Is it true that Imervectin is better and safer than vaccines to prevent and treat cvd19?

colder and wiser wrote:

The applause from a hydroxychloroquine dead-ender should tell you everything you need to know about imervectin.

Garbage posting from alternative-treatment-deniers and jab-authoritarians is all we need to know about the state of our sad and science-deficient society.

You're keeping in step

in the line

got your chin held high and you feel just fine

because you do

what you're told

but inside your heart it is black

and its hollow and it's cold

Another Biologist wrote:

Garbage posting from alternative-treatment-deniers and jab-authoritarians is all we need to know about the state of our sad and science-deficient society.

It's extremely telling that all the most quality trials so far have found no benefit from ivermectin.

This is why medicine is so hard. Small, low quality studies are subject to innumerable biases and confounders that cause a perceived effect to disappear when properly controlled.

E4RFA wrote:

Manchester wrote:

Whether it was "better" is not the question - it was available 9 months sooner and could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives

Someone show this antivax disinformation purveyor the door, please.

It is very weird that you immediately consider someone in favor of a life-saving drug "anti-vax."

"Anti-vax" used to mean someone opposed to vaccines. Now it means someone in favor of using any treatment that happens not to be a vaccine.

It's crazy how much you have been brainwashed.

Manchester wrote:

E4RFA wrote:

Someone show this antivax disinformation purveyor the door, please.

It is very weird that you immediately consider someone in favor of a life-saving drug "anti-vax."

"Anti-vax" used to mean someone opposed to vaccines. Now it means someone in favor of using any treatment that happens not to be a vaccine.

It's crazy how much you have been brainwashed.

Well, have you gotten the vax?

Molnupiravir works just fine. In fact, it’s extremely effective against coronaviruses in particular. If only we had been serious about science.

Harambe wrote:

Another Biologist wrote:

Garbage posting from alternative-treatment-deniers and jab-authoritarians is all we need to know about the state of our sad and science-deficient society.

It's extremely telling that all the most quality trials so far have found no benefit from ivermectin.

This is why medicine is so hard. Small, low quality studies are subject to innumerable biases and confounders that cause a perceived effect to disappear when properly controlled.

How about meta-analysis, which is often better than large scale clinical trials because inherent biases cancel out?

Also, many hospital pharmacies are instructed to reject off-label ivermectin requests. It’s a cheap drug that shows better efficacy than remdesivir (which is allowed…funny because it is a big $$$ maker).

FLCCC doctors are not quacks. Many of them lead their fields with protocol design and they endorse ivermectin. In fact, pierre kory actually was the one that began the protocols for corticosteroids for COVID.

The truth is the EUA for the vaccines would go away if ivermectin were given a shot.

Oh, and I am double vaxxed by the way. Glad I got it. But it’s an atrocity that this is the ONLY effectivr treatment being allowed.

Good post.

Molnupiravir is highly effective as well.

Donald J wrote:

Why use ivermectin when you can just drink bleach and stick a flashlight up your butt?

Given that there is a staggering amount of evidence re it's efficacy...you have to ask yourself why not only do we not use it...why is any discussion of it censored so heavily.

It's nothing short of a crime against humanity.

I'm going to go out on a limb by saying the reason for all this has something to do with money & power.

PTF wrote:

Donald J wrote:

Why use ivermectin when you can just drink bleach and stick a flashlight up your butt?

Given that there is a staggering amount of evidence re it's efficacy...you have to ask yourself why not only do we not use it...why is any discussion of it censored so heavily.

It's nothing short of a crime against humanity.

I'm going to go out on a limb by saying the reason for all this has something to do with money & power.

Yes. Big pharma needs their money and a monopoly on the "cure" to covid. If someone came up with a widely available medicine that cured covid, they would be cancelled, doxed and shunned because big pharma has the monopoly on covid with their vaccines and nothing can stop them due to their power and greed.

This fact makes the lab leak theory and perhaps the purposeful release of covid19 theory credible.

A meta-analysis of low quality studies is less reliable than a high quality study. Very often the biases and con founders run in the same direction.

trashcan wrote:

A meta-analysis of low quality studies is less reliable than a high quality study. Very often the biases and con founders run in the same direction.

Bingo, I was about to say this. Garbage in, garbage out.

Harambe wrote:

trashcan wrote:

A meta-analysis of low quality studies is less reliable than a high quality study. Very often the biases and con founders run in the same direction.

Bingo, I was about to say this. Garbage in, garbage out.

this is clearly nonsense. the more poor studies you do and analyse, the more accurate the average. its like measuring with a poorly calibrated tape measure. just keep measuring until you get a better average accuracy. how do you think gps works?

or, just have a rubbish model of reality and run it lots of times. tell your mates what the answers are meant to be, and then get them to run tests that are designed to replicate the answer.

this is modern science.

all sarcasm aside, it is clear from covid that medical science is broken for pandemics. each area lives in a bubble and doesnt understand its influence on the system. we dont even have a working definition between infection and illness (that relates to detection and meaning.). Immunology for instance has let us down very badly indeed.

What we need is a science of the medical system.

Covid-19 exposed a lot of problems, including with how we do science. The preprint archives are now full of contributions from quacks and opportunists, and even some major names have indelibly stained their reputations.

But one rule of thumb has proved its worth: 100% of the time someone claims that a cheap, simple cure is available but a worldwide medical conspiracy is suppressing the information, you know it's fake. High quality studies rejected expensive drugs, found some benefit in a cheap steroid like dexamethasone and otherwise found little benefit in nearly everything else.

Meta analysis of many properly conducted RCTs are what is required before having an opinion here. Anyone can invent a conspiracy where X has shown that aspirin treats Covid but it is being suppressed by big pharma because aspirin is cheap.

AOL Lawyer wrote:

Meta analysis of many properly conducted RCTs are what is required before having an opinion here. Anyone can invent a conspiracy where X has shown that aspirin treats Covid but it is being suppressed by big pharma because aspirin is cheap.

This is a good user friendly review of the current studies on ivermectin. In sum, the studies touting ivermectin are very low quality. A few high quality studies show no benefit. But the sum total of all the current studies are inconclusive and more work needs to be done. Ivermectin may have benefits for certain populations or at certain stages in the disease but we just don't know yet. What we do know is that ivermectin is not the cure that backers are claiming but may have a beneficial role in treatment.

And for those who are saying that big Pharma is afraid of Ivermectin, you do not know anything about big Pharma. Most of big Pharma's profits are made off of drugs that are very modest improvements over the prior generic version. There are lots of different generic statins on the market, but people will still take Lipitor at 10x the price because their insurance will cover it. If ivermectin is effective, big Pharma will come up with a slightly improved version and make lots of money.

Not really. If all small studies suffer from the same confounders, combining many of those studies does nothing to remove those confounders.

For example, ivermectin's purported effect seems stronger in tropical areas with lots of parasitic infections. A possible confounder, etc.

We went thru this with HCQ. There were tons of crappy studies that suffered from bad trial design, confirmation bias, cohort issues, bad randomization, etc.

Turns out when you run good trials HCQ does zilch.

I don't think immunology has let us down at all. It's probably the most complicated part of human biology. Sadly, we don't know everything yet.

I thought he agreed with you about meta-analyses.Measuring a bunch of times with a bad ruler isn’t going to get you a better answer.

For those new to reviews of the medical literature, a meta-analysis of low-quality studies showing clinical effect, followed by high quality studies finding no effect is an extremely common phenomenon..

Certainly the low quality studies are going to be more vulnerable to publication bias(it is well known in the field when a large high-quality study is being done. Those results will be known). Aggregating the studies just aggregates this one-directional bias.

Manchester wrote:

Whether it was "better" is not the question - it was available 9 months sooner and could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives

+1