Nm
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
They only used ivermectin, not ivermectin and zinc. It's like having a gun without the bullets.Womp womp @Boston.Knight
But, but, what about that Israel study that wasn’t a study? Or was it Japan?
Remember that @Crazyhole ? 😂
Ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19, new study finds
The antiparasitic drug ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than symptom management and close observation by medical professionals, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.www.google.com
But it doesn't matter anymore, because the only shred of the pandemic that's left is government overreach and sycophants that denied the idea that anything could treat this illness. There's literally nothing left other than to see whether mRNA vaccines have long term side effects.
Ivermectin futile for mild to moderate COVID-19, study finds
Filed Under:COVID-19
Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News
|
Feb 18, 2022
Early treatment with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not lower the risk of severe disease when given to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, according to a study today in JAMA Internal Medicine.
And a related study in the same journal finds connections between prescribing patterns for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine by political-party vote share in 2020.
Lack of efficacy, more adverse events
Doctors at 20 Malaysian government hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial on the use of ivermectin in the first week of COVID-19 symptom onset in hospitalized adults 50 years and older with mild or moderate illness and underlying medical conditions. The study took place from May 31 to Oct 25, 2021.Average patient age was 62.5 years, 54.5% were women, 51.8% had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 75.3% had high blood pressure, 53.5% had diabetes, 37.6% had abnormal cholesterol levels, and 23.9% were obese.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral ivermectin daily for 5 days plus standard care (241 patients) or standard care only (249). Standard care consisted of treatment of symptoms and monitoring of clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging for signs of disease progression.
Severe disease was defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Fifty-two of 241 patients in the ivermectin group (21.6%) and 43 of 249 patients in the standard-care-only group (17.3%) became severely ill (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.80).
There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to symptom resolution or rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital death, or adverse events. Four ivermectin recipients (1.7%) required mechanical ventilation, compared with 10 (4.0%) in the standard-care group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30).
Six patients (2.4%) in the ivermectin group were admitted to an ICU, versus 8 (3.2%) in the control group (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20), and 3 ivermectin recipients (1.2%) and 10 controls (4.0%) died by 28 days (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11).
Forty-four patients (9.0%) had 55 adverse events, 33 of them in the ivermectin group. The most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 14 (5.8%) in the ivermectin group and 4 (1.6%) in the standard-care group.
Five serious adverse events—four in the ivermectin group—were reported. Two patients had a heart attack, one had severe anemia, and one went into shock owing to fluid loss from severe diarrhea, while one in the control group had arterial bleeding in the abdomen. Adverse events led six patients to stop taking ivermectin and three to withdraw from the study. Thirteen patients (2.7%) died, most from COVID-19 pneumonia; no deaths were attributed to ivermectin.
"The notably higher incidence of AEs [adverse events] in the ivermectin group raises concerns about the use of this drug outside of trial settings and without medical supervision," the researchers wrote.
The authors noted that ivermectin may appear to be an attractive alternative to expensive antiviral medications in resource-limited regions such as Malaysia because it is inexpensive, easy to use, and broadly available.
However, the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials, and it is not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed with the American Association of Poison Control Centers that reports of ivermectin-related adverse events increased in 2021 relative to before the pandemic.
"The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19," the authors concluded.
Fine. Ban the shit then if it's dangerous. I couldn't care less. Never should have been approved for anything if it kills people.
There is no educated opinion on the long term side effects of mRNA technology, only guesses.
Being an unemployed, uneducated handyman, I would not expect you to understand how mRNA vaccines work. Additionally, you don’t understand statistics. You and your fantasyland buddies are the only ones who think of it as “guesses.” Luckily for you, you never leave your house
It plain and simply doesn’t work. I knew this already, but waited. It was a longshot at best. It doesn’t possess enough antiviral effects (if any) to make a difference for this specific virus. Viruses are different. “Antiviral activity” is such a generic term. It was always going to be weak sauce. Sure, some study in the future may show differently, but in the end, it’s going to be a nothingburger
It’s a safe medication when given at the correct dosage, prescribed by people with experience, for the correct indication, or for what is “the standard of care.” Just like Hydroxychloroquine, but MUCH safer
I just blasted your buddy parade float in the Dungeon and he’s hiding like a little coward, because he can’t handle being wrong
Last edited:
Fine, it doesn't work. Ban the shit if it's killing people. Nobody really cares anymore.
There will always be your “quack” doctor who will give it no matter what. Hope they get reprimanded. That’s why they are quacks. Real physicians don’t give medications based on a hunch and Twitter feeds
Please keep us up to date as to what the walking Cinnabon has to say. I am sure he's just like crazy and all busted up:
https://giphy.com/clips/tlceurope-tlc-europe-1000lb-sisters-BneK2CbePLpXUpFq5G
Their flu vaccine is a flop. The adverse events are on par with the covid vaccine.mRNA as a delivery platform for vaccines is dead. Nonetheless, I expect covidians everywhere to be lining up for anything mRNA right up to withdrawal of the tech
Lol here we go again. That crappy JAMA hit piece was already torn to shreds
You were exposed for being an idiot by me and crazy twice now waving a different paper in our faces making false claims spoonfed to useful idiots like yourself . Consider yourself fortunate I even reply to this. I have no respect for you. But you guys are obsessed with me 😂
I could care less what you or any MSM covidiot think. My doctor treats thousands with ivermectin and a cocktail of stuff. No deaths, no hospital. Results talk son.
Crappy JAMA piece.
I exposed both you and crazy because you both can’t read.
Are you going to join your brainless buddies and start crying????? Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Huh? I explained why it was a poor study, just like the HCQ study that the VA did back in 2020. I really don't care, unlike you and Mike who desperately need there to not be an inexpensive treatment.LMAO at crazy getting upset because his precious horse paste whateverthefukc doesn't work in the exact same manner that his twitter heroes mindymuffdiver and tossmysaladsally said it would. You need a tissue, crybaby???
Uh oh!!!! 😂😂😂
COVID-19
Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News
|
Feb 18, 2022
Early treatment with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not lower the risk of severe disease when given to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, according to a study today in JAMA Internal Medicine.
And a related study in the same journal finds connections between prescribing patterns for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine by political-party vote share in 2020.
Average patient age was 62.5 years, 54.5% were women, 51.8% had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 75.3% had high blood pressure, 53.5% had diabetes, 37.6% had abnormal cholesterol levels, and 23.9% were obese.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral ivermectin daily for 5 days plus standard care (241 patients) or standard care only (249). Standard care consisted of treatment of symptoms and monitoring of clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging for signs of disease progression.
Severe disease was defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Fifty-two of 241 patients in the ivermectin group (21.6%) and 43 of 249 patients in the standard-care-only group (17.3%) became severely ill (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.80).
There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to symptom resolution or rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital death, or adverse events. Four ivermectin recipients (1.7%) required mechanical ventilation, compared with 10 (4.0%) in the standard-care group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30).
Six patients (2.4%) in the ivermectin group were admitted to an ICU, versus 8 (3.2%) in the control group (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20), and 3 ivermectin recipients (1.2%) and 10 controls (4.0%) died by 28 days (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11).
Forty-four patients (9.0%) had 55 adverse events, 33 of them in the ivermectin group. The most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 14 (5.8%) in the ivermectin group and 4 (1.6%) in the standard-care group.
Five serious adverse events—four in the ivermectin group—were reported. Two patients had a heart attack, one had severe anemia, and one went into shock owing to fluid loss from severe diarrhea, while one in the control group had arterial bleeding in the abdomen. Adverse events led six patients to stop taking ivermectin and three to withdraw from the study. Thirteen patients (2.7%) died, most from COVID-19 pneumonia; no deaths were attributed to ivermectin.
"The notably higher incidence of AEs [adverse events] in the ivermectin group raises concerns about the use of this drug outside of trial settings and without medical supervision," the researchers wrote.
The authors noted that ivermectin may appear to be an attractive alternative to expensive antiviral medications in resource-limited regions such as Malaysia because it is inexpensive, easy to use, and broadly available.
However, the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials, and it is not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed with the American Association of Poison Control Centers that reports of ivermectin-related adverse events increased in 2021 relative to before the pandemic.
"The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19," the authors concluded.
Ivermectin futile for mild to moderate COVID-19, study finds
Filed Under:COVID-19
Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News
|
Feb 18, 2022
Early treatment with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not lower the risk of severe disease when given to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, according to a study today in JAMA Internal Medicine.
And a related study in the same journal finds connections between prescribing patterns for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine by political-party vote share in 2020.
Lack of efficacy, more adverse events
Doctors at 20 Malaysian government hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial on the use of ivermectin in the first week of COVID-19 symptom onset in hospitalized adults 50 years and older with mild or moderate illness and underlying medical conditions. The study took place from May 31 to Oct 25, 2021.Average patient age was 62.5 years, 54.5% were women, 51.8% had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 75.3% had high blood pressure, 53.5% had diabetes, 37.6% had abnormal cholesterol levels, and 23.9% were obese.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral ivermectin daily for 5 days plus standard care (241 patients) or standard care only (249). Standard care consisted of treatment of symptoms and monitoring of clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging for signs of disease progression.
Severe disease was defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Fifty-two of 241 patients in the ivermectin group (21.6%) and 43 of 249 patients in the standard-care-only group (17.3%) became severely ill (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.80).
There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to symptom resolution or rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital death, or adverse events. Four ivermectin recipients (1.7%) required mechanical ventilation, compared with 10 (4.0%) in the standard-care group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30).
Six patients (2.4%) in the ivermectin group were admitted to an ICU, versus 8 (3.2%) in the control group (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20), and 3 ivermectin recipients (1.2%) and 10 controls (4.0%) died by 28 days (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11).
Forty-four patients (9.0%) had 55 adverse events, 33 of them in the ivermectin group. The most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 14 (5.8%) in the ivermectin group and 4 (1.6%) in the standard-care group.
Five serious adverse events—four in the ivermectin group—were reported. Two patients had a heart attack, one had severe anemia, and one went into shock owing to fluid loss from severe diarrhea, while one in the control group had arterial bleeding in the abdomen. Adverse events led six patients to stop taking ivermectin and three to withdraw from the study. Thirteen patients (2.7%) died, most from COVID-19 pneumonia; no deaths were attributed to ivermectin.
"The notably higher incidence of AEs [adverse events] in the ivermectin group raises concerns about the use of this drug outside of trial settings and without medical supervision," the researchers wrote.
The authors noted that ivermectin may appear to be an attractive alternative to expensive antiviral medications in resource-limited regions such as Malaysia because it is inexpensive, easy to use, and broadly available.
However, the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials, and it is not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed with the American Association of Poison Control Centers that reports of ivermectin-related adverse events increased in 2021 relative to before the pandemic.
"The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19," the authors concluded.
Poor study? Posted in JAMA
I guess that Twitter expert Peggyplugholes has better studies. Just not involving COVID treatment if you know what hat I mean 😂😂😂😂
Ivermectin futile for mild to moderate COVID-19, study finds
Filed Under:COVID-19
Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News
|
Feb 18, 2022
Early treatment with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not lower the risk of severe disease when given to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, according to a study today in JAMA Internal Medicine.
And a related study in the same journal finds connections between prescribing patterns for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine by political-party vote share in 2020.
Lack of efficacy, more adverse events
Doctors at 20 Malaysian government hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial on the use of ivermectin in the first week of COVID-19 symptom onset in hospitalized adults 50 years and older with mild or moderate illness and underlying medical conditions. The study took place from May 31 to Oct 25, 2021.Average patient age was 62.5 years, 54.5% were women, 51.8% had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 75.3% had high blood pressure, 53.5% had diabetes, 37.6% had abnormal cholesterol levels, and 23.9% were obese.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral ivermectin daily for 5 days plus standard care (241 patients) or standard care only (249). Standard care consisted of treatment of symptoms and monitoring of clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging for signs of disease progression.
Severe disease was defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Fifty-two of 241 patients in the ivermectin group (21.6%) and 43 of 249 patients in the standard-care-only group (17.3%) became severely ill (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.80).
There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to symptom resolution or rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital death, or adverse events. Four ivermectin recipients (1.7%) required mechanical ventilation, compared with 10 (4.0%) in the standard-care group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30).
Six patients (2.4%) in the ivermectin group were admitted to an ICU, versus 8 (3.2%) in the control group (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20), and 3 ivermectin recipients (1.2%) and 10 controls (4.0%) died by 28 days (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11).
Forty-four patients (9.0%) had 55 adverse events, 33 of them in the ivermectin group. The most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 14 (5.8%) in the ivermectin group and 4 (1.6%) in the standard-care group.
Five serious adverse events—four in the ivermectin group—were reported. Two patients had a heart attack, one had severe anemia, and one went into shock owing to fluid loss from severe diarrhea, while one in the control group had arterial bleeding in the abdomen. Adverse events led six patients to stop taking ivermectin and three to withdraw from the study. Thirteen patients (2.7%) died, most from COVID-19 pneumonia; no deaths were attributed to ivermectin.
"The notably higher incidence of AEs [adverse events] in the ivermectin group raises concerns about the use of this drug outside of trial settings and without medical supervision," the researchers wrote.
The authors noted that ivermectin may appear to be an attractive alternative to expensive antiviral medications in resource-limited regions such as Malaysia because it is inexpensive, easy to use, and broadly available.
However, the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials, and it is not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed with the American Association of Poison Control Centers that reports of ivermectin-related adverse events increased in 2021 relative to before the pandemic.
"The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19," the authors concluded.
For idiots crazy, parade float, Melvin, Boston:
JAMA = Bad! Not science! Untrustworthy! Bad studies! Already debunked!
nuttyblueballs on Twitter = Thank God almighty for these factual facts that are factual.
JAMA = Bad! Not science! Untrustworthy! Bad studies! Already debunked!
nuttyblueballs on Twitter = Thank God almighty for these factual facts that are factual.
Whatever Twitter Tonisha says. That’s the new GOTO flavor of the week.
JAMA? Pffft 🙄🤦🏻♂️
I was attacked on here for saying that these vaccines are more of a therapeutic than an inoculation. I'm just glad that you agree with that statement now, 9 months later.
Oh. So now you're all up in a twit about it. "Who cares?" sounds like you're crying to me.
This guy Igor is good. VAIDS is likely to be a thing. My only question is how long the immune system is farked up. Short term or long term? Judging by the negative VE, it seems longer term, but I'm crossing my fingers it's short term.
igorchudov.substack.com
Covid, Vaccine, HIV and VAIDS -- an Explanation
HIV "Motifs" present in Sars-Cov-2, as well as in "Covid Vaxx"
igorchudov.substack.com
Why? Are they concerned that the data may undermine people's belief in the effectiveness of the vaccines?
This guy Igor is good. VAIDS is likely to be a thing. My only question is how long the immune system is farked up. Short term or long term? Judging by the negative VE, it seems longer term, but I'm crossing my fingers it's short term.
Covid, Vaccine, HIV and VAIDS -- an Explanation
HIV "Motifs" present in Sars-Cov-2, as well as in "Covid Vaxx"
Ivermectin futile for mild to moderate COVID-19, study finds
Filed Under:COVID-19
Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News
|
Feb 18, 2022
Early treatment with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not lower the risk of severe disease when given to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, according to a study today in JAMA Internal Medicine.
And a related study in the same journal finds connections between prescribing patterns for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine by political-party vote share in 2020.
Lack of efficacy, more adverse events
Doctors at 20 Malaysian government hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial on the use of ivermectin in the first week of COVID-19 symptom onset in hospitalized adults 50 years and older with mild or moderate illness and underlying medical conditions. The study took place from May 31 to Oct 25, 2021.Average patient age was 62.5 years, 54.5% were women, 51.8% had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 75.3% had high blood pressure, 53.5% had diabetes, 37.6% had abnormal cholesterol levels, and 23.9% were obese.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral ivermectin daily for 5 days plus standard care (241 patients) or standard care only (249). Standard care consisted of treatment of symptoms and monitoring of clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging for signs of disease progression.
Severe disease was defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Fifty-two of 241 patients in the ivermectin group (21.6%) and 43 of 249 patients in the standard-care-only group (17.3%) became severely ill (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.80).
There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to symptom resolution or rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital death, or adverse events. Four ivermectin recipients (1.7%) required mechanical ventilation, compared with 10 (4.0%) in the standard-care group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30).
Six patients (2.4%) in the ivermectin group were admitted to an ICU, versus 8 (3.2%) in the control group (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20), and 3 ivermectin recipients (1.2%) and 10 controls (4.0%) died by 28 days (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11).
Forty-four patients (9.0%) had 55 adverse events, 33 of them in the ivermectin group. The most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 14 (5.8%) in the ivermectin group and 4 (1.6%) in the standard-care group.
Five serious adverse events—four in the ivermectin group—were reported. Two patients had a heart attack, one had severe anemia, and one went into shock owing to fluid loss from severe diarrhea, while one in the control group had arterial bleeding in the abdomen. Adverse events led six patients to stop taking ivermectin and three to withdraw from the study. Thirteen patients (2.7%) died, most from COVID-19 pneumonia; no deaths were attributed to ivermectin.
"The notably higher incidence of AEs [adverse events] in the ivermectin group raises concerns about the use of this drug outside of trial settings and without medical supervision," the researchers wrote.
The authors noted that ivermectin may appear to be an attractive alternative to expensive antiviral medications in resource-limited regions such as Malaysia because it is inexpensive, easy to use, and broadly available.
However, the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials, and it is not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed with the American Association of Poison Control Centers that reports of ivermectin-related adverse events increased in 2021 relative to before the pandemic.
"The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19," the authors concluded.
This guy Igor is good. VAIDS is likely to be a thing. My only question is how long the immune system is farked up. Short term or long term? Judging by the negative VE, it seems longer term, but I'm crossing my fingers it's short term.
Covid, Vaccine, HIV and VAIDS -- an Explanation
HIV "Motifs" present in Sars-Cov-2, as well as in "Covid Vaxx"
For those who want the true story on the yet again latest JAMA propaganda, here are a few links. There are dozens of other rebuttals. This is just a sample. I don't know why I waste my time on this, but some folks seem to still think academic periodicals aren't compromised.
To get published in JAMA still carries weight in academia. The authors know they have to publish a negative conclusion or they won't get published. However, they leave the data for sleuths to uncover. Their concience at ease and they got published, opening the door for future opportunity.
It's not surprising to me that the covidians don't understand the system and are perfectly content with being Pharma's useful idiots. 💰 🤦♀️
And for so called "doctors" and "experts" who want to rag on ivermectin, Dr. Hazan says go scratch. Plenty of cowardly lions, useful idiots and armchair doctors with opinions that have no skin in the game. The ones that do have an opinion are usually underperforming and worthless, do-nothing protocol robots that want you to do nothing until you can't breathe.
igorchudov.substack.com
pierrekory.substack.com
flccc.substack.com
To get published in JAMA still carries weight in academia. The authors know they have to publish a negative conclusion or they won't get published. However, they leave the data for sleuths to uncover. Their concience at ease and they got published, opening the door for future opportunity.
It's not surprising to me that the covidians don't understand the system and are perfectly content with being Pharma's useful idiots. 💰 🤦♀️
And for so called "doctors" and "experts" who want to rag on ivermectin, Dr. Hazan says go scratch. Plenty of cowardly lions, useful idiots and armchair doctors with opinions that have no skin in the game. The ones that do have an opinion are usually underperforming and worthless, do-nothing protocol robots that want you to do nothing until you can't breathe.
Malaysia Study: Ivermectin helps with "Covid Lungs"
Patients already had "Covid lungs" -- but Ivermectin helped even with that
igorchudov.substack.com
The Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - JAMA's "Diversion"
Big Pharma influences high-impact journals to selectively publish (purportedly) negative studies while outright rejecting positive studies from publication. JAMA did it again yesterday.
pierrekory.substack.com
JAMA Ignores Peer-Reviewed Evidence & Publishes Yet Another Misleading, Underpowered IVM Study
FLCCC Doctors: “We treat patients, not p-values."
flccc.substack.com
For those who want the true story on the yet again latest JAMA propaganda, here are a few links. There are dozens of other rebuttals. This is just a sample. I don't know why I waste my time on this, but some folks seem to still think academic periodicals aren't compromised.
To get published in JAMA still carries weight in academia. The authors know they have to publish a negative conclusion or they won't get published. However, they leave the data for sleuths to uncover. Their concience at ease and they got published, opening the door for future opportunity.
It's not surprising to me that the covidians don't understand the system and are perfectly content with being Pharma's useful idiots. 💰 🤦♀️
And for so called "doctors" and "experts" who want to rag on ivermectin, Dr. Hazan says go scratch. Plenty of cowardly lions, useful idiots and armchair doctors with opinions that have no skin in the game. The ones that do have an opinion are usually underperforming and worthless, do-nothing protocol robots that want you to do nothing until you can't breathe.
Malaysia Study: Ivermectin helps with "Covid Lungs"
Patients already had "Covid lungs" -- but Ivermectin helped even with thatThe Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - JAMA's "Diversion"
Big Pharma influences high-impact journals to selectively publish (purportedly) negative studies while outright rejecting positive studies from publication. JAMA did it again yesterday.JAMA Ignores Peer-Reviewed Evidence & Publishes Yet Another Misleading, Underpowered IVM Study
FLCCC Doctors: “We treat patients, not p-values."
Ivermectin futile for mild to moderate COVID-19, study finds
Filed Under:COVID-19
Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News
|
Feb 18, 2022
Early treatment with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not lower the risk of severe disease when given to patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, according to a study today in JAMA Internal Medicine.
And a related study in the same journal finds connections between prescribing patterns for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine by political-party vote share in 2020.
Lack of efficacy, more adverse events
Doctors at 20 Malaysian government hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center conducted an open-label, randomized clinical trial on the use of ivermectin in the first week of COVID-19 symptom onset in hospitalized adults 50 years and older with mild or moderate illness and underlying medical conditions. The study took place from May 31 to Oct 25, 2021.Average patient age was 62.5 years, 54.5% were women, 51.8% had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 75.3% had high blood pressure, 53.5% had diabetes, 37.6% had abnormal cholesterol levels, and 23.9% were obese.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral ivermectin daily for 5 days plus standard care (241 patients) or standard care only (249). Standard care consisted of treatment of symptoms and monitoring of clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging for signs of disease progression.
Severe disease was defined as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) requiring the use of supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at 95% or higher.
Fifty-two of 241 patients in the ivermectin group (21.6%) and 43 of 249 patients in the standard-care-only group (17.3%) became severely ill (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.80).
There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to symptom resolution or rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital death, or adverse events. Four ivermectin recipients (1.7%) required mechanical ventilation, compared with 10 (4.0%) in the standard-care group (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.30).
Six patients (2.4%) in the ivermectin group were admitted to an ICU, versus 8 (3.2%) in the control group (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27 to 2.20), and 3 ivermectin recipients (1.2%) and 10 controls (4.0%) died by 28 days (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.11).
Forty-four patients (9.0%) had 55 adverse events, 33 of them in the ivermectin group. The most common adverse event was diarrhea, occurring in 14 (5.8%) in the ivermectin group and 4 (1.6%) in the standard-care group.
Five serious adverse events—four in the ivermectin group—were reported. Two patients had a heart attack, one had severe anemia, and one went into shock owing to fluid loss from severe diarrhea, while one in the control group had arterial bleeding in the abdomen. Adverse events led six patients to stop taking ivermectin and three to withdraw from the study. Thirteen patients (2.7%) died, most from COVID-19 pneumonia; no deaths were attributed to ivermectin.
"The notably higher incidence of AEs [adverse events] in the ivermectin group raises concerns about the use of this drug outside of trial settings and without medical supervision," the researchers wrote.
The authors noted that ivermectin may appear to be an attractive alternative to expensive antiviral medications in resource-limited regions such as Malaysia because it is inexpensive, easy to use, and broadly available.
However, the World Health Organization recommends against its use outside of clinical trials, and it is not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed with the American Association of Poison Control Centers that reports of ivermectin-related adverse events increased in 2021 relative to before the pandemic.
"The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19," the authors concluded.
Safety of COVID-19 VaccinesFor those who want the true story on the yet again latest JAMA propaganda, here are a few links. There are dozens of other rebuttals. This is just a sample. I don't know why I waste my time on this, but some folks seem to still think academic periodicals aren't compromised.
To get published in JAMA still carries weight in academia. The authors know they have to publish a negative conclusion or they won't get published. However, they leave the data for sleuths to uncover. Their concience at ease and they got published, opening the door for future opportunity.
It's not surprising to me that the covidians don't understand the system and are perfectly content with being Pharma's useful idiots. 💰 🤦♀️
And for so called "doctors" and "experts" who want to rag on ivermectin, Dr. Hazan says go scratch. Plenty of cowardly lions, useful idiots and armchair doctors with opinions that have no skin in the game. The ones that do have an opinion are usually underperforming and worthless, do-nothing protocol robots that want you to do nothing until you can't breathe.
Malaysia Study: Ivermectin helps with "Covid Lungs"
Patients already had "Covid lungs" -- but Ivermectin helped even with thatThe Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - JAMA's "Diversion"
Big Pharma influences high-impact journals to selectively publish (purportedly) negative studies while outright rejecting positive studies from publication. JAMA did it again yesterday.JAMA Ignores Peer-Reviewed Evidence & Publishes Yet Another Misleading, Underpowered IVM Study
FLCCC Doctors: “We treat patients, not p-values."
Updated Feb. 2, 2022
Languages
What You Need to Know
- COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.
- Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in US history.
- CDC recommends you get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible.
- If you are fully vaccinated, you can resume many activities that you did prior to the pandemic. Learn more about what you can do when you have been fully vaccinated.
Hundreds of Millions of People Have Safely Received a COVID-19 Vaccine
More than 539 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine had been given in the United States from December 14, 2020, through January 31, 2022. To view the current total number of COVID-19 vaccinations that have been administered in the United States, please visit the CDC COVID Data Tracker.
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials. The vaccines met the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization (EUA). Learn more about EUAs in this video.external icon
The Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccines will continue to undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in US history. This monitoring includes using both established and new safety monitoring systems to make sure that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.
Common Side Effects
After COVID-19 vaccination, some people may feel ill, with symptoms like fever or tiredness for a day or two after receiving the vaccine. These symptoms are normal and are signs that the body is building immunity. Some people have no side effects. Others have reported common side effects after COVID-19 vaccination,such as:- Swelling, redness, and pain at the injection site
- Fever
- Headache
- Tiredness
- Muscle pain
- Chills
- Nausea
Serious Safety Problems Are Rare
In rare cases, people have experienced serious health events after COVID-19 vaccination. Any health problem that happens after vaccination is considered an adverse event. An adverse event can be caused by the vaccine or can be caused by a coincidental event not related to the vaccine.
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: I need your help 1/10/25. Yes it’s that day again.- Latest: ucfknight23
-
-
***More Portal additions, details about UCF's revshare budget***- Latest: PaxKnighticana