Ivermectin

[neptronix]

From pfizer's press release on paxlovid:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...r-announces-additional-phase-23-study-results

Final data available from all high-risk patients enrolled in EPIC-HR study (n= 2,246) confirmed prior results of interim analysis showing PAXLOVID™ (nirmatrelvir [PF-07321332] tablets and ritonavir tablets) reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 89% (within three days of symptom onset) and 88% (within five days of symptom onset) compared to placebo; no deaths compared to placebo in non-hospitalized, high-risk adults with COVID-19

Yup, same ideal window of use as ivermectin - which sucks, because it's hard to catch a case that early, since symptoms aren't typically present by that time.

From the FDA's take:

Possible side effects of Paxlovid include impaired sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure and muscle aches. Using Paxlovid at the same time as certain other drugs may result in potentially significant drug interactions. Using Paxlovid in people with uncontrolled or undiagnosed HIV-1 infection may lead to HIV-1 drug resistance. Ritonavir may cause liver damage, so caution should be exercised when giving Paxlovid to patients with preexisting liver diseases, liver enzyme abnormalities or liver inflammation.

Because Paxlovid works, in part, by inhibiting a group of enzymes that break down certain drugs, Paxlovid is contraindicated with certain drugs that are highly dependent on those enzymes for metabolism and for which elevated concentrations of certain drugs are associated with serious and/or life-threatening reactions. Paxlovid is also contraindicated with drugs that, conversely, strongly induce those same enzymes, leading to the faster breakdown of nirmatrelvir or ritonavir, as reduced concentrations of nirmatrelvir or ritonavir may be associated with potentially losing virologic response and developing viral resistance. Paxlovid cannot be started immediately after discontinuing such medications because the effects of those medications remain after discontinuation. For a complete list of drugs that should not be taken in combination with Paxlovid, see the fact sheet for healthcare providers.

HIV-1 drug resistance is potentially deadly and no surprise considering we're talking about a repurposed HIV drug that never got approved for HIV.
Ivermectin does not carry the same warnings and contradictions related to the liver and kidney. It's very safe compared to many drugs in it's class.

Efficacy wise? Pfizer quotes a 10-fold reduction in viral replication in ideal conditions.
Research papers cite a range of 12-50 fold reduction for Ivermectin using high doses of Ivermectin in *very* early treatment, or as prophylaxis. But the earlier, the better.

My best guess based on all the research i've read is that Ivermectin is much safer than paxlovid, but only has good efficacy if given earlier. Paxlovid trades safety for efficacy and is more of a life saver if you're in the later stages of infection.

I would bet Ivermectin would be pretty potent if the doses were higher. The LD50 for ivermectin is 250 times higher than the 24mg dose used in most Ivermectin covid trials. Side effects in those trials were exceedingly low - close to placebo.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Efficacy wise? Pfizer quotes a 10-fold reduction in viral replication in ideal conditions.
Research papers cite a range of 12-50 fold reduction for Ivermectin using high doses of Ivermectin in *very* early treatment, or as prophylaxis. But the earlier, the better.

Oh good, then you should be able to directly link those articles no problem.

Ivermectin does not carry the same warnings and contradictions related to the liver and kidney. It's very safe compared to many drugs in it's class.

Except it makes you crap your brains out, which can have far worse affects in the short term. Taking someone who's already knocking on pneumonia's door and making them lose needed electrolytes is just going to make things worse- To keep them safe you'd need something like TPN nutrition (i.e. calories, electrolytes and fats given IV) which means they need a central line (surgery) and now their blood sugars will spike and tank super fast because you're bypassing the intestines. And you're talking consistent dosing, not a one-time thing. Solve one problem, potentially make 3 more.

 

[neptronix]

Oh good, then you should be able to directly link those articles no problem.

Are they worth linking to? there's hundreds of them out there.

Ivermectin does not carry the same warnings and contradictions related to the liver and kidney. It's very safe compared to many drugs in it's class.

Except it makes you crap your brains out, which can have far worse affects in the short term. Taking someone who's already knocking on pneumonia's door and making them lose needed electrolytes is just going to make things worse- To keep them safe you'd need something like TPN nutrition (i.e. calories, electrolytes and fats given IV) which means they need a central line (surgery) and now their blood sugars will spike and tank super fast because you're bypassing the intestines. And you're talking consistent dosing, not a one-time thing. Solve one problem, potentially make 3 more.

No surprise for an antiviral. But i did not see that noted in the serious adverse effects of a lot of trials. Maybe not serious enough to note.

I would rather crap my brains out than get liver or kidney damage.

Covid will also make you crap your brains out too.. taking electrolytes was part of what differentiated my case from those i got to drive to the hospital. I knew that if i couldn't digest food, i wasn't getting electrolytes. So i made my own ultra low carb gatorade and drank that the entire time.

Couldn't convince the others to consume electrolytes.. and.. both were placed on an electrolyte drip during their 3 day hospital stay.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Are they worth linking to? there's hundreds of them out there.

Burden of proof is on you dude. I've been nabbing links proving my point, so until you do the same you're wrong. It's how debate works.

No surprise for an antiviral. But i did not see that noted in the serious adverse effects of a lot of trials. Maybe not serious enough to note.

lel

NS5A Inhibitors like Sofosbuvir or Daclatasvir don't.

I can literally go onto the reddit threads about Ivermectin takers and see reams of posts from them asking "Is this normal???" after bathroom trips showing the remains of their large intestine linings. It's an anti-helminth. If it didn't mention diarrhea, it's either because they stopped it in some way or they're avoiding it to sell you something.

I would rather crap my brains out than get liver or kidney damage.

You didn't read my post. TPN needs placement of a central line which is a catheter into the ventricle of the heart- such nutrition jacks your blood sugars like mad and forces you onto insulin whether your diabetic or not, and ones like myself need to check your sugars every hour you're on it. It's undergoing surgery when you're already having difficulties moving oxygen for a miracle cure. Are you robbing peter to pay paul? You don't recover potassium and fix cardiac electrolytes just by drinking a gatorade.

 

[JackFlorey]

I don't need excuses. Nor do the majority of people in my state who don't wear them.
Placebos are not my thing.

Placebos that work and reduce your risk by 90% are not placebos. We call those "effective."

 

[JackFlorey]

An update on ivermectin from the FDA that went out to state medical boards:

http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/WIDHS/2021/12/22/file_attachments/2030302/Ivermectin%20Letter%20to%20FSMB%20Final%20%281%29.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0NrfvZMkQlDSLBh6P3XEP3zYh5GAuLQghmVq7TCt_SySo1z8gssDKZ7_Y

Excerpt:

"Currently available data do not show that ivermectin is safe or effective for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. . . .Using ivermectin products in preventing or treating COVID-19 may pose risks to patient health or lead to delays in getting effective treatment of COVID-19. Drug products that claim to treat or prevent COVID-19 but are not proven safe and effective for those purposes can place consumers at risk of serious harm."

 

[neptronix]

I don't need excuses. Nor do the majority of people in my state who don't wear them.
Placebos are not my thing.

Placebos that work and reduce your risk by 90% are not placebos. We call those "effective."

90% is well outside of the range on mask efficacy research. Let's see some research that show masks are 90% effective against omicron.

 

[neptronix]

An update on ivermectin from the FDA that went out to state medical boards:

"Currently available data do not show that ivermectin is safe or effective for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. . . .Using ivermectin products in preventing or treating COVID-19 may pose risks to patient health or lead to delays in getting effective treatment of COVID-19. Drug products that claim to treat or prevent COVID-19 but are not proven safe and effective for those purposes can place consumers at risk of serious harm."

Same thing they've been telling medical professionals for years.
They've also been involved in blockading research, and refusing to do research.
The answer is always no, don't use it, and with extremely weak reasons.

 

[JackFlorey]

Same thing they've been telling medical professionals for years.
They've also been involved in blockading research, and refusing to do research.
The answer is always no, don't use it, and with extremely weak reasons.

?? Not true at all. Their answer has been "yes, use it for parasitic infections, because it has been shown to be effective and safe when used for that purpose." The reason ivermectin is available for parasitic infections is that the FDA supported the research to get it approved.

 

[JackFlorey]

Let's see some research that show masks are 90% effective against omicron.

There is, of course, no such research specifically targeted at the new strain since it's so new. There is plenty of research that shows that good masks are 90% effective at blocking SARS-CoV-2 viral particles. Here are a few studies on masking effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2:

When cloth masks are used as effectively as possible (i.e. fit well, double masking) "the cumulative exposure of the receiver was reduced 96.4% (SD = 0.02) and 95.9% (SD = 0.02), respectively."

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-report-double-masking-can-block-more-90-percent-viral-n1257256

Masks with "two layers of highly permeable fabric, such as T-shirt cloth, blocks droplets with an efficiency (>94%) similar to that of medical masks" - and are easier to breathe through.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352431620301802

This study looked at several mask types. Multilayer cloth masks were "67% effective prevention of aerosols" and N95 masks "can block 99.98% of virus in aerosols." Medical (paper) masks could block 97.14%.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mds3.10163

When single cloth masks are used they are still effective, "blocking as much as 50% to 70% of exhaled small droplets and particles."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

With a slightly damp cloth mask, observed exhaled aerosol particles were decreased from ~300 (without a mask) to 0 (with a mask.)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

A metastudy concluded that: "1) Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; 2) people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms; 3) nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; 4) places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission of SARS-CoV-2."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

The results of a second metastudy "support the use of face masks in a community setting" for dealing with COVID-19.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7835129/

This study assumed that some masks weren't that effective and looked at the health results of using less effective masks. They found that "limited distribution of masks offering only 25% protection and containment could result in an appreciable reduction; 10% adoption in the population could result in 5% fewer deaths." In the US that would mean tens of thousands of lives saved.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17922-x

This study looked at mask use in China by looking at families that wore masks regularly vs families that did not. Conclusion: "Face mask use by the primary case and family contacts before the primary case developed symptoms was 79% effective in reducing transmission."

https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794

There are dozens more that say basically the same thing - masks work to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Let me know if you'd like more links.

 

[neptronix]

?? Not true at all. Their answer has been "yes, use it for parasitic infections, because it has been shown to be effective and safe when used for that purpose." The reason ivermectin is available for parasitic infections is that the FDA supported the research to get it approved.

And they refuse to review the evidence that show it's effective and acknowledge that they may be wrong.

 

[neptronix]

I scanned all of those links.
None of them are using data from even the Delta period. Most are from 2020.
That's original wuhan strain era, and the original wuhan strain is no longer detectable.

Again, i'm looking for evidence of mask efficacy during omicron to prove that wearing ~70% effective masks would be effective at preventing transmission of it beyond the placebo level.

Some data during the delta dominance timespan would also be useful for predicting how they perform now.

 

[JackFlorey]

I scanned all of those links.
None of them are using data from even the Delta period. Most are from 2020.
That's original wuhan strain era, and the original wuhan strain is no longer detectable.

Do you think that the aerosols that carry the virus have changed? They haven't. Many of those studies looked at protection against aerosols, and those are the same. Humans generate the same sort of droplets and aerosols they always did.

Likewise, the transmission method is the same. Thus an improvement in protection against any strain will translate to an improvement in protection against any new strain. Masking will still give you a similar PERCENTAGE of improvement in protection, even if the overall strain is more infectious (and infects more people whether masked or unmasked.)

What that means in a practical sense is that masks still work, and still reduce the odds of you becoming infected or (more importantly) infecting someone else - but you need to use a better mask to get the same absolute level of protection that you had with previous (less infectious) variants.

 

[JackFlorey]

And they refuse to review the evidence that show it's effective and acknowledge that they may be wrong.

Refer back to the message from the FDA. They didn't say "it doesn't work." They said "Currently available data do not show that ivermectin is safe or effective" against COVID - which is true. They have also said that it IS effective against parasitic infections, which is also true.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

?? Not true at all. Their answer has been "yes, use it for parasitic infections, because it has been shown to be effective and safe when used for that purpose." The reason ivermectin is available for parasitic infections is that the FDA supported the research to get it approved.

And they refuse to review the evidence that show it's effective and acknowledge that they may be wrong.

Then where is the evidence boy? Billions of dollars fighting COVID now, corpo's making hand over fist and nobody shrugged and said "frock it, he dead anyway, why not give em' the neigh-neigh paste?"

WHERES THE BEEF???

 

[The Toecutter]

Here is one study, of like 50+ that are out there:

https://www.cureus.com/articles/821...3128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

The info is there is you go looking for it, albeit don't use google or most other mainstream search engines since they censor their search results.

 

[Chalo]

The info is there is you go looking for it, albeit don't use google or most other mainstream search engines since they censor their search results.

You mean only look in RWNJ nests. Acknowledged.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

The info is there is you go looking for it, albeit don't use google or most other mainstream search engines since they censor their search results.

Comon' Toecutter, you're better than that :wink: I wanted to stretch my brain a bit, and I respect the frock outta you so I wanted to see where the studies were at now- I did a quick search through Pubmed using the National Institutes of Health website to try and pull up some details, and snagged these 3 diametrically opposed articles within about 10 minutes.

1) This study is really the collated research of several randomized trials, comparing them using public systems to test bias. They found no new evidence, specifically because (quoted) "The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials. "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/

2) This Indian study says it does work and gives some figures, but doesn't show any text- the ID numbers still exist, so it's just a matter of searching and finding it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473642/

3) This study found use of Ivermectin to be inconclusive, as "larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes. "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33662102/

So far looking at studies the dosages are all different as well- #3 gave 300μg/kg, some (with no updates) gave only single doses within 48 hours of symptom onset.

So what the hell? Even if it wasn't for the lack of information- we're only just now starting year 2- we haven't nearly had the time to fully test and refine what is effective and what isn't, so it's entirely possible the neigh-neigh paste actually works but we aren't dosing it properly at all or even worse, can't dose properly, because systemic circulation might frock with it (such as with Amphotericin, which can only be given with fat-soluble materials in a surgical line). How much ivermectin are you getting in a pea-sized drop? Who knows! You need actual FDA-measured tablets, but like frock any of these Facebook mouth breathers are trying to actually measure consistent dosing regimens versus medical half-lives. What if you need high doses and we have to check Peak & Trough levels like with Vancomyacin? What if it's treatment regimen is only useful within the first 48 hours?

Point is simple- Ivermectin is crazy expensive now, being hoarded and sold by people trying to make money in a crisis. I've seen tubes go for over 400% their OG cost and who knows if they'll ramp up production. You don't know how much you need, when to take it, or how to know you've overdosed or underdosed. You don't know how much or how long, and the only people talking about it are medical researchers... and facebook moms. So why take the chance on a $400 miracle "cure" when you can be immune for free, and never have to take it in the first place?

Also one final study showing the number of trials out now- figure 3 is super interesting, showing what treatments show promise like Resevdimir and some antiviral called "Bamlanivimab". blahblabblabblab.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34726496/

The very moment I told her to ask them for ivermectin the docs kicked her out the hospital because she would not get the vax.

But if its gonna magically cure you, you don't need to be there. We need that bed for someone else duh

Jokes aside I don't believe you at all lmao. cope + seethe + mald + dilate + ratioed

You mean only look in RWNJ nests. Acknowledged.

RWNJ?

 

[goatman]

if Chalo uses RWNJ,
think like Chalo
Right Wing Nut Job

 

[Hillhater]

Japanese firm says ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against Covid-19...
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/japanese-firm-says-ivermectin-shows-antiviral-effect-against-covid19/news-story/8cdfe85f8f5800cc98c348d287827719

 

[BobBob]

Japanese firm says ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against Covid-19...
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/japanese-firm-says-ivermectin-shows-antiviral-effect-against-covid19/news-story/8cdfe85f8f5800cc98c348d287827719

In the Reuters article this quotes as it's source, they say “Now, a number of retrospective reviews and meta-analyses have been released, which mostly agree that studies to date have generally been of low quality and high risk of bias, but offering different conclusions about whether ivermectin improves outcomes.”

A significant effect would most likely provide a clearer outcome. Maybe it helps a little, probably not significantly.
Most people will get well whether they take wormer, asprin, homeopathics or vitamin C

 

[Hillhater]

The simple fact that you refer to Invermectin as a “wormer” reveals your prejudice !

 

[Hillhater]

And as for one of the other widely promoted solutions..LOCKDOWNS..
Johns Hopkins Study Shows Government Cure for COVID Was Worse Than Disease, Lockdown Benefit Provided No Mitigation of Death from Virus......

.......An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.
While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

The simple fact that you refer to Invermectin as a “wormer” reveals your prejudice !

Prejudice against what, horses? lmao

 

[BobBob]

The simple fact that you refer to Invermectin as a “wormer” reveals your prejudice !

It reveals my grasp of reallity rather than wishful thinking

Ivermectin is proven to be a wormer and it is not proven to be a treatment for COVID.

To quote Wiki: Ivermectin is a “veterinary medicine to prevent and treat heartworm “

I do not hide my prejudice. I prefer scientific proven data to speculation when stating facts. If you do not believe your are prejudiced you may not understand the importance of well designed double blind, clinical trials

We are all prejudiced by experience, It is not necessarily of itself a value judgement on that judgement.

My prejudice against unscientific practices is one made after careful consideration in the same way that I am prejudiced against needless animal cruelty and various other things. I don't need to think about it much as I don't agree with some stuff

A prejudice against unproven medicines with dubious effectiveness for the purported use for COVID is sensible and reasonable, even if sometimes am not.

A prejudice against vaccines, used safely and effectively for more than half the population of the world is less sensible and reasonable

Guilty as charged with having good judgement.

Having said that, it is difficult to tell how many studies have been conducted that showed that Ivermectin made you more ill because they tend to get discounted and so they don't get published. If it has no effect then half the studies will show a positive and half a negative effect and with small numbers of patients (tens rather than tens of thousands) the bias in the stats can make a small statistical improvement seem more significant than it is.
Maybe Ivermectin works but, if so, probably not very well