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

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
16,913
Sure, have one but haven't used it in ages. I think pharmacies still have them. They're still big in the US, like cheques.

I have a fax at home. Been trying to sell it for ages. Looks like I need to visit some pharmacies...

The US is also one of those still using the imperial measurements system.

p7rri0trqbpy.jpg
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
30,098
What was the question?

Sure so what's the problem? None of the of the normal people in this thread are saying that IVM does not work, they are saying, like the doctors are saying that there is not enough evidence.

That's not enough for the antivaxx community though. They don't simply want the studies on IVM to be concluded in whatever way the science unfolds, they want their nutcase claims about "Big Pharma" conspiracy theories to be vindicated by IVM.

So few of these posts even about IVM, they are all about antivaxx talking points. IVM is an antivaxx talking point.

When you lack critical thinking skills then proof of one thing is enough to assume that all your biases are suddenly vindicated.

How can everything you ever believed about vaccines be proven by the efficacy of IVM?

You're an idiot, that's how.


Wee-waa wee-waa wee-waa... conspiracy theory alert! Stupid incoming.
But there is enough evidence. You however will not be happy until it is disproven by some dubious study. And that you would even make that remark to Kolaval shows your bias. You will denigrate anyone that doesn't fit your narrative.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581


But there is enough evidence. You however will not be happy until it is disproven by some dubious study. And that you would even make that remark to Kolaval shows your bias. You will denigrate anyone that doesn't fit your narrative.
Of course I do.

Do you?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
30,098
And?

The classic example of how real science wins out over fraud?

And your answer to the question?
You keep claiming that people are biased for not rejecting something based a single fraudulent study while there are dozens of others. Yet here you are with a theory that is based on a fraud and would be nowhere without it. If you wanted to be unbiased you would reject your own belief outright but you don't. And yes real science won out. Funny how you always want to present it as science doing its thing as per the narrative when in actual fact it took people, not people invested in it but people who didn't follow the narrative.

No.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
You keep claiming that people are biased for not rejecting something based a single fraudulent study while there are dozens of others. Yet here you are with a theory that is based on a fraud and would be nowhere without it. If you wanted to be unbiased you would reject your own belief outright but you don't. And yes real science won out. Funny how you always want to present it as science doing its thing as per the narrative when in actual fact it took people, not people invested in it but people who didn't follow the narrative.

No.
Are you seriously conflating the two?

In parallel to Piltdown Man there was substantial other evidence that supported the evolution theory.

What other conclusive IVM studies are out there?

Why do you have Mediclinic going nope?
 

surface

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
17,851
Are you seriously conflating the two?

In parallel to Piltdown Man there was substantial other evidence that supported the evolution theory.

What other conclusive IVM studies are out there?

Why do you have Mediclinic going nope?
He is getting there. I think he is equating IVM studies to Piltdown man, which seems correct although I am not sure if IVM studies can be called as fraud yet.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,594
He is getting there. I think he is equating IVM studies to Piltdown man, which seems correct although I am not sure if IVM studies can be called as fraud yet.
The studies cannot ever be called fraud.
The highly technical chemical studies and research papers factually show in vitro, that IVM is an antiviral drug, killing off many viruses. The earliest such a laboratory analysis I have found goes back to 2001. That lab analysis was followed up with a trial in mice, which confirmed the lab results.
The exact concentration to kill SARS cov 2 is known. The IC50 value has been determined.
How IVM works in inhibiting/killing/ showing down infection by viruses is also very well documented the exact way in which it binds with outer layer proteins is known and verified by at least three different laboratory techniques.
It has been shown also in a laboratory why the current FDA approved dosages are unlikely to have any effect on treating someone infected with this virus.
The next step would be for someone to show why those treated early respond the best to IVM, which might end up being the only patients in the observational trials to respond.
To do that researchers need lots more data which in most cases was not captured, so it is not possible to draw clear clinically reliable conclusions.
Next there is work being done on how IVM could be delivered for the treatment of Covid.
From a nasal spray that would be able to kill the virus in the airways before it even takes hold, to tablet form, to intravenous injection form. This step requires money for proper development and trial. That money is not forthcoming.
So that is a very brief technical summary of what I have been able to glean from many papers and reports.
None of the above was dependent on any hyped up studies and MSM reports. It also does not detract from those very serious attempts by doctors to treat patients. Many of whom are keeping people out of hospitals and dying.
 
Last edited:

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
8,339
The studies cannot ever be called fraud.
The highly technical chemical studies and research papers factually show in vitro, that IVM is an antiviral drug, killing off many viruses. The earliest such a laboratory analysis I have found goes back to 2001. That lab analysis was followed up with a trial in mice, which confirmed the lab results.
The exact concentration to kill SARS cov 2 is known. The IC50 value has been determined.
How IVM works in inhibiting/killing/ showing down infection by viruses is also very well documented the exact way in which it binds with outer layer proteins is known and verified by at least three different laboratory techniques.
It has been shown also in a laboratory why the current FDA approved dosages are unlikely to have any effect on treating someone infected with this virus.
The next step would be for someone to show why those treated early respond the best to IVM, which might end up being the only patients in the observational trials to respond.
To do that researchers need lots more data which in most cases was not captured, so it is not possible to draw clear clinically reliable conclusions.
Next there is work being done on how IVM could be delivered for the treatment of Covid.
From a nasal spray that would be able to kill the virus in the airways before it even takes hold, to tablet form, to intravenous injection form. This step requires money for proper development and trial. That money is not forthcoming.
So that is a very brief technical summary of what I have been able to glean from many papers and reports.
None of the above was dependent on any hyped up studies and MSM reports. It also does not detract from those very serious attempts by doctors to treat patients. Many of whom are keeping people out of hospitals and dying.

Truly amazes me how people like surface just ignore all the studies out there that DO show effectiveness against SARS-COV-2 and just spout utter nonsense about how it is ineffective based on one faulty study. It's like people are so dumbed down and only believe a narrative they think is true based on nothing but hearsay.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,581
Truly amazes me how people like surface just ignore all the studies out there that DO show effectiveness against SARS-COV-2 and just spout utter nonsense about how it is ineffective based on one faulty study. It's like people are so dumbed down and only believe a narrative they think is true based on nothing but hearsay.
Give me a list of 10 RCT, peer reviewed studies that "DO" show effectiveness against COVID.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,594
Give me a list of 10 RCT, peer reviewed studies that "DO" show effectiveness against COVID.
Another stupid question being asked just to try and embarrass and ridicule anyone that responds.
If you are not interested in the broader topic of finding a evaluating existing drugs for the treatment of Covid or any other ailment (the repurposing of existing drugs), then just stop commenting.
Your continued involvement is obviously bad for you. And your contributions to this debate have zero value. There is no ROI for you, so why continue?
Just go away!
 
Top