Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19.

[Thaidup]

An interesting read, I wish they did a similar study with Hydroxychloroquine.

 

Results

A detailed description of the data considered for the present analysis is illustrated in Figure 1. Of the 220,517 citizens of Itajaí without COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, 159,561 were above 18 years old. Of the 159,561 citizens above 18 years old without COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, 113,845 (71.3% of the population above 18 years old) received ivermectin before being infected by COVID-19. A total of 45,716 citizens (28.7%) did not receive or did not want to receive ivermectin during the program, including as a prophylactic or as a treatment after having COVID-19.

peer reviewed,

 

Article Information

DOI

10.7759/cureus.21272

Cite this article as:

Kerr L, Cadegiani F A, Baldi F, et al. (January 15, 2022) Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching. Cureus 14(1): e21272. doi:10.7759/cureus.21272

Publication history

Peer review began: January 04, 2022
Peer review concluded: January 13, 2022
Published: January 15, 2022

Copyright

© Copyright 2022
Kerr et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Link to article.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching#abstract

 

 

 

[Chaimai]

I am neither in favour, nor against Ivermectin - I am happy to see independent research results though.

Missing from the above was the conclusion:-

 

 

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

 

[Smithydog]

Thanks for the link. Interesting read. However, the study seems to say it was done in 2020 (i.e. conducted between July 2020 and December 2020).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

So my concern is that it is before Delta and before Omicron. Also, once again not a double blind clinical study. Do you have anything to suggest they have updated their research more recently against such variants?

I acknowledge studies are much harder to do with a prophylactic, as participants are exposed to so many factors, be it lifestyle, choice, environment, family and work. Realistically can never be sure they always took the medication or followed the instructions all the time as they cannot be observed all the time for accuracy.

Added to that are other factors may have promoted them catching Covid-19 or not. Did the dose they received having an effect or had no actual influence in catching it or not. After all, they are not "lab rats" contained in hospital or research facility and all lead varied lives.

I am not against Ivermectin. I just prefer real time studies for any medication, prophylactic or treatment against the current variants in controlled environments so doubt can be reduced.

This study does not address any of that and hence why I personally consider its value diminished.

 

 

 

 

[Thaidup]

The study is pretty broad, basically a whole town, all shapes and sizes, all types of health issues, just went in and gave some the Iver and some didnt get it, If they wanted to skew the results it would takes months of planning, And it was peer reviewed.

Sometimes the easiest way is the right way.

[Guphz]

On 3/16/2022 at 6:38 AM, Smithydog said:

Thanks for the link. Interesting read. However, the study seems to say it was done in 2020 (i.e. conducted between July 2020 and December 2020).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

Yeah, it seems like this study has had multiple problems, has had to be corrected multiple times, etc. Some comments on that here.

There is simply no evidence that Ivermectin works.

[Thaidup]

1 hour ago, Guphz said:

There is simply no evidence that Ivermectin works.

And there is no evidence that the vaccine will stop anyone from contracting cov2.

[Guest1]

19 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

And there is no evidence that the vaccine will stop anyone from contracting cov2.

Actually, it is proven that the vaccine CAN'T stop covid from infecting you.

it "just" lowers the ICU/ death toll "a bit". Even in the 80+ range!

[Smithydog]

36 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

And there is no evidence that the vaccine will stop anyone from contracting cov2.

Actually this broad statement is incorrect. That is the problem with such general and broad statements. Whilst Omicron has certainly been a game changer for many past opinions, such broad and general opinions like this , are unwise and probably misleading.

For example, this article discusses the changes in observations scientists have seen across immune systems and vaccines with the different variants. It clearly shows your statement is incorrect in their context.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00214-3

[Thaidup]

2 hours ago, Guphz said:

Yeah, it seems like this study has had multiple problems, has had to be corrected multiple times, etc. Some comments on that here.

You linked to a Reddit, page for reference seriously WTF.

[Thaidup]

17 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

Actually these broad statements are incorrect. That is the problem with such general and broad statements. Whilst Omicron has certainly been a game changer for many past opinions, such broad and general opinions like these , are unwise and probably misleading.

For example, this article discusses the changes in observations scientists have seen across immune systems and vaccines with the different variants. It clearly shows your statements are incorrect in their context.

From the article.

"The immune response after vaccination more or less mimics what happens after infection, with one major difference. In a SARS-CoV-2 infection, the immune system sees the whole"

 

No agency or peer review study has stated that any of the vaccines will stop the vaccinated from contracting cov2

I am going to edit and clarify for Smitty, I think we all know that any vaccination cannot "stop" anyone getting infected. My point in using that terminology is to show Guphz how language can be misinterpreted.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Thaidup

[Smithydog]

35 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

From the article.

The immune response after vaccination more or less mimics what happens after infection, with one major difference. In a SARS-CoV-2 infection, the immune system sees the whole

No agency or peer review study has stated that any of the vaccines will stop the vaccinated from contracting cov2

Thank you for your attempt but you are incorrect. Did you skip over this early paragraph in the article?

The protection provided by two doses of a messenger RNA vaccine drops to less than 40% just a few months after the second dose^1,2. But a third, ‘booster’ dose seems to help. One report found about 60–70% protection from infection at two weeks after a third shot¹, and protection from severe illness seems strong².

It seems a pretty clear statement.

As to you second statement, feel free to read the following research which has been referenced multiple times and cited 3 times as well in other research, clearly indicating it has already been peer reviewed. 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2117128#article_references

However, as conflicting views are arising on a highly controversial subject, can I encourage all participants in this thread to continue doing so in the Controversial Covid Corner - Continued thread.

https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/9942-controversial-covid-corner-continued/?do=getNewComment

Just follow the instructions if you have not already joined the thread.

 

[thaifarmer]

do not attack. this is a discussion forum. everyone has a right to an opinion. If someone writes something you think is dangerous, then offer your opinion on the matter, not the person. attacks on person has no value to the discussing at hand. 

[Smithydog]

Members,

Some members have chosen to ignore the Forum Guidelines about civility. not being misleading, staying on topic and supporting provided or inferred facts.

Basically a mess.

Hence a decision has been taken to close the thread.

Members are reminded they can seek access to, and use a more appropriate thread as follows, for discussion of controversial Covid-19 related matters.

https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/9942-controversial-covid-corner-continued/#comments

Members are also reminded that all opinions are welcomed, providing they are posted in accordance with the Guidelines of the Forum.

Moderator