Ivermectin - You Can't Tell Me It Doesn't Work

19,426 Views | 170 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by eric76
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 1:23p, 1/13/22
AG
Sorry I missed this.

I'm skeptical for a lot of reasons.

It is an unverified email purporting to be written by Maj Joe Murphy. I don't have any way to verify that he actually wrote it. I could create an identical document in ten minutes.

The original cover letter / email doesn't make any sense because in several placers it says "xxxxx" rather than an actual redaction. The sent: to: subject etc. lines aren't redacted but blank. So it doesn't even look like a printout of an actual email, but a document made to look like an email.

It appeals to baseless conspiracy theories that have been already debunked like the alleged toxicity of the spike protein or antibody dependent enhancement. It also sets forward allegations which are stupid on their face (for example, that it was selected for a coronavirus that was "most monoclona antibody and vaccine resistant).

In addition to claiming that ivermectin works it claims that HCQ and interferon are also curative, something we have *very* strong evidence of being false. It also incorrectly conflates Hydroxychloroquine with chloroquine phosphate - they're different drugs.

There is no corroborating evidence offered for any of the claims. Again, this could have been created on your laptop.

This alleged leaked document has as much credibility as a random post on TexAgs. Less, really, because those aren't claiming to be anything in particular.
Reply Quote
16
CSTXAg92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 1:26p, 1/13/22
AG
Zobel said:
We already talked about why a binary "work/doesn't work" standard is pretty useless here.
https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3264970/replies/61255551
So why does the binary "work/doesn't work" standard apply to Ivermectin, but the binary "work/doesn't work" standard doesn't apply to vaccines?
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 1:33p, 1/13/22
AG
That's a really interesting question actually. There's two things here.

For one this is actually a problem with the way ivmmeta presents its data. It is appealing to a binary works/doesn't work domain when the studies it's collecting have a huge variety of endpoints. So, if a study is testing for ivermectin reducing deaths and also pcr time to viral clearance, and it doesn't do anything for deaths but reduces time for viral clearance by a day, that's counted as "works". And, if a different study is testing for ivermectin reducing symptoms and viral clearance and says it doesn't help virual clearance but it does reduce symptoms by less than a day even if it isn't statistically significant, that's also counted as "works" - the whole idea behind meta analysis being you can take smaller studies that aren't statistically significant by themselves and perhaps gain insight by grouping them. Even though those two studies contradict, in ivmmeta's eyes both are positive results for ivermectin.

For two, I'm willing to suggest that ivermectin probably doesn't do anything beneficial at all for the treatment of COVID19.Viral clearance, mortality, prophylaxis, whatever. It's probably just sampling bias, statistical noise, fraud, and poorly conducted studies. On the other hand, when you break all of the endpoints of the vaccines down (prevention of infection, prevention of symptomatic disease, prevention of severe disease, prevention of hospitalization) you can measure all of them. And not only do all of them work in a general handwavy way, each also work.

Of course this is what you would expect if you actually stop and think about it. If you were going to say that ivermectin reduces deaths, it should also be expected to reduce time to symptom clearance and reduce the length of hospital stays. A study that mysteriously finds viruses clear faster on a test but offers no symptomatic benefic seems an awful lot like p-hacking. And in the end no one cares how long viruses take to clear if the actual health benefit doesn't do anything either.

So - if we're going to talk about a binary works doesn't works regime, ivermectin doesn't work and vaccine do work. If you want to get into the details about how vaccines do work, they work ok at preventing local infection detected by a nose swab, and they work really frickin great at preventing severe illness and hospitalization, and this changes by variant, and also changes over time.
Reply Quote
11
1 edit
Old McDonald
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 2:21p, 1/13/22
CSTXAg92 said:
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
Does the vaccine work, since you can catch covid over and over again, even after being vaxxed and boosted?
if we're using personal anecdotes to determine efficacy, as you and ea have done in this thread, then yes it does because I'm vaccinated and haven't gotten covid.

that's not how things work, of course. plenty of peer reviewed studies and data showing vaccines are effective at reducing likelihood of infection. not so much for ivermectin, as zobel has demonstrated in this forum time and time again.
Reply Quote
11
Petrino1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 2:35p, 1/13/22
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
I never said it completely cured me, but it did make me feel better everytime I took it. It offered temporary relief, which is fine with me. Its the only medicine I took that relieved my symptoms. Also, Ive taken it 30+ times in a 4 month period, including a 5 week treatment.

Seems pretty weird to say it didnt work because the relief was only temporary?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Petrino1 • 2:43p, 1/13/22
ea1060 said:
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
I never said it completely cured me, but it did make me feel better everytime I took it. It offered temporary relief, which is fine with me. Its the only medicine I took that relieved my symptoms.

Seems pretty weird to say it didnt work because the relief was only temporary?


Except I haven't seen anyone claim to use it for symptomatic relief. It's supposedly affecting the replication of the virus. If you're feeling better after a specific dose, then it's probably the placebo effect.
Reply Quote
13
Petrino1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 2:54p, 1/13/22
Sapper Redux said:
ea1060 said:
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
I never said it completely cured me, but it did make me feel better everytime I took it. It offered temporary relief, which is fine with me. Its the only medicine I took that relieved my symptoms.

Seems pretty weird to say it didnt work because the relief was only temporary?


Except I haven't seen anyone claim to use it for symptomatic relief. It's supposedly affecting the replication of the virus. If you're feeling better after a specific dose, then it's probably the placebo effect.
Actually I have heard of lots of people using it for symptomatic relief, especially us long haulers.

So theres been a placebo effect 30+times after I take it, and it only happens with Ivermectin, not any of the other dozen medicines Ive tried to treat my long haul symptoms? Thats weird.
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Petrino1 • 3:16p, 1/13/22
ea1060 said:
Sapper Redux said:
ea1060 said:
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
I never said it completely cured me, but it did make me feel better everytime I took it. It offered temporary relief, which is fine with me. Its the only medicine I took that relieved my symptoms.

Seems pretty weird to say it didnt work because the relief was only temporary?


Except I haven't seen anyone claim to use it for symptomatic relief. It's supposedly affecting the replication of the virus. If you're feeling better after a specific dose, then it's probably the placebo effect.
Actually I have heard of lots of people using it for symptomatic relief, especially us long haulers.

So theres been a placebo effect 30+times after I take it, and it only happens with Ivermectin, not any of the other dozen medicines Ive tried to treat my long haul symptoms? Thats weird.


Yes, that would be possible. What is the specific pharmacodynamic for symptomatic relief with Ivermectin?
Reply Quote
4
Petrino1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 3:25p, 1/13/22
Sapper Redux said:
ea1060 said:
Sapper Redux said:
ea1060 said:
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
I never said it completely cured me, but it did make me feel better everytime I took it. It offered temporary relief, which is fine with me. Its the only medicine I took that relieved my symptoms.

Seems pretty weird to say it didnt work because the relief was only temporary?


Except I haven't seen anyone claim to use it for symptomatic relief. It's supposedly affecting the replication of the virus. If you're feeling better after a specific dose, then it's probably the placebo effect.
Actually I have heard of lots of people using it for symptomatic relief, especially us long haulers.

So theres been a placebo effect 30+times after I take it, and it only happens with Ivermectin, not any of the other dozen medicines Ive tried to treat my long haul symptoms? Thats weird.


Yes, that would be possible. What is the specific pharmacodynamic for symptomatic relief with Ivermectin?
I dont know and I dont care, all I know is it works for me. Why do doctors prescribe ivermectin to long haulers if it doesnt work? My PCP said she doesnt know why or how ivermectin helps treat my long haul symptoms, but it works and thats all that matters.
Reply Quote
7
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Petrino1 • 3:36p, 1/13/22
ea1060 said:
Sapper Redux said:
ea1060 said:
Sapper Redux said:
ea1060 said:
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
I never said it completely cured me, but it did make me feel better everytime I took it. It offered temporary relief, which is fine with me. Its the only medicine I took that relieved my symptoms.

Seems pretty weird to say it didnt work because the relief was only temporary?


Except I haven't seen anyone claim to use it for symptomatic relief. It's supposedly affecting the replication of the virus. If you're feeling better after a specific dose, then it's probably the placebo effect.
Actually I have heard of lots of people using it for symptomatic relief, especially us long haulers.

So theres been a placebo effect 30+times after I take it, and it only happens with Ivermectin, not any of the other dozen medicines Ive tried to treat my long haul symptoms? Thats weird.


Yes, that would be possible. What is the specific pharmacodynamic for symptomatic relief with Ivermectin?
I dont know and I dont care, all I know is it works for me. Why do doctors prescribe ivermectin to long haulers if it doesnt work? My PCP said she doesnt know why or how ivermectin helps treat my long haul symptoms, but it works and thats all that matters.


There are a variety of reasons that something might work. Including confounding that makes it appear like something works or the placebo effect, which is a very real thing. I'm curious to know what the pharmacodynamic claim is. It traditionally works on chloride channels found only in nematodes and I can't find any data on how it's supposed to help with long haul Covid.
Reply Quote
2
CSTXAg92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:42p, 1/13/22
AG
Zobel said:
That's a really interesting question actually. There's two things here.

For one this is actually a problem with the way ivmmeta presents its data. It is appealing to a binary works/doesn't work domain when the studies it's collecting have a huge variety of endpoints. So, if a study is testing for ivermectin reducing deaths and also pcr time to viral clearance, and it doesn't do anything for deaths but reduces time for viral clearance by a day, that's counted as "works". And, if a different study is testing for ivermectin reducing symptoms and viral clearance and says it doesn't help virual clearance but it does reduce symptoms by less than a day even if it isn't statistically significant, that's also counted as "works" - the whole idea behind meta analysis being you can take smaller studies that aren't statistically significant by themselves and perhaps gain insight by grouping them. Even though those two studies contradict, in ivmmeta's eyes both are positive results for ivermectin.

For two, I'm willing to suggest that ivermectin probably doesn't do anything beneficial at all for the treatment of COVID19.Viral clearance, mortality, prophylaxis, whatever. It's probably just sampling bias, statistical noise, fraud, and poorly conducted studies. On the other hand, when you break all of the endpoints of the vaccines down (prevention of infection, prevention of symptomatic disease, prevention of severe disease, prevention of hospitalization) you can measure all of them. And not only do all of them work in a general handwavy way, each also work.

Of course this is what you would expect if you actually stop and think about it. If you were going to say that ivermectin reduces deaths, it should also be expected to reduce time to symptom clearance and reduce the length of hospital stays. A study that mysteriously finds viruses clear faster on a test but offers no symptomatic benefic seems an awful lot like p-hacking. And in the end no one cares how long viruses take to clear if the actual health benefit doesn't do anything either.

So - if we're going to talk about a binary works doesn't works regime, ivermectin doesn't work and vaccine do work. If you want to get into the details about how vaccines do work, they work ok at preventing local infection detected by a nose swab, and they work really frickin great at preventing severe illness and hospitalization, and this changes by variant, and also changes over time.
Seems unfairly arbitrary to apply the full rigor of a binary "work/doesn't work" standard to Ivermectin, but go to unnatural lengths to excuse the shortcomings of the so-called, 'vaccines' so you can feel good about claiming they work as intended, even if not evident to dumb lay-people who don't understand clinical trial details, specifics, minutia, and the fine print.

That said, are you familiar with Dr. Malone Zobel?
Reply Quote
6
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CSTXAg92 • 4:31p, 1/13/22
AG
I'm very happy to drop the binary regime and examine any endpoint you like. I've provided several studies with different endpoints which show consistent success for vaccines.

None of the clinical trials show strange results like vaccines help prevent symptomatic covid but dont reduce severe outcomes or vice versa. Many of the ivermectin studies have this problem.

The problem is the use of a dichotomy with regard to efficacy, to the tune of "I got vaccinated, I got covid, therefore the vaccines don't work". The vaccines were never 100% effective by this measure, and even a very high efficacy in terms of risk reduction or odds ratio doesn't prevent infection or symptomatic disease like this. And it's just as easy to show the same problems as "I used ivermectin, I got covid, I wound up in the hospital, therefore ivermectin doesn't work." You don't accept the latter, but you push the former. My point is neither is very good evidence.

No vaccine is 100% effective. Most require multiple doses. Most fade in effectiveness over time. By your standard, no vaccines work.

The vaccines do work as intended. No fine print or excuses required.

And yes I'm familiar with Dr Malone. The guy has gone from standing silently by lending his credibility to people making crazy claims to making irresponsible claims himself. Don't make appeals to authority, whether its Vanden Bossche or Malone or Fauci or Robert F Kennedy Jr or anyone else. Bring the data! If the data isn't there, you're wasting your time.
Reply Quote
20
Johnny04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:38p, 1/14/22
Any teledocs or GPs in DFW that will prescribe ivermectin for covid?
Reply Quote
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 5:40p, 1/14/22
AG
Old McDonald said:
did it really "work" if you had to take it 30 times and had your symptoms return every time? sounds like at best it offered you temporary relief from symptoms.
Reply Quote
5
petebaker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:59a, 1/17/22
It's a shame doctors are not prescribing antibiotics this year. They're probably afraid they'll get in trouble with their managing corporations and medical boards, universities and institutions. Look at dr Peter McCullough . For all practical reality he's one of the top distinguished Dr's in the A&M and Baylor medical system due to academic prolific output.
Last year he was let go bc he was going on Fox News and presenting his research and experience into treating Covid patients and working with colleagues wh dare try to save lives with medical training and doses of treatments. Baylor sued him for journalists who did their own research into his career which at the time was with Baylor over decades. But they distanced themselves in a betraying way. Yes we were in collaborations for 20 or so years but now Who's he? He has nothing to do with us Absolutely.

We've all picked up antibiotics for the flu or bad colds. There was some uncertainty of getting antibiotics bc it was dr s discretion. 20 years 10 years ago 5 years ago they wrote about overprescribing of antibiotics and leading to superbugs in hospitals. In Texas suburbs it was not as strict. A middle class doctor felt that my patient will get better quickly with antibiotics and they were right.
The question and issue also was if I had a virus due to flu or colds and antibiotics kill bacteria, why and how does taking antibiotics work? It was a logical question. Frequent wondered and asked. A simple answer was killing the bacteria assists with fighting the viruses. Or the viruses also use the bacteria to multiply so by killing the bacteria you can stop the virus tangentially.
IN THE END IT WORKED WE DIDNT REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW OR WHY, just make sure you don't stop before 7 days twice a day or 10 days depending on the program. Or else bad pathogens will mutate and then your causing a new sickness problem in your own body. 3 different medications used to overcome a cold or flu. You pick it up at your local pharmacy and start getting better feeling better in 2-3 days
THIS IS HOW LIFE WAS IN AMERICA FOR 40 years I can remember.
IVERMECTIN MIGHT HAVE REAL BENEFITS THAT DEFY THE LOGICAL LABEL USE OF ANTIPARASITE pill. It's possible because it can effect the virus tangentially Or directly. Don't just parrot ignorance blind leading the blind of It Doesnt work. Understand that there are social , business and institutional reasons that are not purely scientific that have a conflict of interest Against Ivermectin . It's enough to have some curiosity to give an honest look at Ivermectin and other treatments like antibiotics.
THERES NOTHING WORSE THAN HEARING THE DOCTOR SAY YOU POSITIVE FOR COVID , THEYLL CHECK YOU OUT ( while 0 prescriptions offered) Gee Thanks for taking my money. We used to get much more from our visits than nowadays.
We're buying over the counter Motrin and taking care of ourselves and our parents and children. 0 help from the doctors who can't or won't treat. But who have treated us through the years but this time things are different so impossible and hopeless . I don't think so. Something doesn't equate.
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to petebaker • 7:49a, 1/17/22
Antibiotics aren't helping your viral infection. The normal course for a viral infection is 7-10 days. What overprescribing antibiotics is doing is rendering more and more of them useless and creating bacteria like MRSA, VRSA, and current strains of Pseudomonas that often evade our most powerful drugs.

What antibiotics for viral infections does is make you feel better. It's the placebo effect. And Motrin is an anti-inflammatory. It's treating symptoms.
Reply Quote
17
WES2006AG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:22a, 1/17/22
AG
Another anecdotal point of data but the only person I know who has been seriously sick this year was unvaccinated and taking Ivermectin as a prophylactic. He continued to take it after testing positive and ended up in the ICU after about 6 days. He spent the next 3 weeks in the ICU and was just transferred to a long term rehab facility until his lungs heal.

Hoping he will eventually get his strength back and be able to do all he could before but that seems a long way off at this point.
Reply Quote
8
petebaker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:36a, 1/17/22
I can see by logic Antibiotics are a placebo effect but I've personally experienced a really bad cold where I was in Bangkok buying over the counter amoxicillin at Boots pharmacy and then a top doctor (hospital had valet parking) who I detailed how many days I was taking amoxicillin prescribed a different antibiotic and I was so quickly recovering from chest congestion strong cough. It simply was the right antibiotic that worked impressively .
Ther are a laundry list of cold viruses and several other flus and rhinoviruses . A positive covid test if it's a FALSE POSITIVE FOR COVID won't get treatment like in past years for what it probably is. Because a bad logic map says Covid therEfore REFUSE MEDICATION. This is like a broken computer that needs to be fixed or rebuilt. The algorithm has a hole in it for all FALSE POSITIVE COVID CASES
Reply Quote
2 edits
Loyalty
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to coolerguy12 • 12:42p, 1/20/22
AG
coolerguy12 said:
Proposition Joe said:
Glad that you are feeling better.

No opinion on ivermectin one way or the other -- but feeling back to normal after 10 days of Omicron is from what I've read pretty standard.


Yeah this proves nothing, and I'm in the camp of, I think ivermectin could help and there is no downside to taking it.

I started symptoms on the 27th and was back to normal other than taste being off by the 1st. Didn't take anything except some cold and flu Tylenol for the knot that my back had tied itself in.


Im naturally immunized but feel the same about ivermectin as you do. It doesn't hurt to try it if I ever get Covid again. Certainly a ton of credible information and science available that demonstrates the effectiveness of ivermectin.
Reply Quote
2
Leggo My Elko
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Loyalty • 1:42p, 1/20/22
AG
Quote:
Certainly a ton of credible information and science available that demonstrates the effectiveness of ivermectin.
From studies that took place in countries that don't have elevated rates of parasites?
Reply Quote
18
proc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:55p, 1/20/22
AG
Not one single Doctor tag in this thread, which statistically means that they are all sick of this arguing without any real reliance on science. Or math.

It cannot be a coincidence....
Reply Quote
14
Prince_Ahmed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Leggo My Elko • 4:39p, 1/20/22
TexjbA&M said:
Quote:
Certainly a ton of credible information and science available that demonstrates the effectiveness of ivermectin.
From studies that took place in countries that don't have elevated rates of parasites?
That's exactly it. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/11/18/ivermectin-may-help-covid-19-patients-but-only-those-with-worms

For those of you taking ivermectin - if it's working that means you have worms, right?
Reply Quote
12
Loyalty
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Leggo My Elko • 5:05p, 1/20/22
AG
TexjbA&M said:
Quote:
Certainly a ton of credible information and science available that demonstrates the effectiveness of ivermectin.
From studies that took place in countries that don't have elevated rates of parasites?
No. And you know that. I get it, you don't agree. Well great then! - don't take it. I really don't care, thats your business and I respect your decision.

My comments were based on scientific data that has been plentiful (no I'm not going to go dig it up and post a link for your benefit), my physician's thoughts, and practical experience shared by millions as well as my brother and son who were given a script for Ivermectin, took it and it made a huge difference in getting them through Covid 19 much like what we've seen from others.

But like I said, not trying to change your mind but also not calling anyone names of shame anyone that doesn't share my beleifs.

Reply Quote
3
Loyalty
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:00a, 1/22/22
AG
Zobel said:
The only person mindlessly regurgitating anything on this thread is you. When faced with the ignorance and misunderstanding of your positions you resort to banal insults and straw men. Tsk.
You are incorrect. He makes a solid point and you have no defense. You're answer was not a defense to your position, rather it was defensiveness, because you know he's right.

Brutal insults and straw amen? Read your own posts. Tsk....
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Loyalty • 10:06a, 1/22/22
AG
Banal insults.

What was his solid point?
Reply Quote
7
WES2006AG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:18p, 2/22/22
AG
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/ivermectin-fails-another-covid-trial-as-study-links-use-to-gop-politics/
Reply Quote
8
unmade bed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WES2006AG • 7:01a, 2/23/22
WES2006AG said:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/ivermectin-fails-another-covid-trial-as-study-links-use-to-gop-politics/


Quote:
At the end of the study, 52 of the 241 patients who received ivermectin (21.6 percent) had progressed to severe disease, while 43 of the 249 patients who just received standard care (17.3 percent) progressed.


Yeah, but it "worked" great for 189 of the test subjects
Reply Quote
8
Year of the Germaphobe
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:38a, 2/25/22
AG
If I created a study with bunk data that said "Research shows flogging your back for 5 minutes a day reduces constriction of the rhomboid major, and leads to better posture, and mood improvement," people here would actually have to stop and think about it... if you throw the word science into the mix, with a well worded abstract, and a confidence interval I'm convinced there would be a rebirth of the Flagellants.

If you need to cultivate a healthy skepticism of modern research, and the materials/methods involved look no further than global warming.

Trying to add a little humor into the conversation...Ivermectin may have some benefits, and it may not; but I don't trust the analysis I've seen on it so far, and for good reason. I don't trust a study that doesn't give me enough information to reproduce the results.
Reply Quote
1
Another Doug
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:24a, 2/25/22
AG
Quote:
I don't trust a study that doesn't give me enough information to reproduce the results.
The abstract is pretty clear of exactly how they did the study and got the results.
Reply Quote
9
FlyRod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:50a, 2/25/22
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220222/ivermectin-ineffective-against-covid
Reply Quote
9
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MemorialTXAg • 10:59a, 3/4/22
AG
MemorialTXAg said:
I ate an orange the day I tested positive and developed no symptoms. You can't tell me that was coincidence.
I saw two bobcats while waiting for my test results in May, 2020. I felt fine other than a mild irritation like allergies. Think it was seeing the bobcats that did it?

For what it's worth, I had a colonoscopy last year. They told me it would take 30 to 45 minutes to recover from the anaesthesia. I woke up as they were pushing me out of the room and to my curtain. When they came back five minutes to check on me, I was reading the latest Scientific American. They told me I was recovered and to get dressed. Who would have thought that Scientific American would have such curative powers?

Next time I'm tempted to forgo the anaesthesia and just read Scientific American during the colonoscopy and see if it also helps with relieving pain and discomfort.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.