Posted on 02/18/2022 10:34:14 AM PST by semimojo
Question: Does adding ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, to the standard of care reduce the risk of severe disease in patients with COVID-19 and comorbidities?
Findings: In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.
Meaning: The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamanetwork.com ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
Open label? So it’s purposely NOT blind? Why would they do that? Why would JAMA publish that?
Fauci has blood on his hands staying silent on EARLY treatments pure EVIL SCUM!!!
If they did, it wouldn’t be published. The Lancet, JAMA, and NEJM are all completely in the tank for Big Pharm. 100%
When someone lies, like the Lancet and JAMA did, they cannot be believed ever again. And they only withdrew it because they were caught.
But there are a lot of people, even some on this very forum, who are invested in that for some reason.
48 hours i was up and about. a bit tired for a day or two. that from starting with high fever and very unusual and painful muscle aches that made it very difficult to sleep.
Think about what you just said.
You're assuming these Malaysian researchers aren't on "our side" solely because of the result of the study.
How do you know what side they were on?
Yep, I’ve seen studies that have been all over the map concerning the effectiveness of Ivermectin and lots of other things, including the vaccines. It makes you wonder if a lot of medical research has serious biases built into it, one way or the other.
The trouble is, lots of things look promising (even amazingly effective) in vitro, but have zero or very weak effect in vivo. The only way to truly test is in well-designed randomized placebo-controlled human studies.
Ok.....so, she’s on deaths door. Family sues so she can be treated with the Ivermectin protocol. She survives.
And that’s an anecdote. As are the 1000s of others in this country and the millions around the world that have been using it. All anecdotal. Got it.
So a study has to be done by the “experts” at the CDC, NIH, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Emory, MD Anderson Medical Center, etc etc, and those very same “experts” have to come to the same conclusion that it and other drugs work. Got it. Perfect.
The same “corrupt experts” that are murdering people with ventilators and remdesevir. Those “experts”.
Ivermectin should be taken with zinc. Ivermectin is an ionophore which facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell. The zinc in turn inhibits the rna protase which copies the virus.
I took a five day course of ivermectin with zinc and vitimin d when I first got covid. I believe this was responsible for the mildness of the symptoms and the speed of recovery.
“Meaning: The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
Then this study is a LIE!
WHO paid for it?
The Voluminous evidence in the REAL world says that it does work!
Was the purpose of that study to find out if Ivermectin works or was it so they could go ... SEE, SEE!
DennisR wrote: “It is probably impossible to know whether or not ivermectin and/or HCQ help battle Covid without doing laboratory experiments. In other words, place the Covid 19 virus in a petri dish (or whatever) and add ivermectin. See if it harms the virus at all. If it does, then it works. If not, it probably does not. Do the same with HCQ.”
https://www.healthline.com/health/in-vivo-vs-in-vitro#real-life-examples
Not all ‘petri’ dish results are transferable to in the body results.
Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).“
GUYS AND GALS READ THE STUDY!!!!
Ivermectin cut the death rate by 69 percent!! 3 deaths for Ivermectin versus 10 for standard care!! So absurd to claim the study was about “progression to severe disease” ? Isn’t death a sign of severe disease?
I’m not assuming anything, nor am I judging the Malaysians one way or the other. I don’t know who funded their study. Nor am I necessarily doubting their results.
In science reproducibility of a test by even (or especially) the doubters is the gold standard.
I’m only suggesting that to remove any pilitical component from this argument is to have some honest researchers on our side perform the same study. It might influence all the doubting freepers to accept the results - or not.
So do you know of anyone on “our” side who has done that? It’s not a gotcha question, just a simple question that I don’t know the answer to.
Malaysia... please
There is definitely something strange about the way that ivermectin has been discussed in the press, but this study looks a lot like something that we’ve been waiting to see for some time.
Previous studies, most notoriously the UK RECOVERY study looked at late-stage disease without selecting high risk patients. That does not appear to be the case with this paper.
The good news: “Within the first week of patients’ symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.” That’s where you would expect to see some benefit. Early treatment, high-risk patients.
Mixed bag: Patients ... receive(d) either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight (good, using the higher dose than the usual .2mg/kg for parasite infection) daily for 5 days (not so good... arbitrarily stopping treatment)
But this doesn’t look good for IVM. Early reports were promising, some early studies were clearly designed to show that it had no effectiveness, but that’s not the case with this paper.
Starting to look like the data are showing that the effectiveness is modest, at best. Most unfortunate.
Starting to look like the data are showing that the effectiveness is modest, at best. Most unfortunate.
Sure and data cannot be manipulated. Like the COVID data was so honest.
Sorry I can’t believe any of this crap any more.
“If they did, it wouldn’t be published. The Lancet, JAMA, and NEJM are all completely in the tank for Big Pharm. 100%”
I agree, they’re hardly neutral observers and it’s good to be skeptical of what they report. But it doesn’t mean that everything they report is a lie. After all just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re not being followed.
This study is from Malaysia, so I tend to lean toward believing the results.
But to remove 99% of doubt, a similar clinical test done by honest but admitted skeptics would help do that.
Don’t you agree?
That’s an interesting problem.
How to know what’s phony, and what is less phony?
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.