Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ProtectOurFreedom

“The model found that:
• An efficacious response to anti-virals was only found when given within 12 hours of the onset of symptoms; “


I say BS.

This is a long way from realistic portrayal of the effects of Ivermectin.

My 95 year old father was diagnosed with Covid 7 days after we took him to the doctor. (long term test positive)

He took Ivermectin, D-3, Zinc and an antibiotic. By day 4 there were no symptoms.

“The Model found” implies computer model. This is the real world. The rest is BS.


8 posted on 07/09/2021 8:17:42 AM PDT by Texas Fossil ((Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Texas Fossil

The EVMS MATH+ and I-MASK+ protocols (Drs Kory and Marik) call for early treatment with Ivermectin and other therapeutics, but they don’t define what “early” means in hours or days.

They provide a pre-exposure prophylaxis regimen, a post-exposure prophylaxis regimen and an early outpatient regimen. As you say, their protocols are efficacious over longer periods than the 12 hours mentioned in this paper.

I’m glad your dad was successfully treated; that’s great news. Did his doctor recommend that treatment? Or was it you pushing the doctor to prescribe it? Or did you administer it on your own?


12 posted on 07/09/2021 8:28:18 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom (“I’m not a conspiracy theorist....but, I don’t believe in coincidences, either.” ~ Steve Bannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Fossil
You wrote "“The Model found” implies computer model."

The excerpt and article clearly state this work is computer modeling of the viral loads in real patients:

"The researchers used a computer model of COVID-19 in which varying viral loads in a population would result in differing rates of infectivity...The model made use of real data on the changing viral load in 30 patients assessed with PCR daily."
The author does raise an interesting point, though, about the many studies of IVM:
"The plethora of observational studies prompted by the pandemic have a fatal design flaw; they did not control the initiation of treatment. As a result, the number of participants needed to show a statistically significant effect would be about 11,000. If a study were restricted to those treated within 24 hours, the necessary number of participants would decrease to 450."
I would put controlling the initiation of treatment into the "nice to have" category. There is plenty of real world evidence (RC Trials and Observational Studies) that show it works.
16 posted on 07/09/2021 8:38:22 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom (“I’m not a conspiracy theorist....but, I don’t believe in coincidences, either.” ~ Steve Bannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson