"There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events."
I'm sorry, this study from NEJM can't possibly be true. It agrees with what the "so-called-experts" have been saying for over a year, and we know they can't be right.
I think we got it right here a few months ago. Ivermectin treats the things it was always known to treat quite well. Those were all diseases that would make getting covid an even bigger problem, sometimes killing you. Therefore, when you threw out the fraudulent studies and corrected as well as possible for the wildly different treatment parameters in the meta-analysis and still had a little ivermectin effect, there was a simple explanation. That was, of course, rejected. Ivermectin was a good medicine to use in countries that high rates of those parasites, diseases, and conditions that ivermectin works on, because fixing those things made it easier for your body to fight off covid.
In countries with those things under control, it helped not at all.
The Big Medicine, Pharma, the fucking doctors, ruined the trial.
You see, the simple thing would be to just let the results speak for them self but NOBODY could allow that to happen with an off-sched drug that may perhaps treat the symptoms. No no. they had to lean way down to tell the ineffectual little nobodies to FUCK OFF and get with the SCIENCE!!!!
To be honest, Science fucked up by the numbers. Scaring the pants off people over a disease that culled at best, the aged, and the obese and then spreading to kill itself over making it mandatory to give an experimental vaccine to the children? Oh yeah. Science, Medicine and Doctors just fucked over their cred everywhere for all time....or at least the next 50 years.
Please pardon the language but seriously, Medicine FUCKED up beyond belief in this craze.
Let's look at the numbers. We went totally insane over WHAT??!!!!!!
HMS Defiant: Let's look at the numbers.
About a million dead in the U.S.
@ HMS Defiant - I'm not sure what you are referring to. Ruined the trial in what way? It was a double-blind placebo trial, which is the standard. As for results, they are speaking for themselves, and very strongly. Vaccines work, quite well against the first variant and even quite useful against subsequent variants. I don't know what else one would want. That's way better than the yearly flu vaccine. Ivermectin does not work, there is no evidence for it. What's the missing piece you are upset about?
Shouting that it's not science is not a persuasive argument. There are claims that many people made that were not science over the last two years from all possible POVs, but we actually have a great deal of science on board now.
I also don't know what you mean by an experimental vaccine. People keep saying that, and I suppose there might have been some argument for that in the first few months after they started trials, but we now have an enormous amount of very solid information about this vaccine, and MRNA vaccines in general. If you are following people who tell you differently, they are long out of date. Initial suspicion is always justified, but that day is long past. The doubters very much have the burden of proof now.
For vaccines, now that you mention it, if people were following the results coldly, it would be the end of the anti-vaxx movement altogether. They should be in shreds at this point. Alas, people prefer to believe their prior suspicions instead.
A double blind study doesn't mean anything if it was designed poorly. The study gave patients 400 micrograms of Ivermectin once a day for three days. Is that the same protocol that ivermectin supporters have been recommending? Wasn't there a few other drugs and vitamins required for efficacy?
Is 400 micrograms once a day sufficient to provide coverage for 24 hours or is it cleared from your system way before then? Why not 200 micrograms twice a day so that the concentration in the blood and tissues is higher throughout the day? Is one big bolus more important than a constant level in the blood and tissues? Is three days enough? How did they come up with three days? Why not two weeks?
@ Boxty - Yes. Maybe someone will go on and try those variations. But if there is nothing encouraging, why would we be concerned to keep our attention there? Unless, of course, our only real goal was to stick our finger in Someone's eye rather than figure out what actually works? How many tries do you want before you stop using research resources on something that was never more than a popular rumor and go on to things that might have at least a little effect on symptoms? Ivermectin has nothing but anecdote, some proven fraudulent studies, and some mild results from foreign countries where parasites are endemic. What would be the objective reason, rather than the political reason, to continue?
The advocates said the legit researchers were ignoring it, not giving it a chance. So someone gave it a chance. It failed. It remains only a curiosity; someone may get around to trying it more, but we have more than enough to put it in the background now.
You have granted nothing to an actual study, not an inch. You want a particular answer to be true. You are telling me not to trust your judgement on some matters inb the future.
I grant you that a three day regimen of 400 micrograms of ivermectin has been shown to not be efficacious for the treatment of COVID19 in this study.
I'm not looking to have a particular answer be true. I just don't want to be gaslit or propagandized by a poorly designed study. I don't know if that is the case here, but you and the entire establishment declaring the case closed raises my suspicions.
"...you and the entire establishment..."
That's the heart of the problem. You do actually want some answer that discredits "the establishment" to be true, which is why you bizarrely associate me, who comes from the other side and has throughout, to be somehow aligned. I went into my hospital early and mentioned -carefully - that HCQ was being touted as having some protective effect, and two (foreign, older) MD's chuckled and prescribed it for themselves that day. I started on the suspicious side because i don't trust medical bureaucracies from hard experience.
"Gaslit." "Propagandised." You think I'm deeply in danger of that? I'm telling you the shoe is on the other foot. Just see if it fits.
If it doesn't work, why did Pfizer spend all that money developing a drug that latches on to the exact same receptor that ivermectin does (albeit with a lower binding energy).
An excellent example of terrible reasoning.
I reported actual results of the study that it didn't work. You reporting some secret, known-to-but-a-few-special-ones that there is evidence that it does work, really, but THEY won't tell you is not evidence that it works.
I have written here many times over the years that not only do most of us make up our minds what results we want to see before we look into (or claim to "look into") a subject, but some of us also always prefer the secret answer, because they are convinced that is how the world really works, of the correct answer always being hidden. When that is the case, actual evidence, such as I provided here, is ignored in favor of special knowledge, nearly always inaccurate. As here. The rumor you heard about Pfizermectin is not accurate. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pfizer+covid+pill+same+as+ivermectin&t=newext&atb=v314-1&ia=web
I never said it the two drugs were exactly the same. If they were, the new one wouldn't be patentable. And I misspoke when I typed "exact same receptor". I should have said that they were both protease inhibitors. I did not read the Pfizermectin research papers. I guess Paxlovid binds to 3CL, not ACE2. I'd have to read up on 3CL.
And yes, you guessed correctly that I have called it Pfizermectin.
They are in the same family of drugs. SSRIs are a family of drugs. Antibiotics are a family of drugs. Protease inhibitors are a family of drugs.
Granted protease inhibitors are different in that they're much more specific. Protease inhibitors and related drugs such as neuraminidase inhibitors work on very specific receptors. Tamiflu, great for the flu, useless against COVID.
A randomly selected antibiotic stands a good chance of working on a random bacterial infection. A randomly selected protease inhibitor, very little chance of working on a random virus.
The thing is I've read about the COVID spike protein, the ACE2 receptor and what ivermectin does. I also know about what Big Pharma did to twist public perception regarding the safety of generic drugs.
Given what I do know, it is far easier for me to believe that ivermectin works and is being suppressed than that it doesn't work at all.
I posted a partial history of lies and manipulations that were successfully foisted on the public over the last three years by the CCP, the media, big tech, the US Government, the academic-scientific complex, Pfizer and the rest of Big Pharma.
Two minutes before Paxlovid was released, we were all supposed to believe that ivermectin was horse paste and would kill you. Two minutes after Paxlovid was released, it's now okay to believe that ivermectin is a safe medicine for humans, so long as you also believe that it's not effective.
Certain organized groups constantly lied to and screwed the public in the past, evidence only being uncovered long after the crimes were committed, but now those groups are totally trustworthy, because we have yet to uncover evidence of whatever they're doing to us at this very time.
People who use my heuristics are constantly saying "see, I told you so". People who use your heuristics are constantly saying: "well no one could have predicted that".
Am I using terrible reasoning? Is your reasoning better? In what ways has your superior reasoning proven more useful than my terrible reasoning?
Simply untrue, and untrue to what you originally claimed. See how easy it is? I am not bothering. There is no evidence Ivermectin works and all your attempts to find evidence that The Others have lied are nothing. Think me as stupid and unthinking as you please.
Post a Comment