New large ivermectin trial shows no benefit against Covid

[KSera]

I don’t know where any of the old ivermectin threads went, and thought a new one might help people who are curious to see it. A new study on the use of ivermectin to treat people with Covid right after they test positive has been released for publication (not just a pre-print) and unfortunately, though unsurprisingly, it found no benefit.

Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

“The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo.”

[Catwoman]

Not exactly a surprise, but it's good to have more data that demonstrates its lack of efficacy.

[wathe]

I'm looking forward to seeing the published study.  

(Pre-releasing findings bothers me.  As does journalism that doesn't link to the study quoted. McMaster U is famous for evidence-based medicine and high quality research, so it is overwhelmingly likely that the quality of this study is high.  But I want to see it for myself.)

[KSera]

4 minutes ago, wathe said:

I'm looking forward to seeing the published study.  

(Pre-releasing findings bothers me.  As does journalism that doesn't link to the study quoted. McMaster U is famous for evidence-based medicine and high quality research, so it is overwhelmingly likely that the quality of this study is high.  But I want to see it for myself.)

I totally hear you on that. This is at least a better presentation of it than the first one I came across, which had the headline something along the lines of, “Horse dewormer not effective against Covid.” It hurts credibility to be intellectually dishonest like that, and it’s certainly not necessary. It’s enough just to say ivermectin or call it an anti-parasitic.

[Guest]

I’m glad there is a quality study but I am certain some people will either not hear about it or they will dismiss it. 

[Lady Florida.]

No surprise to me but sadly there are people uninterested in studies and facts. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

20 hours ago, KSera said:

I totally hear you on that. This is at least a better presentation of it than the first one I came across, which had the headline something along the lines of, “Horse dewormer not effective against Covid.” It hurts credibility to be intellectually dishonest like that, and it’s certainly not necessary. It’s enough just to say ivermectin or call it an anti-parasitic.

At this point I understand the strong feelings behind the loaded headline. Because no studies or scientific explanations have worked so far, so perhaps shock value might. (Though it won’t, and neither will the study, I am afraid. )

[Corraleno]

6 hours ago, Quill said:

I’m glad there is a quality study but I am certain some people will either not hear about it or they will dismiss it. 

The comments on that article are exactly as expected: The study was funded by Gates/Fauci/Soros! They only gave it to high risk people, you need to give it to young healthy people with no risk factors, then it works perfectly! The study was purposely designed to fail because they didn't include zinc/C/quercetin/antibiotics/steroids/MABs/etc and everyone knows it only works if it's combined with a dozen other things! India gives it out for free and hardly anyone dies there! 

[Lisa]

Not surprised. Sadly some people will still take it for covid and refuse the vaccine.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The comments on that article are exactly as expected: The study was funded by Gates/Fauci/Soros! They only gave it to high risk people, you need to give it to young healthy people with no risk factors, then it works perfectly! The study was purposely designed to fail because they didn't include zinc/C/quercetin/antibiotics/steroids/MABs/etc and everyone knows it only works if it's combined with a dozen other things! India gives it out for free and hardly anyone dies there! 

Literally all the things I saw in the past, including on friend whose husband was at death’s door in hospital for weeks. (He survived, but it was a close thing.) This person was fussing bc the hospital wouldn’t follow the iv/c/Vit D/whatever protocol. Eventually I blocked her on SM because I couldn’t stand it any more. Evidentially he survived tho. 

[DawnM]

Fake news!   Liberal left propaganda!~.  #WhatTheyWANTYouToBelieve

🤣

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Happy2BaMom]

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 India gives it out for free and hardly anyone dies there! 

Yet they continue to ignore that India gave up using ivermectin after multiple studies showed it (& HCQ) did nothing.

But, whatever. Very few people are actually looking for evidence.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[Guest]

4 hours ago, DawnM said:

Fake news!   Liberal left propaganda!~.  #WhatTheyWANTYouToBelieve

🤣

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Get your story straight; it’s Big Pharma that’s the enemy, here. Raking in billions on pharmacological remedies when a simple trip to Tractor Supply will do the trick. 

[Frances]

And people are still blaming medical professionals for not using it.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/18/oregon-truck-convoy-occupy-gridlock-salem-covid-19-mandates/65345570007/

[DawnM]

46 minutes ago, Quill said:

Get your story straight; it’s Big Pharma that’s the enemy, here. Raking in billions on pharmacological remedies when a simple trip to Tractor Supply will do the trick. 

Silly me.

[Drama Llama]

8 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Yet they continue to ignore that India gave up using ivermectin after multiple studies showed it (& HCQ) did nothing.

But, whatever. Very few people are actually looking for evidence.

Also ignoring the fact that people died in India.  

[Corraleno]

Based on excess death figures, it's estimated that more than 5 million people died of covid in India. Citing India as proof that ivermectin works is completely insane. 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm5154

Edited March 20, 2022 by Corraleno
add link

[Lisa]

On 3/19/2022 at 3:03 PM, Happy2BaMom said:

Yet they continue to ignore that India gave up using ivermectin after multiple studies showed it (& HCQ) did nothing.

But, whatever. Very few people are actually looking for evidence.

Yes, lets not forget HCQ. Some still think its the miracle cure for covid, yet it caused heart disease in some people.

[Ting Tang]

You can't reach through to the people who believe in it.  I am married to one.  I'm just going to hope personally I get my next booster before the next big wave. I hate being sick! lol

 

 

[PeterPan]

On 3/19/2022 at 12:33 PM, Corraleno said:

The study was purposely designed to fail

It was totally obvious what the outcome would be as they only gave it *3 days*. No doctor using ivm in the US is using it *3 days*. The inflammation stage of covid starts around days 5-6, so these people weren't even being given the med when they needed it. 

But imagine that, a WSJ propaganda story and people not thinking critically or even bothering to read what it says. 3 days, a total joke. The worst part is, people were harmed by not having access to the proper treatment course. 

And anecodtally (not that anyone cares), I took IVM *one* day when I got omicron. I knew I was likely not to do well with covid and was undecided how to handle it. The studies show that taking multiple doses reduces antibody production, meaning I would have been susceptible AGAIN. By taking it *one* day in only one dose at the very beginning, I got about a 50% reduction in symptoms and had a seemingly mild case for the first 4-5 days. When the inflammation stage set in around days 5-6, I went downhill quickly. I ended up on many meds (prednisone, antibiotics, IVM, h2 blockers, fluvox, etc.) and still do not completely have my brain function back. Omicron was worse than the inflammation from the covid vaccines but those also were horrible for me. 

So although anecodotes are not proof, I can tell you that there's NO WAY that "3 days" of IVM is POSSIBLY adequate to do even what it can do. I'm not as high risk as those patients were and I ended up taking multiple rounds (a week each) of very high doses along with all the other meds. And they put me on a continued weekly low dose which I keep forgetting to take. I probably need to do another round of a week to see if we can clear up some of my remaining brain issues.

I didn't know Soros was funding this, but it's pretty obvious someone with an agenda was because no one using it in the US is doing a paltry 3 days. There is ZERO chance that could possibly be enough to do what it can do. All that study showed is that 3 days does not prevent hospitalization.

Edited March 21, 2022 by PeterPan

[PeterPan]

3 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

You can't reach through to the people who believe in it.

That's true. You can't reach through to people who believe what they are told. All that study demonstrates is that 3 days of ivermectin does not prevent hospitalization in high risk people. Since that's not how IVM is actually used, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude. On the other hand, I took the vaccines, developed long covid symptoms from them, and got dramatic improvement with IVM. It was logical to use it again when I got omicron.

If you get sick enough, you'll take whatever can work and be thankful. It seems like it's the lucky people who *didn't* get sick from the vaccines and get long covid who have the luxury of telling others what doesn't work.

[Corraleno]

23 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I didn't know Soros was funding this, but it's pretty obvious someone with an agenda was ...

Soros did NOT actually fund this study, OMG <smdh>

[wathe]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

 

I didn't know Soros was funding this, but it's pretty obvious someone with an agenda was because no one using it in the US is doing a paltry 3 days. There is ZERO chance that could possibly be enough to do what it can do. All that study showed is that 3 days does not prevent hospitalization.

TOGETHER trial sponsors and funding

McMaster University is super serious about evidence-based medicine and research ethics.  The probability that this is a high quality trial is extremely high.  There will have been serious attention given to avoiding bias.  I trained at McMaster (in part).  We weren't allowed Pharma sponsored anything.  (This was at a time when Pharma-sponsored rounds and lunch'n'learns and social events were a thing at most medical schools.  But not at Mac. Because Mac is serious about EBM and ethics)

ETA:  Gordon Guyatt is an evidence-based medicine giant. He does not suffer nonsense.  There will be no shenanigans in any trial he is co-leading.  

Edited March 21, 2022 by wathe

[wathe]

Adding that this is the same group that published on fluvoxamine, and their paper (along with another group's) resulted in fluvoxamine being included in my province's covid treatment guidelines

Their goal (agenda!) really is "to identify new potential uses of existing medications, which can be re-purposed to prevent COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality".  

To find out what really works, and what doesn't.  From a bunch of old, cheap drugs.  No big profit motivation, no big Pharma agenda.  This is real science.  Socially responsible medical research.

[PeterPan]

49 minutes ago, wathe said:

Socially responsible medical research.

So they give 3 days of a drug that other docs would have used for multiple weeks (to say nothing of what the doses were or that the protocols being used are combinations) and then tell people to draw conclusions.

Fine, whatever. That's clearly socially responsible. If they're going to claim to give the meds, they could have at least used a protocol that would have had SOME chance of helping at all. A mere 3 days would not be enough. This is not some knockout monoclonal antibodies thing. It's an antiviral that hits some of the inflammation and you're fighting a virus with proteins that stick around a very LONG TIME. Even as someone who got great benefit from ivermectin I can't possibly see it doing what needed to be done with those kind of restrictions.

[wathe]

400mcg/kg/day for 3 days (trial in question) isn't so far from 400-600mcg/kg/day for 5 days (FLCCC), I don't think

Edited March 21, 2022 by wathe

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, PeterPan said:

So they give 3 days of a drug that other docs would have used for multiple weeks (to say nothing of what the doses were or that the protocols being used are combinations) and then tell people to draw conclusions.

Fine, whatever. That's clearly socially responsible. If they're going to claim to give the meds, they could have at least used a protocol that would have had SOME chance of helping at all. A mere 3 days would not be enough. This is not some knockout monoclonal antibodies thing. It's an antiviral that hits some of the inflammation and you're fighting a virus with proteins that stick around a very LONG TIME. Even as someone who got great benefit from ivermectin I can't possibly see it doing what needed to be done with those kind of restrictions.

But the original thing they were testing was if giving it early would prevent being hospitalized, not if giving it long term prevented long Covid or whatever.  Earlier trials were criticized for not giving it early enough, or giving too much. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by ktgrok

[Ting Tang]

On 3/20/2022 at 9:05 PM, PeterPan said:

That's true. You can't reach through to people who believe what they are told. All that study demonstrates is that 3 days of ivermectin does not prevent hospitalization in high risk people. Since that's not how IVM is actually used, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude. On the other hand, I took the vaccines, developed long covid symptoms from them, and got dramatic improvement with IVM. It was logical to use it again when I got omicron.

If you get sick enough, you'll take whatever can work and be thankful. It seems like it's the lucky people who *didn't* get sick from the vaccines and get long covid who have the luxury of telling others what doesn't work.

I think that is the worry, that people self-prescribe it and then don't get proper treatment until it is possibly too late.  My husband has read countless stories of people who took it and were on the mend quickly.  And they took the kind produced for animals.  But he's also read about a guy who got bad Covid and is now tugging an oxygen tank around.  I understand being so skeptical of everything--especially when science continues to evolve and what may have once been true is not true anymore.  

Another thing I notice is a study will come out, and different sources will interpret it differently.  I can try to read through abstracts, but I am not a scientist, so a lot of it is just over my head if I even attempt to dig deeper.  

If the human IVM form is "safe," I guess I don't see the harm in taking it as long as your medical history shows it is okay.  I refuse to take something meant for animals or try to determine proper dosages.

 

[PeterPan]

41 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Another thing I notice is a study will come out, and different sources will interpret it differently.  I can try to read through abstracts, but I am not a scientist, so a lot of it is just over my head if I even attempt to dig deeper.  

If the human IVM form is "safe," I guess I don't see the harm in taking it as long as your medical history shows it is okay.  I refuse to take something meant for animals or try to determine proper dosages.

For this particular study, I googled to find reports of it that weren't behind paywalls and found sources were highlighting the 3 days of treatment. So it was out there but the significance was not highlighted. We have *journalists* deciding our medical care and policies now by telling people what to think. They don't bother to be informed or to tell people what the usual course of treatment is. Nuts, they haven't been telling you that this is a drug widely used for people as well as animals (just like many other drugs). My IVM was all done as prescriptions, written by a doctor, filled by a pharmacy. There is so much complete poppycock out there right now. It's why I pipe up, even though it's like open season on birds here, because maybe one person at a time could actually learn something. 

And no, they never say "safe" about any med. They'll say things like "generally recognized as safe" = GRAS, but "safe" is a legal problem. Nobody is saying a particular med is completely without risk. That's why you have a doctor write the scrips and supervise these things, to weigh risks and benefits and provide follow-up. And the question is not whether there's harm. If I take an SSRI, there can be harm. Lots of things have harm and side effects. I had a medical condition and needed a treatment, and IVM was an appropriate choice in my treatment protocol. It's highly effective when given the way doctors in the US are doing it. I feel bad for patients in Brazil being given substandard care for this study. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by PeterPan

[PeterPan]

On 3/21/2022 at 1:43 AM, wathe said:

400mcg/kg/day for 3 days (trial in question) isn't so far from 400-600mcg/kg/day for 5 days (FLCCC), I don't think

I'm not sure how to do all the conversions on that. https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover-protocol/  All the protocols I've had done on me were for a week at a time, repeated as needed. That was both with active infection and after the vaccines. It says long covid on this particular page, so I'm not sure what page you're reading from.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/  I see a post exposure prevention dose of .4mg/kg repeated after 48 hours, but that's not active infection.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol/  Ah ha, here it says for hospitalized, as part of a larger protocol, .6mg/kg for 5 days OR UNTIL RECOVERED.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FLCCC-Alliance-I-RECOVER-Management-Protocol-for-Long-Haul-COVID-19-Syndrome.pdf  And then of course the dosing I was treated with, .2mg/kg for a week, which we repeated.

So those are a wide range. Like I said, I don't see the Brazil protocol of 3 days, even at whatever dose they were using, as replicating the american protocols. This is not like Tamiflu where you take one pill (which I've done, it's AMAZING) and feel it knocking it out. This protein from the virus hangs in your system a very long time. I don't know what the current data is saying, but I thought I heard long numbers. It's completely illogical to think that something as honestly mild as ivermectin would possibly be "knockout" for the covid. It's knock down, punching it, but not knock out. And since you're trying to use both it's antiviral properties AND it's anti-inflammatory abilities, it's not too much of a stretch to say you need to be taking the med when the inflammation stage of covid kicks in to have it help with the inflammation.

IVM is not the Tamiflu of flu and it's not monoclonal antibodies or something where it's just wow overnight. And I guess I wasn't expecting it to be so I could be thankful for exactly what it is. That stinkin vaccine messed me up and the IVM turned the inflammation around. The omicron was horrible and I'm STILL taking meds for that, STILL not over everything. I will use EVERY SINGLE TOOL I have to beat the biological warfare that rot in hell Fauci funded.

Edited March 22, 2022 by PeterPan

[KSera]

51 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

 They don't bother to be informed or to tell people what the usual course of treatment is. Nuts, they haven't been telling you that this is a drug widely used for people as well as animals (just like many other drugs). My IVM was all done as prescriptions, written by a doctor, filled by a pharmacy. There is so much complete poppycock out there right now. It's why I pipe up, even though it's like open season on birds here, because maybe one person at a time could actually learn something.

Have you read the body of research on IVM out there? The "usual course of treatment" does not include using ivermectin for covid (except when people have parasites at the same time, which does not typically apply in the US). This is simply one (well done) study. It backs up the general consensus from the rest of the research, which is that ivermectin is not a useful treatment for covid. The fact that you feel like it helped you doesn't mean that it had anything to do with it. That is why we do research studies.

47 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I will use EVERY SINGLE TOOL I have to beat the biological warfare that rot in hell Fauci funded.

And then I got to this and realized that responding reasonably to any of your covid posts is absurd. I mean, what on earth? "So much complete poppycock out there" is putting it mildly. Bizarre.

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

I'm not sure how to do all the conversions on that. https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover-protocol/  All the protocols I've had done on me were for a week at a time, repeated as needed. That was both with active infection and after the vaccines. It says long covid on this particular page, so I'm not sure what page you're reading from.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/  I see a post exposure prevention dose of .4mg/kg repeated after 48 hours, but that's not active infection.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol/  Ah ha, here it says for hospitalized, as part of a larger protocol, .6mg/kg for 5 days OR UNTIL RECOVERED.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FLCCC-Alliance-I-RECOVER-Management-Protocol-for-Long-Haul-COVID-19-Syndrome.pdf  And then of course the dosing I was treated with, .2mg/kg for a week, which we repeated.

So those are a wide range. Like I said, I don't see the Brazil protocol of 3 days, even at whatever dose they were using, as replicating the american protocols. This is not like Tamiflu where you take one pill (which I've done, it's AMAZING) and feel it knocking it out. This protein from the virus hangs in your system a very long time. I don't know what the current data is saying, but I thought I heard long numbers. It's completely illogical to think that something as honestly mild as ivermectin would possibly be "knockout" for the covid. It's knock down, punching it, but not knock out. And since you're trying to use both it's antiviral properties AND it's anti-inflammatory abilities, it's not too much of a stretch to say you need to be taking the med when the inflammation stage of covid kicks in to have it help with the inflammation.

IVM is not the Tamiflu of flu and it's not monoclonal antibodies or something where it's just wow overnight. And I guess I wasn't expecting it to be so I could be thankful for exactly what it is. That stinkin vaccine messed me up and the IVM turned the inflammation around. The omicron was horrible and I'm STILL taking meds for that, STILL not over everything. I will use EVERY SINGLE TOOL I have to beat the biological warfare that rot in hell Fauci funded.

Linking to the website of Pierre Kory, who was caught totally fabricating data in one of the studies that supposedly proved his "protocol" works, is irresponsible. The hospital where he claimed to get his data from issued a statement saying that his numbers were totally false, and in fact the data showed that patients on his protocol actually fared worse than those who got normal standards of care. Unfortunately, the True Believers just dismiss that as evidence that all hospitals are in collusion to hide the "truth" so they can continue to kill people and get more money from the government...

[Corraleno]

Here is the retraction notice from the journal that originally published the study from the "Covid Critical Care Alliance" group whose website was linked above:

"At the request of the Journal Editor and the Publisher, the following article has been retracted.

Kory P, Meduri GU, Iglesias J, Varon J, & Marik PE. Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19. J Intensive Care Med. 2021:36;135-156. 10.1177/0885066620973585

The article has been retracted after the journal received notice from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia (“Sentara”) raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara. Sentara’s notice included the following statements:

‘The data from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital were presented in Table 2, which lists in-hospital or 28-day mortality rates at the 2 MATH+ centers as compared to 10 published single-center and multicenter reports. The mortality rate among 191 patients at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital as of July 20, 2020 was reported as 6.1%, as compared to mortality rates reported in the literature ranging from 15.6% to 32%. The authors state that these data “provide supportive clinical evidence for the physiologic rationale and efficacy of the MATH+ treatment protocol.”‘

‘The data from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital that [are] reported in this paper are inaccurate. The paper briefly states the methods as: “Available hospital outcome data for COVID-19 patients treated at these 2 hospitals as of July 20,2020 are provided in Table 2 including comparison to the published hospital mortality rates from multiple COVID-19 publications across the United States and the world.”‘

‘We have conducted a careful review of our data for patients with COVID-19 from March 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020, which shows that among the 191 patients referenced in Table 2 that the mortality rate was 10.5%, rather than 6.1%. In addition, of those 191 patients, only 73 patients (38.2%) received at least 1 of the 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 24.7%. Only 25 of 191 patients (13.1%) received all 4 MATH+ therapies, and their mortality rate was 28%.’"

Edited March 22, 2022 by Corraleno

[MEmama]

@Corraleno You are a research queen. That is all.

 

[wathe]

3 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 

Lots of things have harm and side effects. I had a medical condition and needed a treatment, and IVM was an appropriate choice in my treatment protocol. It's highly effective when given the way doctors in the US are doing it. I feel bad for patients in Brazil being given substandard care for this study. the pr

This study hasn't been published yet.  That's why there are only news reports reporting findings.  Reporting results prior to publication is a practice I don't like, because I want to be able to see the study for myself.  Nuance often gets lost in news reports.

IVM has not yet been determined to be effective for covid.   The whole point of trials like the TOGETHER trial is to establish efficacy/lack of efficacy.  So far, it's looking like IVM is not effective agains covid.

You are right that all drugs have risks and benefits.  That's why proving efficacy is so important.  If a drug doesn't work for a particular indication, then those who take it for that indication are assuming all the risk with no benefit.  Especially problematic at the population level.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by wathe

[PeterPan]

1 minute ago, wathe said:

IVM is not effective agains covid.

3 days of IVM is not effective against covid. They gave 3 days.

I will tell you, if you're curious, that I actually took IVM *2* ways when I had omicron. I took a single dose when I first began having symptoms, hoping it might knock it out. It was not the higher dosing like they're saying to use for early exposure/prevention in the protocols but a lower dose (.2mg/kg body weight). This single dose tamped my symptoms down about 50%, so that I actually had very mild covid. I didn't continue because I found studies indicating that with a *single* dose of ivm (this was for healthy working people, hospital staff, NOT high risk) a single dose reduced hospitalizations without radically affecting antibody production. However taking multiple doses affected antibody production. It didn't seem reasonable, even though I had the med, to take it like that because I needed the antibodies to be safe going forward.

So I chose *not* to take it after that first dose and had a seemingly mild case at first. I think this is a pretty common progression with omicron, where it's not a big deal. And then the inflammation stage set in, as I think is pretty common, around day 5/6, and I was so dizzy I was holding the walls to walk, extremely fatigued, extremely headachy, etc. Total mess. That's when I got the IVM and anything else from the protocols I could get my hands on. 

It doesn't seem to me that we're addressing the question correctly/thoroughly, because IVM acts on covid through known pathways, including the protease inhibitor thing the newer meds are doing. I'm not really up on all the chemistry but have watched just enough to know they know what it's doing. It's not ONLY antiviral and I have no horse stake in what it does or how well it does a certain aspect. But it's very clear it has both antiviral *and* anti-inflammatory properties. If the people going into the hospital had their increasing issues due to that inflammation stage (which is what made me a mess), then it's completely logical to point out that IVM in the early stage might not have enough leftover (or would it, we could calculate the half life) to be improving their inflammation. I took *2 weeks* of IVM for that inflammation stage ON TOP of all the other meds. IVM has a very mild anti-inflammatory effect to my mind and in my experience. 

I'm just sayign the research doesn't even make sense or add up for how the med is known to work and how it would interact with the disease. Just like when people castigated me for saying that if you're going to wear a mask you should wear one that WORKS. Oh that was awfully controversial then too, remember. And now, 2 years later, they come out about that. 

Common sense would be nice here.

[Frances]

@PeterPanHow do you know the single dose of IVM tamped down your symptoms by about 50% when you had covid? You don’t. It’s just your belief. The exact same thing could have happened had you done nothing. That’s why we do carefully constructed research studies. So actual conclusions can be drawn, rather than relying on people’s beliefs based on their own personal anecdotes.

As for what the effects of all of the IVM and other drugs you took later, again, it’s just your anecdotes and beliefs about what happened. While some may find it interesting, it really doesn’t tell us anything about the efficacy of any of the drugs you took, including IVM.

I do hope you completely recover.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Frances

[wathe]

4 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 

Common sense would be nice here.

I agree.

To me, common sense means applying the scientific method to the problem.

Which for drug efficacy means high-quality, randomized controlled trials that under go rigorous peer review.

Not anecdote.  Not non-evidence based protocols whose author has been caught fabricating data.

[PeterPan]

7 minutes ago, wathe said:

Which for drug efficacy means high-quality, randomized controlled trials that under go rigorous peer review.

And then saying what they say. And the study was 3 days so it shows what happens if you do that. Tells you nothing about what happens if you do it with different protocols, which is what people are implying.

[wathe]

9 hours ago, PeterPan said:

I'm not sure how to do all the conversions on that. 

I meant to address before:

400mcg = 0.4mg

(1000mcg = 1mg)

[wathe]

59 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

And then saying what they say. 

Well, yes.  News media  should report the study results accurately.  Which it seems is exactly what the WSJ article that kicked off this thread did.  It reads like pretty factual reporting to me.

(We'll know for sure once the study is published).

[KSera]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

And then saying what they say. And the study was 3 days so it shows what happens if you do that. Tells you nothing about what happens if you do it with different protocols, which is what people are implying.

They’ve studied it with many different protocols. A criticism was they didn’t start early enough. This one did. What do you think is the reason that multiple researchers who have tried to show that ivermectin is effective treatment for Covid have falsified their data and had to have their studies retracted? Several of the big studies literally made up data and then duplicated it over and over in order to make the claim that it was effective when it wasn’t. What kind of study and data would you have to see before you would start considering the possibility that you’re the one having the wool pulled over your eyes? I mean that as an actual question. Is there anything you could see that would convince you contrary to what you currently believe?

[EKS]

13 hours ago, wathe said:

To me, common sense means applying the scientific method to the problem.

Common sense and scientific method are actually quite different.  Modern science only took off after people stopped relying on their intuitions.  

Statements like "I took a thing and got better, therefore the thing made me get better" are rooted in common sense.  Since recovery from most infectious diseases is the norm (as in, it will happen eventually) and the placebo effect is very real, the last thing you want to do is use common sense when deciding whether a treatment is effective.  Especially when you are deciding for someone (or many someones) other than yourself.

13 hours ago, PeterPan said:

And the study was 3 days so it shows what happens if you do that. Tells you nothing about what happens if you do it with different protocols, which is what people are implying.

With regard to the claim that the protocol used in the trial in question was insufficient, well, they had to start somewhere.  PeterPan is right that the three day trial doesn't tell you what would happen if they did a five day trial.  

[wathe]

49 minutes ago, EKS said:

Common sense and scientific method are actually quite different.  Modern science only took off after people stopped relying on their intuitions.  

Statements like "I took a thing and got better, therefore the thing made me get better" are rooted in common sense.  Since recovery from most infectious diseases is the norm (as in, it will happen eventually) and the placebo effect is very real, the last thing you want to do is use common sense when deciding whether a treatment is effective.  Especially when you are deciding for someone (or many someones) other than yourself.

With regard to the claim that the protocol used in the trial in question was insufficient, well, they had to start somewhere.  PeterPan is right that the three day trial doesn't tell you what would happen if they did a five day trial.  

Just plain sense, then 🙂

[goldberry]

23 hours ago, PeterPan said:

to beat the biological warfare that rot in hell Fauci funded.

I was reading your arguments in good faith until this.  You just totally destroyed any credibility you had whatsoever.   The "Soros funding" was a pretty good indicator, but this one nailed it.   I'm sorry you were and are sick and hope something works for you. 

 

Oh, and "WSJ propaganda article".  WSJ is the most respected *conservative* news source out there.  Full stop.

Edited March 23, 2022 by goldberry

[EKS]

4 hours ago, wathe said:

Just plain sense, then 🙂

Or good sense.

[wathe]

It was formally published in NEJM yesterday:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

[kiwik]

Well who'd of thunk it.