ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 4 of 26
< 1234 567814 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Ivermectin Studies
seamonster 12:19 PM 09-03-2021
Ivermectin Has Been Studied to Death and Works



































Studies Prophylaxis Early treatment Late treatment PatientsAuthors
All studies 63 86% [75‑92%] 72% [55‑82%] 40% [24‑52%] 26,422 613
Peer-reviewedPeer-reviewed 44 86% [73‑92%] 75% [61‑84%] 43% [21‑59%] 17,082 479
Randomized Controlled TrialsRCTs 31 84% [25‑96%] 61% [46‑71%] 30% [2‑50%] 6,561 359
Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment

[Reply]
Fish 02:48 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
It was questioned but I didn't hear that it was retracted. Link?
Several large ivermectin studies have now been retracted. The problem now is that other ivermectin meta studies include those flawed retracted studies in their data. It's a mess.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/...d-say-authors/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 02:54 PM 09-03-2021

Since ivermectin is now just a “horse dewormer” why is the CDC recommending refugees take it before arriving in the United States?https://t.co/7RMfPBbQge pic.twitter.com/VbzcdoXN9k

— Eduardo Neret (@eduneret) September 3, 2021

[Reply]
Donger 02:57 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
It was questioned but I didn't hear that it was retracted. Link?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...y-suspect-data

But there are signs that at least some of the experiments — as written up in a paper published in November — didn’t happen as advertised. After BuzzFeed News raised questions about how the study’s data was collected and analyzed, a representative from the Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation, which published the results, said late Monday, “We will remove the paper temporarily.” A link was removed from the table of contents — but was reinstated by Thursday. The journal’s explanation, provided after this story was published, was that the author “informed us that he has already provided the evidence of his study to the media.”

Lots of other fun stuff in that link. Enjoy.
[Reply]
Donger 02:59 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee...uidelines.html

Summary of Recommendations

This guidance is intended for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) physicians and other panel physicians who administer overseas predeparture presumptive treatment for intestinal parasites, but may also be referenced by U.S. medical providers caring for refugees who will be receiving presumptive treatment after they arrive in the United States.

While these recommendations have been implemented in many overseas sites, logistical and procurement issues still limit their full implementation in some. All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with:

All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with:

Albendazole, single dose of 400 mg (200 mg for children 12-23 months)

AND

Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States.

[Reply]
Ninerfan11 03:02 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
lol
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 03:06 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by Fish:
Several large ivermectin studies have now been retracted. The problem now is that other ivermectin meta studies include those flawed retracted studies in their data. It's a mess.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/...d-say-authors/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
Even if that's the case, there are plenty of other studies that support it.

HCQ was written off as potentially dangerous and ineffective solely due to one horribly fraudulent study that involved extreme doses, even though it was retracted.

It seems that the only consistent theme is that any study showing positive results for either of these drugs will be heavily scrutinized or ignored.
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 03:07 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee...uidelines.html

Summary of Recommendations

This guidance is intended for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) physicians and other panel physicians who administer overseas predeparture presumptive treatment for intestinal parasites, but may also be referenced by U.S. medical providers caring for refugees who will be receiving presumptive treatment after they arrive in the United States.

While these recommendations have been implemented in many overseas sites, logistical and procurement issues still limit their full implementation in some. All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with:

All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with:

Albendazole, single dose of 400 mg (200 mg for children 12-23 months)

AND

Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States.
Oh, the same reason it is usually given to humans

Not the horse variety either unlike the dioshits who have been emptying shelves of horse paste.
[Reply]
Fish 03:15 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Even if that's the case, there are plenty of other studies that support it.

HCQ was written off as potentially dangerous and ineffective solely due to one horribly fraudulent study that involved extreme doses, even though it was retracted.

It seems that the only consistent theme is that any study showing positive results for either of these drugs will be heavily scrutinized or ignored.
Yes, there are studies that support it. There's also lots of studies that show it's not very effective. The data is very inconsistent. Which is why more study needs done. The current studies that show effectiveness have issues with confidence levels, and admit that directly in the study.

Regardless, the vaccines have already proven themselves much more effective so there's not a huge amount of pressure. The truth is, if ivermectin were more effective than the mRNA vaccines, we'd be using it primarily.
[Reply]
Donger 03:16 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Even if that's the case, there are plenty of other studies that support it.

HCQ was written off as potentially dangerous and ineffective solely due to one horribly fraudulent study that involved extreme doses, even though it was retracted.

It seems that the only consistent theme is that any study showing positive results for either of these drugs will be heavily scrutinized or ignored.
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be heavily scrutinized? Or should we just go on the word of Dr. Vlad and that French quack?
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 04:13 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be heavily scrutinized? Or should we just go on the word of Dr. Vlad and that French quack?
They've been 10x as scrutinized as an experimental emergency vaccine. Drugs that have been FDA approved for 30 and 70 years. Think about that.
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 04:13 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by Fish:
Yes, there are studies that support it. There's also lots of studies that show it's not very effective. The data is very inconsistent. Which is why more study needs done. The current studies that show effectiveness have issues with confidence levels, and admit that directly in the study.

Regardless, the vaccines have already proven themselves much more effective so there's not a huge amount of pressure. The truth is, if ivermectin were more effective than the mRNA vaccines, we'd be using it primarily.
Do you honestly believe that?
[Reply]
RubberSponge 04:17 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
They've been 10x as scrutinized as an experimental emergency vaccine. Drugs that have been FDA approved for 30 and 70 years. Think about that.
Thought about it.

So.. don't trust the govt., but trust the govt?
[Reply]
Donger 04:23 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
They've been 10x as scrutinized as an experimental emergency vaccine. Drugs that have been FDA approved for 30 and 70 years. Think about that.
Wait, aren't you a BIG PHARMA person?
[Reply]
KCUnited 04:26 PM 09-03-2021
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTUrTJnA..._web_copy_link
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 04:28 PM 09-03-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Do you honestly believe that?
Yes. Full stop.

All y'all's God Trump would have been on it. He wasn't and isn't.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 26
< 1234 567814 > Last »
Up