Posted on 03/05/2021 8:24:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Hi.
Did the article mention the dose/regime for a healthy male 180 lbs and 67 yrs old?
Asking for a friend.
5.56mm
I’ll defer to JAMA on the science: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389
Why would you take an anti-parisitic drug if you're a healthy male without parisites?
This site will tell you about the dosage that you need:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/i-mask-prophylaxis-treatment-protocol/
It is from the The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance was created by highly published critical care specialists from major academic medical centers with collectively over 1,000 medical publications.
If it is efficacious against the Rona?
Just like a Z pack, HQL and zinc.
Just adding to the knowledge base.
5.56mm
Thanks.
5.56mm
There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong.
Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.
Source: US Food and Drug Administration https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
It isn't. The vaccine however is free and very effective.
Thanks for the additional information.
5.56mm
These are the same publications that would not tolerate any pediatrician claiming that there are only two genders.
If Twitter and Facebook censor it, it has to be true.
I have a friend who is a Dt. That does Carona virus research for a pharmaceutical Co. He treats his patients that have Covid with Ivermetin with a 100% success rate!
Microscopic sample size compared to my post.
That’s 44 studies, 15,000 patients for me, 1 study 400 patients for you?
Orders of magnitude, dude.
You might want to add an apple. Or some apple sauce.
I see you’ve been most appropriately told, for your absurd post.
Why would you take an anti-parisitic drug if you’re a healthy male without parisites?
——-
Better than taking an EXPERIMENTAL, unproven mNRA agent for something that is 95++% survivable.
And, easily preventable, and treatable with longtime, safe, effective drugs.
Questions about the JAMA study of ivermectin TRIALSITE NEWS - March 6, 2021On March 4, JAMA published “Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19;A Randomized Clinical Trial” by Eduardo López-Medina et al. The main finding of the study was:
“In this randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients, the duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo…”
The authors self-reported a change to the original primary endpoint after the initiation of the study. They also acknowledged that the study was not designed to detect a difference in the hazards ratio between the intervention and the control arms of less than 1.4. Other limitations they acknowledged were the lack of virological assessment, serum plasma measurement and observable differences between the treatment drug and the placebo during a part of the trial. The authors also self-report an incident during the trial in which study participants were given the study drug instead of the placebo.
However, other questions are raised by the publication, that may be more significant:
1) On page 27 and 28 of Supplement 1 attached to the publication, the final secondary outcomes of the trial are listed. One of those outcomes is “The duration of supplemental oxygen in each arm of the study.” This outcome dose not appear in Table 2 “Outcomes in the Primary Analysis Population” or in Supplement 2 attached to the publication. Why was this outcome omitted from the publication?2) The study protocol was amended 4 times. The changes to the protocol at each amendment is given on page 43 of Supplement 1 attached to the publication. The changes are listed for amendments 2–4 but not for amendment 1. Were there substantive changes to the protocol with the first amendment?
3) The final title to the protocol was “Double blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the D11AX22 molecule in adult subjects from Valle Del Cauca with initial stages of infection by SARS CoV2/COVID 19.” Were the subjects in this study informed that the purpose of the trial was to determine the effectiveness of ivermectin in COVID-19?
Clearly you understand the difference between a study of ivermectin’s safety record, and a study of ivermectin speeding recovery from covid.
Those are 2 different issues entirely.
Even had I been wrong, which I’m not, I would be puzzled why I should be ashamed at reading an article. I don’t think you should be ashamed just because you misread it.
Take 10,000 low quality observational studies and put them next to one well designed double blind study with randomized controlled trials and the one good study invalidates the others. Sorry for hurting your feelings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.