The experimental group received ivermectin orally 2 tablets of 6 mg every 7 days and iota-carrageenan 6 sprays per day for 4 weeks.
This trial involved the use of a combination of ivermectin and iota carrageenan, which is a polymer derived from seaweed that has been shown to have antiviral properties which work against viruses such as herpes simplex, dengue and the influenza virus... The study did not include separate groups receiving just the nasal spray or just ivermectin and therefore did not provide data on the individual effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing Covid-19 infection.
https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-ivermectin-5526152-Aug2021/
OK, your logic follows ivermectin does not work.
People should use this then if it did all the heavy lifting?
Something aided better outcomes.
Maybe! If only the trial had focused on one or the other we would know? I don't know why you would setup a trial and then use two different medicines in the experimental group versus the control group.
Ok, here are the issues with that particular study;
They are HCW, in constant contact with covid patients.
There was a control group.
Something aided the treatment group.
I would say 80/20 (nasal spray/ivermectin) in terms of helpfulness.
There will never be a single bullet treatment to aid covid.
Its not even ethical at this stage with peoples lives on the line.
Maybe they genuinely didnt want the HCW in the treatment group to catch covid or come to serious harm?
I also believe more than one treatment is needed with regards to prevention/treatment.
Its a multi-pronged approach.
Two treatments and 4 mild doses of covid, not a bad outcome for treatment group.
One point number 1, how exactly would the control group knowing they haven't received ivermectin lead to the outcomes shown in the study?
You have a group of healthcare workers in a highly exposed environment and the group that didn't take Ivermectin ended up having 25 positive C-19 infections, wheras the group that took Ivermectin seen only 4. What about knowing whether you took Ivermectin or not would lead to those results?
On your second point, are you saying that this nasel spray led to these staggering results?
Point 3, they're in a high risk environment.
Knowing if you had the placebo vs. medicine changes human behaviour (e.g. they may mingle in different groups), there also needs to be controls in place for where they work (e.g. number of infected in the ward they work in), the number in the trial is so low that a single infection spread would change the results drastically from one group to the other, the confidence interval would be very large.
The difference between the control and experiement is huge though and that can't just be discarded because of human behaviour.
Even if there was the potential for a super spreader imacting the numbers, the differences in case severity between the control infected and experiment infected is surely worth a note.
4 mild infections in treatment group/25 infections in control group with 10 of them moderate/severe cases.
One infection in either group would not drastically change results.
I think youve got your maths wrong there bud?
1 infection spread would have significantly changed the results.
I like how you assume I can't add 4+1 and realize it's less than 25.
There is a reason double blind trials are used, none of those trials would pass approval with any of the medicine authorities which is why it hasn't been approved, if the vaccines had been submitted with that data, they would not have been approved.
But have some decorum please.
Those type of results would show promise and could secure funding for a proper double blind trial.
There was 25 infections in control group and 4 infections in treatment group.
If your sensitive to be being wrong I apologise.
But Joe Rogan is a self publicising spanner. I wouldn't put it past any of these shams making money off listens and hits to have already got the vaccine. There's multiples of these people who are pretending they didn't have the vacine. But making hey off being lauded by followers. Trump being the king in that regard.
Pfizers new oral covid pill is a protease inhibitor
Isn't ivermectin also a protease inhibitor?
"Results: Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral protease, which could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency."
You're spinning out a bit, did you honestly think I thought 4+1 was equal to 25? The point was that a single infection in either group with a highly infectious virus would spread and cause multiple people to be infected and skew the results significantly, which is why the trials need to be double blinded (among other procedures to remove bias). If that study was put forward for approval it would fail immediately.
His vaccination status is unknown and he was treated with very expensive mono-clonal antibodies which are an approved effective treatment, he's also not in a vulnerable group.
Or maybe a single infection/exposure in treatment group wouldnt?
Your asking me now are you good at maths?
Thats between you are your maths teacher.
Maybe treatment works at stopping infection as this study says also.
And we would find out for certain with a properly run trial!
Exactly his vacination status is unknown so don't be giving any credence to whatever he says. These people making money of being outspoken. I've little time for Rogan tbh. Doesn't matter the subject he's a money making cad .
Your assuming the worst.
I'm an optimist.
I have a rock in my garden that wards off COVID, none in my family or neighbors have caught COVID or been sick over the last 18 months.
I'll sell it to you for €100, guaranteed to work*
*Not a guarantee
Ah now, that's hardly the same thing.
And you asked me to have decorum.
Decorum please posters when Astro feels embarrassed.
You're right, my rock offers 100% proven efficacy in a completely blinded 18 month trial.
Your answer to all the problems and badly run trials has been that you're an optimist, implying that the reason Ivermectin isn't being used is because all of the health authorities are pessimists.
As said, my rock is proven to work, an optimist would pay €100 for it.
"Something aided the control group"
Well, 4 out of 117 got Covid in the space of four weeks. Even noting that they're health-care workers, that's extremely high so it's questionable if the guys getting ivermectin and carrageenan got any protection at all.
So then you ask, what the hell happened the control group? Those Covid rates are absolutely off the charts. Let's look a bit more closely at them.
The treatment group was made up of 99 HCWs and 18 non-HCWs. The 'control' group was made up of 82 HCWs and 35 non-HCWs. Or, the control group had double the number of non-HCWs compared to the treatment arm. There is no explanation of why the treatment and controls were not matched, but somebody decided to load the control group with orderlies, admin staff and cleaners who would be less well trained in PPE and hygiene than doctors and nurses. THAT is why proper blinding of a trial is important.
And look closer, the control arm had double the number of obese subjects, obesity being a known risk factor for Covid.
My answer is if I see good results from something like iota-carrageenan in multiple studies I am positive about that.
I dont be negative and say a regulator has'nt approved this as covid recommended treatment therefore it is zero efficacy.
Comparing iota-carrageenan to a rock sums your tendency toward the negative.
Yes all 4 cases were mild in treatment group, unlike control that had 10 moderate/severe.
Treatment group had higher co-morbidities in other risk factors.
Number of co-morbidities in each group was similar.
Control group having more people not treating covid patients is a reduction in infection risk not an Increase.
I dont feel your arguments in this case were well thought out.
You could also turn what you've pointed it out on it's head and say that the experimental group had more participants within a high-risk environment, which could have led to a higher risk of exposure. You're assuming that those within the hospital environment that were not HCWs were not trained on proper PPE use. I know that in Ireland anyone working in the building were shown how to use PPE properly.
There are also more participants in the experiemental group with hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease, which balances the scales in terms of vulnerability among participants.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/cc5c49cbcd8338fb80f9b4941d6b358e.svg)
