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

[Cosmik Debris]

Riiiight so in other words you just went on your intuition, not very scientific of you. You guessed and backed a guy you know nothing about. You just broke all the rules you tell us to follow. You basically liked his opinion on things because it mirrored yours, not very scientific.

It's not intuition. When you recognise the manner of writing and the terms and context used, you can recognise even where a person studied. This is common among academics and also in the military where authors of documents are recognised just by their writing style.

You wouldn't know this having never studied at a tertiary institution nor having read or written military documents.

 

[SoldierMan]

It's not intuition. When you recognise the manner of writing and the terms and context used, you can recognise even where a person studied. This is common among academics and also in the military where authors of documents are recognised just by their writing style.

You wouldn't know this having never studied at a tertiary institution nor having read or written military documents.

You guessed. And supported him because of his stance. Simple.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

You guessed. And supported him because of his stance. Simple.

Nope. Recognised some of his writing style which tells me he is medically educated.

 

[Swa]

Correlation does not equal causation.

There's a lot of info missing here. We don't know how many people are taking ivermectin, and for how long, and how much in a single dose.

We do know that it seems to present a clear clinical benefit in-vitro, but the science isn't settled on how much of a dose actually has an effect.

I'm not disputing that the use of ivermectin in other provinces is helping - just providing context to the claim. If it is effective, then one would assume that we'd see a much larger difference in the decrease of new cases compared to our numbers, which are barely affected by ivermectin use. As it stands, it's just a hair over a 5% improvement on the face of it. The slice of time is quite small, and the lack of data makes comparisons tricky.

And in any case:

View attachment 1109782

View attachment 1109784

That is an 81% reduction in daily average cases in 39 days. Not as high as ours, but still good considering that several of India's provinces basically do their own thing, whereas our efforts are coordinated. Our third wave numbers should be back down to around 8% of the 39-day high next month.

Well sure, but there's only two options. Either the data is accurate or it isn't. If it is there needs to be an explanation for the reduction in numbers. So far the only commonality is IVM.

 

[Swa]

Your question about religion?

I am an atheist.

Completely irrelevant.

It wasn't about religion. But well done. Another point for subversion.

 

[Swa]

Vaccines augment this capability by creating antibodies that are effective on a particular part of the virus/antigen that is common between all variants, giving you the ability to fight off variants of the same virus and not fall deathly ill. This is why vaccines are always better than an infection, because your body is given more effective tools to fight against disease.

Huh? How do you get that? It's usually the opposite. Vaccines attack one or two vectors. Your immune system of the other hand has the whole virus to work with and will attack it on multiple fronts.

I don't. But screaming IVM when the complete study of it's effectiveness has been debunked makes you look rather silly...

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns The Elgazzar study was one of the the largest and most promising showing the drug may help Covid patients, and has often been cited by proponents of the drug as...

mybroadband.co.za

Stop with your crap. The effectiveness of IVM isn't based on one study that you people keep regurgitating.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Huh? How do you get that? It's usually the opposite. Vaccines attack one or two vectors. Your immune system of the other hand has the whole virus to work with and will attack it on multiple fronts.


Stop with your crap. The effectiveness of IVM isn't based on one study that you people keep regurgitating.

No study has shown effectiveness of Ivermectin yet... Not one.

 

[PseuDohNom]

No study has shown effectiveness of Ivermectin yet... Not one.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics

mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were...

journals.lww.com

 

[Swa]

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics

mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were...

journals.lww.com

He's beyond hope. He's already assumed the conclusion like the study of this thread in contrast to any other evidence. Guess I was just hallucinating about that meta study of over 80 other studies showing its effectiveness.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Huh? How do you get that? It's usually the opposite. Vaccines attack one or two vectors. Your immune system of the other hand has the whole virus to work with and will attack it on multiple fronts.

Actually, it is both. Vaccines target one or two vectors, but those vectors are shared across numerous similar variants and lineages and are in locations that are observed to not change over time with mutations, giving your immune system a broad number of targets that share a particular weakness or signature. Your immune system certainly blasts off a lot of challenges to see which antibodies work, but it follows the principle of least effort in its evolutionary mechanism that developed these antibodies. Once something works, even minimally, all the effort goes into that one thing.

But the thing that antibodies target might be unique to that variant. It doesn't have the luxury of picking something that works against all variants and lineages of the same pathogen. In the same way that we give an antivirus scanner definitions of malware that it knows to look for and quarantine, the immune system almost receives a definition update to know what new and dangeroue viruses and bacteria look like.

 

[Swa]

Actually, it is both. Vaccines target one or two vectors, but those vectors are shared across numerous similar variants and lineages and are in locations that are observed to not change over time with mutations, giving your immune system a broad number of targets that share a particular weakness or signature. Your immune system certainly blasts off a lot of challenges to see which antibodies work, but it follows the principle of least effort in its evolutionary mechanism that developed these antibodies. Once something works, all the effort goes into that one thing.

But the thing that antibodies target might be unique to that variant. It doesn't have the luxury of picking something that works against all variants and lineages of the same pathogen. In the same way that we give an antivirus scanner definitions of malware that it knows to look for and quarantine, the immune system almost receives a definition update to know what new and dangeroue viruses and bacteria look like.

What you're describing is a one trick pony. That's only the antibody part. Natural immunity isn't showing to be any less effective than vaccine induced immunity. The only thing that's been pointed out is that acquiring natural immunity comes at a price.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Natural immunity isn't showing to be any less effective than vaccine induced immunity. The only thing that's been pointed out is that acquiring natural immunity comes at a price.

Well, yes. I'm not disputing whether natural immunity is equally effective.

I'm saying that vaccines are going to be better than any single infection. Natural immunity may only result in your protection against that single pathogen that infected you. Natural immunity derived from a vaccine has more targets that it can guard against.

There are examples where this isn't the case, but they are very limited.

 

[Geoff.D]

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics

mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were...

journals.lww.com

Are you ready to defend your reference? The local idiot is going to launch into you soon. That is if he bothers to lower himself long enough to read it given he considers himself at a higher IQ level than all of us on myBB and researchers in general.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Are you ready to defend your reference? The local idiot is going to launch into you soon. That is if he bothers to lower himself long enough to read it given he considers himself at a higher IQ level than all of us on myBB and researchers in general.

Conclusions:​

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Maybe, possible, could be, might. Nothing conclusive. Vaccine is conclusive

Next please...

 

[Swa]

Well, yes. I'm not disputing whether natural immunity is equally effective.

I'm saying that vaccines are going to be better than any single infection. Natural immunity may only result in your protection against that single pathogen that infected you. Natural immunity derived from a vaccine has more targets that it can guard against.

There are examples where this isn't the case, but they are very limited.

But you do seem to be saying that. Better is subjective here. For the person not infected yet a vaccine would be better. For the person that already was infected natural immunity is better.

Your equation only accounts for antibodies. Natural immunity is much broader. It's assumed that the vectors targeted by a vaccine would be shared by variants and not change over time. It may be the case that natural immunity only targets the vectors that are unique to a specific variant with antibodies but it has a lot more vectors to work with and recognise in subsequent infections. With a vaccine it may target those specific vectors next time but if they are not present of have changed then it has literally nothing to work with and is as good as a new disease.

There are tradeoffs to both. Natural immunity has a much higher price to acquire but once it's acquired it's much broader and more effective.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Conclusions:​

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Maybe, possible, could be, might. Nothing conclusive. Vaccine is conclusive

Next please...

Jesus Christ, please stop for your own sanity and my blood pressure. You are not helping.

This entire paragraph is taking the findings and saying that while it seems correct to say that ivermectin helps, it isn't possible to specify to what degree without doing more research in those key areas.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Jesus Christ, please stop for your own sanity and my blood pressure. You are not helping.

This entire paragraph is taking the findings and saying that while it seems correct to say that ivermectin helps, it isn't possible to specify to what degree without doing more research in those key areas.

Exactly. Maybe, might, possible...

Not is, does, effective.

Ivermectin is being touted here by the Ivy League as the cure to Covid. It's not.

 

[Swa]

Conclusions:​

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Maybe, possible, could be, might. Nothing conclusive. Vaccine is conclusive

Next please...

All studies have qualifications, something your paramedic certificate doesn't teach you and only experience does. Where you make the classic mistake is assuming that because they do they can all be dismissed separately in a vacuum. They don't exist in a vacuum however. The body of evidence for IVM is probably the largest there has ever been for anything in such a short time span. The study also doesn't say that it can't be concluded that it's effective. Jeesh, you are indeed not qualified to interpret studies.

I'll say it again what I said previously, if the body of evidence for dark matter was as strong as for IVM the scientific community would accept it no questions.

Moving on...

 

[alanB]

I'm constantly fascinated at why people get so invested in shouting down, what on the face of it is very good news.

That there is a cheap, low risk, FDA approved drug that seems to show very good results for treating Covid. Which seems to effective against all variants, and all stages of the illness, but particularly when used as prophylaxis.

Why is that such a bad thing that needs all this endless arguing?

This site has a huge amount of data on the subject which I personally find quite convincing. https://ivmmeta.com/

If you don't believe that, then don't take the drug. It's your body etc.

But why the desperate need to stop others from doing so? It's almost psychotic some of the behaviour on display here IMO.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I'm constantly fascinated at why people get so invested in shouting down, what on the face of it is very good news.

That there is a cheap, low risk, FDA approved drug that seems to show very good results for treating Covid. Which seems to effective against all variants, and all stages of the illness, but particularly when used as prophylaxis.

Why is that such a bad thing that needs all this endless arguing?

This site has a huge amount of data on the subject which I personally find quite convincing. https://ivmmeta.com/

If you don't believe that, then don't take the drug. It's your body etc.

But why the desperate need to stop others from doing so? It's almost psychotic some of the behaviour on display here IMO.

Did you read the title of the thread? There is no evidence.