A useful idiot has a light bulb come on...

...If I am on block how did you quote me?... Originally Posted by adav8s28

View Post tag. Fortunately for me, only one of the many.
Though I'll never get back that IQ point. Saul Goodman

Moderna tested with 44,000 people. How many people did you want them to test with 400,000? Do you know how long that would take? Originally Posted by adav8s28

They tested with every person that took the shot. Yeah, we know how long its taking... those of us that care, can see the data and understand what is happening. Sheep refuse to see it...

lol... we're definitely laughing at you...

They tested with every person that took the shot. Yeah, we know how long its taking... those of us that care, can see the data and understand what is happening. Sheep refuse to see it...
Originally Posted by texassapper

The 1 million people that died from SARS_CoV2 infection didn't take the test. Most of the people who died were UNVACCINATED. There are/were very few "Breakthrough" deaths.

At best the only thing you can come up with is that there were some side effects. There is one fact that you can't spin or avoid. Unvaccinated people died from SARS_CoV2 infection. Vaccinated people lived. Go ahead and keep laughing.

Didn't you predict that Russia would defeat the Ukraine in six months? This is not the only time you have been wrong.

I have a suggestion for you. Next time you see that AA provider who you said can work out the kink in your back, ask her to work out the kink in your Brain.

As I recollect: Something about idiots, of the alleged useful variety...

So Ivermectin has been in world wide use for 30+ years. Is an over the counter drug in many countries. Calculating the number of doses taken is like a Mc-y D's billboard - in the billions. The inventor of which received a Nobel prize for it.

Yet the CDC tried to bully people into rejecting it by labeling it a horse dewormer with Seriously ya'll... I'm talking about a treatment that was disallowed by hospitals and Doctors were banned from prescribing. Basically, shortages were declared or espoused.

Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

2021 Aug
Abstract

In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world's most devastating tropical diseases. Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states with p < 0.002. Sharp reductions in morbidity using IVM were also observed in two animal models, of SARS-CoV-2 and a related betacoronavirus. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.

What year did the covid-19 get released into the wild again? Yet some still bend the knee to their bespoken science? Maybe I'm just having trouble seeing the usefulness of a hypnotized herd of, well... you know the thing. Come on man.

As I recollect: Something about idiots, of the alleged useful variety...

So Ivermectin has been in world wide use for 30+ years. Is an over the counter drug in many countries. Calculating the number of doses taken is like a Mc-y D's billboard - in the billions. The inventor of which received a Nobel prize for it.

Yet the CDC tried to bully people into rejecting it by labeling it a horse dewormer with Seriously ya'll... I'm talking about a treatment that was disallowed by hospitals and Doctors were banned from prescribing. Basically, shortages were declared or espoused.
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The FDA tested Ivermectin for effectiveness against SARS_CoV2 Virus. The results showed it was not effective.

From the Link:

The study populations in most of the reviewed trials were patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who had a relatively low risk of disease progression, and the number of deaths was low (as expected). In these randomized trials, completely excluding an effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 disease progression is difficult because the trials were not powered to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as death. However, data from these trials do not provide evidence that the use of ivermectin is effective for the treatment of COVID-19. For this reason, and because other medications now have demonstrated clear clinical benefits for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 ().



https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...gs/ivermectin/

Idiots. Please do not get any vaccines, I beg you.

...
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...gs/ivermectin/ Originally Posted by adav8s28

From the Link:...

The final update of the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines was on February 29, 2024. PDFs of the Guidelines can be downloaded until August 16, 2024, when the website will be shut down.


The page you're looking for isn't available
It’s possible that the page is temporarily unavailable, has been removed or renamed, or no longer exists.

The information I posted goes as far back as 1987-ish. Also, one key difference, the early use of Ivermectin for treating the US funded Wu-Flu, was documented in use on actual patients. The missing doc you posted was tested "in vitro". Here, I'll save you the trouble:

in vitro /ĭn vē′trō/
adverb & adjective
1) In an artificial environment outside a living organism

From why yes I do's links on IVM effectiveness:

Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. That's from the supporting document study's.

And just as a follow-up to my prior post, I'm not against a proposed use of medication for a alternate or experimental purpose. Hell that's the reason Cialis and Viagra all got to the marketplace because they were blood pressure medications that gave boners. I just think that without comprehensive studies performed in the US versus Peru or any other country, you can't state with empirical knowledge that that IVM has proof of efficacy.

you can't state with empirical knowledge that that IVM has proof of efficacy. Originally Posted by eyecu2

It's a good thing that the majority of the US Congress which was taking the stuff didn't know that. You keep listening to what they tell you, I'll just keep watching what they do.

From the Link:...
The information I posted goes as far back as 1987-ish. Also, one key difference, the early use of Ivermectin for treating the US funded Wu-Flu, was documented in use on actual patients. The missing doc you posted was tested "in vitro". Here, I'll save you the trouble: Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The first part of the link discusses studies that were tested in vitro. The conclusion that I posted in a prior post(#35) was from the Rationale section of the link where studies were done on humans. The conclusion was IVM was not effective against SARS_COV2 virus.
Last update December 20, 2023

From the link:

Rationale

The Panel’s recommendation is primarily informed by adequately powered, randomized trials of ivermectin that reported clinical outcomes. Studies that randomized participants to receive ivermectin or a matched placebo had the greatest impact on the Panel’s recommendation.6-13

Trials have failed to find a clinical benefit of using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in outpatients. In TOGETHER, an adaptive platform trial conducted in Brazil, there was no apparent difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms for the primary outcome of risk of emergency department visits or hospitalization (14.7% vs. 16.4%).14 In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms in mortality (3.1% vs. 3.5%). In COVID-OUT, a randomized factorial trial, the use of ivermectin did not reduce the occurrence of a composite outcome of emergency department visits, hospitalization, or death when compared with a matched control (5.7% vs. 4.1%).6

The ACTIV-6 trial was an adaptive platform trial conducted in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in the United States.15,16 Participants were randomized to receive an ivermectin regimen (either 400 μg/kg for 3 days or 600 μg/kg for 6 days) or a matching placebo. In the 400 μg/kg phase of the study, the median time to sustained recovery was 12 days for the ivermectin arm and 13 days for the placebo arm. In the 600 μg/kg phase of the study, the median time to sustained recovery was 11 days for both arms.

I-TECH, an open-label trial conducted in Malaysia, found no difference between the ivermectin and standard of care arms in the occurrence of the primary outcome of risk of progression to severe COVID-19 (21.6% vs. 17.3%).17 Patients in the ivermectin arm had a lower risk of mortality than those in the standard of care arm (relative risk 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09–1.11; P = 0.09), but this difference was not statistically significant.
[/B]
The study populations in most of the reviewed trials were patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who had a relatively low risk of disease progression, and the number of deaths was low (as expected). In these randomized trials, completely excluding an effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 disease progression is difficult because the trials were not powered to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as death. However, data from these trials do not provide evidence that the use of ivermectin is effective for the treatment of COVID-19. For this reason, and because other medications now have demonstrated clear clinical benefits for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 ().

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...gs/ivermectin/

Is this another Benghazi thread?

Is this another Benghazi thread? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, I don't feel it's a Benghazi thread. It is a thread that illustrates how to Cherry pick information. There are at least two people on here that are pretty good at it.

The first part of the link discusses studies that were tested in vitro. The conclusion that I posted in a prior post(#35) was from the Rationale section of the link where studies were done on humans. The conclusion was IVM was not effective against SARS_COV2 virus.
Last update December 20, 2023

From the link:

Rationale

The Panel’s recommendation is primarily informed by adequately powered, randomized trials of ivermectin that reported clinical outcomes. Studies that randomized participants to receive ivermectin or a matched placebo had the greatest impact on the Panel’s recommendation.6-13

Trials have failed to find a clinical benefit of using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in outpatients. In TOGETHER, an adaptive platform trial conducted in Brazil, there was no apparent difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms for the primary outcome of risk of emergency department visits or hospitalization (14.7% vs. 16.4%).14 In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms in mortality (3.1% vs. 3.5%). In COVID-OUT, a randomized factorial trial, the use of ivermectin did not reduce the occurrence of a composite outcome of emergency department visits, hospitalization, or death when compared with a matched control (5.7% vs. 4.1%).6

The ACTIV-6 trial was an adaptive platform trial conducted in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in the United States.15,16 Participants were randomized to receive an ivermectin regimen (either 400 μg/kg for 3 days or 600 μg/kg for 6 days) or a matching placebo. In the 400 μg/kg phase of the study, the median time to sustained recovery was 12 days for the ivermectin arm and 13 days for the placebo arm. In the 600 μg/kg phase of the study, the median time to sustained recovery was 11 days for both arms.

I-TECH, an open-label trial conducted in Malaysia, found no difference between the ivermectin and standard of care arms in the occurrence of the primary outcome of risk of progression to severe COVID-19 (21.6% vs. 17.3%).17 Patients in the ivermectin arm had a lower risk of mortality than those in the standard of care arm (relative risk 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09–1.11; P = 0.09), but this difference was not statistically significant.
[/B]
The study populations in most of the reviewed trials were patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who had a relatively low risk of disease progression, and the number of deaths was low (as expected). In these randomized trials, completely excluding an effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 disease progression is difficult because the trials were not powered to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as death. However, data from these trials do not provide evidence that the use of ivermectin is effective for the treatment of COVID-19. For this reason, and because other medications now have demonstrated clear clinical benefits for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 ().

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...gs/ivermectin/ Originally Posted by adav8s28

Hi Adav8s28, I looked at this back when WYID posted about it. There are four studies cited. The CDC, and probably the researchers who did the studies, believed results didn't support use of ivermectin.

That said, two of the four studies would have showed a benefit of using ivermectin except differences were statistically insignificant.

As the the other two, the Brazilian COVID-OUT study did show an increase in COVID emergency room visits + hospitalizations + deaths in the ivermectin arm. But there was a smaller % of people treated with ivermectin who either went to the hospital or died. Similarly, the Malaysian study showed a smaller number of patients in the ivermectin group going on mechanical ventilation (1.7% versus 4%), being admitted in an ICU (2.4% versus 3.2%), and dying (1.2% versus 4%).

In other words, for COVID-OUT and Malaysian studies, more people on invermectin ended up going to the emergency room or progressing to severe disease, but there were fewer really bad outcomes (e.g. hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death) in the invermectin arm.

There are studies that would indicate ivermectin as a prophylaxis is effective. See for example,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9525042/

Anyway, given that we've got Paxlovid now and given that I don't want to be on an anti-parasitic medicine full time to reduce my chances of getting COVID, I'm not going to take the stuff. But before there was Paxlovid, or if you were, say, a hospital worker around COVID patients in 2021, maybe ivermectin made sense.

It's a good thing that the majority of the US Congress which was taking the stuff didn't know that. You keep listening to what they tell you, I'll just keep watching what they do. Originally Posted by texassapper

How many members of Congress are you talking about?

I know you’d never be making up stuff,
My brother.