Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are issues with Marik's study and using his blog and whatnot as a source. And there have been good studies (RCTs) that didn't show any positive effect for ivermectin.

Forget all that crap, (well not the valid studies). Help me out here, is there something refuting these meta-analyses?

What about this thorough review of the research published in the American Journal of Therapeutics linked to above:

We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

Therapeutic Advances:
Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Click to expand...

So once the patients were ill enough to be on a ventilator, ivermectin use is of doubtful benefit. That's no surprise. A number of antiviral interventions need to be used before too much damage is done: anti-influenza meds, anti-HSV meds, even other antivirals for SARS CoV2.

There are studies that didn't find a benefit for ivermectin. Maybe I should start a new thread to get wider input.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
There are issues with Marik's study and using his blog and whatnot as a source. And there have been good studies (RCTs) that didn't show any positive effect for ivermectin.

Forget all that crap, (well not the valid studies). Help me out here, is there something refuting these meta-analyses?

What about this thorough review of the research published in the American Journal of Therapeutics linked to above:



So once the patients were ill enough to be on a ventilator, ivermectin use is of doubtful benefit. That's no surprise. A number of antiviral interventions need to be used before too much damage is done: anti-influenza meds, anti-HSV meds, even other antivirals for SARS CoV2.

There are studies that didn't find a benefit for ivermectin. Maybe I should start a new thread to get wider input.
Click to expand...

There are two metas that found no benefit. So the count is two finding no benefit, two finding benefit, but NO STUDY has ever found ivermectin to be harmful. There are faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more studies saying it works than those that say it doesn't. See http://ivmmeta.com
 
michaelsuede said:
...

I should add that other's have found benefit with HAT therapy:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31469984/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32194058/

Marik argues the VITAMINS trial, which I assume you are referring to, started therapy too late to make a difference.
Click to expand...
I didn't refer to the vitamins except to note the research on vitamin C by Linus Pauling has never been replicated.

That isn't something I'm interested in at the moment, especially research on IV vitamin C in septic patients.
 
Bubba said:
Itchy trigger finger?

The point was 'anecdotal reports'.

Sometimes they add to science, sometimes not. I will let you know if that happens, or not. There are people collecting raw data, in case you did not know.
Click to expand...

The clowns whose disinfo you cherish don't do science, in case you did not know.
 
In March of 2021:
WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials. As recently as this month, it doesn't look like that has changed.

WHO: recommendation not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial (published 31 March 2021);

In Feb 2021 the guidelines here in the US said data was insufficient:
There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Click to expand...
NIH COVID 19 treatment guidelines

I'll keep looking for a more recent recommendations.
 
michaelsuede said:
There are two metas that found no benefit. So the count is two finding no benefit, two finding benefit, but NO STUDY has ever found ivermectin to be harmful. There are faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more studies saying it works than those that say it doesn't. See http://ivmmeta.com
Click to expand...
Looks like a decent[an excellent] source. I'll take a closer look.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Thats nice. Thanks.

VAERS reporting is voluntary.

How many non-fatal adverse events were not reported ?

How many were killed by the injections, which were not reported ?
Click to expand...

This looks serious in VAERS.

[IMGW=640]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJ-KGfQXMAAmi9r?format=png&name=large[/IMGW]
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'll keep looking for a more recent recommendations.
Click to expand...

You're not going to find any. There are no treatment recommendations published by western governmental bodies recommending ANY repurposed off-patent medications. The only recommendations that exist include patented drugs costing $700+ per treatment regimen.

I don't know if you've done this or not, but you really need to take a minute to listen to Paul Marik's story in the OP.
 
Last edited:
michaelsuede said:
You're not going to find any. There are no treatment recommendations published by western governmental bodies recommending ANY repurposed off-patent medications. The only recommendations that exist include patented drugs costing $700+ per treatment regimen.

I don't know if you've done this or not, but you really need to take a minute to listen to Paul Marik's story in the OP.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't give a **** about Marik. It sounds like he can take care of himself. He's not the only doctor who has suffered for using non-evidence supported COVID treatments.

What I do care about is the evidence ivermectin treatments work or don't work. I appreciate your citations on that. I am leaning toward: we need to reevaluate that in the medical community. That's going to be a seriously uphill battle given ivermectin is already in the quack medicine category.

By the way, except for probable denial of insurance coverage, healthcare providers with prescriptive authority in the US can prescribe FDA approved drugs for off-label purposes. We don't need special FDA approval.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sorry, I don't give a **** about Marik. It sounds like he can take care of himself. He's not the only doctor who has suffered for using non-evidence supported COVID treatments.

What I do care about is the evidence ivermectin treatments work or don't work. I appreciate your citations on that. I am leaning toward: we need to reevaluate that in the medical community. That's going to be a seriously uphill battle given ivermectin is already in the quack medicine category.

By the way, except for probable denial of insurance coverage, healthcare providers with prescriptive authority in the US can prescribe FDA approved drugs for off-label purposes. We don't need special FDA approval.
Click to expand...

It seems like you are processing some of my information, but not all of it. You say providers with prescriptive authority in the US can prescribe FDA approved drugs for off-label purposes, but seem to not be comprehending that Marik was suspended for doing exactly that.

This is not a question of legality, hospital administrators are dictating patient treatments, overriding doctors and firing doctors who do not do what administrators demand. Further, medical boards are threating the licenses of doctors who prescribe off-label drugs for COVID.
 
Last edited:
michaelsuede said:
Really?
Click to expand...
Yep.
michaelsuede said:
So the FDA putting pressure on medical boards has absolutely nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...
Yep.
michaelsuede said:
The fact that hospitals are being paid VAST sums of money to put people on remdesivir and ventilators by the feds has nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...
Yep.
michaelsuede said:
The fact that the only drugs in the entire FDA approved formulary that doctors are presently being prohibited from prescribing off-label by hospitals happen to be COVID treatments?
Click to expand...
Yep.
michaelsuede said:
Explain to me why a doctor can prescribe any other FDA approved drug off-label for any other condition except COVID. If what you are saying is true, why was Paul Marik suspended?
Click to expand...
Because his science is junk.
michaelsuede said:
And I noticed you didn't say if the ivermectin you took worked. When I took it, it cleared my symptoms within 6 hours. The same is true of my friend, and both my parents.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if it worked or not, I was monitored for 28 days after taking it, of course I may have had the placebo, as it is a controlled study.

ETA: If you want further information regarding the trial.
Date: 29/Nov/2021

Thank you for registering to participate in the PRINCIPLE trial.
Your GP has reviewed your medical records and has decided that you are eligible to enter the trial.
You have been allocated to group : Ivermectin

You should receive your allocation pack within 1-2 days but there may be a further delay over the weekend.
Starting from tomorrow, we would like you to complete an online daily diary for 28 days.
You will receive a daily email, containing a link to your diary, to help remind you to complete your diary for that day.
If you have any questions regarding this please contact us on 0800 138 0880 or principle@phc.ox.ac.uk

Click here if you want to download the PRINCIPLE Participant Information Leaflet

Thank you for your participation and support for the PRINCIPLE trial.
Yours sincerely,
The PRINCIPLE trial team
www.phc.ox.ac.uk | @OxPrimaryCare

Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford
Gibson Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well Darat, I have to say that's an interesting belief system you got there.

-wait, so they told you what group you were in?

Were you symptomatic? If so, did your symptoms resolve quickly after taking it?
 
Last edited:
michaelsuede said:
So your advice is that doctors should not publish any data on the efficacy of their protocols, and instead wait for someone to come along who has really deep pockets to fund a multi-center investigational trial on a generic drug that has no profit potential.

Great advice.

I should add that other's have found benefit with HAT therapy:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31469984/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32194058/

Marik argues the VITAMINS trial, which I assume you are referring to, started therapy too late to make a difference.
Click to expand...

No. My advice is when introducing a new protocol you evaluate it prospectively, ideally with an RCT. If you do an RCT in house it does not cost large amounts of money. Indeed the fact you quote an RCT of the HAT protocol shows it can be done.

FWIW Large multi centre RCTs were done to show dexamethasone / steroids were effective for covid despite being cheap out of patent generic drugs. Large RCT are being done for a number of repurposed generic drugs. Our own Darat was in a large RCT looking at Ivermectin in mild covid run by Oxford University. McMasters University is co-ordinating trials of a number of repurposed drugs, some of which are far more likely to be effective than Ivermectin. Indeed the McMaster trial of Ivermectin failed to show significant benefit.

I am interested to know did you read the papers you quote?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31469984/
Not a prospective RCT. Conclusion;
Hospital mortality, the primary outcome, did not differ significantly between groups.
Click to expand...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32194058/
Iglesias et al; a prospective RCT. Conclusion;
No significant differences were found between study arms in ICU and hospital mortality
Click to expand...
 
michaelsuede said:
Well Darat, I have to say that's an interesting belief system you got there.
Click to expand...

What belief system?

michaelsuede said:
-wait, so they told you what group you were in?
Click to expand...

They are running trials on a variety of treatments, to have informed consent I needed to know which group I was in.

michaelsuede said:
Were you symptomatic? If so, did your symptoms resolve quickly after taking it?
Click to expand...

I was very ill, and I didn’t have any symptoms that quickly resolved, it was a slow recovery over about a week after my peak of feeling ill before my symptoms were down to the level of a cold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom