Invermectin

[Mike J]

20 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

With my conspiracy theorist friends fortunately as time goes on more and more of their cracy theories are getting blown out of the water so I usually post links to the latest science.

And that is when those who are so emotionally committed that they will claim the science and studies are part of the conspiracy.   Conspiracy thought has no room for science, much less for conflicting and proven data.

[Snowy79]

3 hours ago, Mike J said:

And that is when those who are so emotionally committed that they will claim the science and studies are part of the conspiracy.   Conspiracy thought has no room for science, much less for conflicting and proven data.

You know some of my friends I see.   Joking aside some are wired to the moon when you listen to their arguments. 

[RBM]

23 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

I watched his video and to be fair it could easily be ripped apart as the study was so small plus there was no placebo double blind study to gauge the results from. Little things like those participating were all medical students so some will have different roles and may wear higher levels of PPE so that could reduce their chances of catching covid. 

I don't know the guys background but when his link was picked up for false information and he tried to explain his way around the information he scored an own goal. He obviously was unaware that the trials and success of Invermectin in the treatment of the conditions listed was completely different from that used for covid.  In the other treatments it was two tablets taken orally two weeks apart and a completely different concentration. With Covid it would have to be long term 72hrs apart and a lower concentration.

With my conspiracy theorist friends fortunately as time goes on more and more of their cracy theories are getting blown out of the water so I usually post links to the latest science. 

On the subject of real experts there is one guy that for me has changed my opinion on a few areas and others he explains things so simply it all makes sense.  He has a true background in working with vaccines and studying the outcomes, plus he has guest speakers that are experts in the fields he dicussses, he also calls out the conspiracy theorist many of whom call themselves experts and he highlights why they are wrong and their real backgrounds. He is also flexible in his understanding and openly admits as time has gone on his mind has also been swayed but in his words he " sciences the hell out of things" to come to scientific conclussions. Hi name is Dr Zdogg MD if you Google him.  He explains Invermectin, masks, why the flu is not so common now, vaccines etc. A real eye opener. 

thanks for your input snowy, noted and will defiantly watch some of his videos....Trust you also took note Doctor Campbell is a fellow Kababayan.

I have been watching him some time due to the way he presents facts on a layman terms. Would be interested in how you deal with friends whom are so wrapped up in these conspiratorial  theories, its actually straining some of my personal relationships with long term friend.

[Snowy79]

24 minutes ago, RBM said:

thanks for your input snowy, noted and will defiantly watch some of his videos....Trust you also took note Doctor Campbell is a fellow Kababayan.

I have been watching him some time due to the way he presents facts on a layman terms. Would be interested in how you deal with friends whom are so wrapped up in these conspiratorial  theories, its actually straining some of my personal relationships with long term friend.

I can be pretty sarcastic at the best of times so I just come out with even more weird theories so they know I'm taking the piss. Don't get me wrong on the surface some of the theories look plausible but when you research them you see most of the information has been cut and pasted from different reports and made to look like official medical journals.  Something does need to be done though to punish the fake news spreaders as lives are on the line.

[Mike J]

21 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

You know some of my friends I see.   Joking aside some are wired to the moon when you listen to their arguments. 

Don't know your friends but I know my brother.   I love him but don't talk about politics, global warming, pandemic, race relations, education, government, sexual orientation, welfare of any kind, gun control, etc.  Hunting and vacations that include gambling are okay. 

[Explorer]

On 5/13/2021 at 10:10 PM, Snowy79 said:

This should be good for a laugh.  Mercury Drug have been approved to sell Invermectin to the public and already I'm seeing lots of interest in it from foreigners. 

My issue with it is there are very few true clinical trials showing that is usefull for Covid.

How many clinical trials do you need?

https://c19ivermectin.com/

(Cannot copy/paste the article because it is full of links) 

[Snowy79]

45 minutes ago, Explorer said:

How many clinical trials do you need?

https://c19ivermectin.com/

(Cannot copy/paste the article because it is full of links) 

I studied many of the trials on Invermectin and most were a joke.  Some only had between 7 and 58 patients.  The Lancet had initially published findings from one trial but after peer reviewing it was ripped to pieces.  As an idea how effective Invermectin is have a look at Peru where it is the primary treatment, Brazil, Bulgaria etc.

Invermectin has been proven safe at different doses for parasites mainly but zero long term trials have been done at the required doses to kill covid.  Trials have shown that the dose invitro to kill covid is harmfull to humans.

The trials that the FDA have reviewed and put forward for peer review pretty much says the trials weren't controlled. Some trials even showed no benefits or worsening effects.  I've linked the FDA response but here's the main part: 

Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,^21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,^25-28 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,^26,27 shorter time to viral clearance,^21,26 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.^21,26,28

However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

 Feel free though to post links to the long term studies on Invermectin though in Covid cures. 

[Mike J]

13 hours ago, Explorer said:

How many clinical trials do you need?

https://c19ivermectin.com/

(Cannot copy/paste the article because it is full of links) 

You do not have to read to far to find the following statement about one of the studies.  This one was actually critical of a study of other trials.

<snip>

Roman et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595 (Preprint) (meta analysis)
Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Severely flawed meta analysis, incorrect at first glance.
Authors cherry-pick to include only 4 studies reporting non-zero mortality and they claim a mortality RR of 1.11 [0.16-7.65]. However, they report incorrect values for Niaee et al., claiming an RR of 6.51 [2.18-19.45]. The correct RR for Niaee et al. is 0.18 [0.06-0.55] (as below). After correction, their cherry-picked studies show >60% mortality reduction.
Similarly, for viral clearance and NCT04392713, they report 20/41 treatment, 18/45 control, whereas the correct day 7 clearance numbers are 37/41 and 20/45 (sum of clearance @72hrs and @7 days), or 17/41 and 2/45 @72 hrs.
The duration of hospital stay for Niaee et al. is also incorrectly reported, showing a lower duration for the control group.
All of the errors are in one direction - incorrectly reporting lower than actual efficacy for ivermectin.
Authors claim to include all RCTs excluding prophylaxis, however they only include 10 of the 24 non-prophylaxis RCTs (28 including prophylaxis).
Authors actually reference meta analyses that do include the missing RCTs, so they should be aware of the missing RCTs.
For additional errors, see [1].

<end snip>

[RBM]

16 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

I studied many of the trials on Invermectin and most were a joke.  Some only had between 7 and 58 patients.  The Lancet had initially published findings from one trial but after peer reviewing it was ripped to pieces.  As an idea how effective Invermectin is have a look at Peru where it is the primary treatment, Brazil, Bulgaria etc.

Invermectin has been proven safe at different doses for parasites mainly but zero long term trials have been done at the required doses to kill covid.  Trials have shown that the dose invitro to kill covid is harmfull to humans.

The trials that the FDA have reviewed and put forward for peer review pretty much says the trials weren't controlled. Some trials even showed no benefits or worsening effects.  I've linked the FDA response but here's the main part: 

Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,^21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,^25-28 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,^26,27 shorter time to viral clearance,^21,26 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.^21,26,28

However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

 Feel free though to post links to the long term studies on Invermectin though in Covid cures. 

I see Snowy, Doc Campbell has a new video out on this subject, will try to watch it later or tomorrow.

Just seen it interesting, not want Big Pharma want.

Edited June 8, 2021 by RBM

[Snowy79]

4 hours ago, RBM said:

I see Snowy, Doc Campbell has a new video out on this subject, will try to watch it later or tomorrow.

As I say there are no long term data on Invermectin but from the few uncontrolled trials to date the WHO, FDA, Union ministry of health and family welfare, Indian Council of Medical Research, European Medicine's Agency and the UK Medicines and Health Care Agency say it's been shown to be unsafe to use. 

GOA however has been using Invermectin for the treatment of Covid for everyone over 18yrs old has seen a surge in cases as has Peru.  Maybe it's not the Silver bullet. 

Each to their own if they want to risk it but as a gambling man I'll put my money on a vaccine that has had billions of dollars spent on it, millions of human lab rats being closely monitored and fully backed by science.  Even the so called new mrna vaccines have been used previously since 2011 in the treatment of cancers and to-date no serious adverse effects reported. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Snowy79