The Ivermectin discussion

PureIsle · 30-03-2022 8:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118857304#Comment_118857304

What are those supposed to show me?

Where are the peer reviewed independent studies? Surely you expect the same types of studies for these as you do for your "snake oil"?

Referring to your links ...

Where are the data for effectiveness ? Links:

1st ...... just some claims by WHO and they do not even show the data on which they base those claims. No Data.

2nd .... A news story with unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness. No Data.

3rd ....... This does not disagree with what I have posted. There is no claim that the jabs prevent anything .... is that peer reviewed ? I could see no reference.

Conclusions: The COVID-19 vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2-related diseases in real-world settings.

What about declarations by authors of any connection to 'interested' parties? Maybe I missed those but if so I expect you can point them out to me.

4th ...... Irish times repeating press releases from pharma companies. No Data.

5th ....... yet another pharma claim from April 2021 before any real world data of substance was available, with all the historic baggage the those pharma companies bring with them.

Nowhere in any of those are there claims (not even by the pharma companies) that the products prevent infection, illness or death.

Look at some real world data from the past year and see that yes there are among the vaccinated

deaths
severe illness
infections ...... it appears from the UK numbers recently that the vaccinated are getting infected as a much higher rate than the unvaccinated. So not only do the vaccines not prevent infection but it is a cause of concern that the vax might be causing positive test results (infection).

That is all a far cry from these injections preventing anything.

We also had the situation in Waterford where there was nearly 100% vax rate producing huge numbers of infections.

You might call that prevention of infection, but I most definitely do not.

Try to think about it logically ..... if these vaccines prevented infections then that is all that would be needed to stop this thing in its tracks, once a sizeable proportion of the population was vaccinated.

It must be obvious, even to you, that this is not the case.

PeadarCo · 30-03-2022 9:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858102#Comment_118858102

They show you vaccines are effective at preventing serious illness and death from Covid. The fact that this has be explained to you in March 2022 is crazy. Understand prevent does not mean eliminate. It was never promised that if you got the vaccine you would never get Covid or potentially die from Covid. When the vaccine was Pfizer vaccine was approved it was on the basis of it being 95% effective against serious illness and death which has been borne out by time. If you actually read the links I sent you will see that. Here's another link that shows effective the vaccine is.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

Have I linked peer reviewed honestly I don't know, I just did a quick Google search. But what's the point going through the effort if you cannot understand the simplified version. You aren't going to be able to understand a scientific journal. And also you will just change the goal posts or do as you have done here and just ignore the evidence. It's been your tactic the whole way through with Ivermectin. Can I ask you what proof do you need to understand that vaccines work?

You have constructed a strawman. You say vaccines don't work because people get Covid. If that's your standard for the vaccine working then no medical treatment is effective because practically no medical treatment is 100% effective. However your standard is not the standard used by the medical profession and by health authorities world wide.

And to bring it back to Ivermectin, Ivermectin is as beneficial as tap water in relation to Covid ie useless. You hold vaccines to a ludicrously high standard while promoting Ivermectin even though you know its snake oil in relation to Covid.

Former Former Former · 30-03-2022 9:19pm

Oh look.

The ivermectin conspiracy guy now thinks vaccines are a sham.

I did NOT see that coming.

odyssey06 · 30-03-2022 9:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858439#Comment_118858439

You can be sure if Ivermectin had the volumes of real scientific data backing its effectiveness that Pfizer vaccine had... and the only vaccine was rejected by FDA but backed by rogue doctors in grainy overlong youtube videos... they would be defending the vaccine.

PureIsle · 30-03-2022 10:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858380#Comment_118858380

There you go again ..... making up things you claim I said that I never did.

As you apparently are incapable of understanding what is written I see no purpose in writing much further for you to misinterpret,

You say vaccines don't work because people get Covid.

No I did not. That is your, I believe now deliberate, misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I challenge you to quote me in context.

Also for your education you should look up the meaning of "prevent".

But I suspect it is pointless as you seem incapable of understanding English.

If that is because English is not your first language then you should say so.

Otherwise read and comprehend before making silly mistakes due to not understanding simple English words.

PureIsle · 30-03-2022 10:29pm

Ah the three musketeers are here together.

Welcome guys/gals.

I hope you are all well.

😀

As you brought Covid vaccines into this I would question their effectiveness ..... they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials.

Former Former Former · 30-03-2022 10:32pm

A well designed trial published in the world's most respected journal concludes... ivermectin doesn't work. Literally no better than placebo.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869?query=featured_home

There's no more debate.

PeadarCo · 30-03-2022 11:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858774#Comment_118858774

The fact that you feel the need to insult me just sums up your lack of evidence. We all read what you post. Don't get upset about being called out posting anti vax nonsense. It's obvious that you don't think vaccines work. You say that yourself This is a direct quote "

"they do not prevent infection .... they do not prevent shredding of the virus ....... they do not prevent development of Covid illness ....... and do not prevent death from Covid. To me that means they are not very effective at all as a public health measure, despite their efficacy being shown in some trials."

Anyone can read the post where you say this.

But I'm afraid that quote is all rubbish. Your point about clinical trials indicates you actually don't understand those results in the first place and or have already dismissed them. The clinical trials for Pfizer vaccine said it was 95% effective against serious illness and death. No mention about people not getting Covid, spreading it etc just serious illness and death. And at the end of the day the main purpose of restrictions has always been to prevent the health service being overloaded.

For a real world indication of the importance of Covid vaccines I'd advise you to look at Hong Kong and the damage done to its unvaccinated population and compare that to Ireland and any other country with high levels of vaccination.

For ultimate context you mention vaccines being ineffective while posting in a thread about a drug that doesn't work when it comes to Covid treatment. Ivermectin doesn't work if it did the company who makes the drug would get it approved for Covid treatment.

I appreciate you find my posts long winded but understand they are addressed not to you but to anyone reading who is on the fence and not familiar with the tactics of science deniers. Anyone who thinks Covid vaccines don't work and puts their hope in a random conspiracy theory won't change their opinion because of my posts.

PureIsle · 31-03-2022 12:56am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858809#Comment_118858809

https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/what-went-wrong-with-the-together?s=r

I was very surprised to note that the trial started with a single dose and later switched to a 3 dose regime.

Very odd.

Then it was apparently cut short?

But what concerned me most along with the short duration of medicating was the late start ...... maybe 8 days after symptoms appear.

It has been well written up that the dosing with ivermectin should start immediately symptoms appear or asap after. Of course it would be better again to take it as a prophylaxis.

There are more 'concerns' in the article I linked.

Maybe some of them have been addressed with the last release of the document as linked.

EDIT: I forgot to add this link giving details of the trial protocol

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869/suppl_file/nejmoa2115869_protocol.pdf

31-03-2022 10:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118858809#Comment_118858809

We have many conflicting peer reviewed papers when it comes to Ivermectin in relation to covid. I don't know enough about research and drug trials to understand which are true. Such conflicting papers over something so important is very concerning.

What I do notice is that the mainstream media only report on the papers that show Ivermectin as having no value in relation to covid.

The paper you linked to was published yesterday in the New England Journal (I don’t think it is peer reviewed yet) shows Ivermectin as not working. This is been widely reported in the mainstream media already. For example - https://www.theage.com.au/national/major-study-confirms-ivermectin-useless-against-covid-19-20220330-p5a9bp.html

I’d expect many more reports on this paper in the mainstream media in the coming days.

But this peer reviewed paper published on the 15th January that shows Ivermectin as working against covid got no mainstream media reports that I am aware of - https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

Such conflicting papers to me is very confusing. And just to add to the confusion here is an article picking holes in the Together Trial that was used for the paper you linked to that’s published in the New England Journal since yesterday.

https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/what-went-wrong-with-the-together?s=r

Personally I remain open minded to Ivermectin but in no way have the expertise or knowledge to make a judgement. Either way this episode has made me trust the mainstream media less.

Former Former Former · 31-03-2022 1:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860074#Comment_118860074

'Cureus' is an open-access journal, i.e. anyone can publish anything they want on it. "Peer-reviewed" simply means someone else read it before it went out; in the case of that article, peer-review was completed in nine days and it was published two days later - which basically means the peer-reviewer didn't raise a single question or edit on it. So ask yourself how rigorous that process was? A study on 150,000 people and they nailed the write-up first time around?

For reputable journals - and again, NEJM is probably the most respected medical journal in the world - you would expect to do several rewrites over a number of months before it would finally be published.

There is simply no comparison. Saying the mainsteam media didn't report it is like saying RTE didn't pick up on my Instagram post from my holiday in Lanzarote last week, but gave lots of coverage to the Ukrainian president going to London.

31-03-2022 4:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118860902#Comment_118860902

I do not know the answer as I do not have the background to know, but what is in it for Cureus to keep a paper making "false claims" on its website? Surely people would have notified them by now saying the paper is making false claims and they would have removed it or redact it as it would be bad for their reputation to have such a paper on their website.

So are the issues raised in this piece about the Together Trail not valid, without merit?

https://doyourownresearch.substack.com/p/what-went-wrong-with-the-together?s=r

PureIsle · 31-03-2022 5:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118861871#Comment_118861871

They have intervened and corrected the conflicts of interest section here

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching/correction/126

Geuze · 01-04-2022 1:23am

See link no.3 below:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/03/thursday-assorted-links-349.html

Ivermectin: the largest randomized, double-blind trial yet conducted, with early treatment, indicates there is no difference compared with placebo. It doesn't work. Period.

just published @NEJM

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1509275271274323975

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

PureIsle · 01-04-2022 11:26am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118864038#Comment_118864038

As pointed out previously the design of this trial was very good, but its execution left a lot to be desired.

It is named:

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

But the start of the treatment was anything but early, being administered to

Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression

It was supposed to estimate

The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19),

but those enrolled were attending emergency rooms. That is not an early stage of infection, although technically it could be said that it is the early stage of the development of the Covid illness after being infected for maybe 7 days.

Also in this well designed trial they changed the dosage during the trial.

Huh?

Something very weird there.

Lots of other concerns have been expressed about this section of the trial also by many commentators.

Hopefully all those who call into question different Ivermectin trials for various reasons, will take a good look at this trial and apply the same critical standards to it.

PureIsle · 02-04-2022 3:24pm

Some of the problems discovered with the Ivermectin part of the Together trial are highlighted in the following

https://philharper.substack.com/p/the-cant-add-together-trial?s=r

The main difference for me is the deaths calculations for both arms of the trial.

It reports

Control Group no. of deaths 21 as 3.1%
Placebo Group no. of deaths 24 as 3.5%

But if those deaths were calculated against the number of people who adhered to the trial criteria to the end, then the numbers would come out as

Control Group no. of deaths 21 as 3.4%
Placebo Group no. of deaths 24 as 8.3% or 10.3% (depending on which number you used from the trial data, as it is unclear if the number was 228 or 288 that completed the placebo arm).

If the above is really what has happened then we are looking at a huge difference in outcome.

Hopefully there is some information forthcoming from those who ran the trial to properly explain these apparent discrepancies to everyone's satisfaction.

01-01-2023 1:32pm

This thread is soon(ish) to be obsolete…

https://feeds.issuerdirect.com/news-release.html?newsid=6026818238804493

The Ivermectin discussion

Comments