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

[calvin-]

I've been blessed with the ability to work hard and master my industry.

Must be in used car sales.

 

[capd]

And one day we will all be dead
Round and round we go

Selfish and short-sighted. The perfect recipe for enriching elites and ensuring our future generations live on subscriptions and/or government handouts.

And still responding!

 

[TysonRoux]

 

[Dave]

View attachment 1291920

Geoff will be along shortly to dispute that.

 

[Geoff.D]

This may help to explain clinicians scepticism of the flccc group right from the start of this entire debacle.

Famous vitamin C study ‘may have relied on fraudulent data’ - Medical Brief

The data underpinning a famous study of vitamin C for sepsis that some thought might put its author on track for a Nobel Prize in Medicine, may be fraudulent, according to an Australian analysis. Kyle Sheldrick, a physician and statistician, who is completing his PhD at the University of New...

www.medicalbrief.co.za

Have you any opinion about the HAT protocol and particularly, the benefits of intravenous vitamin C therapy you are prepared to share here or via a PM?
This issue comes a long way considering that the trial referred to dates all the way back to 2017.

 

[TysonRoux]

 

[TysonRoux]

India, the horse meds COVID capitol of the world.

Success of ivermectin in preventing COVID-19 in India has not been proven

While cases appear to have fallen in Uttar Pradesh as well as most locations in India, it’s not clear why. Many other factors, including immunity from a previ

www.newswise.com

India stopped recommending the use of ivermectin for the management of the virus in September, citing a lack of scientific evidence of its benefits. Researchers at the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) did not find enough evidence for Ivermectin and Hydroxycholoquine as potential therapeutics targeted against COVID-19.*

India Stalls Updated COVID-19 Toll Showing Millions More Deaths: Report

The global health organization was originally supposed to release the figures months ago, The New York Times reported.

www.huffpost.com

Why millions of Indians “purify” themselves by bathing in a polluted river

Festivals such as Kumbh have seldom resulted in a pandemic.

qz.com

 

[quovadis]

To be fair there’s no scientific study proving it does or doesn’t work therefore it must… science yoh.

 

[access]

You should have been a scientist. Without qualification, you seem to be correct in most things.

i am a scientist of ology

 

[r00igev@@r]

Trumps gonna win the 2024 elections because all his opponents would have died by taking the vaccine. They all going to die in 2 years.

Wait...

He also took it. (Now what????)

 

[calvin-]

Another one bites the dust:

Another ivermectin-COVID-19 paper is retracted

A paper on the potential use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19 has been retracted for a litany of flaws, joining at least 10 other articles on the therapy some liked to promote without evidence to fa…

retractionwatch.com

 

[TysonRoux]

Trumps gonna win the 2024 elections because all his opponents would have died by taking the vaccine. They all going to die in 2 years.

Wait...

He also took it. (Now what????)

Taking the evil vaccine that he developed single-handedly at warp speed wont faze the anti-vaxxer redneck MAGA voters.

'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'​

 

[OhYeah84]

Taking the evil vaccine that he developed single-handedly at warp speed wont faze the anti-vaxxer redneck MAGA voters.

'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'​

He did? Sure of your facts and sure it wasn't J&J or Pfizer...

 

[r00igev@@r]

Taking the evil vaccine that he developed single-handedly at warp speed wont faze the anti-vaxxer redneck MAGA voters.

'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'​

We he grabs by the pussy he gets more votes...

BTW: Remember to take your IVM so that you don't die! Plus also just flush it down with the stuff you use in fish tanks.

 

[surface]

He did? Sure of your facts and sure it wasn't J&J or Pfizer...

He & Ivanka had big role in development of all vaccines so it is not important what he took.

 

[PsyWulf]

In another totally surprising turn of events,another Placebo control study - ACTIV6 - again finds no benefit to Ivermectin

 

[surface]

In another totally surprising turn of events,another Placebo control study - ACTIV6 - again finds no benefit to Ivermectin

As a result of all these experiments, is it possible that ivermectin will be THE placebo used in all the trials in future? Maybe that will be the win they are looking for ?

 

[PsyWulf]

Here we go: Pre-print but i'm quite sure nothing will be changing post-review,this was actually a gold-standard double-blind randomized placebo-controlled national study

Ivermectin for Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 in the Outpatient Setting: A Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical Trial

Background: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the United States with mild-to-moderate symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of ivermectin 400 mcg/kg daily for 3...

www.medrxiv.org

Exerpt

ACTIV-6 has several notable strengths. Many of the prior studies of ivermectin were conducted largely outside of the United States, thus data from a high-income country with associated healthcare system were lacking. ACTIV-6 is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled national study with enrolling sites in 28 states and a call center able to recruit participants from the remainder of the United States. This ivermectin arm of the ACTIV-6 platform trial enrolled rapidly due to the delta and omicron variant surges and included both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, thus representing a highly relevant study population. The trial also has limitations. Due to the broad study population, including almost 50% reporting vaccination, few participants progressed to severe COVID-19, limiting the power to study the treatment effect on relevant clinical outcomes like hospitalization and death. Due to the remote nature of the trial and constraints related to timing of randomization, the average time from start of symptoms to receipt of study drug was 6 days, which is later in the disease course than recent antiviral trials.1,2 However, there was no benefit observed for those who started treatment earlier (≤3 days) versus later (>3 days) in the subgroup analysis.

 

[Venator]

Here we go: Pre-print but i'm quite sure nothing will be changing post-review,this was actually a gold-standard double-blind randomized placebo-controlled national study

Ivermectin for Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 in the Outpatient Setting: A Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical Trial

Background: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the United States with mild-to-moderate symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of ivermectin 400 mcg/kg daily for 3...

www.medrxiv.org

Exerpt

WHY DON’T FACTS CHANGE OUR MINDS?
Have you ever found yourself wondering, “How in the world can someone believe something so strange?” And then thought, “Surely, this evidence will change their mind!”
If so, I have bad news.
Many of us think “facts” are incontrovertible.
But facts are never neutral. Taken out of context, misrepresented, or cherry picked, “facts” can tell whatever story we want them to.
We’re particularly motivated to defend beliefs that are important to our identity and our social standing. And the more we’ve sacrificed and/or publicly staked our reputation on a belief, the less willing we are to concede defeat.
Instead, we act like lawyers trying to win our case and search for evidence to prove ourselves right. Not only do we not change our mind, we double down.
In other words, we deceive ourselves because it feels better than admitting we were wrong.
In 1954, psychologist Leon Festinger was fascinated by a cult that expected to be saved from a global flood by aliens on December 21. So he and his team infiltrated the group to see what would happen on December 22. Would they change their minds when they weren’t rescued by aliens in flying saucers?
From “When Prophecy Fails”: “Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
I’m often reminded of Festinger’s study these days. While we certainly all believe things that aren’t true, some beliefs are clearly more wrong than others. Yet, when presented with incontrovertible evidence they’re wrong, and the proverbial aliens aren’t saving them from global destruction, too many refuse to change their minds.
The importance of Festinger’s study cannot be overstated. It’s a lesson all of us would do well to heed.


It’s also an incredibly interesting and entertaining story: https://thinkingispower.com/the-person-who-lies-to-you-the-most-is-you/

 

[surface]

View attachment 1330130
WHY DON’T FACTS CHANGE OUR MINDS?
Have you ever found yourself wondering, “How in the world can someone believe something so strange?” And then thought, “Surely, this evidence will change their mind!”
If so, I have bad news.
Many of us think “facts” are incontrovertible.
But facts are never neutral. Taken out of context, misrepresented, or cherry picked, “facts” can tell whatever story we want them to.
We’re particularly motivated to defend beliefs that are important to our identity and our social standing. And the more we’ve sacrificed and/or publicly staked our reputation on a belief, the less willing we are to concede defeat.
Instead, we act like lawyers trying to win our case and search for evidence to prove ourselves right. Not only do we not change our mind, we double down.
In other words, we deceive ourselves because it feels better than admitting we were wrong.
In 1954, psychologist Leon Festinger was fascinated by a cult that expected to be saved from a global flood by aliens on December 21. So he and his team infiltrated the group to see what would happen on December 22. Would they change their minds when they weren’t rescued by aliens in flying saucers?
From “When Prophecy Fails”: “Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
I’m often reminded of Festinger’s study these days. While we certainly all believe things that aren’t true, some beliefs are clearly more wrong than others. Yet, when presented with incontrovertible evidence they’re wrong, and the proverbial aliens aren’t saving them from global destruction, too many refuse to change their minds.
The importance of Festinger’s study cannot be overstated. It’s a lesson all of us would do well to heed.


It’s also an incredibly interesting and entertaining story: https://thinkingispower.com/the-person-who-lies-to-you-the-most-is-you/

Indeed. It is very difficult to get rid of world view that one held for most of one's lives (religion in my case) but it is possible.

Bill Nye Says Climate Change Deniers Have a Bad Case of Cognitive Dissonance

Also, magnets, how do they work? "Magic!" (JK.)

www.wired.com

"People have a certain worldview; [then] they’re confronted with evidence that conflicts with the worldview, so they have dissonance, conflict in their minds," Nye says. "[So] instead of changing your worldview, which you may have held your entire life, you dismiss the evidence—and along with that you dismiss the authorities that may have provided the evidence."