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 ...
How to know what’s phony, and what is less phony?
Sounds like the “media” also.
Data can and will be fudged. Results can be believed.
How do you think they test the not vaccines ?
These studies are BS. Here’s why:
Ivermectin, HCQ are zinc ionophores. All they do against the virus is transport zinc across the cell membrane so zinc can disrupt viral replication.
Without zinc it they are guns without ammo.
Dr. Ralph Baric published this in 2010
He later 2016 synthesized bat coronaviruses at Wuhan that could infect humans. He also found injected vaccines worthless against it, but monoclonal antibodies effective. He’s also made recommendations needed to create a virus capable of pandemic transmission
“...the purpose of a study like this is to move beyond the anecdotal.”
Yet you’re good with the claims made by FauxiMengeleGates, Pharma, CDC, FDA, JAMA ...
I am close to 70 years old. I take a lot of vitamins including C, D3, k2, Zinc, b12. b6 plus Quercetin etc., etc., My entire family; those that live with me and those that had visited: came down with COVID after thanksgiving. I heavy'd up on the horse paste. I did not even catch a sniffle. I also tested negative when all around me tested positive and suffered an average of 7 to 10 days.
Also, I am the only one in the small company where I work that did not get vaccinated. Every one there eventually got COVID except me. Some even got it twice even after being vaccinated with one or two boosters.
Als, my 65 year old friend came down with COVID. I gave him a tube of the horse paste. He had been taking the same vitamin regimen as well. 1.5 days later he was done with it.
Horse paste or vitamins...something worked.
The entire Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is an anecdote to you ?
Here’s a study that did just that, reported in Dec 2020:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
#20 answers the question you ignored
And here’s a summary of probable ivermectin actions as an anti-viral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8688140/
I might remind that even fauxi was an author on a paper published in or just after the first decade of this century that found anti-viral action by ivermectin. Of course, since he’s a big Hillary fan-boi, he could always claim he doesn’t recall or remember or at this point, what difference does it make.
“Data can and will be fudged. Results can be believed.”
Well, that’s the problem right there, restated.
It would be great if there was a cheap, widely available, safe drug that could be repurposed against the CCP flu. It looked good enough that last year, about this time of year, I got a scrip for a couple of boxes of the human version against the possibility of getting a bad case of the coof. It’s safe, for sure, and it’s more than a little suspicious that most of the efforts laid to study efficacy have had to be conducted by self-funded physicians in poor countries, but that’s a far cry from knowing that it has the effect we had all hoped it would a year ago.
That said, in defense of ivm, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
brookwood wrote: “”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?””
Yes, by all means, read the study:
“Before the trial started, the case fatality rate in Malaysia from COVID-19 was about 1%,25 a rate too low for mortality to be the primary end point in our study. Even in a high-risk cohort, there were 13 deaths (2.7%). A recent meta-analysis of 8 randomized clinical trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection, involving 1848 patients with 71 deaths (3.8%), showed that treatment with the drug had no significant effect on survival.26”
Just a simple question. Does Ivermectin have any serious side effects? If not, then why would anyone be against someone taking this? Seems like quite a few people don’t want anyone to take it.
At therapeutic doses it is safer than Tylenol
In 2005 the National Institute of Health (NIH) performed in vitro studies of hydroxychloroquine on the original SARS virus. This study could once be found on the CDC website but is no longer there as far as I know. Their experiments showed that hydroxychloroquine, a zinc ionophore, acted as a gateway for zinc to pass through the cell membrane into the cytoplasm and inhibit the replication of the virus by blocking its access to the RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
In other words, The CDC has known since 2005 that hydroxychloroquine was effective in vitro against the SARS virus.
I’ve attached one of the most interesting lectures I’ve ever seen. It’s a Medcram lecture from early in the pandemic that talks about the CDC study and walks you through the Cellular processes to explain why they believed hydroxychloroquine is so effective. I highly recommend this lecture, it is fascinating.
This study was designed to fail. They only administered Ivermectin, no zinc, etc.
I ask again, what makes you think these researchers aren't on "our side"?
What makes you think they are?
I don’t know, but my guess is that they are pretty neutral, so I tend to believe their results.
Many here in freeperland in typical knee jerk reaction dismiss it because it was published in JAMA, a publication they don’t trust.
I’m a skeptic by nature, so I naturally consider the sources of any info and the biases they have, but I don’t dismiss it out of hand. Neither do I automatically accept any info from a source on our side.
Yet another bogus study. Participants were high risk patients only in a hospital setting, they were underdosed and were not given other supplements typically seen in FLCCC, Zelenko, et al, treatment protocols. Shame on the AMA.
It wasn't in a hospital setting. The whole point was to see if Ivermectin prevented hospitalization.
Shame on the AMA.
The AMA had nothing to do with the design or execution of this trial in Malaysia. The JAMA just published the results.
how much you getting paid for your disinfo. It worked for me and several others here. Sad how dishonest the big pharma has become.
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.