US hits 40 million COVID-19 cases

The Hill ^ | 08/07/2021 | Lexi Lonas

[VideoDoctor]

And where are the usual Seasonal cases of the Flu and Pneumonia?

I guess they NO longer EXIST!

[cp124]

Oh my god!. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

[MNJohnnie]

The NIH , you know vax Naziss own holy of holies, says you are a liar

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

Meta-Analysis Am J Ther
. 2021 Jun 21;28(4):e434-e460. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402.
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
Andrew Bryant 1, Theresa A Lawrie 2, Therese Dowswell 2, Edmund J Fordham 2, Scott Mitchell 3, Sarah R Hill 1, Tony C Tham 4
Affiliations expand
PMID: 34145166 PMCID: PMC8248252 DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402
Free PMC article
Abstract
Background: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.

Areas of uncertainty: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.

Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

Therapeutic advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

So can one of you math wizards on this thread tell us what percentage of America’s population have died from the China virus?

[Wayne07]

You are right that there IS a problem with PCR testing: it is that you might show positive weeks or months after having COVID. So if it is being used to quarantine someone, or as a determination as to whether you can get on a plane, it may effectively show a false “contagious” positive. It could show you as sick when that is clearly no longer true because it is amplifying old genetic material. But the one thing it is effective at is showing whether you’ve had COVID at some point, so it is a reasonable way to count total cases. There will be a low false positive for total cases, and high false positive for currently sick.

[Trillian]

100 gorillian cases!

[frogjerk]

But the one thing it is effective at is showing whether you’ve had COVID at some point, so it is a reasonable way to count total cases

I dont think that is totally proven because there are reports of PCR tests finding fragments of COVID which doesn't prove it was actually contracted or different PCR results showing inanimate objects with COVID due to high PCR cycles.

[ronnie raygun]

Fear porn in high gear

[DugwayDuke]

MNJohnnie wrote: “The NIH , you know vax Naziss own holy of holies, says you are a liar”
Your link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

However there is this link as well:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839

Which states:

Conclusions
Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

My comment: you’ll note I did not call you a liar even though these two studies are contradictory.

Now I have a question for you. This was a meta analysis which means it considered multiple studies. Was the flawed Egyptian study one of those studies included in the meta analysis which would have had a significant impact on the results.

A second question. If the study you referenced produced those kinds of results and it was sponsored by NIH why hasn’t NIH changed their recommendation not to use Ivermectin to treat COVID?

[HandyDandy]

Correct. This great country of our provides one (1) option to fight the chinese bio weapon. That’s your option. An experimental biological agent. That’s it. Take it or leave.
Cripse, even India has now developed a conventional vaccine. But that is not an option for you. Your Government grants you one (1) option.