IVERMECTIN for covid-19

[BlueSphinx]

Attached a link to a recent (July 19) short article on IVERMECTIN as treatment for covid-19. 

> https://www.studyfinds.org/covid-19-cure-ivermectin/

Two excerpts:

#1 - “We did the work that the medical authorities failed to do, we conducted the most comprehensive review of the available data on ivermectin,” says Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), in a media release. “We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that ivermectin can end this pandemic.”

#2 - “Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” adds Dr. Paul E. Marik, founding member of the FLCCC and chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The article also contains a link to the meta-study with a comprehensive review of 27 reports from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies, including 15 randomized controlled trials.

> https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

[THETRUTH]

Sorry but this study has already been debunked because it is fake and a conspiracy theory.

To be accurate, this study is a meta-analysis that looks at multiple actual medical trials and tries to draw conclusions from them as if they were a single trial and unified data set.

However, the analysis was basically dependent on a single Egyptian medical experiment that has been proven to be fabricated and fake. After the fake Egyptian data has been pulled out, also the overall, aggregated data shows that Ivermectim has no effect on covid.

The Egyptian medical experiment had never been peer-reviewed prior to being published, and the publisher has already withdrawn it.

 

Quote

The biggest problem with the meta-analysis concerned one of its key component studies. This was a 600-patient trial conducted by Egyptian researchers in 2020 that found a strong therapeutic effect. As data researchers Nick Brown and Jack Lawrence showed, however, there were glaring problems with that trial, its data and the report itself.

The report was not peer-reviewed before publication, so it probably should never have been incorporated in the meta-analysis at all.

Dropping the Egyptian results from the meta-analysis changes the conclusion about ivermectin completely. According to Australian epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, if one removes the Egypt data and re-runs the meta-analysis, “the benefit...largely loses its statistical significance.” In other words, ivermectin has no effect on COVID-19.

> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-07-22/ivermectin-another-bogus-covid-treatment

 

Quote

The introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”

> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

Edited July 25, 2021 by THETRUTH

[BlueSphinx]

22 minutes ago, THETRUTH said:

Sorry but this study has already been debunked because it is fake and a conspiracy theory.

To be accurate, this study is a meta-analysis that looks at multiple actual medical trials and tries to draw conclusions from them as if they were a single trial and unified data set.

However, the analysis was basically dependent on a single Egyptian medical experiment that has been proven to be fabricated and fake. After the fake Egyptian data has been pulled out, also the overall, aggregated data shows that Ivermectim has no effect on covid.

The Egyptian medical experiment had never been peer-reviewed prior to being published, and the publisher has already withdrawn it.

> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-07-22/ivermectin-another-bogus-covid-treatment

> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

You wrote : Sorry but this study has already been debunked because it is fake and a conspiracy theory.  And then you go on a rant about a debunked Egyptian meta-study on ivermectin, which is NOT the study which I referred to and attached.

So it looks like @THETRUTH didn't even look at the two recent two meta-studies which I added and which appeared in the American Journal of Therapeutics (my favorite publication source for conspiracy theories...  )

[Zool]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

Attached a link to a recent (July 19) short article on IVERMECTIN as cure for covid-19. 

> https://www.studyfinds.org/covid-19-cure-ivermectin/

Two excerpts:

#1 - “We did the work that the medical authorities failed to do, we conducted the most comprehensive review of the available data on ivermectin,” says Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), in a media release. “We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that ivermectin can end this pandemic.”

#2 - “Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” adds Dr. Paul E. Marik, founding member of the FLCCC and chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The article also contains a link to the meta-study with a comprehensive review of 27 reports from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies, including 15 randomized controlled trials.

> https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Thanks for this. In all my studies I keep coming back to ivermectin as the most promising prophylactic, treatment, and long haul treatment for Covid. I believe that ivermectin could put a stop to the pandemic if the entire world would get onboard. There's more money to be made in the "vaccines" though, so I won't hold my breath.

A quick edit:

Another drug, fluvoxamine is showing even better results than ivermectin, but because it is mind-altering, it's probably not as good a candidate for everyone.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Zool

[THETRUTH]

45 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

You wrote : Sorry but this study has already been debunked because it is fake and a conspiracy theory.  And then you go on a rant about a debunked Egyptian meta-study on ivermectin, which is NOT the study which I referred to and attached.

So it looks like @THETRUTH didn't even look at the two recent two meta-studies which I added and which appeared in the American Journal of Therapeutics (my favorite publication source for conspiracy theories...  )

 

Are you pretending to be stupid or what? The meta-analysis that you were boasting about is largely based on on an Egyptian medical trial, which has been proven to be a hoax. After this fake Egyptian data is removed from the sources for your precious meta-analysis, the remaining data shows that Ivermectin offers zero benefit against covid.

 

Alright, I admit that my initial response was not 100 % clear on the details. Let me have another go at it.

I gave you two links previously: one to latimes.com and another to theguardian.com.

The article on LA Times was talking about the meta-analysis that you are promoting here. According to the experts quoted in that article, the overall meta-study is worthless after the exclusion of this Egyptian scam. However, this article doesn't clearly state which "Egyptian trial" they are referring to.

The second article by The Guardian is exclusively about the "Egyptian trial" in question. In there it is mentioned that the author of the Egyptian study was authored by Dr Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt, and was published on Research Square in November. (Relevant to the second half of my post, see below.)

 

46 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

So it looks like @THETRUTH didn't even look at the two recent two meta-studies which I added and which appeared in the American Journal of Therapeutics (my favorite publication source for conspiracy theories...  )

Actually I only see one link from you, but I can indeed find both of the two on my own.

> https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

> https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

The first link is to a literature review, shared by you in the lead post to this thread. The second link is to the actual meta-analysis which you are boasting about. I believe that one is also the meta-analysis that LA Times was talking about.

Anyways, both of these articles mention Dr Ahmed Elgazzar multiple times and include his debunked, fake medical experiment on Research Square in the sources.

 

[THETRUTH]

17 minutes ago, yetanother said:

the latest FLCCC weekly newsletter details how they are being attacked by various sources (and are in "pre-ban" mode with facebook) but nothing of substance is included in the attacks;

no counter studies ;

they have updated their meta-analysis results to exclude that debunked egyptian trial/study and the results are the same as the original conclusions

Then you might as well share the link to the updated article. And I still have to point out that there appears to be ambiguity about which meta-analysis we are talking about. The article published by FLCCC and Dr. Kory is not a meta-analysis. It is a simple literature review, pastime fun. Therefore it also bears zero scientific weight because it is not a scientific study.

The only relevant meta-analysis that I could find is later article by a different group of people, although they credit the article by Dr. Kory as "inspiration" to their own work. Link to that meta-analysis article is included in my previous post.

[BlueSphinx]

41 minutes ago, THETRUTH said:

Are you pretending to be stupid or what? The meta-analysis that you were boasting about is largely based on on an Egyptian medical trial, which has been proven to be a hoax. After this fake Egyptian data is removed from the sources for your precious meta-analysis, the remaining data shows that Ivermectin offers zero benefit against covid.

...

The nice thing about a meta-study (addressing the results of various studies to get a broader picture and come to more solid conclusions than each of the individual studies would provide), is that it is fairly easy to remove a study and see how it affects the results.

And that is of course what FLCCC / BIRD have done after this 'storm in a teacup' and removed that contested Egyptian study by dr Elgazzar.  But contrary to what you write (and took over from the Guardian) the remaining data DOES NOT show that Ivermectin offers zero benefit against covid and does NOT reverse the meta-study conclusions.   And you can see that clearly in the meta-study figures without even doing the effort as FLCCC has done to remove the Elgazzar study.

I attached a PDF of the statement issued July 16 by FLCCC and HART addressing the issue on their website > https://covid19criticalcare.com/ 

Two excerpts from that statement:

#1 - Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would "reverse results"!  Worryingly, the Guardian's article insinuation is reported as if it is fact.
According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited meta-analyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.

#2 - This is not just about correcting facts but about people!s lives, said Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy and organizer of the BIRD group. Ivermectin is already in use around the world and can reach the poorest people long before other expensive COVID treatments will ever get to them. Ivermectin has an ever-increasing evidence base that shows that it works – even the prestigious Institute Pasteur in France has confirmed that the evidence is sound.”

= = =

I am not pretending to be stupid (flattery doesn't work with me), but the REAL truth has its rights...

FLCCC-BIRD-Guardian-Elgazzar-Study-FINAL-1 dd 16 July 2021.pdf

Edited July 25, 2021 by BlueSphinx

[THETRUTH]

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The nice thing about a meta-study (addressing the results of various studies to get a broader picture and come to more solid conclusions than each of the individual studies would provide), is that it is fairly easy to remove a study and see how it affects the results.

It is also very easy to manufacture trash pseudoanalyses by including only what goes in your agenda's favour. In this case they were so desperate that they knowinly included pure trash to make up the numbers.

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by THETRUTH

[THETRUTH]

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

And that is of course what FLCCC / BIRD have done after this 'storm in a teacup' and removed that contested Egyptian study by dr Elgazzar.  But contrary to what you write (and took over from the Guardian) the remaining data DOES NOT show that Ivermectin offers zero benefit against covid and does NOT reverse the meta-study conclusions.   And you can see that clearly in the meta-study figures without even doing the effort as FLCCC has done to remove the Elgazzar study.

I attached a PDF of the statement issued July 16 by FLCCC and HART addressing the issue on their website > https://covid19criticalcare.com/

That is indeed a mere press statement and not a reanalysis of the corrected data set. It's useless to claim that "of course the numbers are still correct" but refuse to submit the corrected (barely) scientific paper for a proper peer review.

[diegogg]

Check https://c19early.com/ for all the trials with alternative drugs that work.

[Bobalong]

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The nice thing about a meta-study (addressing the results of various studies to get a broader picture and come to more solid conclusions than each of the individual studies would provide), is that it is fairly easy to remove a study and see how it affects the results.

And that is of course what FLCCC / BIRD have done after this 'storm in a teacup' and removed that contested Egyptian study by dr Elgazzar.  But contrary to what you write (and took over from the Guardian) the remaining data DOES NOT show that Ivermectin offers zero benefit against covid and does NOT reverse the meta-study conclusions.   And you can see that clearly in the meta-study figures without even doing the effort as FLCCC has done to remove the Elgazzar study.

I attached a PDF of the statement issued July 16 by FLCCC and HART addressing the issue on their website > https://covid19criticalcare.com/ 

Two excerpts from that statement:

#1 - Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would "reverse results"!  Worryingly, the Guardian's article insinuation is reported as if it is fact.
According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited meta-analyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.

#2 - This is not just about correcting facts but about people!s lives, said Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy and organizer of the BIRD group. Ivermectin is already in use around the world and can reach the poorest people long before other expensive COVID treatments will ever get to them. Ivermectin has an ever-increasing evidence base that shows that it works – even the prestigious Institute Pasteur in France has confirmed that the evidence is sound.”

= = =

I am not pretending to be stupid (flattery doesn't work with me), but the REAL truth has its rights...

FLCCC-BIRD-Guardian-Elgazzar-Study-FINAL-1 dd 16 July 2021.pdf 92.04 kB · 1 download

There are four things that I don't discuss on open forums and they are Religion, Politics, Covid and those in Thailand will know the fourth. 

I go back to my favourite quote, which is:  Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

 

[BlueSphinx]

26 minutes ago, THETRUTH said:

It is also very easy to manufacture trash pseudoanalyses by including only what goes in your agenda's favour. In this case they were so desperate that they knowinly included pure trash to make up the numbers.

So according to your deep knowledge of writing meta-studies for drug-trials this is a hoax?  If so, they seem to have learned the trick from the Masters of Deceit, i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna tests to manufacture made-up evidence of efficacy and safety for their covid-jabs

[Faraday]

42 minutes ago, THETRUTH said:

It is also very easy to manufacture trash pseudoanalyses by including only what goes in your agenda's favour. In this case they were so desperate that they knowinly included pure trash to make up the numbers.

Do pharmaceutical companies always tell the truth?

Ghost writers very often present the data & results in a biased or distorted way, to achieve the outcome, of sales.

 

[THETRUTH]

9 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

So according to your deep knowledge of writing meta-studies for drug-trials this is a hoax?  If so, they seem to have learned the trick from the Masters of Deceit, i.e. the Pfizer and Moderna tests to manufacture made-up evidence of efficacy and safety for their covid-jabs

Already the circumstancial evidence points at multiple breaches of basic scientific standards.

They used a non-peer-reviewed medical trial without validating the data!

This Egyptian trial scam comprised about 25 % of their whole data set, yet they did not want to make sure that it is valid data, why?

On those two articles published on the Americal Journal of Therapeutics, there are the names of 12 MDs and PhDs (5+7) and none of those guys were worried about signing off a piece of study on a hot topic that would get them crucified if it were found to be fraudulent?

Excuse me, but all it took to finally bust this scam out was a medical student, who had received the article as part of his school assignment, and noticed that it is total bullshit.

And the reaction? They make a rush press release to moan about The Guardian doing bad journalism. Journalism. Not science, just "bad journalism". As if their primary concern is looking good in the media and not so much on the scientific field.

[THETRUTH]

44 minutes ago, Faraday said:

Do pharmaceutical companies always tell the truth?

This is what we call whataboutism, go check it out. It isn't an argument.

[Faraday]

3 minutes ago, THETRUTH said:

This is what we

What are you babbling on about, & is that the Royal We?

My question was directly addressing your statement about "manufacturing trash".

I expected - well I hoped for, better. 

Never mind.

 

[THETRUTH]

5 minutes ago, Faraday said:

What are you babbling on about, & is that the Royal We?

My question was directly addressing your statement about "manufacturing trash".

No, you didn't say anything about my statement nor offered any criticism for my logic. Instead you just asked a question: "What about this other, unrelated field of business?"

Well, that other, unrelated field of business is not the subject of this discussion, and I have no opinion about their business practises in the context of this thread.

Edited July 25, 2021 by THETRUTH

[Faraday]

7 minutes ago, THETRUTH said:

No, you didn't say anything about my statement nor offered any criticism for my logic. Instead you just asked a question: "What about this other, unrelated field of business?"

Well, that other, unrelated field of business is not the subject of this discussion, and I have no opinion about their business practises in the context of this thread.

For someone who appears reasonably smart, your reading skills are possibly a bit basic.

Never mind.

[THETRUTH]

8 minutes ago, Faraday said:

For someone who appears reasonably smart, your reading skills are possibly a bit basic.

Never mind.

That was literally the whole of your message. You offered zero insight on what's wrong with my argumentation. The only point seemed to be that you were implying that since everyone else is lying too, then these antivaccers are allowed to lie too. Okay. How does that make them more reliable, then?

[Faraday]

My, my, you do like an argument don't you?

I simply, cannot, be bothered to read your dogma anymore.

In case you're wondering, I could very easily defeat them.

[Poolie]

1 hour ago, yetanother said:

my ignore list has proven pretty handy

Yeah, mine is slowly expanding.

Its in direct proportion to the TVF members who have ambled in this direction.

[gummy]

12 minutes ago, Poolie said:

Yeah, mine is slowly expanding.

Its in direct proportion to the TVF members who have ambled in this direction.

Agreed the last two weeks have shown a large increase. 

[JTCarius]

On 7/25/2021 at 2:56 PM, yetanother said:

ivermectin scores quite well there , 23 studies focused on ivermectin;

note also curcumin (turmeric) , now we are getting somewhere, just changing your diet and adding a nice tasting spice boosts your immunity;

note also vitamin D

Turmeric (curcumin) taken with black pepper (piperine).

Boots and Watsons appear to have only one brand of vitamin D3  called "Nat D".

[Buttaxe]

On 7/25/2021 at 9:22 AM, THETRUTH said:

Sorry but this study has already been debunked because it is fake and a conspiracy theory.

To be accurate, this study is a meta-analysis that looks at multiple actual medical trials and tries to draw conclusions from them as if they were a single trial and unified data set.

However, the analysis was basically dependent on a single Egyptian medical experiment that has been proven to be fabricated and fake. After the fake Egyptian data has been pulled out, also the overall, aggregated data shows that Ivermectim has no effect on covid.

The Egyptian medical experiment had never been peer-reviewed prior to being published, and the publisher has already withdrawn it.

> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-07-22/ivermectin-another-bogus-covid-treatment

> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

I was with you until you quoted The Guardian - as the saying goes, 'is that true, or did you read it in The Guardian?'

[THETRUTH]

3 hours ago, Buttaxe said:

I was with you until you quoted The Guardian - as the saying goes, 'is that true, or did you read it in The Guardian?'

At least I'm not quoting conspiracy nut trash that can be proven false by an IT guy.