Ivermectin, for the interested
- Thread starter Freeforester
- Start date
- Status
J@son
Well-Known Member
No evidence suggests a causal link between ivermectin recommendation and the decline of COVID-19 cases in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh
Ivermectin recommendation in Uttar Pradesh isn’t proof that the drug is behind the drop in COVID-19 cases; other factors, such as rates of previous infection, vaccination, testing, and other control measures, are likely involved
Simply because two events happened at the same time doesn’t necessarily mean that one caused the other. In other words, correlation alone doesn’t imply causation. Instead, this correlation can be coincidental or the result of a third “confounding factor” that affects the other two events. For instance, the fact that drownings increase at the same time that ice cream consumption doesn’t mean that eating ice cream causes drowning.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are now Covid-free: State govt
Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent.
All the same, they might just be linked. Worth looking into, or trying out, which is why I’ve looked into it, and tried it out. So far, still swimming.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Im somewhat perplexed that certain people in this discussion have great difficulty in giving any credence whatsoever to ivermectin as a covid treatment.
Dalua talks of logical fallacy, then uses this argument
Is it a recognised covid treatment?
What is the 'something completely different'?
What kind of argument is that?
Except in the countries where its still being used.... To treat covid.
Dalua talks of logical fallacy, then uses this argument
Was doxycycline rolled out?
Is it a recognised covid treatment?
What is the 'something completely different'?
What kind of argument is that?
Again, there's no conviction here, what's the point of running 'proper' trials, when it's unequivocally been denounced as having NO EFFECT on covid?
Except in the countries where its still being used.... To treat covid.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
…Sic Iv’ry tow’red romantics,
They’ll confuse folk with semantics
But - The world moves on, till Covid’s gone
- though they yet will be ‘pedantics’…
They’ll confuse folk with semantics
But - The world moves on, till Covid’s gone
- though they yet will be ‘pedantics’…
mchughcb
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm missing your point. I'm not an expert in medical patents but I have a few engineering patents. The general advice from the patent attorneys is you don't talk about the invention in public until you file the patent because it makes it harder to defend. Now it clearly states that the patent was applied for months after Barody made public his treatment. Subsequent 2 papers he printed after trials he declared his interest. So Lipworth ignores the 2 subsequent papers where the interest is declared. Whether the first paper was a genuine mistake or not I don't know but it appears above board afterwards. In medical patents, of which I have no experience, if he is using proven drugs but in a novel way to treat another disease I guess he's have to have willing test subjects and analyze those results before wasting time and money on applying for a patent so its a bit of a catch 22. If the patent and treatment is crap or not required then he'll make no money for his effort. But it annoys me that a public servant paid by the taxpayers medical professional is more worried about the promotion of the idea rather than the actual outcomes. If she has a bone to pick with the papers his published on the effectiveness that would be much better in my eyes than complaining about her perceived medical conflict of interest.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
That’s quite a stretch, of course, but it’s rather obviously wrong, for the simple reason that in the states in India where people are denied ivermectin, they still eat rice, but have seriously high rates of Covid. There are several examples of this, where men In authority think more like those here, rather than in Uttar Pradesh, or any other place in the world where they’ve made the ‘leap of faith’ you consider/believe the adoption of ivermectin to be. Although the official policy at head office in the Indian government may indeed be that of the WHO, etc, ie no ivermectin use, those States where they have decided to use it seem to have a far better outcome.
More naan?
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
He’s not a naught boy, he’s only trying to save humanity, Chuck! Funny how it’s only the big players who are deemed to be allowed to make a ‘living’ from the dying.
O, wad some power the giftie gie' us
tae see oursels as ithers see us.
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.
J@son
Well-Known Member
Alternative explanation 1
Kerala currently accounts for about half of the new COVID-19 cases in India. OAN and Gateway Pundit claimed that this was proof that this state, which they described as “over-dependent on vaccines and less dependent on Ivermectin”, failed to control COVID-19 cases. However, estimates from July 2021 based on seroprevalence studies indicated that, at that time, Kerala had a far more effective testing strategy than Uttar Pradesh. While Kerala detected one COVID-19 case every six, Uttar Pradesh only detected one case every 100. This means that Kerala doesn’t necessarily have more COVID-19 cases than Uttar Pradesh, but rather might have detected a higher proportion of them.
Alternative explanation 2
There are more fish tanks in Utar Pradesh.
As you point out: it’s “a leap of faith” and the thing about people with faith is that they believe in spite of the evidence that they may be wrong. That is what faith is. You have it. And I absolutely respect your right to make personal choices based on your beliefs. But your faith reduces your ability to critically evaluate evidence that your beliefs might be wrong. When it comes to an objective evaluation of a proposed medication, one which you are already taking, your faith in its healing qualities doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong but necessarily means you are less likely to be right. As I am sure you are aware this is known as confirmation bias.
Last edited:
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Let's evaluate this evidence.
India has less per capita deaths from covid than the UK, the US, despite having a health service woefully inadequate for it population, poverty is endemic, poor infrastructure, and an average age of death 10 years younger than most western nations.
It has poor vaccine roll out, most states less than 20 %
Yet its covid case rate makes ours look shocking , with our average 80% vax rate.
It may not be ivermectin, so what is it?
Because we could do with some , as masks and lockdown for Xmas here , is a real possible.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
It’s a big thing these days, especially where it has been deployed and the virus is on the back foot, whereas here, where the confirmation bias has been more inclined toward ‘believing’ your way, ie the vaccine narrative, not so much. We agree to differ, my only real qualm is why ivermectin might not be offered, given its safety record, when at least in areas where it has already been rolled out the results have been far, far better than those of the vaccines, and continue to be so, coincidence, as you allege, or not. The say-so of those whose prescription isn’t currently working does not seem to be much to set store in, but ‘believe what you will’, and try to keep an open mind, as we all do. It’s not as if I’ve not considered your reasoning, and I fully accept the flaws you kindly illuminate in my own reasoning, and presumably in those too for whom ivermectin has worked so well, be it as a placebo or not; I’ve explained the modes of function, early on in the thread, and since, yet all I hear from you and yours is that ivermectin doesn’t work, or at best we don’t know if it works or not. In a non-pandemic time I would be happy to look further into your scientific claims, but right now they stand in contrast with the mainstream observed evidence where ivermectin is being used. So to my understanding, your stance insists that we here should not try it on that basis, ie you prefer to continue to fight this next wave, variant, etc and presumably the one after that in the same failing way we presently are obliged to, rather than taking a chance on something that works elsewhere but may only be ‘a coincidence’ and/or you do not as yet understand the mechanism of action, according to your method and cautious approach.
it reminds me of the story of the US space programme, where millions were sunk into making a pen that could write in a reduced gravity environment; the Russians used pencils.
Good luck selling your plan to Stalin, he might not have been so ‘convinced‘ as you yourself are, lol!
it reminds me of the story of the US space programme, where millions were sunk into making a pen that could write in a reduced gravity environment; the Russians used pencils.
Good luck selling your plan to Stalin, he might not have been so ‘convinced‘ as you yourself are, lol!
Why does it not surprise me that you would mention this ridiculous myth that NASA spent millions on developing a pen?
NoIDeer
Well-Known Member
Line of the thread so far "Jason and the argue-nuts"
I can't see how you can argue against the official statement of the manufacturer of the drug, they would look like tw@ts if they are proven wrong :-
Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Merck.com
I can't see how you can argue against the official statement of the manufacturer of the drug, they would look like tw@ts if they are proven wrong :-
Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Merck.com
At the vanguard of current pandemic health measures are a raft of strategies which depend on novel drugs [mRNA vaccines, Molnupiravir, Remdesivir] deployed under emergency licence and with a demonstrably high rate of AE. [VAERs]
By contrast, there is near universal suppression of any consideration of alternative, multi-layered, treatments [doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, colchicine, carrageean, ivermectin, zinc] all of which are fully licenced and whose safety records [very low AE for ivermectin] are time proven.
Whether or not any treatment is appropriate for any given illness, suppression of consideration serves none.
Circling back to the OP: in the specific case of ivermectin, the number of case studies continue to grow, The NIH lists 81 ivermectin trials.
The meta analysis of trial data is listed below. Even when some trial data is excluded, ivermectin still outperformed the control.
Note that the WHO are included in the list of those whose meta analysis coincides with the majority view. They caveat that position by stating they presume bias in a number of trials.
We , all of us, need to demand a change of tack on the part of government. Treatments other than vaccine must be pursued. That is the opinion of the NIH:
By contrast, there is near universal suppression of any consideration of alternative, multi-layered, treatments [doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, colchicine, carrageean, ivermectin, zinc] all of which are fully licenced and whose safety records [very low AE for ivermectin] are time proven.
Whether or not any treatment is appropriate for any given illness, suppression of consideration serves none.
Circling back to the OP: in the specific case of ivermectin, the number of case studies continue to grow, The NIH lists 81 ivermectin trials.
The meta analysis of trial data is listed below. Even when some trial data is excluded, ivermectin still outperformed the control.
Note that the WHO are included in the list of those whose meta analysis coincides with the majority view. They caveat that position by stating they presume bias in a number of trials.
We , all of us, need to demand a change of tack on the part of government. Treatments other than vaccine must be pursued. That is the opinion of the NIH:
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Maybe not NASA , but a man did spend a million dollars on a space pen , which he did sell to NASA.
They would indeed , especially if the drug that saved millions of lives was out of licence , and they couldn't make any money from it !
So , what to do , claim it doesn't work and bring something else to the market that works similarly and costs a fortune.
Straight out of a fiction novel , or a film plot...
Wierd why merck would not want to push a drug thet cost pennies and is off patent
More than likely because there is no proof whatsoever that it is suitable.
Wierd why merck would not want to push a drug thet cost pennies and is off patent
Track down to first paragraph of the interpretation of the data.
It might be more accurate to describe this as a paper published on an NIH site, rather than an NIH policy statement.
Regardless, the data from the parts of the world that have been most heavily vaccinated is incontrovertible: efficacy limited in both time and strains. Alternate treatments must be pursued, not shunned.
- Status
Similar threads
