Posted on 08/18/2022 8:49:39 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
A long-awaited study at the University of Minnesota has found that the controversial drug ivermectin is not effective at treating COVID-19.
The findings, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, add to a growing body of scientific evidence pushing back against the use of the antiparasitic drug that has been promoted by some prominent voices on social media.
The U of M’s study focused on three common drugs: ivermectin, metformin, and fluvoxamine. Researchers determined that none of the drugs proved effective at preventing low oxygen levels, ER visits, hospitalization or death.
The study showed some promise for the diabetes drug metformin, but the data is not definitive.
“We’re just really grateful to be able to share our work broadly and to have been published in a medical journal,” said Dr. Carolyn Bramante, the lead researcher on the study.
The team’s study is now at least the third large-scale study on ivermectin released this year that found the drug is not effective in treating COVID-19.
5 INVESTIGATES started following the issue months ago, soon after fights to get the drug went from the hospital room to the courtroom.
Some patients filed lawsuits against hospitals and doctors that refused to prescribe the controversial drug.
“I’ve done a lot of research on it,” Kathy Huspek told 5 INVESTIGATES back in January for why she filed a lawsuit against St. John’s Hospital in Maplewood shortly after her husband Gerry was admitted to the ICU.
A judge refused to intervene, saying he cannot force a hospital to use a drug that is “not within the standard of care.”
Researchers at the U of M hope the new results help patients understand what actually works in treating COVID-19.
“The virus is changing. And so we need all the tools in the toolbox that we can get as we combat this virus,” Bramante said.
Hit piece for the #IFLS morons.
You really needed to post the whole sentence, because what you provided makes it seem like it was effective regarding the items listed 🙂:
Researchers determined that none of the drugs proved effective at preventing low oxygen levels, ER visits, hospitalization or death.
But I agree, dosage coupled with the early administration, in the confirmation period of infection, are important aspects of the treatment.
Yet another dishonest study executed with the per-designed outcome to fit the conclusion due to misapplication of the process.
There you go bringing facts into it again
“Vaccines are never treatments”
Vaccines are not vaccines.
Yeh sure. 🙄
More big pharma propaganda from a left-wing university. I have the horse paste in my frig and every time I get a sore throat or feel like I’m getting sick, I take a pinky fingernail size glop for 3 days and bingo, it’s gone. Haven’t had the China Virus and don’t want it!
From my husband's experience, Ivermectin.
For me, budesonide.
But then we are a State family.
“Except that it DID work magnificently for me, my family, and a number of friends.”
With a 99% or more survival rate, it would take a trial involving many thousands to collect meaningful data. If you took 500 people, and expect 495-499 to survive doing nothing, then how many would it take to get a statistically meaningful number?
That said, NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY means squat UNTIL you read how the study was constructed. For example, a recent study said eating grapes would add 5 years to your life...but it was done on mice, not humans. And involved freeze-dried extracts, not grapes. AND it was funded by a grape growers association:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAEV-GH6UGw
What we don't know, is if they made funding contingent upon
a) waiting until the people had had covid for 3 days and
b) symptoms within the last 7 days.
Eligibility criteria included an age of 30 to 85 years; a body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) associated with overweight or obesity; proof of SARS-CoV-2 infection within the past 3 days; and an onset of symptoms within 7 days before randomization. Details regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria and BMI values are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
I know how much ivermectin to use, but not sure on the zinc?
I guess health officials on several continents will be much surprised...
They lie like rugs.
Here is what they found:
“The adjusted odds ratio for a primary event was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.09; P=0.19) with metformin, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.45; P=0.78) with ivermectin, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.36; P=0.75) with fluvoxamine. In prespecified secondary analyses, the adjusted odds ratio for emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) with metformin, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.69) with ivermectin, and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.40) with fluvoxamine. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.11) with metformin, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.33 to 3.76) with fluvoxamine.”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201662
Now, what do we know about confidence intervals:
“If the confidence interval crosses 1 (e.g. 95%CI 0.9-1.1) this implies there is no difference between arms of the study.” IOW, when the confidence interval crosses one, you don’t actually know ANYTHING.
So to repeat,, what did they find out about Ivermectin treatment?
“The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was...0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin”
The interval is 0.19 to 2.77. IOW, THEY DON’T KNOW JACK SHIT!
A proper summary would be, “We didn’t have enough numbers to learn anything from this experiment, so you might as well toss this in the trash!”
Please notice EVERY CONFIDENCE LEVEL crossed one, and crossed it GROSSLY: “0.19 to 2.77”!
no mention of zinc
i know i was sick as a dog including chest congestion
the FLCCC protocol(ivermectin, zinc, etc.) cleared it up in 48 hours
fortunately i had the ivermectin on hand
was it covid? i dont know but it cleared out my lungs and back to work in 48 hours
“Except that it DID work magnificently for me, my family, and a number of friends.”
Me, too.
I bought another five-day regimen last week, and was surprised that the dosage was higher than it was a year ago. The pharmacist said the newer strains need higher doses. The current strain isn’t as dangerous, but may be more contagious.
This study is a complete farce. They never used Zinc with Ivermectin. All the Ivermectin protocols call for Zinc to be used in combination with Ivermectin in order to successfully treat Covid. This idiots have not proven anything except their stupidity or duplicity or both.
I know one lady that has been on oxygen since I’ve known her 10+ years. Thought she would last a day if she ever caught the virus. When I found out she had actually caught it she said her DR gave her ivermectin and within a couple hours she started feeling better.
She got the virus at the end of the 1st wave too not the weak strain.
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.