Jump to content

Largest study to date: Ivermectin didn't reduce hospitalizations from COVID-19


Recommended Posts

Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

Patients who got the antiparasitic drug didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo

Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn’t reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic.

Ivermectin has received a lot of attention as a potential treatment for Covid-19 including from celebrities such as podcast host Joe Rogan. Most evidence has shown it to be ineffective against Covid-19 or has relied on data of poor quality, infectious-disease researchers said.  Public-health authorities and researchers have for months said the drug hasn’t shown any benefit in treating the disease. Taking large doses of the drug is dangerous, the Food and Drug Administration has said. The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo.

“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Mills and his colleagues looked at 1,358 adults who visited one of 12 clinics in the Minas Gerais region of Brazil with Covid-19 symptoms. The patients all had a positive rapid test for SARS-CoV-2, and were at risk of having a severe case for reasons including a history of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease or lung disease.

The researchers prescribed half of the patients a course of ivermectin pills for three days. The other half received a placebo. They tracked whether the patients were hospitalized within 28 days. The researchers also looked at whether patients on ivermectin cleared the virus from their bodies faster than those who received a placebo, whether their symptoms resolved sooner, whether they were in the hospital or on ventilators for less time and whether there was any difference in the death rates for the two groups.

To make sure they were being thorough, the researchers analyzed the data in three different ways. They looked at data from all patients; then analyzed data from patients who received ivermectin or a placebo 24 hours before they were hospitalized; and in a third review, looked at data from patients who said they had adhered strictly to their dosing schedule. In each scenario, they found ivermectin didn’t improve patient outcomes. “This is the first large, prospective study that should really help put to rest ivermectin and not give any credibility to the use of it for Covid-19,” said Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, who reviewed the findings. Ivermectin is used primarily to treat patients with certain parasitic diseases. It has antiviral properties, but hasn’t been approved by the FDA to treat any viral infections.

Given its antiviral prospects, scientists early in the pandemic thought it could be a candidate for treating Covid-19. In June 2020, a group of researchers in Australia published a paper showing that large amounts of ivermectin could halt replication of the coronavirus in cell cultures. But there was a problem: To achieve that effect, a person would have to take up to 100 times as much ivermectin as the dose approved for use in humans.

Some studies on ivermectin published in journals or on preprint servers ahead of peer review have demonstrated no benefits, or worsening of Covid-19 symptoms, after ivermectin use. Some have shown some benefit, such as shorter time to symptom resolution, reduction in inflammation, faster viral clearance and lower death rates.

But most studies showing positive effects had significant limitations such as small sample sizes or poorly defined outcomes, according to the NIH. Several studies on ivermectin have been withdrawn from publication, including a randomized controlled trial looking at 100 patients in Lebanon that was retracted by the journal Viruses due to issues with the statistical analysis, according to the journal. Researchers at the NIH and Oxford University also are conducting large trials on the effectiveness of ivermectin, though results haven’t been published. Dr. Mills said ivermectin could improve outcomes in Covid-19 patients who are fighting off certain parasitic diseases at the same time. But based on his team’s findings, he said, the drug doesn’t seem to have any effect on Covid-19 itself. Dr. Mills and his colleagues also are studying other drugs that could be repurposed to work against Covid-19. Such drugs could be useful because their side effects are well known and they may be cheaper to deploy in poor countries than drugs like Merck & Co. and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics LP’s molnupiravir or Pfizer Inc ’s Paxlovid. Merck said it has taken steps to make molnupiravir available in low- and middle-income countries, including allocating three million courses for distribution through aid groups and granting licenses to generic manufacturers. Pfizer said it was working to expand its supply chain and licensing production of Paxlovid through a United Nations program. Dr. Mills and his collaborators have looked at 11 repurposed treatments against Covid-19, of which at least one has shown promise—fluvoxamine, which is commonly used to treat obsessive compulsive disorder and depression. They published the research in the Lancet Global Health in October, showing that Covid-19 patients who received fluvoxamine were less likely to require hospitalization than those who didn’t.

The researchers are looking at the effect in Covid-19 patients of combining fluvoxamine and an inhaled steroid, budesonide, as well as a drug called peginterferon lambda, which is used to treat chronic viral hepatitis.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermectin-didnt-reduce-covid-19-hospitalizations-in-largest-trial-to-date-11647601200

don't know how many more of these studies need to be done to put this rumor to bed.  It just doesn't help - at least at any quantity that is close to something a human can safely take (as we've seen with people getting very ill or dying from taking the veterinarian versions of these, which often are far more concentrated).  I'm glad they are continuing to look for repurposed treatments with well-known drugs.  We need all the tools in the arsenal - from vaccines to antivirals to anti-inflammatory medicines and so on to get to where life can truly be normal again.  But people need to quit listening to bozos on YouTube and social media hyping this stuff. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





I really feel sorry for Fauci.  He has done an admirable job trying to combat the disinformation.  Yet, to some on the right, he is their enemy.

It is disgraceful.  It is wrong.  It is purely ignorant.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list of honors bestowed on Dr. Fauci for a lifetime of work helping people across the globe is amazing.  Of course, there are some in this country that love nothing more than to spread false rumors and assail the man's character. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

Patients who got the antiparasitic drug didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo

don't know how many more of these studies need to be done to put this rumor to bed.  It just doesn't help - at least at any quantity that is close to something a human can safely take (as we've seen with people getting very ill or dying from taking the veterinarian versions of these, which often are far more concentrated).  I'm glad they are continuing to look for repurposed treatments with well-known drugs.  We need all the tools in the arsenal - from vaccines to antivirals to anti-inflammatory medicines and so on to get to where life can truly be normal again.  But people need to quit listening to bozos on YouTube and social media hyping this stuff. 

Oooops !  I wonder if my nephew's physician has a money-back guarantee for having prescribed ivermectin ? 

My nephew, who is type-1 diabetic and has ankylosing spondylitis, both autoimmune disorders which put him in a high-risk category, was diagnosed with the delta variant, the most pernicious, was miserable and having to consider hospitalization.  Within 48 hours after beginning his regimen, the symptoms were reduced SIGNIFICANTLY.  Within 10 days he was symptom free.

Keep on being the purveyor of that truth you're peddling there TT.  You're like a dog with a bone about it.  lol

Oh, wait a moment.  You don't accept anecdotal information, do you ?  lol

Remember everyone, TT says that ivermection "just doesn't help", so don't use it.  You might get well.

  • Thanks 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Oooops !  I wonder if my nephew's physician has a money-back guarantee for having prescribed ivermectin ? 

My nephew, who is type-1 diabetic and has ankylosing spondylitis, both autoimmune disorders which put him in a high-risk category, was diagnosed with the delta variant, the most pernicious, was miserable and having to consider hospitalization.  Within 48 hours after beginning his regimen, the symptoms were reduced SIGNIFICANTLY.  Within 10 days he was symptom free.

Keep on being the purveyor of that truth you're peddling there TT.  You're like a dog with a bone about it.  lol

Oh, wait a moment.  You don't accept anecdotal information, do you ?  lol

Remember everyone, TT says that ivermection "just doesn't help", so don't use it.  You might get well.

I’m glad your nephew’s doctor was strong enough in his values that it help save your nephew.  Why cut out a medication that may help because of political issues?  Doesn’t the doctors have the intelligence to make up their own minds as to how to help their patients?

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Oooops !  I wonder if my nephew's physician has a money-back guarantee for having prescribed ivermectin ? 

My nephew, who is type-1 diabetic and has ankylosing spondylitis, both autoimmune disorders which put him in a high-risk category, was diagnosed with the delta variant, the most pernicious, was miserable and having to consider hospitalization.  Within 48 hours after beginning his regimen, the symptoms were reduced SIGNIFICANTLY.  Within 10 days he was symptom free.

Keep on being the purveyor of that truth you're peddling there TT.  You're like a dog with a bone about it.  lol

Oh, wait a moment.  You don't accept anecdotal information, do you ?  lol

Remember everyone, TT says that ivermection "just doesn't help", so don't use it.  You might get well.

It’s not me saying it. It’s scientific controlled studies. Welcome to the scientific method you should have learned about in junior high science class.  
 

I’m glad your nephew got better.  If someone wants to take it in dosages that are safe for humans it’s certainly not going to hurt them. But there’s a reason medical science doesn’t make decisions or draw conclusions based on one or even a handful of instances. That’s not how you prove someone is/isn’t efficacious. 
 

Large controlled studies >>>>>>> personal anecdotes. Every time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m glad your nephew’s doctor was strong enough in his values that it help save your nephew.  Why cut out a medication that may help because of political issues?  Doesn’t the doctors have the intelligence to make up their own minds as to how to help their patients?

Because of *the science*.  :rolleyes:

And without the scientific studies, the answer to the last question is "no", the doctor who prescribed an untested drug does not have the "intelligence" - or at least the knowledge - to "make up his own minds" about prescribing such a drug to their patients. 

Medicine should be based on actual evidence.  Evidence comes from scientifically designed studies.  Otherwise, we might as well start licensing witch doctors to practice medicine.

And "Political issues" have nothing to do with *the science*. That should be obvious, at least to anyone who is educated in the matter. :-\

 

 

 

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It’s not me saying it. It’s scientific controlled studies. Welcome to the scientific method you should have learned about in junior high science class.  
 

I’m glad your nephew got better.  If someone wants to take it in dosages that are safe for humans it’s certainly not going to hurt them. But there’s a reason medical science doesn’t make decisions or draw conclusions based on one or even a handful of instances. That’s not how you prove someone is/isn’t efficacious. 
 

Large controlled studies >>>>>>> personal anecdotes. Every time. 

He might have gotten better had the doctor (secretly) prescribed him M&Ms.

(And the doctor might argue in this case that's essentially what he did if he prescribed what he "knew" to be a "safe" dose, assuming there is evidence as to what a safe dose is.)

The placebo effect is significant, which is exactly why scientifically designed studies account for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It’s not me saying it. It’s scientific controlled studies. Welcome to the scientific method you should have learned about in junior high science class.  
 

I’m glad your nephew got better.  If someone wants to take it in dosages that are safe for humans it’s certainly not going to hurt them. But there’s a reason medical science doesn’t make decisions or draw conclusions based on one or even a handful of instances. That’s not how you prove someone is/isn’t efficacious. 
 

Large controlled studies >>>>>>> personal anecdotes. Every time. 

Ivermectin cured my nephew >>>>>>> all controlled studies, every day.  As I said, his PHYSICIAN prescribed the medication, not a veterinarian.  If a person is taking veterinary ivermectin for personal use, then he is a fool   The prescriptions are vastly different, but a Bubba's gotta do, what a Bubba's gotta do.

Since you mention learning about the scientific method from jr high, then you would know that "the study" you mention is questionable and it certainly isn't "the largest trial to date", not by a long shot.  You should read more.

mvai.png

If you are going to make a definitive statement that ivermectin "just doesn't help", then you shouldn't quote a study that uses faulty tools.  The "rapid test", as used in Dr. Mills study, has issues.  If a gold standard is desired, then the pcr test should have been used, which is 95%+ accurate.  When used under the best conditions possible, a rapid test has at best an accuracy of only 75%+/-.  That's a BIG hurdle to start.  Then, the results depend on the brand of rapid test, which can drop accuracy way below 50%.  Then, add to the equation that if the test is used before 7 days of infection, then the result is not reliable.  Accurate results with a rapid test require at least a week of maturation of the infection.  The wsj, nor Dr. Mills, make this info known.  For all we know, those who tested positive for coronavirus, only had the common cold variety.

In case you glazed over the above box of info, the results cited are from 81 studies, performed by 782 scientists, using 128,840 patients (not the tiny number Dr. Mills cites), from over 27 countries.  This is an EXCELLENT spread of data.  If ivermectin is taken as a prophylaxsis, then it has an 83% efficacy.  Taken in the early stages of infection, then a 63% efficacy.  Taken during late treatment, then ivermectin has a 42% success rate.  The studies also determine fatality %, gives info about different stages of care and last, viral clearance.

Here are the 81 studies.  Knock yourself out.  You have homework to do.  https://c19ivermectin.com/

Oh, it's not me saying that ivermectin works against COVID-19, it's all 81 studies that do.  

Why is it primarily in America people claim that ivermectin doesn't work, when around the world scientists boast its benefits ?  Money ?  Ignorance ?  Politics ?  All 3 I believe, with the most important being the cost of the medication.  Ivermectin is about 4 cents per pill, which makes it available even to the poorest.  In America, the cost will be the $10,000 pill, which is not so available to the world.  

The more I read on this subject, the more I find that it's the scientists who need investigating, not ivermectin.

Hang on to that bone, Mr. Gateway of Truth.  I bet that you think it has some flavor left in it.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

He might have gotten better had the doctor (secretly) prescribed him M&Ms.

(And the doctor might argue in this case that's essentially what he did if he prescribed what he "knew" to be a "safe" dose, assuming there is evidence as to what a safe dose is.)

The placebo effect is significant, which is exactly why scientifically designed studies account for it.

Every time you post I swear that your wife swapped your meds that day for M&Ms, the peanut kind.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Because of *the science*.  :rolleyes:

And without the scientific studies, the answer to the last question is "no", the doctor who prescribed an untested drug does not have the "intelligence" - or at least the knowledge - to "make up his own minds" about prescribing such a drug to their patients. 

Medicine should be based on actual evidence.  Evidence comes from scientifically designed studies.  Otherwise, we might as well start licensing witch doctors to practice medicine.

And "Political issues" have nothing to do with *the science*. That should be obvious, at least to anyone who is educated in the matter. :-\

 

 

 

 

Here are your scientific studies homer:  Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 151 studies (c19ivermectin.com)  Do yourself and the rest of the AUF a favor and bone up on the science instead of the political rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Ivermectin cured my nephew >>>>>>> all controlled studies, every day. 

This is a faith based statement, not a fact based one. 
 

4 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

As I said, his PHYSICIAN prescribed the medication, not a veterinarian. 

Red herring. 

4 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Since you mention learning about the scientific method from jr high, then you would know that "the study" you mention is questionable and it certainly isn't "the largest trial to date", not by a long shot.  You should read more.

mvai.png

If you are going to make a definitive statement that ivermectin "just doesn't help", then you shouldn't quote a study that uses faulty tools.  The "rapid test", as used in Dr. Mills study, has issues.  If a gold standard is desired, then the pcr test should have been used, which is 95%+ accurate.  When used under the best conditions possible, a rapid test has at best an accuracy of only 75%+/-.  That's a BIG hurdle to start.  Then, the results depend on the brand of rapid test, which can drop accuracy way below 50%.  Then, add to the equation that if the test is used before 7 days of infection, then the result is not reliable.  Accurate results with a rapid test require at least a week of maturation of the infection.  The wsj, nor Dr. Mills, make this info known.  For all we know, those who tested positive for coronavirus, only had the common cold variety.

Which is why you have large sample sizes, not a sample size of one. 
 

4 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

In case you glazed over the above box of info, the results cited are from 81 studies, performed by 782 scientists, using 128,840 patients (not the tiny number Dr. Mills cites), from over 27 countries.  This is an EXCELLENT spread of data.  If ivermectin is taken as a prophylaxsis, then it has an 83% efficacy.  Taken in the early stages of infection, then a 63% efficacy.  Taken during late treatment, then ivermectin has a 42% success rate.  The studies also determine fatality %, gives info about different stages of care and last, viral clearance.

Here are the 81 studies.  Knock yourself out.  You have homework to do.  https://c19ivermectin.com/

Oh, it's not me saying that ivermectin works against COVID-19, it's all 81 studies that do.  

Why is it primarily in America people claim that ivermectin doesn't work, when around the world scientists boast its benefits ?  Money ?  Ignorance ?  Politics ?  All 3 I believe, with the most important being the cost of the medication.  Ivermectin is about 4 cents per pill, which makes it available even to the poorest.  In America, the cost will be the $10,000 pill, which is not so available to the world.  

The more I read on this subject, the more I find that it's the scientists who need investigating, not ivermectin.

Hang on to that bone, Mr. Gateway of Truth.  I bet that you think it has some flavor left in it  

Might help if you understood a proper meta-analysis from a nursery rhyme. 
 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/the-anonymous-meta-analysis-thats-convincing-people-to-use-ivermectin/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s helped some people I personally know. It didn’t help some others. A diversified attack is always best when available. Everyone is different and their physiology is as well. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

It’s helped some people I personally know. It didn’t help some others. A diversified attack is always best when available. Everyone is different and their physiology is as well. 

Thank you for a non-political voice of reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, autigeremt said:

It’s helped some people I personally know. It didn’t help some others. A diversified attack is always best when available. Everyone is different and their physiology is as well. 

That's the thing though - without a proper clinical trial where you test a large sample size and you include a placebo/control group, you don't know that it helped your friends.  You know they got better, yes.  But correlation ≠ causation.  Most people, as bad as getting COVID can be, recover.  And the overwhelming majority aren't using ivermectin.  So you can't just look at this or that person and say, "they got better within days after taking _______________, so it must mean ________________ is what did it."

I don't understand why we are regressing as a society on this most basic understanding of how to truly figure out if one thing causes another - or if a treatment option is actually efficacious. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't understand why we are regressing as a society on this most basic understanding of how to truly figure out if one thing causes another - or if a treatment option is actually efficacious. 

I can see why society is more prone to try something that might have worked before *the science* has enough data (time) to support their findings.  The media experts had the U. S. as a whole so spooked, in the early days, without such data that they would try anything that somebody said would work. 

The media, spurred by their *experts*, had people believing if you got Corona Virus you were going to die, it was as simple as that, no data to back it up, you were going to die.  People even took fish tank cleaner for heaven sakes, because they were not going to wait on the data as the all the data they needed to know was on their nightly news telling them of the daily death rates.  The media was out of control.  Fear mongering at it’s best.

Fast forward two years and the data shows we were idiots to believe what they told us.  If you want society to wait until *the science* has the data, don’t scare them to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I can see why society is more prone to try something that might have worked before *the science* has enough data (time) to support their findings.  The media experts had the U. S. as a whole so spooked, in the early days, without such data that they would try anything that somebody said would work. 

There's a difference in trying something that won't hurt you "just in case it works" and going full bore cheerleader on it, insisting that it's effective and that all the studies showing that it's not really helping are just lies by Big Pharma.  Hell, for a while I tried some different vitamin regimens that were purported to help - Vitamin D, Vitamin K, Vitamin C, Zinc and one other one.  I made sure not to take too much as some of these aren't good in too high of a dosage.  I wasn't sure if it would help but with reasonable dosages I knew it wouldn't hurt me.  Eventually I tapered off because the data didn't really seem to support most of it making a real difference, the vaccines came along and so on.

That isn't what's been happening with ivermectin or it's predecessor miracle drug, hydroxychloroquine.

 

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The media, spurred by their *experts*, had people believing if you got Corona Virus you were going to die, it was as simple as that, no data to back it up, you were going to die.  People even took fish tank cleaner for heaven sakes, because they were not going to wait on the data as the all the data they needed to know was on their nightly news telling them of the daily death rates.  The media was out of control.  Fear mongering at it’s best.

This is a gross exaggeration.  No one ever claimed getting this was a death sentence.  But it was obvious early on that it was much more serious than the seasonal flu - it was more infectious, caused more severe illness to far more people on average, and resulted in far more deaths.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

for a while I tried some different vitamin regimens that were purported to help - Vitamin D, Vitamin K, Vitamin C, Zinc and one other one.

The vitamins you took as it was purported to help is exactly why people would try something they shouldn’t, you just weren’t as prone to panic as others.  The media coverage was relentless, it even had you changing you vitamin routine.

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a gross exaggeration.  No one ever claimed getting this was a death sentence.  But it was obvious early on that it was much more serious than the seasonal flu - it was more infectious, caused more severe illness to far more people on average, and resulted in far more deaths.  

I never said anyone claimed getting Corona Virus was a death sentence.  What I said was; The media, spurred by their *experts*, had people believing if you got Corona Virus you were going to die.  There was an older couple that got sick and believed it was COVID and both committed suicide as they felt it was hopeless to survive.  They didn’t even have COVID.  When you spread fear mongering you have no idea how people will react, it is irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The vitamins you took as it was purported to help is exactly why people would try something they shouldn’t, you just weren’t as prone to panic as others.  The media coverage was relentless, it even had you changing you vitamin routine.

I had no vitamin routine.  And "the media" didn't tell me to take them.  Suggestions among friends on social media and a few people in real life influenced that decision.  I figured that better vitamins in my diet wouldn't hurt me and might help.  That was it.

 

41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I never said anyone claimed getting Corona Virus was a death sentence.  What I said was; The media, spurred by their *experts*, had people believing if you got Corona Virus you were going to die.  There was an older couple that got sick and believed it was COVID and both committed suicide as they felt it was hopeless to survive.  They didn’t even have COVID.  When you spread fear mongering you have no idea how people will react, it is irresponsible.

I don't know how you don't see that this...

The media, spurred by their *experts*, had people believing if you got Corona Virus you were going to die.

and this:

I never said anyone claimed getting Corona Virus was a death sentence.  

...are utterly contradictory statements.  If someone is telling you or getting you to believe that "if you get Corona Virus you are going to die", then they are telling you it's "a death sentence."

The media never said those things or even suggested that was the case.  It was very clear early on that at worst the death rate was about 3-5% - which was far higher than any seasonal flu and cause for alarm for sure.  As time went on and variants got less lethal, it went down significantly (thought still way higher than other respiratory viruses like flu), but anyone gleaning that suicide was a preferable option to maybe getting COVID had other issues.  Blaming that on the media is utterly poppycock.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I had no vitamin routine.  And "the media" didn't tell me to take them.  Suggestions among friends on social media and a few people in real life influenced that decision.  I figured that better vitamins in my diet wouldn't hurt me and might help.  That was it.

So your friends suggested the vitamins to you and I guess it had nothing any media coverage about COVID.  OK.

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The media never said those things or even suggested that was the case.

Did people panic early on?  If the answer is yes, it wasn’t because the media ever told you to panic, but people panicked anyway as the media went full bore on daily deaths, needing ventilators, dead people pilling up in NYC and various other *reporting* that you could get the virus by touching cardboard within 2 days of receiving a package.  It was inferred.  I don’t know how you don’t see this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So your friends suggested the vitamins to you and I guess it had nothing any media coverage about COVID.  OK.

Did people panic early on?  If the answer is yes, it wasn’t because the media ever told you to panic, but people panicked anyway as the media went full bore on daily deaths, needing ventilators, dead people pilling up in NYC and various other *reporting* that you could get the virus by touching cardboard within 2 days of receiving a package.  It was inferred.  I don’t know how you don’t see this.

The point is, you keep pushing "the media" and it's a gross oversimplification.  COVID is serious.  It's by far the most serious and deadly virus in terms of ability to spread and causing of severe illness (hospitalization, ICU, ventilator, long term problems) and death we've seen since the Spanish Flu.  Bodies were literally piling up in hospital hallways in places like Italy and NYC.  Morgues and funeral homes were backed up for several weeks.  This wasn't just hype.  Did we lack understanding early on of the most common ways that it spread?  Sure.  Did the virus mutate in ways that also changed some of those metrics?  Yes.  But stop trying to write this off as just some media induced panic.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But stop trying to write this off as just some media induced panic

Early on and I’m talking real early, Fauci said it was nothing to alarmed about in this video.  I think the video was made in late January of 2020.

This Cuomo briefing was early March, I think around the 5th, 2020.  listen to his calming voice and he really made some good statements as to how we should treat the virus.

Around the 3:20 mark he states there are 2 reasons people are afraid is 1, I don’t trust the information I am receiving or confused by it and 2, the information I am hearing is so disturbing I am afraid.  Mainly because the people don’t know the facts.  He goes on to say it is just like the flu.

Probably one of the only time during this pandemic I agreed with him.

In late February there was Mardi Gras and early March the Chinese New Year the politicians encouraged people to attend.

WHO declared COVID a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

The *2 weeks to slow the spread* started March 16, 2020.

Here is Cuomo with a very different demeanor than earlier in the month.

He is in deep panic.  Evidently the information he is receiving is so disturbing he is now afraid.  Panic begets panic.  Remember he was *America’s Governor* and people were listening to him more that the White House.  The media, even in this clip, could sense the panic and did very little to quell it with the facts.  There was no reason to say how many new cases there were, maybe deaths or if the ICU beds were full or there are dead bodies pilling up in NY.  What did that information provide?  Fear and panic.

Did you happen to notice the NYPD officer that had mild symptoms presumably because she had Lupus and was taking Hydroxychloroquine?  Hmm, where does society get these ideas?

Why do you think people were panicked?  A real question.  I know you weren’t and neither was I, but there was a lot of people that were.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Early on and I’m talking real early, Fauci said it was nothing to alarmed about in this video.  I think the video was made in late January of 2020.

This Cuomo briefing was early March, I think around the 5th, 2020.  listen to his calming voice and he really made some good statements as to how we should treat the virus.

Around the 3:20 mark he states there are 2 reasons people are afraid is 1, I don’t trust the information I am receiving or confused by it and 2, the information I am hearing is so disturbing I am afraid.  Mainly because the people don’t know the facts.  He goes on to say it is just like the flu.

Probably one of the only time during this pandemic I agreed with him.

In late February there was Mardi Gras and early March the Chinese New Year the politicians encouraged people to attend.

WHO declared COVID a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

The *2 weeks to slow the spread* started March 16, 2020.

Here is Cuomo with a very different demeanor than earlier in the month.

He is in deep panic.  Evidently the information he is receiving is so disturbing he is now afraid.  Panic begets panic.  Remember he was *America’s Governor* and people were listening to him more that the White House.  The media, even in this clip, could sense the panic and did very little to quell it with the facts.  There was no reason to say how many new cases there were, maybe deaths or if the ICU beds were full or there are dead bodies pilling up in NY.  What did that information provide?  Fear and panic.

Did you happen to notice the NYPD officer that had mild symptoms presumably because she had Lupus and was taking Hydroxychloroquine?  Hmm, where does society get these ideas?

Why do you think people were panicked?  A real question.  I know you weren’t and neither was I, but there was a lot of people that were.

 

Ok.  I still don't really get what tree you're barking up with all this.  It's far afield from the point of the thread at this point though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

But stop trying to write this off as just some media induced panic.  

This is the tree I’m barking up.  If you believe I am in the wrong about the media helping to induce panic, not the sole purpose, so be it.  I think I laid out my reasonings.

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok.  I still don't really get what tree you're barking up with all this.  It's far afield from the point of the thread at this point though.

Agreed, so I’ll stop.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be difficult to tease out from the data cause vs. correlation, and establish clear recommendations.  Vitamin D is an excellent example of that.  It is incontrovertible that across all age groups those with low levels of vitamin D in their blood have much worse outcomes if they contract covid than those with normal/high levels. We knew this pretty early in the pandemic.  Does that mean you should take vitamin D supplements?  Probably, but it's more complicated than that. Unhealthy people usually have lower levels of vitamin D.  Is correlation in this case causation?  Does oral supplementation raise blood levels of vitamin D?  I feel like the CDC is very negligent in getting hard answers to these questions.  When the odds of you having a bad outcome are 10 to 15 times higher if you have low vitamin D levels, this should have been a high priority.   In the absence of hard data, it seems prudent to get your vitamin D levels checked and to supplement if they are low.  There is absolutely no harm in it, and possibly great benefit.

As for the Ivermectin study, I'll reserve judgement until we see the data.  The track record of those who release their conclusions before publication is not good. 

Edited by Cardin Drake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...