Jump to content

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


TitanTiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not to mention these “proper” trials aren’t always so proper. Consider the fact that it is well known now that certain types of vitamin c have been shown to substantially lower cardiac events. Yet, trials conveniently used types that would not lower the risks in their studies so that they can keep pushing statins on people.
 

Remember it’s about the $cience.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites





22 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

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. 

You are spot on with what you detail above.  I would only differ in this regard... People seem all too willing to believe that Ivermectin is some miracle drug with no evidence backing that up, other than Bob down the road taking it and getting better.  Bob was likely getting better with or without taking Ivermectin.  We now have some clinical data that back up what the vast majority of medical professionals have been saying for over a year. Ivermectin is an anti parasitic drug. Covid is not a parasitic based infectious disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2022 at 3:31 PM, wdefromtx said:

Not to mention these “proper” trials aren’t always so proper. Consider the fact that it is well known now that certain types of vitamin c have been shown to substantially lower cardiac events. Yet, trials conveniently used types that would not lower the risks in their studies so that they can keep pushing statins on people.
 

Remember it’s about the $cience.  

If true, that's not science. That's malfeasance.

It's antithetical to science.

 

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

You are spot on with what you detail above.  I would only differ in this regard... People seem all too willing to believe that Ivermectin is some miracle drug with no evidence backing that up, other than Bob down the road taking it and getting better.  Bob was likely getting better with or without taking Ivermectin.  We now have some clinical data that back up what the vast majority of medical professionals have been saying for over a year. Ivermectin is an anti parasitic drug. Covid is not a parasitic based infectious disease.

Confirmation bias is a real thing.  I see it with the vaccines also.  I was sick as a dog, it's a good thing I was vaccinated.  I even saw the family of one vaccinated celebrity who died tell everyone after his death to make sure they got vaccinated. Yeesh.  My belief in Ivermectin is based on the real world data from Africa, and the real world experience of India, Indonesia and a few other countries who had orders of magnitudes fewer deaths per capita than the U.S after widespread early treatment and prophylactic use. 

Which leads to my complaint about the CDC & NIH. I understand the drug companies goal is to make money.  This incentivizes them to test pricey medicines that are still under patent to fight covid.  It's not like they have gone out and developed medicines that specifically work against covid. They have tested repurposed medicines that they already have. But where is the CDC in all this?  There is a void to test inexpensive readily available repurposed medicines. The drug companies won't do this, and that's where the CDC could step in with their enormous budget and do something useful. So here we are-2 full year's into the epidemic, and we are getting a study from Brazil on Ivermectin?   It's like the CDC isn't even trying. What greater priority have they had for the last two years?

Now, Ivermectin may or may not turn out to be effective in the early stages of covid. It does have anti-viral properties. But the big question is why hasn't the CDC sponsored tests that would prove it one way or another.  They have NOT concluded it is ineffective. Their official stance is more testing is needed. So where the hell is it? What are they waiting for? And you can say Ivermectin is not effective against covid, and you could be right. But what you can't say without wrecking your own credibility is to say that it isn't safe. It is one of the safest drugs in the world and is over the counter in most of the places where it is used extensively.  When the FDA and CDC warn against it's use, and imply that it is a dangerous drug, it hurts their own credibility enormously.  At this point, it would just be too embarrassing for them to admit that Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are effective, and I think that's your answer to why no testing will happen now. I can't explain why it didn't happen 18 months ago.

Edited by Cardin Drake
  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

New study, peer-reviewed, same conclusions:

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424. opens in new tab.)

Full Report from New England Journal of Medicine

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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...