LMAO!! You continue to prove my point how freaking much of an idiot you are. No safety issues reported? Mr. data doesn't seem to know the data. 7,973 adverse events in 2 years. Much more than IVM since 1992!
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
vigiaccess.org
LMAO!! You continue to prove my point how freaking much of an idiot you are. No safety issues reported? Mr. data doesn't seem to know the data. 7,973 adverse events in 2 years. Much more than IVM since 1992!
WHO warns against using it in the hospital. Forbes did an article on how ineffective the drug is and it's adverse events. Failed massively for Ebola. Clinicals trials for covid19 were a giant fail. But here we are yet again with you being the lowest form of dumb touting this worthless drug. You should be ashamed of yourself. Funny you always come with no proof of anything you have to say, including how I don't understand mortality bias LOL!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/?sh=64809f2e66c2
Why Remdesivir Failed: Preclinical Assumptions Overestimate the Clinical Efficacy of Remdesivir for COVID-19 and Ebola - PubMed
Remdesivir is a nucleoside monophosphoramidate prodrug that has been FDA approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 remains contentious, as several trials have not found statistically significant differences in either time to clinical …Science | AAAS
www.science.org
VigiAccess
Keep up the worthlessness! I'm the person to inform you of renal failure for the drug and provided evidence. Dummy
Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients | NEJM
Original Article from The New England Journal of Medicine — Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatientswww.nejm.org
LOL .... no renal issues, safety is just fine...and look it works well.... i'd assume since you are the "expert" on this topic you would have been well versed on this ... internet out in your moms basement the last couple weeks?
You already admitted to using it in the hospital setting and were proud of it lol. Now you're backtracking? That's rich. Who the hell said IVM is the end all? And were those people taking the right protocol and were they too far past early treatment? How about those details instead of just anecdote crap? Are you going to ignore the tens of thousands where it did work? I mean you're a real treat and just put your head in the sand constantly. You've in no way ever proven what I posted was stupid shit. You have every opportunity to use IVM now, you're just a huge pussbag.
www.researchgate.net
Your boys at DARPA even said so last year.
(PDF) Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19 Reduces COVID-19 Infection and Mortality Rates: A City-Wide, Prospective Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching.
PDF | Updated manuscript: In January 8, 2022, we posted an updated version of our manuscript, with a few corrections. The most relevant correction was... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
Can you be any dumber? The original post in THIS thread was DARPA dimwit! And this was not debunked bonehead. You didn't even read it as it wasn't for treatment LOL!
And funny how you keep using this study and how it stopped. Do you know how the study was designed by Oxford? It was designed to fail with low dosage, 3 days for treatment, and recruiting well past the 7 days where inflammation begins. So, once again you're being disingenuous with your information.
And nothing DARPA was posted.
'm sure this study won't do anything for you either, of course because it's preprint and observational. Sorry but there is overwhelming evidence IVM works. Your boys at DARPA even said so last year.
(PDF) Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19 Reduces COVID-19 Infection and Mortality Rates: A City-Wide, Prospective Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching.
PDF | Updated manuscript: In January 8, 2022, we posted an updated version of our manuscript, with a few corrections. The most relevant correction was... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
The initial post to this thread was written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, who was a DARPA fellow at the time of the writing. So once again you're wrong. There's nothing conspiracy about it.
I gave you EVERY study done on IVM for covid, dude. So I don't want to hear a bunch of BS on that. All the resources have been in front of your face. It's just laziness by you because you don't like that I'm telling you anything because you think I'm beneath you with your hubris. I'm more than happy to turn the rhetoric down, but not when I'm being disrespected by someone who can't explain their stance with facts and is being hypocritical, not gonna do it.Finally you give me 1 study to look at...been asking for weeks. Dont know why this was so hard. I have an hour or so to look this over and i'm just gonna type out as we go
- Prospective observational? in what world is a observational study prospective? Its like they added that word to the title to make think ppl this is a higher quality study than it really is. This is a retrospective observational study
-now to the authors. Quick google search shows that some of them are in FLCCC or whatever and that is not in the COI. Speaking of COI....they write "the authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the drug, ivermectivn, and potential benefits......or any other related gains" then go on to explain they work for a drug company that manufactures IVM. Some real juggling going on there....its almost like they knew if they left the first sentence off the COI, like they should have, that people would think they have bias.
-Last but not least on the authors one of the authors Dr Cadegiani has been accused of "crimes against humanity" Holy good start batman, havent even read it yet.
Covid-19: Trial of experimental “covid cure” is among worst medical ethics violations in Brazil’s history, says regulator
Violations of medical ethics and human rights committed in a trial of an experimental drug touted by President Jair Bolsonaro as a cure for covid-19 were the worst in Brazil’s history, the country’s research regulator has said.1 The clinical trial of proxalutamide “disrespected almost the...www.bmj.com
ok...now on to the study..
- the confounders are not robust enough esp to control for risk of getting covid...they control for risk of death, but if they dont control for risk of acquisition its not well controlled
- This is not a quasi-randomized study... needs to be truely prospective to be considered that.
- It looks like they really don't know if the control took ivm or not and if the ivm arm did or not. There is no data on f/u with any of these pts...so in reality the control and investigational arm could be taking the same amount of drug.
- Figure 2 the non-IVM group had 99 hospitalized pts and 79 deaths. A 80% mortality rate for control patients?!?!?! really adds up.....
- Many and i mean many missiong CI...would need those to get through peer reviewed
now to the limitations/conclusion
- to claim the limitations that they saw and say it is likely to benefit is a huge red flag...even if someone truely believed that they would never...and i mean never make that sort of claim. There conclusion is from fairly land
but wow this is one terrible paper...the thought that you think this is any sort of "evidence" for use of IVM is laughable....really it is, this is a sad paper to use as evidence. This paper could (stress could) be used to direct further studies, but we have good RCTs and they show that it doesn't work.
@Joes Place please feel free to add more
He wrote it working at DARPA, so yeah from DARPA to the IG. No name dropping bonehead.
Why are you so obtuse?
LOL!!!! You're such a stain. Once again you've proven nothing, talk about Dunning Krueger!
Deflect much?
Ohhh? It does, really? There's proof of this, cause that tweet certainly didn't show that.
Guess you'll have to see the data when it gets peer reviewed won't you
Ummmm I already said this to you about the quality of observational studies versus others. You can say it's crap all you want because you stand behind your narrative. You give me this crap up above as "proof" yet strangely it isn't. Those that took IVM clearly had benefit from infection and hospitalization. Sorry dude.
Oh yes let's keep following folks like yourself who is "educated" and gave people admitted in the hospital your crap drugs "approved" by the government. Yes, you're so smart to not give early treatment and just tell folks to go home and wait until they get sicker. Great job! Yep, all these doctors with massive credentials approving of these protocols are just bat shit crazy! Let us just totally ignore doctors like Brian Tyson & George Fareed who use these protocols saving thousands of POOR people's lives. But yeah just money huh? Let's not talk about profits of big pharma and hospitals. Nah! Let's keep those clot shots going! How's the reality of that been? LOL!
I gave you all of them and as you were supposed to look at them MANY TIMES already and I'm sure I'll get the similar trash that you just provided to this one. Each and every study can be picked apart and "disqualified" like you just did. I didn't just pick this one because I believed it was of the highest quality. The totality of evidence already exists, this just adds on and was recent. There is nothing wrong with Tess Lawrie's meta-analysis even when she took the Egypt study out.
It's the same 2 RCT's that we go round and round and round about. But of course just keep spewing garbage! And of course you just take one side of things when it comes to PK and your "simple math" garbolage. Why don't you actually read what was the actual difference ding dong. Get off your liberal sites.
threadreaderapp.com
It's the same 2 RCT's that we go round and round and round about. But of course just keep spewing garbage! And of course you just take one side of things when it comes to PK and your "simple math" garbolage. Why don't you actually read what was the actual difference ding dong. Get off your liberal sites.
Thread by @PierreKory on Thread Reader App
Thread by @PierreKory: Thread re: retraction of the FLCCC paper from the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine It is unfortunate that JICM retracted an entire paper based on their refusal to accept an update to 1 sect...…
journals.sagepub.com
Guess you'll have to see the data when it gets peer reviewed won't you
So, a casual mention is what you're going with here? Because nothing in that "paper" is evidence of ivermectin working at all.
What truly amazes me, is that ivermectin is manufactured by "Big Pharma".
That’s sort of true (not surprising considering poster). Moderna still offered as booster. They encourage getting vaccinated, and recommend Pfizer for the first two. They acknowledge the very rare case of heart inflammation and take the stance of using the “best tool” available.
