patnor1011 wrote: » Seems that it does help.https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx For the study, published on June 17 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, a group of scientists reviewed the clinical trial use of ivermectin, which has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, in 24 randomized controlled trials involving just over 3,400 participants. The researchers sought to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection or mortality in people with COVID-19 or at high risk of getting it. Using multiple methods of sequential analysis, the researchers concluded with a moderate level of confidence that the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.79, in a sample of 2438 patients. Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percent for those who were not, according to the review. “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease,” the authors wrote. One more peer reviewed studyhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
PhoenixParker wrote: » You haven't read any of the studies on ivermectin have you? The dosing levels used in most of the prophylactic studies are the approved doses nor the "what we needed in a petri dish" doses. Nobody is pushing ivermectin instead of a vaccine. There are still billions who are months and years away from a vaccine dose.
Lumen wrote: » It's a bit tricky to thread together your points over time and various threads but I think you've stated or suggested that: 1. Lockdowns are useless or harmful. 2. Vaccines are dangerous. 3. Ivermectin is a useful prophylactic against Covid infection. 4. Ivermectin is a useful treatment for Covid disease. Taken together, you therefore seem to believe that instead of employing behavioural change and vaccines, we should instead rely on the prophylactic and treatment effects of ivermectin. Is that correct?
astrofool wrote: » As I said, there is as much studies for as against:https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use However, these things are true: the lab tests of Invermectin required much higher dosing than would usually be administered as part of a course of Invermectin That dosing level hasn't gone through safety tests The study you linked to had ~3500 people in the trial Vaccines had ~30,000 people per vaccine trial Vaccine have been administered to hundreds of millions of people and proven safe The cost of vaccines is very low compared to other treatments (especially AZ which is sold at cost) Vaccines have a much higher effective rate than any of the studies on Invermectin Which begs the question, why are you still pushing Invermectin (and why are you pushing these info dumps on random threads instead of the Invermectin thread?)
patnor1011 wrote: » Pushing? I thought anything that works will be welcome. Especially when cost and distribution come at a fraction of other methods. I guess you missed that even WHO is becoming increasingly concerned that (first gen) vaccines are becoming less effective for new strains particularly the one which originated from India. Since vaccine will not guarantee you will not get infected by this virus, we simply need to have more tools at our disposal to help treat infected people. Also, you seems to disregard quite a lot of people from the most vulnerable category who cant take vaccine due to allergies to some of its components. Or people who are for some reason simply afraid to take vaccine. People are afraid of million of things like spiders, heights, dark, dentists, injections, vaccines? These people need to have something at hand which make it easier to fight this virus when they get infected.
DylanJM wrote: » Can the mods please get this thread back on topic? There's already a thread for ivermectin discussion.
charlie14 wrote: » Agreed, but seeing as this ivermectin nonsense was brought up by a particular poster who was allowed to run with it, I personally believe that such misinformed and potentially dangerous post should not go unchallenged.
99nsr125 wrote: » You can't just post that, there are actual studies that support the use of Ivermectin. It's most effective use appears to be akin to how an anti-malarial drug is also administered. Vast continents would be familiar with that dosing regime just because the West has only come around to the almost 100% effectivness of pre-exposure for hiv should serve as a prime example that a different approach may actually be superior
FaganJr wrote: » Is this the stuff that Joe Rogan is peddling these days?
francogarbanzo wrote: » "Follow the science! Unless particular people I don't like support it, then dismiss it immediately."
FaganJr wrote: » I would agree and I did watch his Podcast where he had Doctors on who were championing this but have been banned completely from YouTube because of it. So which "Science" are you to believe?
francogarbanzo wrote: » OK so again, no science whatsoever, and only appeals to big pharma and big tech.
jaykay74 wrote: » Its funny when this thread started I think Sweden was an outlier in terms of its handling of the pandemic. Is the conservative approach in Ireland the new outlier in European terms ? Just glad I live in Stockholm!
charlie14 wrote: » Interesting few posts on outliers. We were being told on this thead not to judge Sweden until the results of them being an outlier could be fully accessed. Now Ireland is being judge for being an outlier, not on Covid deaths per population of 45% less than Sweden and 100% less infected, but on reopening. Funny old thread this.
ceadaoin. wrote: » It's pretty clear that Sweden has taken the right approach to balance living life with covid and pretty much the rest of Europe and the US is following suit at this stage. It's completely unrealistic, at well over a year into this, to continue trying to force society to live their lives with avoiding covid as the central goal. That some are still banging this drum is truly shocking and for many its simply a pig headed refusal to concede they got it wrong. Do you think covid is just going to disappear once a magical threshold of vaccinations is reached? Or if people keep wearing masks or eat outdoors for a bit longer Even? I do not see it as being anyway clear that Sweden`s approach has worked, or that anyone else even seriously contemplated following their approach. Their original approach of natural herd immunity was a failure, and like anywhere else in Europe or the US they are now dependent on vaccines to fight this pandemic. It seems to be another of those conveniently ignored facts that Ireland is not the first country to delay reopening. Sweden have also done so, and while hopefully they have got it right now, a relatively short time will show if they have or not. You appear to somehow believe that Ireland`s strategy is zero Covid. I have no idea where you get that from. The "magical threshold of vaccination" is exactly the same threshold that Sweden was attempting unethically to reach magically naturally and failed. 70% -80% of the population fully vaccinated. At present Ireland has 24% of the 60 -69 year old cohort, one of the most vulnerable, fully vaccinated. The rest due their second dose within the next few weeks.
charlie14 wrote: Interesting few posts on outliers. We were being told on this thead not to judge Sweden until the results of them being an outlier could be fully accessed. Now Ireland is being judge for being an outlier, not on Covid deaths per population of 45% less than Sweden and 100% less infected, but on reopening. Funny old thread this.
jaykay74 wrote: » Maybe Ireland has it right and the rest of Europe has it wrong. Not being facetious, that can be true.
Blut2 wrote: » Estonia, Malta, Serbia, Denmark, Cyprus, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands and other European countries all have less deaths per capita than Ireland but are substantially more open. And all have an older, more at risk population than Ireland. If Ireland had a fraction of the deaths of all other more open European countries the argument that being an outlier was worth it might hold weight, but it doesn't. We're firmly in the middle of the pack. Despite having the least at risk, youngest population of any country in Europe. Which would suggest our being the most locked down country in Europe isn't a policy that is working.
