The Ivermectin discussion

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118073627#Comment_118073627

A well designed trial like that will have an independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) which will periodically review the data and recommend the study continues or is terminated, so if it's really clear cut that one of the drugs isn't working then the plug will be pulled.

PureIsle

We can’t use Ivermectin because “We don’t have enough data,” 

But..

“Let’s vaccinate children to see how safe the vaccine is because we don’t have enough data.” 

Did I get that right?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118008#Comment_118118008

No.

You got it arseways.

Total whataboutery but even that doesn't stand up.

Key points for parents and caregivers:

• Effectiveness: Immune responses of children 5 through 11 years of age were comparable to those of individuals 16 through 25 years of age. In addition, the vaccine was found to be 90.7% effective in preventing COVID-19 in children 5 through 11.
• Safety: The vaccine’s safety was studied in approximately 3,100 children age 5 through 11 who received the vaccine and no serious side effects have been detected in the ongoing study.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet next week to discuss further clinical recommendations.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-children-5-through-11-years-age

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118008#Comment_118118008

Here's some new analysis on Ivermectin study fraud tho

The scientists who published one of the studies that initially reported positive results about ivermectin have reanalysed data.

Andrew Hill, Manya Mirchandani, and Victoria Pilkington re-analyze the studies that went into their recent meta-analysis–which they have already retracted. Let’s look at their new analysis.

In their original study–one that promoters of ivermectin often cite in support of their arguments–Hill and colleagues looked at data from 24 different studies of ivermectin, and concluded that, on average, it did seem to reduce mortality from Covid-19.

But then they found that some of these studies were fraudulent, and others were so heavily biased that they didn’t trust their own findings. They retracted their own study just a month after it was published. Kudos to them!

Now they’ve gone even further. They went back and re-graded those 24 studies based on how biased or otherwise flawed they were. Their new report explains that there’s a very strong correlation between the amount of bias and the apparent benefits of ivermectin. In other words, the more biased the study, the greater the benefit. When they excluded the biased studies, the benefits simply disappeared.

In other words, the data from the high-quality studies show that ivermectin doesn’t work.

The lowest-quality studies were conducted in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq, and the worst of all were two potentially fraudulent studies out of Egypt and Lebanon. (In the Egyptian study, it was revealed that “79 participants were duplicates, some deaths were recorded on dates before the trial had started and instances of plagiarism were identified in the text.”)

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1003006/v1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118008#Comment_118118008

and there's more

The second new article appeared in The Atlantic last week, written by James Heathers, a data scientist who has uncovered flaws in multiple studies of ivermectin. Heathers’ summary of the problems is terrific, and I highly recommend that readers check it out, but I’ll share a few tidbits here.

Heathers describes the process of digging into the details of these studies, which is difficult and thankless. He’s not paid to do this; he’s just a good scientist who cares about the integrity of the literature, and it obviously bothers him when he sees shoddy science that has passed through peer review. “We do it because we feel it should be done,” he writes.

One of his main points is that bad studies get published all the time, and they simply remain out there, because who has time to go through all of them? Most of them don’t matter, and they are quickly forgotten.

In the case of ivermectin, Heathers found flaws in study after study. More tellingly, he observed the same phenomenon that Hill, Mirchandani, and Pilkington found: the biggest benefits of ivermectin appeared in the worst studies. As Heathers explains:

“the studies we are certain are unreliable happen to be the same ones that show ivermectin as most effective.”

Why did this happen with ivermectin? In retrospect, it’s not surprising: some doctors and scientists really wanted it to work, they let that bias creep into their studies. Maybe they ignored the patients who got sicker after ivermectin treatment, or maybe they made sure the sicker-looking patients got the placebo. (These would be big red flags if they happened.) Or maybe they had outside motivations–political pressure, for instance–to produce a positive study about ivermectin.

The peer-review process is supposed to catch these problems, and it’s slowly catching up now, as reflected in the new review from Hill et al. But as Heathers points out,

“Publishing science is slow; highly contagious diseases are fast.”

Meanwhile, the data pretty clearly show that ivermectin is useless against Covid-19. We desperately need effective treatments, and we should stop looking up this blind alley.

PureIsle

Maybe Ivermectin is not dead yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufy2AweXRkc

Yeah..

Japan had 0 cases yesterday or the day before..

At the end of August they said doctors could use it to treat covid if they saw fit..their wave peaked a week later and dropped precipitously..Covid disappeared within a month pretty much..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144288#Comment_118144288

can't watch a whole video of his - what's your summary?

he's saying that the mode of action is similar to the new Pfizer drug but does he have proof from studies with actual trustable data from large-scale good quality trials (unlike the ones exposed above) that Ivermectin helps prevent or lessen the effect of Covid?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144297#Comment_118144297

Unsurprisingly, your entire post has been rated as false (Japan never had 0 cases, they do have low numbers of cases, but mostly down to vaccines, not ivermectin, Japan is very slow at approving and using medicines, Ivermectin is not approved there and probably never will be):

Fact check: Japan has not halted vaccines for ivermectin (usatoday.com)

Serious question, did you honestly believe what you were typing, or did you make it up knowingly to support some narrative you're trying to adhere to?

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-has-zero-daily-covid-19-deaths-first-time-15-months-media-2021-11-08/

..

And I didn't say they halted vaccines..

I presume reuters is an OK source for you..

Press conference where Tokyo's medical association chairman issued the directive..

https://mobile.twitter.com/brenontheroad/status/1429624844379824129?s=20

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144311#Comment_118144311

But you did say they had 0 cases, and then doubled down with a Reuters article reporting 0 deaths.

You do understand the difference, right?

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144316#Comment_118144316

Do you even bother doing an ounce of research. Your Twitter post from August....

This article dated from last week.

But ivermectin is not listed as an approved treatment for the virus by Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, a government organization in charge of reviewing drugs and medical devices. 

Inaccurate claims that Japan authorized ivermectin for COVID-19 began circulating online after Haruo Ozaki, chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, recommended the drug for COVID-19 patients during a press conference on Aug. 13. 

The medical group and Ozaki are not affiliated with the Japanese government, and members of the organization can only provide suggestions, according to independent fact-check organizations. 

Yellow_Fern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118037#Comment_118118037

The side effects of vaccinating children are very rare but children are more likely to die in road accidents than covid. It isn't a urgent or important issue at all.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144297#Comment_118144297

The Japanese authorities said and did no such thing.

This is the second time this lie has been completely debunked on this thread.

You seem to be completely lacking in baloney detectors to so easily fall for these lies.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144495#Comment_118144495

It's not just about death which of course it's low in children

helps with less spread so schools / classes won't be closed as much / students out as infection is reduced with vaccines

Children can get long covid complications also and vaccines reduce incidence of this compared to getting covid without one as well as reducing chance of infection in the first place

The more people that are vaccinated the better the reduction in spread also

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144310#Comment_118144310

English, do you speak it? Ireland has also had days with 0 deaths, no Ivermectin involved, what you're saying is just to pathetically wrong that it's completely farcical and then you double down on the wrongness.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144428#Comment_118144428

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144577#Comment_118144577

At this stage it has to be willfully ignorant as the same has been pointed out to CQD many times, what will happen is a run away followed by a similar link dump in a few weeks time. You can guarantee that at least 90% of any of the posts is complete hooey.

spalpeen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117804043#Comment_117804043

glad to see i was vindicated here when all the evidence came out as being fraudulent

PureIsle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118166497#Comment_118166497

That is some wild statement.

Besides your opinion, what proof have you that ALL the evidence is fraudulent?

PureIsle

While you are at it spalpeen you might wish to debunk this site

https://ivmmeta.com/

Quote:

•There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 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.

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118171547#Comment_118171547

It can be based on the fact that no credible study has shown any benefit for Ivermectin when it comes to treating Covid. Any study that has shown any remote sign of effectiveness have been highly flawed. With very basic errors. Even on this thread we have had the infamous example of India being brought up repeatedly, where correlation was at best shown and that's being very very generous. In that example Ivermectin was one of just a number of drugs and other practices put in the place to control the outbreak of Covid. There is no way to isolate the impact of Ivermectin. Again that's why you need proper studies done which show no effectiveness when it comes to treating Covid.

Conflating and mixing up correlation with causation is a classic example of conmen, conspiracy theorists and science denialists in general.

On top of all that the company that actually makes the drug doesn't think it works. Obviously the company that makes the drug doesn't believe in studies put forward by Ivermectin proponents. Again the response of proponents of Ivermectin are classic big pharma conspiracy theories.

At this stage anyone proposing Ivermectin for treating Covid is proposing snake oil. What's dangerous about Ivermectin is that anyone unfortunate enough who is convinced to take it will be given a false sense of security. That's means they will be less likely to actually take precautions that actually have scientific evidence behind them ie vaccines, masks, social distancing etc. That means unfortunately they are more likely to end up in hospital and ultimately dying.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118171734#Comment_118171734

That site looks nice and all but that in itself means nothing and still has heavily discredited studies listed, such as this one right at the top of the list

https://c19ivermectin.com/carvallo.html

The numbers, genders, and ages of the study’s participants were inconsistent. A hospital named in the paper as taking part in the experiments said it has no record of it happening. Health officials in the province of Buenos Aires have also said that they also have no record of the study receiving local approval.

And the researcher overseeing the project, Hector Carvallo, a retired endocrinologist and professor of internal medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, has declined to widely share his data — including with one of his own collaborators, emails show.

“There is no way in which I could see a trial that actually occurred producing a pattern like this,” said Kyle Sheldrick, a doctor in Sydney and one of the critics who brought the study’s discrepancies to light.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data

And lists all the other studies which have found to be unreliable in other recent analysis

OTG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118144288#Comment_118144288

Ivermectin will never go through expensive clinical trials specific to Covid19 due to being 6c per course. Phizer et al are currently making €1000 per second in profits. Watch this video, it shows the attack vector it shares with Phizers new similar pill and mentions 5 others, thus future proofing from new variants in a far superior way to the expensive Phizer pill.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118182291#Comment_118182291

The UK repurposed generic dexamethasone because it showed effectiveness in trials, something you Ivermectin shills have no response to.

You need to develop some BS detectors, because it's obvious from your posting you'll fall for whatever conspiacy theory is doing the rounds. If something is too good to be true, it usually is.

Every properly run trial for Ivermectin has shown it to be ineffective against Covid. That's the truth of the matter.

OTG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118182397#Comment_118182397

Ivermectin adheres to both the spike and blocks the ACE2 receptors preventing the onset of a serious Covid infection, just like Pfizers new pill, dexamethasome is just an anti inflammatory that treats the inflamation effects of fully blown Covid. One stops the disease if treated early, the other is used when the patient is already hospitalised, no harm to profit in trialling such a drug.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118183099#Comment_118183099

Dexamethasone was referenced as a cheap generic which was trialled and repurposed for use against covid.

Therefore disproving the whole angle of Ivermectin not being used cos there is no profit in it, and the only meds being investigated being expensive ones.

It shows up the lies about the expense of the trials being the reason Ivermectin isn't in use.

Ivermectin has been trialled and no effect against covid found. Another lie disproved.

OTG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118183239#Comment_118183239

I beg to differ. Your drug is used after a massive expense has already been incurred, Ivermecten is used in the early stages or even in prophylaxis. This whole worldwide problem could be potentially stopped by a drug that costs 6c per course. A clinical trial therefore of IVM could potentially cost big pharma huge unrealised profit where as a trial of what is just another anti inflammatory that treats the hospitalised is not going to interfere with profit in any meaningful way. Imagine if Fenbendazole was found to cure most cancers, imagine what that would do to profits, where as Dex which is peer reviewed is just used to treat the inflammatory effects of Chemotherapy.