both ends.

 

[tetrasect]

ah good, someone actually read it. ..lol

indeed, as stated in that report, these people that were sickly and frail etc. had one foot in the grave.


after the vaccine its okay to say these people were sickly and passing away already,

but before the vaccine its the impact of not being vaccinated.

i dont think thats honest.

lots of stats and info being thrown around without giving the details behind it. making things seem worse than they are. on both ends.

Again you entire argument is "look, the vaccine is not 100% effective!", when nobody has ever said that it was.

Once you consider the percentage of people in Oregon who are fully vaccinated you can work out that the vaccine still offers about 80% protection against infection, and that is after how many months of waning antibodies?

In an unvaccinated person you could say "If they had been vaccinated there would have been an 80% chance to prevent this."
What do you say when it's a vaccinated person? What are we supposed to do to prevent vaccinated people from getting sick and/or dying?

Using your logic, people shouldn't wear bullet proof vests because some people who do, still get shot in the head and die.

 

[access]

Again you entire argument is "look, the vaccine is not 100% effective!", when nobody has ever said that it was.

Once you consider the percentage of people in Oregon who are fully vaccinated you can work out that the vaccine still offers about 80% protection against infection, and that is after how many months of waning antibodies?

In an unvaccinated person you could say "If they had been vaccinated there would have been an 80% chance to prevent this."
What do you say when it's a vaccinated person? What are we supposed to do to prevent vaccinated people from getting sick and/or dying?

Using your logic, people shouldn't wear bullet proof vests because some people who do, still get shot in the head and die.

no, my response was in reaction to the impact of being unvaccinated in that screenshot i quoted.

most people are not affected by sars-cov-2, claiming the vaccination "saved" them because look at the stats is bollox.


hospitals or hospice care facilities etc. are full of sick people already, 'hospital-associated infections' affect hundreds of millions of people worldwide every year, stated by the world health org. these pics etc. do not indicate how many of these covid hospitalisations stats are from people "shuffled" to a covid wing. every now and then you see people speak out on it but are made out to be looney or what ever. their skills and state of mind was sound before they made the observation, but are cast out after.

thats not being honest imo.


btw, your bulletproof example, is a lol. most people are not affected by covid hitting them. everyone is affected by a bullet hitting them.

 

[buka001]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461524649116852230

Thinking about those times when someone here was rage posting ivmeta.com as the be all and end all of the IVM story.

Looks like they made stuff up on that "meta".

Oh what a surprise.

 

[tetrasect]

btw, your bulletproof example, is a lol. most people are not affected by covid hitting them. everyone is affected by a bullet hitting them.

Here I was, thinking that Covid was a novel disease that we don't have immunity to...

 

[Geoff.D]

Here I was, thinking that Covid was a novel disease that we don't have immunity to...

Ah! That explains why you are so against the test that showed that it is possible for a population to have prior immunity! Another one of the pandemic hype bubbles is burst ---- the virus is not so "novel" as was/is believed afterall.

 

[tetrasect]

Ah! That explains why you are so against the test that showed that it is possible for a population to have prior immunity! Another one of the pandemic hype bubbles is burst ---- the virus is not so "novel" as was/is believed afterall.

What are you talking about "against the test"?

I said some T-cell response ex vivo does not necessarily translate to immunity in the real world.

And I have yet to find evidence in the real world of 44% of people being completely immune to Covid to the point where antibodies are never even produced because T-cells destroy it immediately.

Again, I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying there is no evidence.

You seem to be under the illusion that just because a study shows some kind of activity in a test tube that means it will behave the same in real life but it just doesn't work that way. You've seen it with IVM already.
Are you choosing this hill to die on next? Or can you just accept that there is not even close to enough evidence to make this kind of call and leave it at that until we get more information?

 

[Geoff.D]

I have endless examples. In-silico studies showing IVM is a protease Inhibitor are simply rejected. Yet an in silico study showing a new big pharma drug against Covid is accepted?
A drug with known mutagenic effects is not questioned -- "the double-blind RCTs show it works". To hell with the side effects. " Noone will take the drug long enough for it to be a problem" ---- the rhetoric and BS just goes on and on.

Either recognised laboratory techniques are accepted or they are not.
The entire industry evaluates drugs using in-silico techniques all the time, but don't dare use this technique to support a re-purposed drug.

In Vitro tests as a precursor to human trials are okay IF used in the development of a vaccine but not acceptable when evaluating re-purposed drugs.

Either the science is accepted including the techniques or they are not. There is NO in between.

 

[tetrasect]

I have endless examples. In-silico studies showing IVM is a protease Inhibitor are simply rejected. Yet an in silico study showing a new big pharma drug against Covid is accepted?

Accepted as what? Yes, as an emergency treatment, the same way hydroxychloroquine and IVM were before they found out they don't work.

A drug with known mutagenic effects is not questioned -- "the double-blind RCTs show it works". To hell with the side effects. " Noone will take the drug long enough for it to be a problem" ---- the rhetoric and BS just goes on and on.

Either recognised laboratory techniques are accepted or they are not.
The entire industry evaluates drugs using in-silico techniques all the time, but don't dare use this technique to support a re-purposed drug.

In Vitro tests as a precursor to human trials are okay IF used in the development of a vaccine but not acceptable when evaluating re-purposed drugs.

Either the science is accepted including the techniques or they are not. There is NO in between.

So there have been no human trials on IVM?

You're making less and less sense these days.

 

[JohnStarr]

I have endless examples. In-silico studies showing IVM is a protease Inhibitor are simply rejected. Yet an in silico study showing a new big pharma drug against Covid is accepted?
A drug with known mutagenic effects is not questioned -- "the double-blind RCTs show it works". To hell with the side effects. " Noone will take the drug long enough for it to be a problem" ---- the rhetoric and BS just goes on and on.

Either recognised laboratory techniques are accepted or they are not.
The entire industry evaluates drugs using in-silico techniques all the time, but don't dare use this technique to support a re-purposed drug.

In Vitro tests as a precursor to human trials are okay IF used in the development of a vaccine but not acceptable when evaluating re-purposed drugs.

Either the science is accepted including the techniques or they are not. There is NO in between.

I'd trust the science. Not you. You're making unsubstantiated claims again.

 

[JohnStarr]

Accepted as what? Yes, as an emergency treatment, the same way hydroxychloroquine and IVM were before they found out they don't work.



So there have been no human trials on IVM?

You're making less and less sense these days.

There were trials on IVM in humans. Once at the UFS too. Geoffny was making a big song and dance about this in February.
Seems like he forgot.