arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
You don't know how strong, fit and healthy I am.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV
- Thread starter AcesHigh
- Start date
- Status
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
I behave as if the virus does exist and I have a moral obligation to protect the people around me, and I do not live in fear.
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 687
Florida? That explains a lot - including your ignorant hubris. No one's trying to sell you anything here (other than how to think critically), they are just pointing out the fallacies in what YOU are trying to sell.
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,565
I find it amusing you people don't believe 75 studies with tens of thousands of patients and over 700 authors.
There have been four published meta-reviews of ivermectin. Two found no effect. Two found significant benefit. No study found a negative impact.
Two with no statistical significance.
10 RCTs (n=1173) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/
23 RCTs (n=3349) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8420640/
Two with positive effect.
15 RCTs (n=2438) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
18 RCTs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Of the two that found no "significant" effect, ivermectin still showed a positive benefit, and it became a significant benefit when studies with a high potential for bias were included. All of the metas focused on RCTs, ignoring a huge pile of epidemiological data showing a positive benefit.
As the author of ivmmeta notes, it is foolish to focus solely on RCTs when a huge body of epidemiological data exists showing a clear benefit.
The precautionary principle dictates that ivermectin should be made available and prescribed, even if it doesn't work at all. This is because the data indicates it might work, and given that it is far safer than any NSAID which people are taking fist fulls of, there is no risk in adding it to a treatment regimen.
There have been four published meta-reviews of ivermectin. Two found no effect. Two found significant benefit. No study found a negative impact.
Two with no statistical significance.
10 RCTs (n=1173) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/
23 RCTs (n=3349) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8420640/
Two with positive effect.
15 RCTs (n=2438) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
18 RCTs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Of the two that found no "significant" effect, ivermectin still showed a positive benefit, and it became a significant benefit when studies with a high potential for bias were included. All of the metas focused on RCTs, ignoring a huge pile of epidemiological data showing a positive benefit.
As the author of ivmmeta notes, it is foolish to focus solely on RCTs when a huge body of epidemiological data exists showing a clear benefit.
The precautionary principle dictates that ivermectin should be made available and prescribed, even if it doesn't work at all. This is because the data indicates it might work, and given that it is far safer than any NSAID which people are taking fist fulls of, there is no risk in adding it to a treatment regimen.
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 687
Ahhhh...morality. An attribute unknown in the CT community.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
That that is the big flaw in the thinking of michalesuede and people like him.
Ivermectin is owned by Merck... a part of Big Pharma. If ivermectin were so damned effective, and if Merck was the ebil "Big Pharma" corporation these people imagine they are, why would they not be packaging it up in pill form and hawking them off at $100 a bottle?
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,565
It's not owned by Merck. It's off patent. Anyone can make it. That's why it costs less than a dollar per pill. You can bulk order it from a compounding lab for pennies a pill.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,981
Free market capitalism
A subset of people who are anti-vax are right-wing and are also blame Big Pharma's need to make money as their reason for pushing vaccines over Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They don't seem to trust capitalism or the free market very much. I am not sure how to reconcile these notions.
A subset of people who are anti-vax are right-wing and are also blame Big Pharma's need to make money as their reason for pushing vaccines over Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They don't seem to trust capitalism or the free market very much. I am not sure how to reconcile these notions.
marting
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,314
See Emerson on consistency.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,981
ivermectin and putative protease inhibition
The structure of the key component of Paxlovid bound to its target protease has been solved by X-ray crystallography, as opposed to a structure obtained through docking, which is a purely computational technique. The collection of X-ray diffraction data is an objective experiment (one can quibble about the refinement process). I have not found a corresponding x-ray crystallographic structure of ivermectin with this protease. I have not found a study showing the kinetics of protease inhibition from ivermectin (enzyme kinetics is a mature field of study). Until and unless someone points me to such studies, I will no longer call Ivermectin a protease inhibitor (this is a somewhat separate question vs. its effectiveness as a drug). As my other comments have documented, its effects as a treatment against Covid-19 are dubious at best.
The structure of the key component of Paxlovid bound to its target protease has been solved by X-ray crystallography, as opposed to a structure obtained through docking, which is a purely computational technique. The collection of X-ray diffraction data is an objective experiment (one can quibble about the refinement process). I have not found a corresponding x-ray crystallographic structure of ivermectin with this protease. I have not found a study showing the kinetics of protease inhibition from ivermectin (enzyme kinetics is a mature field of study). Until and unless someone points me to such studies, I will no longer call Ivermectin a protease inhibitor (this is a somewhat separate question vs. its effectiveness as a drug). As my other comments have documented, its effects as a treatment against Covid-19 are dubious at best.
Last edited:
That's false. First of all, I opted to never test, so I can't conclusively say that I had Covid even once. However, when I got sick in June of '20, the symptoms were unlike anything that I'd had before and consistent with Covid, so it's a reasonable enough assumption that I had Covid. The second time I was sick (which is the only time since then), was in mid November through December of last year when I had mild cold symptoms that was either Rhinovirus, or Omicron variant. If a virus that you previously cleared mutates, then you still have natural immunity to those specific epitopes that did not mutate, or at least enough to mitigate the illness, and that's probably what happened (or I just had a common cold). As far as long Covid, avoiding that is largely a function of early treatment.
Uh, if you still think the vaccines, which do not prevent infection, or a "zero-Covid" policy is going to "end this outbreak" for a virus which is endemic, then you're just clowning yourself.
The only things that matter are my health, prosperity, and not living in fear of a disease with a negligible infection fatality rate. Your innumeracy which causes you to fail to grasp this concept, is evidence of your lack of critical thinking.
I'm an athlete who plays competitive basketball and football. It's a safe bet that I am.
Incessant virtue signaling, and shaming everyone who doesn't agree with you over a completely survivable disease isn't an example of morality.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,681
Any sane reason not to test?!?
The profit motive combined with intellectual property (patents, proprietary trade secrets) in the US are the primary reason that peer reviewed medical science is largely trash. All of the incentives are to keep you sick and dependent on proprietary meds with numerous side effects that compound your sickness. There is an anti-selection bias in peer-reviewed pharmaceuticals concerning safe and effective yet non-patentable treatments. Other than that recognition, I'm about as red-blooded a capitalist as you can get. Caveat Emptor.
EDIT: Taxpayer sponsored "vaccines", especially combined with heavy handed government mandates, are a poor example of "free market capitalism".
Last edited:
Lingering covid effects include brain dysfunction of one kind or another. That could explain the boastful daffiness of some (not naming any names here, I have too many yellow cards in the bank) alleged covid survivors.
I'm doing great. Come to Florida and play some poker with me (but please don't stay). Then we will see whose brain is dysfunctional. I will even mask up and keep my distance. Make sure you bring enough cash to make it worthwhile.
And of the belligerantly superstitious.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
In other words, it's good for a horse's ass but only of the equine variety.
I've been to poor trashy old Floridia enough times. It's not the South, probably never was. That combo of snottiness and narcissism is unique to the place.
Poker? Jesus.
- Status