Covid-19 Discussion
Has the wisdom and courage to realize that the cure has now become worse than the disease. It's time to open up. Stop moving the ball.
Hospital systems have not been overwhelmed.
Ventilators are not in shortage.
Treatments are being developed.
There is no cure or vaccine. This is not going away for four years.
The devastation of the cure:
Suicide rates picking up.
Massive economic devastation which causes depression, anxiety, obesity, again increase in suicide rates and directly impacts poorer economic areas.
Alcohol sales up 51%.
Domestic Abuse on the uprise
Child abuse on the uprise.
Hospitals that do not have COVID related issues are forced to lay off doctors and nurses as there are not enough patients to economically support it, meaning they won't have the staff to deal with COVID outbreaks.
Michael Avenatti gets released from prison
We all did our part. We sheltered (here in Pennsylvania for 5 weeks already).
Open the office buildings. Open the hair saloons. Get rid of stupid mask laws.
Continue to monitor outbreaks and in areas hospital systems become threatened, reenact tougher guidelines.
LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!
And stop shaming people that want common sense solutions. Waiting for a vaccine is stupid and unpractical.
Oh look. A repeat of exactly the same crap I just debunked. Cool.
The very first graph just repeats the lie Kory spread about the reduction in hospitalization and death.
You know the one where he pretended to not understand why you can't compare different time periods? Remember that?
For some reason, whoever made this page doesn't get it either. Such an egregious mistake isn't what you want to lead off your website with.
I see this author also doesn't understand the HR issue either.
Yikes.
I also like how we're supposed to just not notice the 319% increase in ICU admissions for the ivermectin group in that same chart. Or the +151% ventilation rate.
So the summary is: no decrease in hospitalization or death, huge increase in ICU admissions and ventilations, but people said they felt better in 12 days instead of 14 on average.
And that's using the data from THAT website. Excepting of course the obvious incompetence of using an incorrect comparison for deaths and hospitaliatons, which I corrected.
Just shameless.
In case you think I may be exaggerating and don't want to click:
And they said using that graph to try to show ivermectin works
Lol
You haven't debunked anything. The study is a fraudulent bunch of crap which the link I posted outlines conclusively. It was designed and set up to fail.
mkay! Don't see why anyone would choose that 319% increase in ICU admissions that your website shows, or the 151% increase in ventilations that your website shows, but you do you!
Weird! They accidentally left off ICU admissions and ventilations!
Here it is again. Maybe you can send them a note so they can update their graphic!
It's a good point, though. It's really important that those tiny improvements based on survey questions get reported and not the 300% increase in ICU admissions. ICU admissions are such a subjective measurement.
I know you're desperate to get something right dude but unfortunately you failed again just like your fraudulent study failed.
Once again my advice is take the L and move on.
lolololol
Keep trying, Brian.
Next person to post loses!
Good try dude but the verdict is still:
Spoiler
Failed.
I mean the whole premise of the trial was fraudulent from the start.
Ivermectin is most effective when used as an early treatment, so what do they do? They run a trial using it as late treatment and go against all the recommendations for dosage, administration with food, duration etc. It was designed to fail on purpose in order to discredit IVM as a treatment.
Rigged!
I mean the whole premise of the trial was fraudulent from the start.
Ivermectin is most effective when used as an early treatment, so what do they do? They run a trial using it as late treatment and go against all the recommendations for dosage, administration with food, duration etc. It was designed to fail on purpose in order to discredit IVM as a treatment.
If only they would've given it earlier it wouldn't have tripled the risk of ICU admission!
They should've used the dosage and scheduling recommended by all the tests that showed ivermectin works.
Oh wait.
I mean the whole premise of the trial was fraudulent from the start.
Ivermectin is most effective when used as an early treatment, so what do they do? They run a trial using it as late treatment and go against all the recommendations for dosage, administration with food, duration etc. It was designed to fail on purpose in order to discredit IVM as a treatment.
Where in the trial data did it say they use it as a "late treatment?"
Where in the trial data do you see indication that they used an incorrect dosage?
How do you design a trial to make the ivermectin cohort have a 319% increased risk of ICU admissions?
Truly diabolical.
How do you design a trial to make the ivermectin cohort have a 319% increased risk of ICU admissions?
If only they would've given it earlier it wouldn't have tripled the risk of ICU admission!
Weird! They accidentally left off ICU admissions and ventilations!
Here it is again. Maybe you can send them a note so they can update their graphic!
It's a good point, though. It's really important that those tiny improvements based on survey questions get reported and not the 300% increase in ICU admissions. ICU admissions are such a subjective measurement.
the "150-300% increase" is calculated on 1 instance in the control group vs. 3 in ivm group, which the paper found to be statistically insignificant, and really wouldn't make much sense in the context of both groups having identical hospitalization numbers overall.
i don't know what kory's talking about on dosage, seems to be in line with other studies. the complaint seems to be the fixed 400mg is underdosing for heavier (300+ lb) individuals, but you'd need to have a lot of extremely obese participants for that to matter much.
the "150-300% increase" is calculated on 1 instance in the control group vs. 3 in ivm group, which the paper found to be statistically insignificant, and really wouldn't make much sense in the context of both groups having identical hospitalization numbers overall.
Oh for sure. The other things that show slight advantages to ivermectin are all based on tiny numbers of instances, too. We're talking about p-values of 0.2 to 0.7 (to be considered significant, 0.05 or lower is a good bar).
For instance the p-value for time to first recovery (one of Kory's major sticking point issues) is 0.2. This is nowhere near a meaningful result (again, 0.05 is the bar).
But that didn't stop those from being touted. That's the point. The paper focused on the significant findings. Kory (et al) claim that the paper ignored or downplayed the other things, but as shown, they weren't significant. But if you include some insignificant indicators, you can't ignore the ones that contra-indicate your thesis.
i don't know what kory's talking about on dosage, seems to be in line with other studies. the complaint seems to be the fixed 400mg is underdosing for heavier (300+ lb) individuals, but you'd need to have a lot of extremely obese participants for that to matter much.
Oh, I know what he's talking about. Same thing he is in the rest of his blog: deliberately misleading the reader to sell ivermectin treatments.
Ok. Here is a short list (from the link I posted earlier) of some of the ways in which the trial was designed to fail.
Very late treatment. Patients were enrolled up to 14 days after the onset of symptoms. Extensive research for COVID-19 and other viral diseases show that early antiviral treatment is critical.
Inclusion changed from 7 to 14 days. Inclusion was originally within 7 days of symptoms, but was changed to 14 days, compared to the molnupiravir trial which was started with 5 days clinicaltrialsregister.eu.
Administration on an empty stomach. Authors instructed patients that "no food should be taken two hours before or after administration" c19ivm.org. Guzzo et al. Guzzo, from 2002 and well known to ivermectin investigators, shows that the plasma concentration of ivermectin is much higher when administered with food (geometric mean AUC 2.6 times higher).
Ivermectin from source chosen has shown lower efficacy. Authors chose to source ivermectin from Edenbridge, which ranked 7 out of 11 brands in In Vitro tests for antiparasitic efficacy Williams, requiring 5 days compared to 2 days for the best performing brand, and 3 days for 4 other brands.
Only three different doses, lower μg/kg dose for higher weights. Only three different doses were used: 45-64kg (18mg), 65-84kg (24mg), and ≥84kg (30mg) c19ivm.org. Patients with higher weights will have progressively lower μg/kg dosing.
Exteme conflict of interest. The chief investigator is also chief investigator for the PANORAMIC molnupiravir trial, with overlapping dates, and 7.2B+ financial conflict of interest between the two treatments.
Design favors null result in contrast to molnupiravir trial by the same chief investigator. Treatment delay, inclusion criteria, dosing, administration, and target size all show a design better for efficacy for molnupiravir, and worse for efficacy for ivermectin. Both trials have the same chief investigator and overlapping dates.
Subject to participant fraud. There is no requirement for participants to have a face-to-face visit as part of trial participation. The self-reported design and the potential lack of professional medical examination results for many patients opens this kind of remote trial to participant fraud, which may be significant due to extreme politicization in the study country. Participant fraud has been reported for two other remote trials academic.oup.com, Lindsell, involving submission of fake surveys and repeated signups. Authors do not provide any information on attempts to limit participant fraud.
Sigh. Ivermectin is given on an empty stomach.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplem...
Ivermectin is a highly lipophilic and comparatively large compound. Its intestinal solubility and, thereby, absorption could vary with ingestion of food. Previous studies have demonstrated multiple peaks in plasma following oral dosing, which may come from enterohepatic circulation or delays in gastric emptying.4–6 Its size and lipophilicity could influence its distribution into a deep compartment, for instance fatty tissue. Past trials found no conclusive evidence of the influence of physiological parameters (beyond total body weight) such as age, sex, body fat percentage or organ volumes.
https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/75/...
Just stop this nonsense. Desperate flailing by unqualified bloggers and sham doctors is not helping anyone.
Not going to play the gish gallop. I've demonstrated pretty clearly that these people are lying and/or incompetent (mostly both).
Oh for sure. The other things that show slight advantages to ivermectin are all based on tiny numbers of instances, too. We're talking about p-values of 0.2 to 0.7 (to be considered significant, 0.05 or lower is a good bar).
not the time to sustained recovery for all symptoms table (p <0.0001), which you quoted, mocked and then started shouting "300% ICU! WHAT ABOUT THAT" across multiple posts.
i agree kory sucks, but it's for the same reason this paper sucks: they make spurious statements to support their agenda. illness duration was one of the study's primary outcomes. the paper's summary should've read that while ivermectin didn't show any improvement for hospitalization/death, there was an effect on time to recovery and long covid symptoms and more research could be warranted there. instead the conclusion -- which is basically the only thing any doctor or lay person might read and what probably led you to describe it as the final nail in the coffin -- was "ivermectin is useless and we should definitely not research it anymore for COVID".
this level of scientific politicking is what's leading the brian jameses of the world to distrust science and run to the korys who provide plausible articulations of what's wrong.
not the time to sustained recovery for all symptoms table (p <0.0001), which you quoted, mocked and then started shouting "300% ICU! WHAT ABOUT THAT" across multiple posts.
i agree kory sucks, but it's for the same reason this paper sucks: they make spurious statements to support their agenda. illness duration was one of the study's primary outcomes. the paper's summary should've read that while ivermectin didn't show any improvement for hospitalization/death, there was an effect on time to recov
Other than saying I mocked that stat (I didn't. Mock Brian? Absolutely.), I can't exactly disagree that that type of thing is what leads people to fall for Kory's bullshit.
The trouble with that data is it's subjective and collected from surveys and interviews. It just isn't high quality data.
So, for me, the conclusion isn't exactly wrong, but could be better written, I'll agree.
Lol. Like I said at the start, the conflict of interest statement gave the game away from the get go. It always does.
There was no need to look any further.
The trial confirmed fraudulent just as I predicted.
Vaccines are free
Are you advocating for a pharmaceutical - Ivermectin - to be free?
Chuds would gladly buy that product of big pharma, and are. In the pathetic kits being sold on Fox lmao
Vaccines are free
Are you advocating for a pharmaceutical - Ivermectin - to be free?
Chuds would gladly buy that product of big pharma, and are. In the pathetic kits being sold on Fox lmao
fun self own!
vaccines are subsidized by taxpayers, pfizer and moderna reap profits at ~$25/dose
ivermectin is off patent and ~$1 per dose
hence the vociferous attacks in all major medical journals
fun self own!
vaccines are subsidized by taxpayers, pfizer and moderna reap profits at ~$25/dose
ivermectin is off patent and ~$1 per dose
hence the vociferous attacks in all major medical journals
So are you saying all governments in the world pass a deal among themselves for all to find new vaccines and spend a lot of money to enrich 2-3 pharmaceutical companies instead of focusing on Ivermectin’s because it was too cheap ?
iirc it was you who introduced the study to this thread to put the ivermectin debate to rest. so... what?
Yes. That data is low quality. The lack of evidence showing benefit in severe outcomes is not at all low quality. It's very clear. The conclusion is correct, overall. I agree it could've mentioned the lower quality data results in the conclusion, but it doesn't change that there is a clear lack of benefit in the objective data.
