Ivermectin , covid cure

[ollie989898]

I have watched it to the end and posted a few notes as I went. Very interesting but not as damning as the chap makes out. He could easily have made the same observations with 50% less words, but that's a minor issue.
The point being of course that some people look at all the evidence from all available sources in a dispassionate way. We do not selectively watch and select from only one point of view and fully recognise that things aren't all either black or white and that most things are shades of grey. Something you really should learn at a younger age.

The bloke is clearly a PhD of some import. If you have ever met anyone remotely connected to molecular biology or any of it's associated fields, you would realise- they are all like this without exception.

EDIT: I'm not interested in grey thanks- I've consistently looked for black or white and evidence that the stuff works before you advocate dosing people with the stuff in big numbers. To do anything less is clearly unethical (and a waste of everyone's time and money, more to the point).

 

[Cowabunga]

The bloke is clearly a PhD of some import. If you have ever met anyone remotely connected to molecular biology or any of it's associated fields, you would realise- they are all like this without exception.

EDIT: I'm not interested in grey thanks- I've consistently looked for black or white and evidence that the stuff works before you advocate dosing people with the stuff in big numbers. To do anything less is clearly unethical (and a waste of everyone's time and money, more to the point).

Evidence is not always black or white. Just look at the accumulated evidence for both the [absolute not relative] safety of the vaccines and for their efficacy. None of which was certain from the start and both aspects of which are constantly being modified as a result of experience and accumulated evidence.
If you cannot recognise the 'grey' you will go nowhere either in life or in your profession. Not unless you fool yourself and people while suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

 

[ollie989898]

Evidence is not always black or white. Just look at the accumulated evidence for both the [absolute not relative] safety of the vaccines and for their efficacy. None of which was certain from the start and both aspects of which are constantly being modified as a result of experience and accumulated evidence.
If you cannot recognise the 'grey' you will go nowhere either in life or in your profession. Not unless you fool yourself and people while suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

I want evidence that the drug works. I've stated this multiple times on this thread. Yet here we are, many months later and not a sniff of it which I find very difficult to believe given the nearly extraordinary claims of it's efficacy and results across the globe by the proponents of this particular drug. I've done a lot of looking, believe me, even back in February when I completed an extensive piece of work on covid-19 and therapeutic drugs being trialled, it was still very difficult to find trials which had been properly conducted.

I remain in hope, as ever. I'm not sure when PRINCIPLE will be completed but I'll be sure to post a summary of it on this thread in due course.

 

[Cowabunga]

I want evidence that the drug works. I've stated this multiple times on this thread. Yet here we are, many months later and not a sniff of it which I find very difficult to believe given the nearly extraordinary claims of it's efficacy and results across the globe by the proponents of this particular drug. I've done a lot of looking, believe me, even back in February when I completed an extensive piece of work on covid-19 and therapeutic drugs being trialled, it was still very difficult to find trials which had been properly conducted.

I remain in hope, as ever. I'm not sure when PRINCIPLE will be completed but I'll be sure to post a summary of it on this thread in due course.

It is only now that we have a good idea of the efficacy of the vaccines and even now new information is being presented and even hypothesised. Just yesterday the MD of Astra Zeneca released a press release in which he claimed, with an unknown provenance, suggesting that although the efficacy of their vaccine was shorter than expected, that the T-Cell response is better than for the rival vaccines and explains why even though it gives a disappointing protection from infection, it gives a longer lived and greater protection from severe disease and hospitalisation.
There are no certainties that you quite naively seek. Your evidence you seek and which you obviously assume to be absolute, is nothing of the sort. Never was and never will be for unique and relatively new problems and their potential solutions.

 

[ollie989898]

It is only now that we have a good idea of the efficacy of the vaccines and even now new information is being presented and even hypothesised. Just yesterday the MD of Astra Zeneca released a press release in which he claimed, with an unknown provenance, suggesting that although the efficacy of their vaccine was shorter than expected, that the T-Cell response is better than for the rival vaccines and explains why even though it gives a disappointing protection from infection, it gives a longer lived and greater protection from severe disease and hospitalisation.
There are no certainties that you quite naively seek. Your evidence you seek and which you obviously assume to be absolute, is nothing of the sort. Never was and never will be for unique and relatively new problems and their potential solutions.

The vaccines were trialled. I believe I linked to one earlier. Can't remember now. You could google it. Might even be a video about it.

By the way, I think you misunderstand what an 'emergency approval' actually is.

 

[ollie989898]

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.

www.thelancet.com

...Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation....


My highlights. Again, you will note the huge numbers involved. And in the Lancet, too.

 

[ollie989898]

Shame, good trial methodology. Only a pre-print though.

Moxidectin and Ivermectin Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 Replication in Vero E6 Cells but Not in Human Primary Bronchial Epithelial Cells - PubMed

Antiviral therapies are urgently needed to treat and limit the development of severe COVID-19 disease. Ivermectin, a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic agent, has been shown to have anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in Vero cells at a concentration of 5 μM. These limited <i>in vitro</i> results triggered the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

...Here, we performed a head-to head comparison of the antiviral activity of ivermectin and the structurally related, but metabolically more stable, moxidectin in multiple in vitro models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including physiologically relevant human respiratory epithelial cells. Both moxidectin and ivermectin exhibited antiviral activity in Vero E6 cells. Subsequent experiments revealed that the compounds predominantly act on a step after virus cell entry. Surprisingly, however, in human airway-derived cell models, moxidectin and ivermectin failed to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection, even at a concentration of 10 μM...

...These disappointing results call for a word of caution in the interpretation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of drugs solely based on Vero cells. Altogether, these findings suggest that, even by using a high-dose regimen of ivermectin or switching to another drug in the same class are unlikely to be useful for treatment against SARS-CoV-2 in humans...

 

[Bruce Almighty]

Japan showing an interest in Ivomec now

TICKING TIME BOMBS: The “fully vaccinated” will experience enhanced disease when re-exposed to new coronavirus variants – study

Just because a pharmaceutical company labels something a “vaccination” does not mean the product will give people immunity for life and save them from certain death. The label of “vaccination” is not synonymous with immunization, especially when the “vaccine” is a new controversial technology...

sciencefraud.news

 

[farenheit]

Japan showing an interest in Ivomec now

TICKING TIME BOMBS: The “fully vaccinated” will experience enhanced disease when re-exposed to new coronavirus variants – study

Just because a pharmaceutical company labels something a “vaccination” does not mean the product will give people immunity for life and save them from certain death. The label of “vaccination” is not synonymous with immunization, especially when the “vaccine” is a new controversial technology...

sciencefraud.news

Ah, that reliable peer reviewed journal, Science Fraud News

 

[Cowabunga]

I wouldn’t take any such article at face value.
Japan has actually removed all restrictions on ivermectin for their population while not specifically approving its use against Covid. Everyone knows why and what it’s for of course and they are taking it in droves. By pure coincidence I’m sure, Covid-19 cases have since dropped off a cliff.

 

[ollie989898]

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Our systematic review of randomized controlled trials showed that ivermectin (vs control) did not reduce all-cause mortality, hospital stays, or viral clea

academic.oup.com

Roman et al. (2021) Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clinical Infectious Diseases [online].

Background
We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods
Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods.
Results
Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12–1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, −.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM.
Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

 

[Cowabunga]

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Our systematic review of randomized controlled trials showed that ivermectin (vs control) did not reduce all-cause mortality, hospital stays, or viral clea

academic.oup.com

Roman et al. (2021) Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clinical Infectious Diseases [online].

Background
We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods
Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods.
Results
Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12–1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, −.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM.
Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

Not a surprise to anyone. It was designed to fail from the outset and I said so very early on. The mode of action of Ivermectin is similar to that of the new Pfizer tablets in that it inhibits the replication of the virus as an early prophylactic and early intervention. Not as a late treatment where the virus load has already peaked and started to damage organs. Having said that, there have been some claims that works as a late intervention for very sick patients. This trial did not find that, possibly because the dose given was low and short in duration or also possibly because the patients were too far gone for any such mild treatment to help them.

I wonder whether they will use the same test method for the Pfizer and Merck tablets? My guess is not and that they will design trials for those to show maximum efficacy as very early and prophylactic interventions, not as medicines that cure severe infections that are already causing damage to the patients. We shall see.

 

[ollie989898]

Not a surprise to anyone. It was designed to fail from the outset and I said so very early on. The mode of action of Ivermectin is similar to that of the new Pfizer tablets in that it inhibits the replication of the virus as an early prophylactic and early intervention. Not as a late treatment where the virus load has already peaked and started to damage organs. Having said that, there have been some claims that works as a late intervention for very sick patients. This trial did not find that, possibly because the dose given was low and short in duration or also possibly because the patients were too far gone for any such mild treatment to help them.

I wonder whether they will use the same test method for the Pfizer and Merck tablets? My guess is not and that they will design trials for those to show maximum efficacy as very early and prophylactic interventions, not as medicines that cure severe infections that are already causing damage to the patients. We shall see.

I'm not sure how you can say the meta-analysis was 'designed to fail' given that the people conducting it didn't really have any influence on how each trial was actually conducted.

Here you have a correctly performed analysis of 1100 participants all of whom were trialled in a similar way and with roughly similar outcomes measured but you claim it is all invalid? How so?

I'm not convinced ivermectin works in the same way as conventional antiviral medicines, do you have a source for that claim?

 

[Cowabunga]

I said from the start how it was designed to fail. The reasons may be a complex mix of politics and the funding of the Oxford faculty.

They could have easily designed it to test for the product’s strengths rather than for its most likely and widely known weakness which is that it is not a cure for the already fully infected and advanced cases.
I have already shown how its mode of operation is thought to operate. It would have been great if this study made use of that mode rather than as a treatment for those with a saturated virus status. Something that prevents the replication of a virus is no good when the virus has already replicated to the point where it is not replicating any longer and is already the cause of organ damage which needs quite different treatment.

 

[ollie989898]

I said from the start how it was designed to fail. The reasons may be a complex mix of politics and the funding of the Oxford faculty.

They could have easily designed it to test for the product’s strengths rather than for its most likely and widely known weakness which is that it is not a cure for the already fully infected and advanced cases.
I have already shown how its mode of operation is thought to operate. It would have been great if this study made use of that mode rather than as a treatment for those with a saturated virus status. Something that prevents the replication of a virus is no good when the virus has already replicated to the point where it is not replicating any longer and is already the cause of organ damage which needs quite different treatment.

I'm not sure Oxford funded this study, maybe you know different. I just know it is an article that was published in a pretty serious journal and it has been subjected to peer review.

I'm still unclear on what evidence you have presented that shows ivermectin working in any particular way or what 'strengths' it has. I'd be grateful if this was actually presented. As you saying the findings of the Australian research performed in vitro is now null and void because I think we did that back a long.

 

[Cowabunga]

I'm not sure Oxford funded this study, maybe you know different. I just know it is an article that was published in a pretty serious journal and it has been subjected to peer review.

I'm still unclear on what evidence you have presented that shows ivermectin working in any particular way or what 'strengths' it has. I'd be grateful if this was actually presented. As you saying the findings of the Australian research performed in vitro is now null and void because I think we did that back a long.

I believe that Oxford University funded the study indirectly through The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fund.There is nothing wrong with the results, which I’m sure are accurate and just as I expected them to be. What is wrong is how the trial was designed in the first place, which was to administer the product well after physical symptoms of infection had presented, at a low dose [though not as low as some others] and for a very short period. In other words, too little and far too late.

You keep asking for information that I’ve already provided many times but which you absolutely refused to even look at multiple times by your own admission.

To be plain, as I’ve always been, there is no way that I personally can know with certainty that this stuff works or as to how well it works if it does. I can only go by the evidence presented by people who have used it and have the clinical evidence that it does. I find it obnoxious that it has been demonised by orchestration and organisation by pharmaceutical companies and certain politicians. That the few official trials, such as this Oxford one, are obviously designed to fail from the outset. It would be far better and totally convincing if Ivermectin actually failed in a trial where it was utilised and administered with the best chance of success rather than where it was almost certain to fail and where those designing the trial obviously knew this [or they are as thick as planks, or god forbid, corrupt] from the start.

 

[ollie989898]

I believe that Oxford University funded the study indirectly through The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fund.There is nothing wrong with the results, which I’m sure are accurate and just as I expected them to be. What is wrong is how the trial was designed in the first place, which was to administer the product well after physical symptoms of infection had presented, at a low dose [though not as low as some others] and for a very short period. In other words, too little and far too late.

You keep asking for information that I’ve already provided many times but which you absolutely refused to even look at multiple times by your own admission.

Are you sure Oxford university funded the study? No idea what Bill and Melinda Gates have to do with it.

If you would care to direct me to actual studies the demonstrate how you believe ivermectin to work, that would be grand. I don't have the time to search through your numerous youtube videos I'm afraid.

 

[Cowabunga]

Are you sure Oxford university funded the study? No idea what Bill and Melinda Gates have to do with it.

If you would care to direct me to actual studies the demonstrate how you believe ivermectin to work, that would be grand. I don't have the time to search through your numerous youtube videos I'm afraid.

That you have no idea does not surprise me in the least.

 

[ollie989898]

That you have no idea does not surprise me in the least.

I've just posted a peer-reviewed article in from a fairly serious journal. You seem to think that this matters not and instead are more concerned with conspiracy theories and the new world order apparently controlled by Bill Gates? Is this how your thinking works? So this meta-analysis is immaterial to you and you would rather go on the word of a guy who isn't a doctor nor is he qualified in any arena of research, and whose spare time is now apparently devoted to making money from youtube by spinning yarns to the masses? It's obvious the tail is now very much wagging that dog and you and your conspiracy believers can't get enough of it.

Show me the evidence that Oxford University and Bill Gates had anything to do with the article in question?

 

[tullah]

I have some in the cupboard. Certainly no downside so nothing lost.

New research suggests ivermectin works

Treatments continue to be censored

www.hartgroup.org