Azaran on 7/3/2022 at 14:17
So ivermectin may be effective after all:
(
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887)
There were a total of 1,761,060 possible COVID-19 patients based on ICD-10 diagnostic terms and confirmatory lab results. Prior to controlling, our analysis yielded 41,608 patients who had COVID-19 resulting in two unique cohorts that were treated with either ivermectin (1,072) or remdesivir (40,536). Within the ivermectin cohort, average age was 51.9 + 17.8 years, 43% were male, 60% had glucocorticoids and 1% required ventilator support. In the remdesivir cohort, average age was 62.0 + 16.0 years, 54% were male, 64% had glucocorticoids and 2% required ventilator support. After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir (OR 0.308, 95% CI (0.198,0.479)),Risk Difference -5.224%, CI (-7.079%,-3.369%), p <0.0001.Cipheron on 7/3/2022 at 17:03
No, this study isn't actually very good. Facts:
1) it's a retrospective study, not a randomized trial.
2) it says ivermection is *better* than Remdesivir
3) there are actually studies that show Remdesivir works
4) there are NO actual (non debunked) studies that show ivermection works
This seems fishy, like an academic 'shell game'. Studies have compared ivermectin to DOING NOTHING and found it didn't help, but comparing it head to head to a drug which DOES have solid evidence somehow shows that Ivermectin is better. What is much more likely is that Remdesivir is simply given more often to very ill patients, while ivermectin is taken by those who aren't very ill, and their study couldn't adjust for that.
Relevant articles:
Ivermectin no measurable effectiveness, randomized trial, 500 patients:
(
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220222/Studies-continue-to-prove-ivermectin-for-COVID-19-treatment-ineffectual.aspx)
Remdesivir effective at reducing mortality:
(
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764)
Remdesivir only effective if they get it to you early enough:
(
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32423584/)
so the data is skewed for Remdesivir since it works the best for recent infections, but you get diminishing returns when giving it to more critically ill patients. It's still given for the slight chance it'll help. Meanwhile i can't see many doctors getting critical ill patients and going "quick get this person on ivermectin"
EDITED: because i fail at spelling "Remdesivir".
Azaran on 11/3/2022 at 16:49
(
https://www.brusselstimes.com/health/210359/more-than-18-million-covid-19-deaths-globally-three-times-the-official-toll) Yikes
Quote:
The official statistics attribute 5.94 million deaths to Covid-19; but this is not the full picture, according to a study published in the leading journal The Lancet.
“Although reported Covid-19 deaths between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 totalled 5.94 million worldwide,
we estimate that 18.2 million people died worldwide because of the pandemic (as measured by excess mortality) over that period,” the report read.
“The full impact of the pandemic has been much greater than what is indicated by reported deaths due to Covid-19 alone.”
faetal on 11/3/2022 at 17:37
Be interesting to see the cause of death breakdown of the excess deaths so we can get an idea of what all of the co-morbidities might be.
nbohr1more on 12/3/2022 at 15:11
Quote Posted by faetal
Got it.
A less scientific, but more obvious question in addition to your breakdown (which is great) is - why are they even comparing Moderna's database of sequences to anything?
Were they putting the cart before the horse? Seems likely, and as you say, they are guaranteed a hit.
Another question - if shady forces are engineering viruses to infect humanity with, why would they do something stupid like copyright the sequence they are going to use and leave that data somewhere it can be found?
What is it with conspiracy theorists thinking that all of the breadcrumbs are going to be left in the open for people to interpret?
I guess in the absence of actual facts, shitty takes on loose associations are all you're left with.
Intimidation.
If the conspirators can openly document their crimes yet still have the media, political, and judicial system cover for them then leaving the evidence out is basically saying:
"We did this and there is nothing you can do about it. Keep in line and pray that we do not do something worse."
lowenz on 12/3/2022 at 17:05
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Intimidation.
If the conspirators can openly document their crimes yet still have the media, political, and judicial system cover for them then leaving the evidence out is basically saying:
"We did this and there is nothing you can do about it. Keep in line and pray that we do not do something worse."
That's Putin and he doens't need "conspiracies" (religious ones apart), it's simple victimhood strategy.
So, Covid-19 was born in "Ukraine US Labs"? :p
faetal on 12/3/2022 at 19:21
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Intimidation.
If the conspirators can openly document their crimes yet still have the media, political, and judicial system cover for them then leaving the evidence out is basically saying:
"We did this and there is nothing you can do about it. Keep in line and pray that we do not do something worse."
In the spy movie in your head, sure.
Starker on 18/3/2022 at 21:59
In other news, Ivermectin still doesn't work:
Quote:
(
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermectin-didnt-reduce-covid-19-hospitalizations-in-largest-trial-to-date-11647601200)
Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn't reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic.
[...]
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.
[...]
To make sure they were being thorough, the researchers analyzed the data in three different ways. They looked at data from all patients; then analyzed data from patients who received ivermectin or a placebo 24 hours before they were hospitalized; and in a third review, looked at data from patients who said they had adhered strictly to their dosing schedule. In each scenario, they found ivermectin didn't improve patient outcomes.
[...]
Starker on 3/4/2022 at 07:24
And another nail in the coffin:
Quote:
(
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/health/covid-ivermectin-hospitalization.html)
The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which has surged in popularity as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 despite a lack of strong research to back it up, showed no sign of alleviating the disease, according to results of a large clinical trial published on Wednesday.
The study, which compared more than 1,300 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo, effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for Covid, the study's authors said.
“There's really no sign of any benefit,” said Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota.
[...]
Dr. Boulware doubted that the additional trials would come to a different conclusion, since the TOGETHER trial was so large and carefully designed. “Rarely would you expect to find something different,” he said.
Dr. Paul Sax, an infectious-disease expert at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who was not involved in the TOGETHER trial, shared Dr. Boulware's view.
“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind, but at some point it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.
Cipheron on 3/4/2022 at 07:31
1300 is actually a lot. If you ever studied statistics you know there are diminishing returns for larger sample sizes that are pretty much independent of the actual population size. As long as you randomize the selection.
It's like if you flip a coin 100 times, and work out what the average is, you don't need to flip it extra times if you were "sampling" from 1 million coin flips or only 1 thousand coin flips.
