- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New ivermectin study shows 92% lower chance of COVID death
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:28 am to MasterDigger
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:28 am to MasterDigger
I, for one, know that Brazil is the place I turn to for quality, peer-reviewed medical studies. Especially from this doctor, who is amazing. He already, just this last year, also reduced Covid deaths by 92% (a number he obviously likes) by using a breast cancer drug, proxalutamide, that hasn't been approved for medical use.
Another amazing study by same doctor
However, in that study, it should be noted,
Another amazing study by same doctor
However, in that study, it should be noted,
quote:Science.org
in the placebo group the fatality rate was 49.4%, which made the [proxalutamide] drug look better but is far larger than the less than 10% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who die in the United States.
0
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:30 am to the808bass
quote:
Don’t ask what the endpoints were at day 30.
They tell you in the study…
“ After day 29, three additional deaths resulting from adverse events occurred in the placebo group, as compared with one additional death reported in the molnupiravir group.”
I see a similar finding in this study although no as egregious. In this study the placebo group had a 1.7% mortality rate compared to 0.3% in the treatment group.
1.7% seems higher than all estimates especially when you are including a lot of people who had already gotten COVID
The other issue I have with the study is that it showed no benefit to people who already had COVID. At this point has anyone not gotten COVID? So it seems like this treatment is irrelevant.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:32 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
The other issue I have with the study is that it showed no benefit to people who already had COVID. At this point has anyone not gotten COVID? So it seems like this treatment is irrelevant.
Holy shite
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:34 am to the808bass
quote:
The parent made the 16-year-old daughter get a booster to go on a trip with us. And admitted it wouldn’t do anything really. Just made her get it to get it.
I'm a dumb ole' Hillbilly guitar player and will admit I don't know everything, but that just sounds plain evil to me.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:38 am to oogabooga68
the dosage for a 50 lb animal once per week
sometimes I may skip (forget) a week every couple months
basicly a small spot on the end of your finger
sometimes I may skip (forget) a week every couple months
basicly a small spot on the end of your finger
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:38 am to the808bass
quote:
The parent made the 16-year-old daughter get a booster to go on a trip with us. And admitted it wouldn’t do anything really. Just made her get it to get it.
That’s sick. I would think at 16 I would have the self awareness to realize COVID isn’t a threat to me and tell my parents to frick off, but I guess if your parent is a well respected doctor who everyone is always giving praise it might be harder
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:40 am to WaWaWeeWa
Irrelevant?
Not to Merck’s bottom line.
Not to Merck’s bottom line.
quote:
The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), collaborated with the DoD Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) and Army Contracting Command, on the $1.2 billion purchase agreement for the 1.7 million 5-day treatment courses of molnupiravir to be procured only if FDA grants emergency use authorization (EUA) or approval.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:42 am to MasterDigger
Your study stated you have to take ivermectin regularly for 12 weeks. I want you to take it for 12 weeks as indicated in the article and see what happens
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:48 am to dr
Thanks.
At first I thought you meant you were taking it daily.
It's a harmless drug, I might give it a try.
I'm not against trying new things.
At first I thought you meant you were taking it daily.
It's a harmless drug, I might give it a try.
I'm not against trying new things.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:49 am to HL
quote:
see what happens
What do you think is going to happen?
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:51 am to HL
quote:
I want you to take it for 12 weeks as indicated in the article and see what happens
Probably nothing. People do that all the time.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 8:55 am to the808bass
quote:
Irrelevant? Not to Merck’s bottom line.
I see both sides of it. Unfortunately we have created a profit driven innovation sector. It’s hard to tell a company “hey spend a billion dollars developing this drug and if it doesn’t work too bad”. Not that this justifies lying or manipulating data, but I guess I’m asking myself how do we incentivize technological innovation when the risks are that high?
I hate to think the answer is government subsidy of innovation because government involvement is almost never the answer.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:02 am to MasterDigger
My thoughts on this:
Cureus is not as credible a source as other journals due its peer review method; however, that does not mean that this study isn’t valid. It does run contrary to other studies by seemingly more credible sources. It very well may be correct, but it could be a poorly run study.
Anecdotal observations:
I’m vaccinated and have been healthy since receiving the vaccine and booster. I had a mild case of Covid in January. My immediate family is vaccinated and boosted, and my extended family is a mixed bag. My peer group is almost entirely vaccinated.
1) I do not know anyone that has died from Covid that was vaccinated.
2) I do know people that died that were not vaccinated, but that was earlier in the pandemic.
3) One person in my extended family that was both vaccinated and taking ivermectin was hospitalized.
4) One person in my extended family that was not vaccinated and was not taking ivermectin was hospitalized.
5) Several people in my peer group that were not vaccinated, once it was available, were hospitalized.
6) No people in my peer group that were vaccinated have been hospitalized.
My stance has been that the vaccine is effective in preventing hospitalization and death, and my anecdotal observations have shown this to be accurate. Nobody I know has had adverse effects from vaccination other than the 12 hour malaise.
I’ve been fairly accepting of my family’s choices to use ivermectin if they see the need to do so. I don’t believe it is effective against Covid, but I also don’t see it as being harmful if taken in the dosage. So, if it doesn’t hurt and there’s a chance it helps, why not try?
Cureus is not as credible a source as other journals due its peer review method; however, that does not mean that this study isn’t valid. It does run contrary to other studies by seemingly more credible sources. It very well may be correct, but it could be a poorly run study.
Anecdotal observations:
I’m vaccinated and have been healthy since receiving the vaccine and booster. I had a mild case of Covid in January. My immediate family is vaccinated and boosted, and my extended family is a mixed bag. My peer group is almost entirely vaccinated.
1) I do not know anyone that has died from Covid that was vaccinated.
2) I do know people that died that were not vaccinated, but that was earlier in the pandemic.
3) One person in my extended family that was both vaccinated and taking ivermectin was hospitalized.
4) One person in my extended family that was not vaccinated and was not taking ivermectin was hospitalized.
5) Several people in my peer group that were not vaccinated, once it was available, were hospitalized.
6) No people in my peer group that were vaccinated have been hospitalized.
My stance has been that the vaccine is effective in preventing hospitalization and death, and my anecdotal observations have shown this to be accurate. Nobody I know has had adverse effects from vaccination other than the 12 hour malaise.
I’ve been fairly accepting of my family’s choices to use ivermectin if they see the need to do so. I don’t believe it is effective against Covid, but I also don’t see it as being harmful if taken in the dosage. So, if it doesn’t hurt and there’s a chance it helps, why not try?
This post was edited on 9/1/22 at 9:03 am
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:05 am to HL
quote:Not much. The dose is once per week or so.
Your study stated you have to take ivermectin regularly for 12 weeks. I want you to take it for 12 weeks as indicated in the article and see what happens
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:08 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
People do that all the time.
People shove McDonald's and Mountain Dew in their faces all the time, too.
I wouldn't take this for 3 months just for funsies.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:15 am to HL
quote:
Your study stated you have to take ivermectin regularly for 12 weeks. I want you to take it for 12 weeks as indicated in the article and see what happens
Ok. It’s on the 10 safest drugs list and won a Nobel Prize.
Now, I want you to keep taking mRNA boosters for as long as they
are available and see what happens.
Seems fair to me.
This post was edited on 9/1/22 at 9:20 am
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:22 am to WaWaWeeWa
The biggest danger isn’t the government subsidy of Pharma innovation. The danger is that the industry captures the government who then pays Pharma from the bottomless coffers.
We’re already there.
We’re already there.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:34 am to the808bass
quote:
The biggest danger isn’t the government subsidy of Pharma innovation. The danger is that the industry captures the government who then pays Pharma from the bottomless coffers.
We’re already there.
Yep.
Most people don't know it, but the FDA gets HALF their funding from Big Pharma.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:38 am to MasterDigger
I was prescribed ivermectin by my dermatologist rt before all this started so I was pretty surprised at the full on attack on it.
So I knew it worked when politicians and media are attacking a cheap drug.
So I knew it worked when politicians and media are attacking a cheap drug.
Posted on 9/1/22 at 9:40 am to HL
quote:
Your study stated you have to take ivermectin regularly for 12 weeks. I want you to take it for 12 weeks as indicated in the article and see what happens
Ive used it everyday for years.
I’m also not vaccinated and I’m still here.
This post was edited on 9/1/22 at 9:41 am
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News