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

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,290
Merck, one of the big bad "Big Pharma" companies is skeptical about the benefit of Ivermectin, and they'd stand to benefit a lot if it was proven to be effective.
No, they don't. It goes against their own efforts to come up with an antiviral drug for use in the treatment of Covid 19.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,290
I have looked at the vaccine trial studies.

Their math checks out.
Like you did in that other study? Well, then there goes that reason. Your maths skills are certainly not up to it.
They have been peer reviewed.
Sure they have, sometimes by the same people and experts who have peer-reviewed the IVM studies. Yet the vaccine results are accepted and the IVM ones are not? Great justification.
They have been cited hundreds of times.
Means nothing. This citing BS is very much overused a justification for validating anything.
They have been reviewed by medical regulators of almost every country in the world.
So what! That is their job. And besides, they are under pressure to complete that task. Just look at the pressure being applied to SAHPRA to approve the Russian, Chinese and Cuban saltwater. Do you believe for one moment that will make those vaccines acceptable to many?
Expert upon expert have reviewed them.
The experts you choose to accept. And as above, sometimes the same ones that have validated the IVM studies. So what exactly are you using as your personal validation criteria? Ah Joe Soap agrees with me and he is an expert, therefore I take his word for it. --- Great logic. Deferring to Authority Fallacy at its most dangerous.
Have you?
Yes, I have. And yes mostly I believe the vaccines have been thoroughly reviewed. What none of us knows is what the "experts" have missed and what might show up in the future. They have been wrong quite a few times in the past with vaccine approvals so that is no guarantee either.
The right way to treat this all is with an open mind.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,385
Subversion. We keep showing the evidence it is effective.

Merck, one of the big bad "Big Pharma" companies is skeptical about the benefit of Ivermectin, and they'd stand to benefit a lot if it was proven to be effective.
No they don't. They aren't the only manufacturer of IVM as we keep explaining. And they have a new drug costing $3000 against Covid so have a conflict of interest.

I have looked at the vaccine trial studies.

Their math checks out.

They have been peer reviewed.

They have been cited hundreds of times.

They have been reviewed by medical regulators of almost every country in the world.

Expert upon expert have reviewed them.

Have you?
I haven't seen the peer review. Citations by themselves don't mean anything.

Math is only one problem and can't save a poorly set up trial designed to achieve a specific result.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,385
No...not at all. I prefer qualifications. It means someone has studied something and specialised in it.
Wasn't it you who said you don't need to have studied something to be qualified? That air of grandeur is disgusting.
I've ALWAYS said IVM needs to be studied further, but if it had the chance of working and was proven as such, then it would be cheap and effective. Geoff called me a heretic because of that. Go and read on the other LOOOOONG IVM thread. You'll see all of that.
And there's been plenty of people with qualifications you dismiss because they don't fall on your side of the fence.
Where have I said that? What I said was not everything requires qualifications. You do not need a degree to point out basic flaws with a study set up to achieve the desired effect.
You keep repeating that yet every time such further study is done you ignore it and go meh.
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,078
And there's been plenty of people with qualifications you dismiss because they don't fall on your side of the fence.
Where have I said that? What I said was not everything requires qualifications. You do not need a degree to point out basic flaws with a study set up to achieve the desired effect.
You keep repeating that yet every time such further study is done you ignore it and go meh.
Nope, not at all. Show me one? A first aid course doesn't count. I mean proper qualifications. I have not dismissed any of these studies at all. What I did do months ago was to simply say more studies were needed and got shot down by a bunch of armchair experts.
Since then I have called you lot out for your "qualifications" and "expert opinions" where it's nothing more than amateur researching wrapped up in the fallacy you're as qualified as a medical person.
I don't ignore the studies and haven't commented on them. I comment on you lot.

Pop quiz: What do YOU do if more and more studies start proving that IVM isn't the silver bullet here? I've only seen you lot argue about the topic heading whilst saying it's all a load of crap these studies prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,078
Anyways, I will sit back now and watch a bunch of amateurs try prove to a bunch of anonymous forumites they know what they're talking about. Especially funny when they argue with people who clearly have more medical experience.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,101
Like you did in that other study? Well, then there goes that reason. Your maths skills are certainly not up to it.

Sure they have, sometimes by the same people and experts who have peer-reviewed the IVM studies. Yet the vaccine results are accepted and the IVM ones are not? Great justification.

Means nothing. This citing BS is very much overused a justification for validating anything.

So what! That is their job. And besides, they are under pressure to complete that task. Just look at the pressure being applied to SAHPRA to approve the Russian, Chinese and Cuban saltwater. Do you believe for one moment that will make those vaccines acceptable to many?

The experts you choose to accept. And as above, sometimes the same ones that have validated the IVM studies. So what exactly are you using as your personal validation criteria? Ah Joe Soap agrees with me and he is an expert, therefore I take his word for it. --- Great logic. Deferring to Authority Fallacy at its most dangerous.

Yes, I have. And yes mostly I believe the vaccines have been thoroughly reviewed. What none of us knows is what the "experts" have missed and what might show up in the future. They have been wrong quite a few times in the past with vaccine approvals so that is no guarantee either.
The right way to treat this all is with an open mind.
Dude, you cannot even add up a series of numbers on a table and see that the total in the IVM study I cited was wrong.

So please enlighten me about your math skills, if basic arithmetic is beyond you?
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,101
Subversion. We keep showing the evidence it is effective.


No they don't. They aren't the only manufacturer of IVM as we keep explaining. And they have a new drug costing $3000 against Covid so have a conflict of interest.


I haven't seen the peer review. Citations by themselves don't mean anything.

Math is only one problem and can't save a poorly set up trial designed to achieve a specific result.
Of course you haven't seen the peer reviews.

It is evidence you want to exclude from your narrative.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
17,259
And there's been plenty of people with qualifications you dismiss because they don't fall on your side of the fence.
Where have I said that? What I said was not everything requires qualifications. You do not need a degree to point out basic flaws with a study set up to achieve the desired effect.
You keep repeating that yet every time such further study is done you ignore it and go meh.
He basically exclusively mocks people for not agreeing with him.... that's all he does. He never actually add's anything of substance and still believes himself to be the superior party.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,290
Dude, you cannot even add up a series of numbers on a table and see that the total in the IVM study I cited was wrong.

So please enlighten me about your math skills, if basic arithmetic is beyond you?
List the exact error and I will verify if you are right.
There are 3 errors in the report dealing with numbers but ALL the errors are minor and have ZERO impact on the final answer and outcome. All 3 are nothing more than editorial anyway. Probably transcribing .
The fuss you make about BS in a desperate attempt to prove the results wrong is nothing short of pathetic.
In fact I contacted the authors and they acknowledged the errors and might have updated that table already.
Your problem is you have a preconceived idea that it is your job to ridicule all and every paper dealing with IVM. The fact is your view and probably mine has zero impact on what the authors think anyway.
 
Last edited:

Stonemason

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
621
The Critical Care Society of South Africa and the South African Society of Anaesthesiologists this morning warned people not to use IVM against Covid.

In an interview on RSG this morning they said that most people who land up in ICU tried using IVM and many die because IVM suppresses initial symptoms which means patients seek help when it is already too late.

In the interview the CCSSA said many patients also present with liver damage which can not be directly attributed to the Covid infection.

You can listen to a podcast here: https://www.rsg.co.za/rsg/potgooi/?starts_with=m (sorry, there is no direct link but you can find it here)
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,101
List the exact error and I will verify if you are right.
There are 3 errors in the report dealing with numbers but ALL the errors are minor and have ZERO impact on the final answer and outcome. All 3 are nothing more than editorial anyway. Probably transcribing .
The fuss you make about BS in a desperate attempt to prove the results wrong are nothing short of pathetic.
I did.

Table 1 of that trial.

Add the numbers in the two columns.

Then look at the inconsistencies in the numbers at pre-registration and at trial.

Why are the graphs different to results in Figure 1?

Please detail your qualifications, knowledge and experience that allows you to qualify your statement that the errors, have "Zero" impact on the conclusions? Show your working.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,290
Instead of all this noise about being able to add up stuff (which BTW was a simple mental exercise) did not even need a SS to resolve.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,290
What you vshould be doing is thinking about the idea that PPE plus nasal spray protection is an excellent way of combatting virus infections that "break through" the masks. Instead you still FAIL dismally at reading the report on the trial!
Maybe start reading it again one word at a time, from the top. Use a dictionary to verify that you are able to comprehend anything in the report.
Hint:
Start by reading the abstract, intro and the conclusions. Then read the headings of each section. Maybe after you do that, you will pick up the glaringly obvious fact that has so confused you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,290
I did.

Table 1 of that trial.

Add the numbers in the two columns.

Then look at the inconsistencies in the numbers at pre-registration and at trial.

Why are the graphs different to results in Figure 1?

Please detail your qualifications, knowledge and experience that allows you to qualify your statement that the errors, have "Zero" impact on the conclusions? Show your working.
Are you so desperate to be exposed on a public forum?
And over a simple comprehension issue and inability to add up a column of numbers?
So what is the addition error in table 1?
You used a SS to check it so what is your answer? I will give you the error if you show it since I used mental arithmetic to add it up after you made such a fuss.
 

pouroverguy

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,142
The Critical Care Society of South Africa and the South African Society of Anaesthesiologists this morning warned people not to use IVM against Covid.

In an interview on RSG this morning they said that most people who land up in ICU tried using IVM and many die because IVM suppresses initial symptoms which means patients seek help when it is already too late.

In the interview the CCSSA said many patients also present with liver damage which can not be directly attributed to the Covid infection.

You can listen to a podcast here: https://www.rsg.co.za/rsg/potgooi/?starts_with=m (sorry, there is no direct link but you can find it here)

Eh but what could these people know. A body of some of the countries finest doctors, specialized in treating severe illness. They currently treat many people who've been using Ivermectin. They're all equally clueless. Absolutely every one of them has no formal training in analyzing evidence and practicing evidence based medicine.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,290
The Critical Care Society of South Africa and the South African Society of Anaesthesiologists this morning warned people not to use IVM against Covid.

In an interview on RSG this morning they said that most people who land up in ICU tried using IVM and many die because IVM suppresses initial symptoms which means patients seek help when it is already too late.

In the interview the CCSSA said many patients also present with liver damage which can not be directly attributed to the Covid infection.

You can listen to a podcast here: https://www.rsg.co.za/rsg/potgooi/?starts_with=m (sorry, there is no direct link but you can find it here)
So what did the interview highlight?
Any clarity on the type of IVM taken?
Exactly what was the nature of the liver damage?
How did they attribute it to IVM and not some other cause?
Did those taking IVM take it under the guidance of a doctor, or were they self medicating?
Were they taking it as a prophylactic and for how long?
Or did they start taking it only when already sick?
Lots of really important questions to answer.
 
Top