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

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
More BS! There is nothing clear about the studies. At worst there is neither for or against evidence. A worthless report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

alanB

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
567
I am myself willing to accept a dual treatment system..... however I have no faith that any of the current vaccines are safe long term.

Also this demand to vaccinate everyone so that the pandemic can end..... makes no sense unless vaccines actually top transmission.... which they largely don't. And the pervasiveness of this obvious BS makes me suspicious.

There is the threat of of your immune system being either permanently or semi-permanently suppressed by the mRNA vaccines specifically and the requirement for annual booster shots which also entrenches my suspicions that the vaccine itself is not necessarily what this is about..... but rather the passports linked to what eventually will be a global citizens DB where you will reconfirm your details with every shot... the shots themselves essentially being firmware updates.

And then there is the threat that these boosters shots won't actually work the way they are intended to.... which has NO long term studies behind them and no intention of doing any before implementation. The biggest threat here is humans once again screwing things up only this time on a global scale.

As if Radium, Asbestos and Lead was not proof of where massive blindly novel adoptions can lead.
Ja agree completely.

I'll just stick to what an actual real doctor, whom I trust, tells me. And even doctors are not infallible, and I know that, but I refuse to be stampeded into this strange hysterical agenda by the media - who I have ZERO trust and or respect for.

IMO the media and politicians should butt out, and everyone, should stop trying to make sense of all the probably deliberately conflicting news (which often get's "corrected" six months after it was widely broadcast as fact), people should go to their doctor for treatment and advice, as we always did, and should do going forward.

If you don't like your doctor, find another.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
54,362
Research shows Ivermectin has no significant effect on COVID - professor


As the third wave of coronavirus infections continues to batter South Africa and many wait for their vaccination against severe illness caused by the virus, Ivermectin is rapidly growing in popularity as a COVID-19 cure or prevention.
The drug - referred to as “COVID pills” - can be bought from illicit sources for about R40 a dose.

But local medical experts have stressed there is still no evidence to support claims that it is a miracle cure and say more studies must be carried out to probe its clinical benefits in the treatment of COVID-19.

Stellenbosch University’s Professor Helmuth Reuter explained why Ivermectin’s popularity has grown so much.
"People are desperate because we've had these waves of and if you look at the South African Medical Research Council data of excess deaths between May and 17 July 2021, there've been more than 200,000 people who have died and we believe that at least 90% of those excess deaths are also COVID related."

Around 335 COVID-19 patients so far, through their doctors, are authorised to use Ivermectin to treat the virus through the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority section 21 Controlled Compassionate Use Programme.
Although the drug is commonly used to treat parasitic infections in animals, many people are looking to it in the hopes that it can reduce the risk of hospitalisation and build up their immune systems to prevent COVID-19.
But, Reuter said that research did not support this.

"The research shows clearly that it does not have any significant effect on mild disease, moderate disease or severe disease and that it does not prevent deaths or play a role in preventing active disease."

Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine’s Professor Nombulelo Magula told Eyewitness News the absence of evidence was fuelling conspiracy theories.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
The 2nd tweet in the thread ... hence why I said, read the thread.

Within that tweet is a link to download the study for yourself.


Title -

Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Ivermectin + Iota Carrageenan in the Prophylaxis against COVID-19 in Health
Personnel
Thanks very useful link. And the research is very convincing.

Now for some truly ironical facts:

The current use of IVM (non-tablet form, liquids with no added compounds typically available for treating parasites in animals) is being used in two ways in SA.

1. As a compound to rub on the skin (considered a more lasting way to provided prophylactic protection when compared to tablet form)
2. As a compound at the right dosages under the tongue and held there for as long as possible to aid absorption by the body.

Now compare that with the recommendations in this study. That is if you dare .......
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
17,989
Now compare that with the recommendations in this study. That is if you dare .......
Good point... if you design a study counter to what is actually accepted to work and then claim your study proves something does not work..... then you are basically pigeon strutting.
 

vigras rojara

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
3,835
Perhaps this has been answered here before, but has Ivermectin been punted previously as a miracle cure for any other viruses?

I mean we know it's good for protecting pigs from parasites, but where did this Covid treatment theory originate?
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
8,430
Perhaps this has been answered here before, but has Ivermectin been punted previously as a miracle cure for any other viruses?

I mean we know it's good for protecting pigs from parasites, but where did this Covid treatment theory originate?

This has been repeated many many times but basically IVM binds to the viruses spike protein thereby preventing it from binding to the cell and so it cannot replicate.
 

vigras rojara

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
3,835
This has been repeated many many times but basically IVM binds to the viruses spike protein thereby preventing it from binding to the cell and so it cannot replicate.
Yes I've read that. I was asking if it had been punted as a treatment for any other viruses pre-Covid.

If not, how did someone suddenly decide that a parasite treatment was worth a punt?
 

semaphore

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
13,302
https://www.timeslive.co.za/politic...o-take-covid-19-vaccine-says-cyril-ramaphosa/

From February:

"President Cyril Ramaphosa on Monday was emphatic that there will be no repercussions for those who choose not to take the Covid-19 vaccine — even while he encouraged everyone to do so when it was their turn to get their shot.

Addressing the country during his latest “family meeting”, Ramaphosa said: “Nobody will be forced to take this vaccine. Nobody will be forbidden from travelling, from enrolling at school, or from taking part in any public activity if they have not been vaccinated. Nobody will be given this vaccine against their will, nor will the vaccine be administered in secret.”

-
Or will this be another broken promise?
Yeah he’s gonna round you up like squealing pigs and jab you, I can’t wait.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,595
Thanks very useful link. And the research is very convincing.

Now for some truly ironical facts:

The current use of IVM (non-tablet form, liquids with no added compounds typically available for treating parasites in animals) is being used in two ways in SA.

1. As a compound to rub on the skin (considered a more lasting way to provided prophylactic protection when compared to tablet form)
2. As a compound at the right dosages under the tongue and held there for as long as possible to aid absorption by the body.

Now compare that with the recommendations in this study. That is if you dare .......

Very convincing?

How?

What specifically was convincing from that study for you?

The fact that it was accepted and published within 7 days, to a journal that has only published 7 papers to date?

Or the way they failed to mention the methodology with which individuals who received IVM were selected?

Or how Table 1, has the incorrect totals, corresponding to the data in the table?

And the mis-match in results from pre-registration, to the results presented in this trial (72 women in pre-reg, to 51 in Table 1 and the change in median age)?

What about the contradiction in the results to the graph in figure 1? Results showed 120/130 tested positive, but graphs show 105/110.

Care to show how this data convinced you?

Or comment on the glowing errors, that if they were not manipulated, indicate gross incompetence?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
Very convincing?
Looking at the conclusions drawn and the ummary
How?

What specifically was convincing from that study for you?

The fact that it was accepted and published within 7 days, to a journal that has only published 7 papers to date?
So what!
Or the way they failed to mention the methodology with which individuals who received IVM were selected?
really? the report I read detailed their selection method pretty well
Or how Table 1, has the incorrect totals, corresponding to the data in the table?
There is something wrong with your maths. The table is accurate although I might have made a small error entering the data to my calculator, close enough anyway for me to say BS to your statement
And the mis-match in results from pre-registration, to the results presented in this trial (72 women in pre-reg, to 51 in Table 1 and the change in median age)?
Enough. I think you need to check all your maths because I don't think for one minute your attempt at data validation was done properly. I think you failed to READ the whole study and then started to add up numbers and jump to all sorts of conclusions without YOU verifying YOUR facts.


 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
Perhaps this has been answered here before, but has Ivermectin been punted previously as a miracle cure for any other viruses?

I mean we know it's good for protecting pigs from parasites, but where did this Covid treatment theory originate?
There are no miracle cures! None nada, nothing, not of IVM or any other drug in existence.
And there is a string of virus-related diseases that IVM has been shown to be effective against , but unfortunately, very few ( maybe NONE) have been recognised by the medical fraternity.

The first study I have found goes all the way back to 2001.

And NO IVM was FIRST used to treat parasitic disease in HUMANS BEFORE IT WAS EVER tried on animals.
 

vigras rojara

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
3,835
There are no miracle cures! None nada, nothing, not of IVM or any other drug in existence.
And there is a string of virus-related diseases that IVM has been shown to be effective against , but unfortunately, very few ( maybe NONE) have been recognised by the medical fraternity.

The first study I have found goes all the way back to 2001.

And NO IVM was FIRST used to treat parasitic disease in HUMANS BEFORE IT WAS EVER tried on animals.
Thanks Geoff.

I just found it rather odd that we never seem to hear about it during a typical flu season etc.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,595
Looking at the conclusions drawn and the ummary



So what!

really? the report I read detailed their selection method pretty well

There is something wrong with your maths. The table is accurate although I might have made a small error entering the data to my calculator, close enough anyway for me to say BS to your statement

Enough. I think you need to check all your maths because I don't think for one minute your attempt at data validation was done properly. I think you failed to READ the whole study and then started to add up numbers and jump to all sorts of conclusions without YOU verifying YOUR facts.
If the data that supports a summary is incorrect, how can the summary be correct?

That is why you need to check the data.

Firstly as it purports to be randomised, they need to detail this explicitly. How do we know what the pre-existing conditions are? No information on potential confounders at all. Can you detail what they were, if I apparently missed them?

Both total in the columns in the table were wrong. Just plugged them into excel.

What happened to the pre-registration numbers?

It is impossible for a median age to drop from 42 to 40.

So why do you gloss over the inconsistencies in the data?

How do you know whether the conclusions drawn are accurate based on the flaws in the data?

Do you have the required qualifications, knowledge and experience to evaluate this errors and dismiss them?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
Thanks Geoff.

I just found it rather odd that we never seem to hear about it during a typical flu season etc.
It has also been trialled against flu. BUT, by then there were all these rather pointless vaccines already being administered ..... enough said. The World loses interest in most treatments the moment a vaccine is released.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
If the data that supports a summary is incorrect, how can the summary be correct?

That is why you need to check the data.

Firstly as it purports to be randomised, they need to detail this explicitly. How do we know what the pre-existing conditions are? No information on potential confounders at all. Can you detail what they were, if I apparently missed them?

Both total in the columns in the table were wrong. Just plugged them into excel.

What happened to the pre-registration numbers?

It is impossible for a median age to drop from 42 to 40.

So why do you gloss over the inconsistencies in the data?

How do you know whether the conclusions drawn are accurate based on the flaws in the data?

Do you have the required qualifications, knowledge and experience to evaluate this errors and dismiss them?
I am not even going to try and show you where you are going wrong with your attempt at data validation. Because you have failed the first test of comprehension.

And go head, pump all that data into your SS, it does NOT make their work any less valid.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,595
I am not even going to try and show you where you are going wrong with your attempt at data validation. Because you have failed the first test of comprehension.

And go head, pump all that data into your SS, it does NOT make their work any less valid.
The math in the table is wrong. It is a fundamentally simple thing to demonstrate and no amount of gas-lighting from you can change this.

The detail on the confounders in the methodology of selection is absent.

The inconsistencies between pre-reg to trial are not explained. It begs the question as to what data they then used for the conclusions?

How clear can that be?

I think the only reason you are not dealing with the problems with the data, is because you either don't understand the implications of it, or you are being purposefully obtuse with it.

The fact that you are not getting this, shows you are demonstrating a master class in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
Top