Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Ivermectin (11 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    I don't see how you can claim that there is no evidence for Ivermectin being effective against COVID, unless you simply take the corporate media, government, and mainstream health "authorities" word for it. Ivermectin has been used an official treatment/prophylaxis in several countries around the world.

    Dr. John Campbell: "BBC debunks ivermectin" (sarcastic title) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy7c_FHiEac

    Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies
    https://ivmmeta.com/

    • Early treatment 66% improvement
    • Prophylaxis 86% improvement
    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    Ivermectin is now listed on NIH website under "Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19"

    https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tab...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. mark
    Member

    Several studies supposedly proving ivermectin is an anti-viral drug were made up. Never done.

    If you take out the hoax studies from the meta analysis the whole thing falls apart.

    Ivermectin is great if you have lice or river blindness, but useless for covid.

    Some of the best debunking of this hoax is by a doctor at www.respectfulinsolence.com. My favorite source for exploring covid disinformation.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. mark
    Member

    "Under evaluation" means there are studies being done. It doesn't mean it works.

    A friend is an epidemiologist for a State health authority. She told me that state considered doing their own studies on ivermectin but when it came out that several "ivermectin cures covid" studies were faked, they decided not to bother. There are some good studies underway but that's mostly to appease the unappeasable. The true believers are not interested in documentation, it's just scapegoating. It reminds me of showing photos of plane parts at the Pentagon to people who got sucked into the "no planes" hoax of 9/11 who were unwilling to admit making a mistake.

    The initial investigation about ivermectin for covid was at the start of the pandemic when there wasn't much understanding of what could work. In vitro, not in the body, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine stopped viral replication. But in the body, not so much. Soapy water also stops the virus, as do flamethrowers. Getting high levels of ivermectin into the respiratory tract isn't really possible. www.respectfulinsolence.com and sciencebasedmedicine.com have technical discussions of this.

    A clue: Trump wasn't given ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or bleach when he got sick and was rushed to Walter Reed. Fooling people is fun but when the POTUS's health was at stake his doctors gave him the best treatments, which probably saved his life. Monoclonal antibodies were not even provisionally approved with an EUA when Trump was given that. He also got dexamethasone, a steroid that is cheap and does work against covid disease.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. truthmod
    Administrator

    Are you saying that all the studies that make up the case for effectiveness can be retracted from this meta analysis of 64 studies? Or are you going to say that site is fake because it's not from an "official" source?

    https://ivmmeta.com/

    I see people on both sides of the COVID debate simply making arguments up and dismissing the data that the other side presents. If you can prove to me that there is not compelling data for the effectiveness of Ivermectin, it will do a lot toward convincing me that all this alternative COVID analysis is BS.

    Dr. John Campbell, who has been a hugely popular and seeming mainstream source on YouTube, has not retracted any of the info that he has shared saying that Ivermectin works (as far as I know). I saw some articles that seemed to focus on the straw man of studies or individuals that claimed 100% results for Ivermectin against COVID. But if there were such studies, they were in a severe minority.

    Why are 20 countries using Ivermectin?

    Best ivermectin meta analysis
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7am9kjMrk

    BBC debunks ivermectin (sarcastic title) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy7c_FHiEac

    Quoting this site:

    https://ivmmeta.com/

    Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 67% [53?76%] and 86% [75?92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis (which excludes all of the GMK/BBC team studies), with primary outcomes, and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.

    •Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain statistically significant after exclusions. 31 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

    •Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 53 of 64 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.

    •While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 25% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.

    •Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, and other treatments could be more effective, including monoclonal antibodies which may be available in countries not recommending ivermectin (sotrovimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and bamlanivimab/etesevimab).

    •Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

    •There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 64 studies is estimated to be 1 in 222 billion.

    •Over 20 countries have adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.

    •All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses with similar results confirming efficacy.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. mark
    Member

    Most of the countries that have promoted this anti-parasite drug for anti-viral purposes are poor and unable to afford actual treatments.

    Some of the studies "proving" ivermectin is also an anti-viral have been exposed as completely made up, notably studies from Egypt, Lebanon and Argentina. Some of the others are questionable but not (yet?) withdrawn.

    I thought the anti-vaxxers were opposed to scientific studies that were made up out of nothing?

    RespectfulInsolence.com has a large amount of technical details on the fake studies. It's "no planes" pseudoscience.

    If one has a bad case of covid the best single treatment is monoclonal antibodies. Unfortunately this is more expensive than repurposed drugs but they work, if given early enough. At least dexamethasone, the steroid given along with that, is cheap.

    Vaccines are free to the recipients in the US and much less expensive to make than monoclonal antibodies or hospital bills. I know a couple liberal anti-vaxxers who recently spent time in the hospital, they had moderate covid cases and survived. I don't know what it cost to treat them but none of them are wealthy. I have empathy for the nurses and doctors who are exhausted from treating these types of fools.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    Strange how the "nothing to see here" people are so dead set on Ivermectin not being an effective treatment/prophylaxis.

    Here's another convincing study out of Brazil:

    Hospitalizations, Mortality Cut In Half After Brazilian City Offered Ivermectin To Everyone Pre-Vaccine
    https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/hospitalization...

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356962821...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. mark
    Member

    Zero Hedge is as unreliable as Alex Jones and is not a medical publication.

    The Brazilian report has this qualifier:

    "Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet."

    Yep.

    There are no peer reviewed studies anywhere on Earth that show that ivermectin does anything against sars-cov-2. Not one.

    John Campbell is not a medical doctor and definitely not an expert on viruses or public health. His videos were ok two years ago but now are full of nonsense. Kind of like a lot of conspiracy addicts who were great in 2002 but went on to promote BS about 9/11 ... it's an occupational hazard. Perhaps the addiction requires more and more outlandish stuff to keep the clicks coming in? Maybe something else?

    I recommend www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ to read about people who believed in ivermectin but the virus didn't care about their belief system (BS).

    Posted 2 years ago #
  9. mark
    Member

    www.jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/...

    Journal of the American Medical Association - February 18, 2022

    Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial

    "In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."


    www.marketwatch.com/story/you-will-not-believe-wha...

    'You will not believe what I've just found.' Inside the ivermectin saga: a hacked password, mysterious websites and faulty data.

    Last Updated: Feb. 7, 2022 at 10:52 a.m. ET First Published: Feb. 7, 2022 at 8:20 a.m. ET By Jaimy Lee

    How a drug used to treat parasites for decades became the hot and controversial drug of the pandemic

    .... no comprehensive clinical trials have found that ivermectin works as a COVID-19 treatment. To make this issue even more complicated, no "gold standard" studies have yet found explicitly that it's useless against COVID-19 or that it's harmful to people taking it.

    The ivermectin saga shows how the American drug regulatory system has been overrun by the pressures of the pandemic, including the rush to put out new research and then act immediately on those findings.

    .... At a Senate hearing on Dec. 8, 2020, three days before the first COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the U.S., Kory's testimony described ivermectin as a "miracle drug" that could be used more quickly than the vaccines, which would take months to roll out. His testimony several times referenced the Benha University preprint promising major clinical benefits, and video of the testimony went viral on YouTube.

    "Nearly all studies are demonstrating the therapeutic potency and safety of ivermectin in preventing transmission and progression of illness in nearly all who take the drug," Kory wrote in his prepared testimony.

    [note: the "Benha" study was done in Egypt and claimed remarkable success with ivermectin for covid patients. Unfortunately, the study seems to have been completely made up from nothing, never done, and the paper has since been withdrawn.]

    .... Kory now says the Benha study is deeply flawed — "that paper stinks," he told me — but he puts the blame for the wave of retractions and withdrawals of ivermectin studies on pharmaceutical companies that he said have spent decades developing disinformation campaigns that aim to restrict the repurposing of cheap generic drugs.

    "It would dry up the sales of remdesivir and Paxlovid and molnupiravir," said Kory, referring to some of the most prominent therapeutics, developed by Gilead, Pfizer PFE, +0.40% and Merck & Co. MRK, -1.25%, which have been authorized to treat COVID-19. "You name it. Monoclonal antibodies. It literally threatened the market value of almost anything out there on a global pandemic." Kory added: "What we're talking about, a historic corruption, the disinformation campaign waged against a repurposed drug."


    https://respectfulinsolence.com/tag/ivermectin/

    several articles by Dr. David Gorski

    https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/10/18/ivermec...

    Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 7: Are there positive studies that aren't fraudulent?

    Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, a drug repurposed for COVID-19 that almost certainly doesn't work but is still being touted as a "miracle cure" by quacks, grifters, and political ideologues. Are the data supporting it all fraudulent and/or biased? The answer, increasingly, appears to be yes. October 18, 2021


    https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Full... Meta_Analyses_Do_Not_Establish_Improved_Mortality.11.aspx

    Meta-Analyses Do Not Establish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19

    Rothrock, Steven G. MD1,2,*; Weber, Kurt D. MD3; Giordano, Philip A. MD3; Barneck, Mitchell D. MD3

    American Journal of Therapeutics: January/February 2022 - Volume 29 - Issue 1 - p e87-e94 doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001461

    Ivermectin has been identified as an inexpensive, readily available drug with the potential to be repurposed as a treatment for COVID-19, especially in countries with limited access to vaccines. Although multiple studies have been published in an attempt to evaluate its usefulness in COVID-19, many are small and not constructed appropriately to detect differences in important clinical outcomes (ie, death). For this reason, researchers have turned to meta-analyses to combine study results and draw summary conclusions regarding ivermectin's effectiveness. Two such meta-analyses recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded that ivermectin decreased mortality and improved other surrogate end points in COVID-19.1–4 A recently withdrawn article caused both authors to rework their meta-analyses without altering their main conclusions.1–5 We feel that shortcomings within both sets of meta-analyses and limitations in the component studies are significant enough to invalidate their main finding that ivermectin reduces mortality. A review of other meta-analyses on the same subject, containing many of the same individual studies, were similarly limited by poor design.


    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/088506662...

    Retraction Notice First Published November 9, 2021 Retraction https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666211049062

    RETRACTED: Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 At the request of the Journal Editor and the Publisher, the following article has been retracted.

    Kory P, Meduri GU, Iglesias J, Varon J, & Marik PE. Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19. J Intensive Care Med. 2021:36;135-156. 10.1177/0885066620973585

    The article has been retracted after the journal received notice from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia (“Sentara”) raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara.


    https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/ryan-ograyens...

    didmyresearch3xvaxxed The drug name should be changed to "Imavictim" given all the caterwauling about it.


    www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermec...

    A Prominent Study Said Ivermectin Prevents COVID, But The Data Is Suspect

    An influential study from Argentina has been used to argue that ivermectin prevents COVID 100% of the time — but its inconsistencies have led experts to question if it could have actually happened as advertised.

    Stephanie M. Lee BuzzFeed News Reporter Ken Bensinger BuzzFeed News Reporter Last updated on September 27, 2021, at 6:12 p.m. ET Posted on September 2, 2021, at 6:03 p.m. ET


    www.businessinsider.com/why-ivermectin-being-used-...

    2 fringe doctors created the myth that ivermectin is a 'miracle cure' for COVID-19 — whipping up false hope that could have deadly consequences

    Hilary Brueck Sep 17, 2021


    www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858....

    Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID?19

    Maria Popp, Miriam Stegemann, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Susan Gould, Peter Kranke, Patrick Meybohm, Nicole Skoetz, Stephanie Weibel published: 28 July 2021 Version history https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub

    Based on the current very low? to low?certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID?19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID?19 outside of well?designed randomized trials.


    www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study...

    Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

    The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data Melissa Davey

    Thu 15 Jul 2021


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6CJFQ_Xr7A

    The science behind why Ivermectin is NOT a miracle cure for COVID

    Premiered Dec 15, 2020 Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson

    Dangerous doctors continue to spread misinformation in the midst of a pandemic. This time, it's in front of Congress. Not cool, Dr. Kory. Not cool.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  10. mark
    Member

    in other news, water is still wet

    www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

    New England Journal of Medicine

    Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

    March 30, 2022 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

    Conclusions:

    Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  11. truthmod
    Administrator

    I have not had time to read through all of this. Just want to provide the counter arguments from the pro-Ivermectin side. It is not hard to imagine that any establishment studies had to come out with a certain result and they were designed to do so.

    Fraudulent Trial On Ivermectin Published By The World's Top Medical Journal. Big Pharma Reigns - Part I
    https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/fraudulent-trial...


    Big Pharma (Pfizer and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) from what it looks to me) dropped another nuclear bomb on ivermectin 3 weeks ago with their publication of the fraudulent Brazilian TOGETHER trial. They did it in one of the world’s top read and rated medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a journal born in the year 1812, but captured by Pharma for who knows how long now. This is an open secret as per former Editor Marcia Angell in the book Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” -Dr. Marcia Angell

    First off, the saddest part of this fraud is that the TOGETHER trial’s published conclusion brazenly contradicted the data within the manuscript as it actually showed an 81% “Bayesian” probability (a sophisticated form of statistical analysis) of the superiority of ivermectin. But media and science reporters no longer critically analyze the data or questions the abstract’s conclusion, instead they all trumpet headlines in unison that “ivermectin doesn’t work in COVID.” Further contributing to the catastrophic toll of human life due to yet another deployment of “the Diversion,” a Disinformation tactic that Big Pharma employs when “science inconvenient to their interests” emerges. Their first successful Disinformation campaign was against hydroxychloroquine in 2020, and despite Robert Kennedy’s in-depth, highly referenced and detailed exposing of the numerous sinister actions against HCQ in his best-selling book called “The Real Anthony Fauci,” they are again having success against ivermectin (just not as much - I would credit the work of the physician leaders and science experts of numerous non-profit, non-conflict-of-interest groups such as the US’s FLCCC, American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Truth For Health, Covid Early Treatment Fund, South Africa’s Transformative Health Justice, UK’s World Council for Health, the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, and the anonymous C19early.com group among others).

    Posted 2 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.