Nm

[Ucfmikes]

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.

View embedded media

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

 

[Ucfmikes]

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.

View embedded media

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

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Boy. You're really worked up over this.

Totally.

 

[Crazyhole]

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.

View embedded media

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

Calling BS on 73%. That's organ failure level of saturation and loss of cognitive ability. Probably a bad pulse-ox.

 

[Boston.Knight]

^^^ Just to add to this. When is the last time you heard Crazy Mike, 85, LiteHeaded and the other covidians criticize remdesivir or molnupiravir. Not ONCE. In fact, they are promoting both actively.. Doesn't that strike you as strange for a group that seems so passionate about covid theraputics? It strikes me as weak minded and sheepish to be honest, i.e. useful idiots. . They are waaaaay late to the party flipping on that narrative, at least molnupiravir.

Only the most corrupt MD's will dispense molnupiravir, but I'm sure there will be millions of scripts and trips to Hawaii for the corrupt. Remdesivir? uggh. They even made that poison out-patient.

 

[Crazyhole]

There is very little chance that the medical community will recover from this. People are gonna be pissed at their doctor and hospital by the time it's all said and done.

 

[Boston.Knight]

Calling BS on 73%. That's organ failure level of saturation and loss of cognitive ability. Probably a bad pulse-ox.

Huh? You need to do a little more research on that. Dr. Jackie Stone routinely treats pts with sats in the 50's and they are not unconcious. She has brought a patient back from the dead with 39 02 with a salvage protocol centered around IVM and colloidal silver

 

[Ucfmikes]

View embedded media

There is very little chance that the medical community will recover from this. People are gonna be pissed at their doctor and hospital by the time it's all said and done.

Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines
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.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Huh? You need to do a little more research on that. Dr. Jackie Stone routinely treats pts with sats in the 50's and they are not unconcious. She has brought a patient back from the dead with 39 02 with a salvage protocol centered around IVM and colloidal silver

View embedded media

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.

 

[Ucfmikes]

@Boston.Knight this morning 😂😂😂

 

[Boston.Knight]

People are gonna be pissed at their doctor and hospital by the time it's all said and done.

People are already pissed at their frontline clinicians. As a group, these guys have been lousy, and are underperforming with the greatest resources. If Big Papi was batting .145 with no home runs, he would have got chased out of Boston. Why should we give these do nothing lap dogs a pass?

"Do no harm" completely cast aside in favor of their cozy relationships with pharma. Vaccine injuries are ignored as "anxiety" and go unreported.

On theraputics, every clinician, certainly every ID in the world knows remdesivir is worthless toxic poison, yet they all still order it. They will be held accountable some day for crimes against humanity.

 

[Ucfmikes]

^^^ Just to add to this. When is the last time you heard Crazy Mike, 85, LiteHeaded and the other covidians criticize remdesivir or molnupiravir. Not ONCE. In fact, they are promoting both actively.. Doesn't that strike you as strange for a group that seems so passionate about covid theraputics? It strikes me as weak minded and sheepish to be honest, i.e. useful idiots. . They are waaaaay late to the party flipping on that narrative, at least molnupiravir.

Only the most corrupt MD's will dispense molnupiravir, but I'm sure there will be millions of scripts and trips to Hawaii for the corrupt. Remdesivir? uggh. They even made that poison out-patient.

 

[Ucfmikes]

People are already pissed at their frontline clinicians. As a group, these guys have been lousy, and are underperforming with the greatest resources. If Big Papi was batting .145 with no home runs, he would have got chased out of Boston. Why should we give these do nothing lap dogs a pass?

"Do no harm" completely cast aside in favor of their cozy relationships with pharma. Vaccine injuries are ignored as "anxiety" and go unreported.

On theraputics, every clinician, certainly every ID in the world knows remdesivir is worthless toxic poison, yet they all still order it. They will be held accountable some day for crimes against humanity.

 

[Ucfmikes]

People are already pissed at their frontline clinicians. As a group, these guys have been lousy, and are underperforming with the greatest resources. If Big Papi was batting .145 with no home runs, he would have got chased out of Boston. Why should we give these do nothing lap dogs a pass?

"Do no harm" completely cast aside in favor of their cozy relationships with pharma. Vaccine injuries are ignored as "anxiety" and go unreported.

On theraputics, every clinician, certainly every ID in the world knows remdesivir is worthless toxic poison, yet they all still order it. They will be held accountable some day for crimes against humanity.

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.

 

[Crazyhole]

Huh? You need to do a little more research on that. Dr. Jackie Stone routinely treats pts with sats in the 50's and they are not unconcious. She has brought a patient back from the dead with 39 02 with a salvage protocol centered around IVM and colloidal silver

View embedded media

Maybe on an ABG test, but if someone is that low on a pulse-ox, they are dead. Anything below 90% is pretty dangerous.

 

[NinjaKnight]

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"

igorchudov.substack.com

Did your reptilian overlord insider friend tip you off on this or are you just so amazingly smart you figured it out on your own?


😂🤣 Both are equally impossible of course, but you are at least good for a laugh.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Maybe on an ABG test, but if someone is that low on a pulse-ox, they are dead. Anything below 90% is pretty dangerous.

Bunch of imbeciles trying to talk medical is hilarious 😆

 

[Crazyhole]

Bunch of imbeciles trying to talk medical is hilarious 😆

So you think that 50% on a pulse oximeter is no big deal.

Yeah, you're definitely a janitor.

 

[Ucfmikes]

So you think that 50% on a pulse oximeter is no big deal.

Yeah, you're definitely a janitor.

No shit for brains. Below 90% isn’t acutely dangerous. Boy, you are dumb. Get a job

 

[Ucfmikes]

Fast waning efficacy. It's is a freaking cold for most of the population.

17) It’s a cold

At this rate, you may pass the parrot 🦜 by 2080 😂😂😂

 

[Crazyhole]

No shit for brains. Below 90% isn’t acutely dangerous. Boy, you are dumb. Get a job

How to Interpret Pulse Oximeter Readings

Check out the deal on How to Interpret Pulse Oximeter Readings at AmperorDirect

www.amperordirect.com

I never said "acutely", moron. Any doctor worth a damn would tell you that if you drop below 90 it's not a good thing.

 

[Ucfmikes]

How to Interpret Pulse Oximeter Readings

Check out the deal on How to Interpret Pulse Oximeter Readings at AmperorDirect

www.amperordirect.com

I never said "acutely", moron. Any doctor worth a damn would tell you that if you drop below 90 it's not a good thing.

You’re an imbecile. People can be under 90% for awhile. Stop talking like an uneducated, unemployed, handyman.

Isn’t Judy calling? 😂😂😂

 

[Ucfmikes]

How to Interpret Pulse Oximeter Readings

Check out the deal on How to Interpret Pulse Oximeter Readings at AmperorDirect

www.amperordirect.com

I never said "acutely", moron. Any doctor worth a damn would tell you that if you drop below 90 it's not a good thing.

LET’S PRACTICE MEDICINE BY THE INTERNET!! 😂😂😂😂😂

 

[Crazyhole]

You’re an imbecile. People can be under 90% for awhile. Stop talking like an uneducated, unemployed, handyman.

Isn’t Judy calling? 😂😂😂

Good lord you are an idiot.

The Use of Pulse Oximetry to Determine Hypoxemia in Acute Exacerbations of COPD - PubMed

Our results support current recommendations for ordering blood gasometry based on pulse oximetry oxygen saturation cut-offs for hypoxemia. We also provide easy to use formulae to calculate pO2 from oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Results: The correlation coefficient between oxygen saturation and pO2 measured by arterial blood gasometry was 0.89. The area under the curve (AUC) for the hypoxemia model was 0.97 (0.96-0.98) and the optimal cut-off point for hypoxemia was an oxygen saturation of 90%. The AUC for hypercapnic respiratory failure was 0.90 (0.87-0.92) and the optimal cut-off point was an oxygen saturation of 88%."

Hypoxemia is apparently no big deal to Dr Mike.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Good lord you are an idiot.

The Use of Pulse Oximetry to Determine Hypoxemia in Acute Exacerbations of COPD - PubMed

Our results support current recommendations for ordering blood gasometry based on pulse oximetry oxygen saturation cut-offs for hypoxemia. We also provide easy to use formulae to calculate pO2 from oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Results: The correlation coefficient between oxygen saturation and pO2 measured by arterial blood gasometry was 0.89. The area under the curve (AUC) for the hypoxemia model was 0.97 (0.96-0.98) and the optimal cut-off point for hypoxemia was an oxygen saturation of 90%. The AUC for hypercapnic respiratory failure was 0.90 (0.87-0.92) and the optimal cut-off point was an oxygen saturation of 88%."

Hypoxemia is apparently no big deal to Dr Mike.

“Come to bed Crazy. Stop trying to practice medicine from Google searches. I don’t care if you’re a pathetic, unemployed handyman. Just make sure you remove anything sharp from your tool belt before you give it to me!”

 

[Ucfmikes]

Good lord you are an idiot.

The Use of Pulse Oximetry to Determine Hypoxemia in Acute Exacerbations of COPD - PubMed

Our results support current recommendations for ordering blood gasometry based on pulse oximetry oxygen saturation cut-offs for hypoxemia. We also provide easy to use formulae to calculate pO2 from oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Results: The correlation coefficient between oxygen saturation and pO2 measured by arterial blood gasometry was 0.89. The area under the curve (AUC) for the hypoxemia model was 0.97 (0.96-0.98) and the optimal cut-off point for hypoxemia was an oxygen saturation of 90%. The AUC for hypercapnic respiratory failure was 0.90 (0.87-0.92) and the optimal cut-off point was an oxygen saturation of 88%."

Hypoxemia is apparently no big deal to Dr Mike.

Good lord. People are laughing at you. Time to leave your house and get a breath of fresh air

 

[Crazyhole]

Good lord. People are laughing at you. Time to leave your house and get a breath of fresh air

Fine. Then you agree that Boston shared a perfectly legitimate picture that showed someone with a pulse-ox reading of 73. Gotta admit I'm surprised that you took his side on this one, considering how ridiculous it is.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Fine. Then you agree that Boston shared a perfectly legitimate picture that showed someone with a pulse-ox reading of 73. Gotta admit I'm surprised that you took his side on this one, considering how ridiculous it is.

You morons are just trying to do the bait and switch

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.

 

[Crazyhole]

You morons are just trying to do the bait and switch

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.

Total deflection. Nobody cares about ivermectin anymore. The more important issue at hand is that you think a pulse-ox reading of 73 is totally reasonable.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Total deflection. Nobody cares about ivermectin anymore. The more important issue at hand is that you think a pulse-ox reading of 73 is totally reasonable.

Oh yeah? You guys are triggered

 

[Ucfmikes]

Anything below 90% is pretty dangerous.

73% or 90%? 🙄😂😂🙄

 

[Crazyhole]

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!




The queen is taking ivermectin. Does she think that she's a horse???

 

[Ucfmikes]

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

View embedded media

The queen is taking ivermectin. Does she think that she's a horse???

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.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

View embedded media

The queen is taking ivermectin. Does she think that she's a horse???

 

[Crazyhole]

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.

You should send an email to the queens doctors about this revelation. Clearly, she is not a horse. What are they thinking???????

 

[Ucfmikes]

You should send an email to the queens doctors about this revelation. Clearly, she is not a horse. What are they thinking???????

Ivermectin doesn’t work

95 year-old Queen is vaccinated 3 times and lives

Physicians give her ivermectin which doesn’t work

Crazy’s Butthurt logic- IT MUST WORK BECAUSE THE QUEEN TOOK IT!! 😂😂😂

I honestly think that you need to get out of the house and interact with people

 

[Crazyhole]

Ivermectin doesn’t work

95 year-old Queen is vaccinated 3 times and lives

Physicians give her ivermectin which doesn’t work

Crazy’s Butthurt logic- IT MUST WORK BECAUSE THE QUEEN TOOK IT!! 😂😂😂

I honestly think that you need to get out of the house and interact with people

Apparently they didn't have too much confidence in the vaccines that they'd give her horse dewormer just in case.

 

[Crazyhole]

Lolololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "I was in the ICU for a month. Thank God for the vaccine".

 

[Ucfmikes]

Apparently they didn't have too much confidence in the vaccines that they'd give her horse dewormer just in case.

Yes, moron, they gave a 95 year-old Queen
A vaccine because they didn’t have confidence in it 😂😂😂

 

[Ucfmikes]

View embedded media

Lolololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "I was in the ICU for a month. Thank God for the vaccine".

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.