The Question
Eternal
Hey, remember when it was real popular to make fun of people who promoted Ivermectin as a prophylactic or a therapeutic viz covid? Remember when "they're taking horse de-wormer HAW HAW HAW HAW!"?
You gonna get another jab?
- Thread starter Mirah
- Start date
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
Dude I sold ivermectin for years. One thing it ISNT for is as a treatment for covid. Period. I get extra label use and that ones been looked at to death. It doesn't fucking work. The results are detrimental to the human system unless you have head lice and then its a topical. Us officials didn't "HIDE" anything and she's full of it. BIRD group is not credible. It isn't suppression. Their data isn't science. Just wishful thinking.
The Question
Eternal
The Question
Eternal
A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness - PubMed
Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the rapidity of viral clearance and...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"Seven studies showed a lower mortality rate in the ivermectin group than in the control group, six studies found that the ivermectin group had a significantly fewer length of hospitalization than the control group, and eight studies showed better negative RT-PCR responses in the IVM group than in the control group."
Is Ivermectin Effective in Treating COVID-19? - PubMed
Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications worldwide. We urgently need to find drugs that can be effective against COVID-19. Among the many observational studies, ivermectin...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
You're just wrong on this. Ya been wrong, you're still wrong, and unless you start to, ahem, follow the science, you're gonna still be wrong later.
The Question
Eternal
Of course, you've forgotten to factor in Yawz.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
NEJM Dec 15 2022
Reis et al. (May 5 issue)1 present the results of the TOGETHER platform trial, a large trial of ivermectin in outpatients with Covid-19. The relative risk of hospitalization or prolonged observation in the emergency department owing to Covid-19 (the primary outcome) in the ivermectin group as compared with the placebo group was 0.90 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16), and the relative risk of death (a secondary outcome) was 0.88 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.49 to 1.55).1 The prespecified threshold for the clinical utility of ivermectin was a 37.5% difference, as compared with placebo, in the relative risk of a primary-outcome event, a threshold that is probably too conservative for a drug such as ivermectin. The relative risk estimates in the trial were compatible with reductions of up to 30% in the risk of hospitalization or prolonged observation and 51% in the risk of death with ivermectin.
Given the wide availability and low cost of ivermectin and that the dosage used in the trial appeared to be safe, such treatment effects could be an important benefit for high-risk patients who do not have access to approved Covid-19 vaccines and costly therapies. The results of the TOGETHER trial were eagerly awaited because of their potential to inform the debate over ivermectin as treatment,2 but they were arguably nondefinitive3 regarding the two most relevant outcomes for outpatients with Covid-19.4
In the article by Reis and associates, we noticed a discrepancy regarding vaccinated participants. In the Methods section of their article, the authors stated that patients who had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 were eligible for participation. However, the protocol, available with the full text of the article at NEJM.org, listed vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as the fourth exclusion criterion. Furthermore, the previously published master protocol did not mention vaccination status in the selection process.1 We assumed that vaccinated persons were allowed to participate in the trial. However, the authors did not indicate the number of vaccinated patients in each trial group.
Public information shows that during the trial period (March 23, 2021, through August 6, 2021), the proportion of persons in the Brazilian population who were fully vaccinated increased from 2.03% to 21.07%.2 Thus, vaccination status could have been a confounder, and this information is needed to properly interpret the results of the trial. In addition, an ad hoc subgroup analysis according to vaccination status would be of interest.
Jorge H. Mejía, M.D.
Junta Regional de Calificación e Invalidez de Bogotá y Cundinamarca, Bogota, Colombia
Carlos A. Jimenez, M.D.
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
To the Editor
Reis et al. (May 5 issue)1 present the results of the TOGETHER platform trial, a large trial of ivermectin in outpatients with Covid-19. The relative risk of hospitalization or prolonged observation in the emergency department owing to Covid-19 (the primary outcome) in the ivermectin group as compared with the placebo group was 0.90 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16), and the relative risk of death (a secondary outcome) was 0.88 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.49 to 1.55).1 The prespecified threshold for the clinical utility of ivermectin was a 37.5% difference, as compared with placebo, in the relative risk of a primary-outcome event, a threshold that is probably too conservative for a drug such as ivermectin. The relative risk estimates in the trial were compatible with reductions of up to 30% in the risk of hospitalization or prolonged observation and 51% in the risk of death with ivermectin.
Given the wide availability and low cost of ivermectin and that the dosage used in the trial appeared to be safe, such treatment effects could be an important benefit for high-risk patients who do not have access to approved Covid-19 vaccines and costly therapies. The results of the TOGETHER trial were eagerly awaited because of their potential to inform the debate over ivermectin as treatment,2 but they were arguably nondefinitive3 regarding the two most relevant outcomes for outpatients with Covid-19.4
In the article by Reis and associates, we noticed a discrepancy regarding vaccinated participants. In the Methods section of their article, the authors stated that patients who had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 were eligible for participation. However, the protocol, available with the full text of the article at NEJM.org, listed vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as the fourth exclusion criterion. Furthermore, the previously published master protocol did not mention vaccination status in the selection process.1 We assumed that vaccinated persons were allowed to participate in the trial. However, the authors did not indicate the number of vaccinated patients in each trial group.
Public information shows that during the trial period (March 23, 2021, through August 6, 2021), the proportion of persons in the Brazilian population who were fully vaccinated increased from 2.03% to 21.07%.2 Thus, vaccination status could have been a confounder, and this information is needed to properly interpret the results of the trial. In addition, an ad hoc subgroup analysis according to vaccination status would be of interest.
Jorge H. Mejía, M.D.
Junta Regional de Calificación e Invalidez de Bogotá y Cundinamarca, Bogota, Colombia
Carlos A. Jimenez, M.D.
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
The Question
Eternal
To which you were supposed to reply, "What's Yawz?" To which I would then reply, "Bourbon, neat, thanks for askin'."
See, this is why we can't get a comedy duo act going -- your terrible timing.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
The Question
Eternal
The article is predicated on pointing to genetic evidence from a wet market. But that doesn't rule out the lab leak hypothesis, because it's not implausible that test specimens from that lab found their way into the wet markets. It's pretty unlikely that MSNBCPUSA sent their reporter to Wuhan to follow the wet markets' meat sources to definitively rule out the Wuhan Institute of Virology as being one of them.
In point of fact, all that article really does is suggest how the lab leak occurred.
In point of fact, all that article really does is suggest how the lab leak occurred.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
It was from the Atlantic, Suddenly you're taking issues with sources? Shame on you.
The article suggests no such thing. In fact the article suggests that the lab leak theory is not merely implausible, but scientifically impossible based on examination of the actual infected animals. The codes in the animals are identical to the codes in humans that got this virus.
Wouldn't be the first time an animal virus got into the human genome.
The article suggests no such thing. In fact the article suggests that the lab leak theory is not merely implausible, but scientifically impossible based on examination of the actual infected animals. The codes in the animals are identical to the codes in humans that got this virus.
Wouldn't be the first time an animal virus got into the human genome.
The Question
Eternal
Not to mention, the lab origin is just common sense. Novel viral outbreak that just happens to be in immediate proximity to a virology lab... that being a coincidence is like a nuclear meltdown happening where there just happens to be a nuclear reactor is "just a coincidence." In Presidential parlance: Come on, man.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
Coincidence is just that. Show me the lab leak.
So far, no one has. Scientifically (if you are really following the science) the animal theory makes much more sense/is much more probable.
It's cool to think the evil Chinese infected their own people in an uncontrolled genetic experiment, counting on how people act to spread the illness while leaving themselves uninfected?
Come on man, indeed.
So far, no one has. Scientifically (if you are really following the science) the animal theory makes much more sense/is much more probable.
It's cool to think the evil Chinese infected their own people in an uncontrolled genetic experiment, counting on how people act to spread the illness while leaving themselves uninfected?
Come on man, indeed.
The Question
Eternal
Are you even reading the same article?
Which most definitely leaves open the possibility, and even plausibility, that the sampled specimens had been infected by something else -- something that may well have come out of the WIV lab. It's not "scientifically impossible", or even "implausible" -- according to the article you posted.
The Question
Eternal
Then why was the outbreak concentrated so close to a virology lab? The hypothesis with the fewest number of variables is generally the most likely to be valid.
I can explain it: an infected specimen from the WIV ended up in the wet market. Can you explain the outbreak's starting point with fewer variables? Why Wuhan and not, say, Guangzhou, which also has wet markets but no Institute of Virology?
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
If the codes were different, you might have a point.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/26/science/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/26/science/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html
