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

[semaphore]

I have endless examples. In-silico studies showing IVM is a protease Inhibitor are simply rejected.

No, you don't, we have been waiting to be made super mad angry for weeks with your "studies" and "data", yet you present nothing but excuses and cowardness. I'm rather sad I can't be super mad angry about your revolutionary studies and data. Perhaps you won't be a cuck and actually deliver this time?

 

[PsyWulf]

Perhaps you won't be a cuck and actually deliver this time?

Man's is super optimistic
@Geoff.D is literally

 

[buka001]

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 wonder what the in-silico study of Hydrocholric Acid would show?

 

[Geoff.D]

I wonder what the in-silico study of Hydrocholric Acid would show?

Here is an example of hypocrisy at work. Ridicule the concept of an in silico study using an obvious stupid example.
Do YOU personally now state once and for all, that you reject all in-silico laboratory work in the development and design of new drugs and vaccines? the ONLY answer permissible is YES or NO.

 

[Dave]

Man's is super optimistic
@Geoff.D is literally
View attachment 1197000

You won't be laughing when you see his medical degree.

 

[buka001]

Here is an example of hypocrisy at work. Ridicule the concept of an in silico study using an obvious stupid example.
Do YOU personally now state once and for all, that you reject all in-silico laboratory work in the development and design of new drugs and vaccines? the ONLY answer permissible is YES or NO.

I don't reject them. The point is the in-silico may demonstrate possible successes, which can then provide recommendations to RCT trials etc.

Doean't mean they will be successful.

Given the lack of any high quality, successful IVM studies, the in-silico, is just a computer based model.

 

[RiaX]

Here is an example of hypocrisy at work. Ridicule the concept of an in silico study using an obvious stupid example.
Do YOU personally now state once and for all, that you reject all in-silico laboratory work in the development and design of new drugs and vaccines? the ONLY answer permissible is YES or NO.

Its not something we would look at seriously for real life patients. If there are no options maybe we will consider it when we grasping for options (which we did at the start of covid-19).

Even when we see proper trials vs placebo we still dont look at it that too seriously. What we really want to see is RCT vs the gold standard or a combination of different drugs with a placebo.

We dont deny their usefulness as tools of medical science but we have to be careful what we apply to a patient.

For example a rep can approach me with drug X and say it controls blood pressure better than placebo by 10%. To me that means nothing, I can get a patient to achieve that without drug therapy and simple lifestyle modifications.

But if the rep comes and says we have drug X ands its shown 10% more effective than drug Y (the gold standard) then you can start considering it. Even then you still wouldnt switch the patient from drug Y if they tolerate it well and its working.

Obviously its not so simple but in terms of understanding and in application, the level of evidence varies depending on the situation its applied to. So in silico has its uses but its too weak to use to recommend you dosing an entire population with a drug.

 

[Geoff.D]

Its not something we would look at seriously for real life patients. If there are no options maybe we will consider it when we grasping for options (which we did at the start of covid-19).

Even when we see proper trials vs placebo we still dont look at it that too seriously. What we really want to see is RCT vs the gold standard or a combination of different drugs with a placebo.

We dont deny their usefulness as tools of medical science but we have to be careful what we apply to a patient.

For example a rep can approach me with drug X and say it controls blood pressure better than placebo by 10%. To me that means nothing, I can get a patient to achieve that without drug therapy and simple lifestyle modifications.

But if the rep comes and says we have drug X ands its shown 10% more effective than drug Y (the gold standard) then you can start considering it. Even then you still wouldnt switch the patient from drug Y if they tolerate it well and its working.

Obviously its not so simple but in terms of understanding and in application, the level of evidence varies depending on the situation its applied to. So in silico has its uses but its too weak to use to recommend you dosing an entire population with a drug.

Perfectly acceptable, BUT that was NOT the question I asked of buka001 who used a stupid attempt to discredit the technique. In-silico evidence on its own is obviously NOT the complete and final answer but the start of a process, which normally results in follow-ups, in vitro, then in-vivo, then ex-vivo and animal studies and the human trials.

Yet quite often big pharma will skip some of the steps when it suits them. Presumably, the evidence gained is sometimes convincing enough to allow them to do so.

The issue I am raising is total and automatic rejection by the detractors of IVM of evidence that is gained through a recognised research method just because it re-inforces their own bias.

Yet those same guys WILL accept an in-silico study to claim something does not work, even IF that study says that there should be more work done to confirm the result

It is about the principle and the validity of the proper scientific methodology used.

There can never be a reasonable debate about this subject in the presence of all these stupidly ignorant comments flowing out of the idiot fringe on this thread. There will never be any recognition of evidence either way.

 

[tetrasect]

Perfectly acceptable, BUT that was NOT the question I asked of buka001 who used a stupid attempt to discredit the technique. In-silico evidence on its own is obviously NOT the complete and final answer but the start of a process, which normally results in follow-ups, in vitro, then in-vivo, then ex-vivo and animal studies and the human trials.

Yet quite often big pharma will skip some of the steps when it suits them. Presumably, the evidence gained is sometimes convincing enough to allow them to do so.

The issue I am raising is total and automatic rejection by the detractors of IVM of evidence that is gained through a recognised research method just because it re-inforces their own bias.

Nobody "totally rejected" IVM from the beginning. People just wanted evidence that it actually works before throwing themselves off a bus for it. It took a whole bunch of studies (on humans!) showing that it is not an effective treatment to make people finally reject it.

Yet those same guys WILL accept an in-silico study to claim something does not work, even IF that study says that there should be more work done to confirm the result

It is about the principle and the validity of the proper scientific methodology used.

There can never be a reasonable debate about this subject in the presence of all these stupidly ignorant comments flowing out of the idiot fringe on this thread. There will never be any recognition of evidence either way.

Again, nobody is "accepting" any Pfizer or Merck pills before there is evidence that it actually works.

Unlike you, we don't pick and choose who we think the winner is before the game even begins and then rage against the audience when our team looses.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Yet quite often big pharma will skip some of the steps when it suits them.

You know this? How?

There can never be a reasonable debate about this subject in the presence of all these stupidly ignorant comments flowing out of the idiot fringe on this thread. There will never be any recognition of evidence either way.

Geoff, you've been shown consistently to be that fringe...

 

[calvin-]

<snip>

"as Covid 19 infections are at the lowest since the start of this pandemic, he is now prepared to "see patients" again for normal checkup -----

I was going to say your Dr is a quack, because Dr's have been working through out (personal experience), and then I remembered, you "just make stuff up".

 

[calvin-]

<snip>
And in Singapore, you will pay for hospitalisation for Covid if unvaxxed.

Gee... Singapore implemented a special dispensation to pay for all covid-19 treatments for all people. And now that effective safe preventative measures exist, and they are now reverting to normal from a special dispensation, anti-vaxxers be..... see rIgHtS aRe bean TekKiN.

 

[Dave]

Here's something for Geoff and co to think about

 

[calvin-]

Please don’t act like obesity is not a pandemic in its own right. Also don’t act like obesity doesn’t worsen Covid outcomes. Last I checked 78% of Covid deaths were among the obese… I’m talking about high BMI here.

Obesity, Race/Ethnicity, and COVID-19

Having obesity increases risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov

There are even studies that obesity reduces the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Makes up a figure saying 78% of covid deaths were among the obese. Quotes an article one sentence later that says 30.2%.

 

[Sensorei]

Makes up a figure saying 78% of covid deaths were among the obese. Quotes an article one sentence later that says 30.2%.

No, that wasn't deaths. It was covid-19 related hospitalisations.

To put things in perspective that study looked at almost a million covid-19 related hospitalisations and at 30.2% obesity was the #1 co-morbidity risk factor causing hospitalisations. Higher than both both diabetes and hypertension.

 

[calvin-]

Please provide proof, otherwise this is anecdotal and biased as usual.

He doesn't provide proof. He just makes **** up.

 

[calvin-]

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.

More making stuff up... quite a habit you have there.

 

[PsyWulf]

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.

Jesus,just sell your retirement-funded warehouse full of ivermectin stock at a loss and move on. We get it,you aren't happy to lose all those juicy profits from stupid people.
Stop with the pathetic attempts at upselling a turd that works as well as all the other turds you missed out on

 

[JohnStarr]

He doesn't provide proof. He just makes **** up.

We know that. It was more rhetorical. He placed me on Ignore (after I'd done so). Guess he got tired of me bringing a logical, real world situation and argument to his delusional rants.
Still, he likes to portray himself as someone above us while not having any real medical qualifications. I think most people here just entertain his thoughts. Nothing more.

 

[Temujin]