Posted on 02/18/2022 3:31:07 PM PST by Coronal
Malaysian researchers found that treatment with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin did not prevent patients with COVID-19 from becoming severely ill in a randomized clinical trial published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal on Friday.
The researchers said their findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.
The study enrolled 490 patients with mild to moderate illness at 20 hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia. Everyone received standard care; half the group also received ivermectin.
Severe disease developed in 21.6% of the patients given ivermectin and in 17.3% of those who received only standard care, the researchers said.They defined severe disease as requiring oxygen to help with breathing.
There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in rates of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, or death, according to the study.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Every time they come out with a “study” like this and say “Nope, the Ivermectin doesn’t work” and make no mention of zinc as part of the protocol, I can’t help but think of OJ being asked to put on the glove and watching him act badly “It...it doesn’t fit...”
Those are very different things.
One is based on cases confirmed clinically and by testing and the other is based on the estimate of all infections in the population whether reported or not.
Below is a direct copy from the study: The fact they say there is NO improvement is patently ridiculous!! In every statistic, the Ivermectin group out-performed the control group. And are we to believe the control group got NO treatment??
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).
You are right of course. Thanks for the correction.
Pharma companies and doctors have made so much money prescribing Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Pure profit motive snake oil nonsense. All you nuts fell for it, and many died.
As to the infection fatality rate, one finds debate beginning in 2020. "This is one of the most important issues in trying to understand how deadly COVID-19 is and how we should respond to it, and yet opinion is sharply divided about it, with some researchers putting it at between 0.1% and 0.2% (John Ioannidis), while others – such as the epidemiologists working for the WHO – putting it at 3.4%."
Source: https://dailysceptic.org/what-is-the-infection-fatality-rate/
Additional source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7947934/
Neither can be "correct" on a global scale, in the same way that one cannot tell the temperature of the world.
"Confirmed by clinical testing" is also problematic, given that the RT-PCR test run at different numbers of cycles yields different results, as was shown in the first 12 months of the "event." And now one learns that much testing cannot make a distinction between flus and the SARS-CoV2. Ergo, "clinical testing" itself becomes an approximation.
So one point is that both IFR and CFR are estimations, even though one claims to be collecting all the "confirmed" cases.
My point is that ONLY the mortality rate tells the EFFECT of deaths on a population when both the deaths of that population AND the population are numerator and denominator. And yes, in this event ALSO inexact.
Even so, and given that ALL the data is inexact, the mortality rate is calculated form the "official" sources as about 0.0740 % worldwide.
None of this involves my estimating anything at all. Taking at face value what the various "official" source purport to be accurate, the "pandemic" isn't what the media hysteria and government fists have been telling us it is.
Case in point: Canada, now under "emergency powers" martial law, has a far lower mortality rate than the US, though far higher than China.
Canada after 26 months of the "pandemic"
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/canada
19 February 2022
( 35,955 Canadians officially dead / 37,742,154 Canadians still living after COVID ) x 100 = 0.095 % mortality rate.
Less than one-tenth of one percent over the course of the "pandemic." So CFR and IFR, however one defines them, really can no longer inform as to HOW the "pandemic" is affecting nations and the world.
A virus with a mortality rate of 0.0740 % worldwide should not have caused the societal and economic disruptions the many have endured nor the massive profits the few have reaped.
Best regards.
Have you a source for the "so much money prescribing Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine" that one may compared that "much" to the profits of the mRNA manufacturers?
It would be an interesting comparison.
Nonsense. It's true that a test designed to detect SARS CoV-2 won't detect the flu virus but it will very, very reliably detect Covid.
Likewise, a test designed to detect flu won't detect SARS. There are now tests designed to identify both in one run.
My point is that ONLY the mortality rate tells the EFFECT of deaths on a population...
Even if true, so what? Covid has had massive effects on global society far beyond death. We've lost probably millions of man-years of productivity from the illness, put huge strains on our healthcare systems, spent probably trillions of dollars worldwide in public health measures and have millions of people with long term injuries from the disease.
So CFR and IFR, however one defines them, really can no longer inform as to HOW the "pandemic" is affecting nations and the world.
They're one element along with many others, some of which I mentioned above.
I'd posted about mortality rate.
Now you recount -- and I agree -- that there have been "massive effects on global society far beyond death." I will agree with you.
Our difference seems to lie in the fact you see this through the lens of illness, and I am seeing the whole as a hyper-inflated marketing scheme, ignoring the "calculated form the 'official' sources as about 0.0740 % worldwide, to CREATE those "massive effects on global society far beyond death."
A virus -- which may be calculated to a mortality rate as low as it is using data across more than a year -- has been media-pumped and marketed into the greatest pandemic of the last century. Fear and losses for many, BUT enormous profits for the few has been part of those "massive effects" of which you write.
For you this seems to be just "medical" and for me it is the pandemic itself, not just the virus, which is the manipulated cause.
I think I shan't convince you, and you have surely not convinced me.
At first glance, it seems they used a .4 mg/kg dose and may not have had enough study participants for some final outcomes to be statistically significant.
However, this becomes another study that adds to the 78 other studies and their over all average, here:
Now, once in the “severe” group, the patients taking ivermectin did incredibly better in all circumstances, so I find the whole study to have strange findings.
And nothing about India’s success at all?
As I pointed out, there have been very real physical and economic effects from the pandemic.
Ones caused not by hype and marketing, but by disease.
Have a good weekend!
"Ones caused by hype and marketing, and by disease."
if it’s the same study, the dose i think was .4 per kg which is low if you have serious active disease. the min i would say is **at least** .6 per kg. and you could double that for severe disease. ivermectin is very forgiving on high doses.
yes, looks like statistical lying. very low sample size. very suspicious sampling and yes, the played with confidence intervals.
i read the post about it on citizensfreepress that they had 3 deaths with ivermectin and 10 deaths in the control. even if that’s not stat significant for them, it sure is for me.
and of course i don’t care what they did. the bottom line is i already know from personal experience that ivermectin treats the virus at all levels of illness or after effects. it works like a charm. two patients in house for us.
The numerator is smaller, you’re correct, but the denominator is far smaller. The Ivermectin prescribing game has been conducted by a small number of internet doctors and a small number of internet pharmacies, and they have made -as individuals - tens of millions of dollars by promulgating false or discredited studies to gullible fools. Look up Ravkoo pharmacy for example, a failing business that became suddenly profitable by selling this snake oil.
And the same people putting up the fake “research” websites that all these poor sad souls have been using are the ones doing the prescribing.
And another big difference with the mRNA vaccines compared to the ivermectin, of course, is that the former are effective in stopping people dying from covid.
biden proved the kung flu is a scam when he opened our southern border and spread over 2 million nondocumented unvaccinated invaders across our country during a supposed “global pandemic” while the cdc and world health organization silently sit back and watch...
When you’re losing an argument, change the subject. I like it, good policy.
there is no argument...
just stating facts...
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.