MEXICOWANDERER
las peñas, michoacan, mexico
Senior Member
Joined: 06/01/2007
View Profile
 Offline
|
BCSnob,
Thank you for the information. The evidence seems to be overwhelming that no current vaccine Heterologous or otherwise is universally effective at altogether preventing infection.
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Not a surprising summary since no vaccine has been or currently is 100% effective at preventing the disease (polio, measles, smallpox, etc) the vaccine was developed against. However the evidence does indicate vaccination is effective at significantly reducing the risk of hospitalization and death.
|
nickthehunter
Midwest
Senior Member
Joined: 07/18/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
BCSnob wrote:... on the whole there has been little to no evidence of efficacy for the treatment or prevention of Covid-19 with ivermectin. If ivermectin was a viable treatment, most studies would show efficacy. NIH seems to disagree with you. Clicky
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
The presence of this article on this NIH website is simply to pass along information not necessarily an endorsement of ivermectin as a treatment.
Go read the entire article especially the details in the methods section (how many were treated with ivermectin, how many were controls, how were the controls selected, what was the disease severity, what was their metric for shorter time of recovery, etc) and this statement from the authors.
Quote:Due to its observational nature, our study’s findings need further confirmation using longitudinal studies or interventional studies to strengthen the evidence before its large-scale use among HCWs and the implementation of public health programs. Provide a link to the follow up study recommended by these authors that strengthens their evidence.
This is a perfect example of “but what about ____” that makes fulfilling your request to go over the website and refute the factual errors a laborious and time consuming effort. Someone will post one or two examples showing benefits amongst the entire body of studies showing no benefit and without providing that body of studies the one or two seem compelling.
Let me give you a “but what about _____”; what about the many blinded clinical trials of ivermectin that indicated no statistically relevant benefit for taking ivermectin vs placebo?
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5 (preprint)
Example 6
Example 7
Example 8
Let me restate something that should be obvious; a drug that is truly beneficial should demonstrate that benefit in most blinded clinical trials of its benefit. If there are 30 blinded clinic trials on the benefit of a drug; 2 show a slight benefit and 28 show no benefit. Is the drug beneficial?
Let me put it another way, if ivermectin had a proven benefit for treating or preventing Covid-19, the manufacturers of the drug would be promoting its use to increase their profits (and PR) for a drug that has little additional development costs. The only people promoting its use are the retailers (resellers) of the drug and those looking for any other way to deal with this disease than vaccination and masking.
Updated 18Feb2022
I’ve been waiting for the results of 3 clinical trials on ivermectin. One was published today.
Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities
Journal of American Medical Association
Quote:Findings
In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.
* This post was
last
edited 02/18/22 09:59am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
In addition to a previously found correction between disease severity and resulting antibody titers (1,2), this study found a correlation between symptoms and types of antibodies found in serum samples: antibodies against the spike (S1), RBD, or nucleocapsid (N) portions of the virus.
Differential antibody production by symptomatology in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent individuals
MedRxiv preprint 10Feb2022
Quote:Individuals reporting cough had the strongest association with a positive antibody response to S1 (aOR=5.33; 95% CI 1.51, 18.86) and RBD (aOR=4.36; CI 1.49, 12.78) though not to N.
In contrast, sore throat was significantly associated with a lack of detectable antibody response to S1 and N (aOR=0.25; CI 0.08, 0.80 and aOR=0.31; 0.11, 0.91), respectively.
Reporting a lack of symptoms was associated with a lack of antibody response to N (aOR=0.16; CI 0.03, 0.97) and to RBD, though this association did not reach a statistical significance of <0.05 (aOR=0.16; CI 0.03, 1.01).
Individuals reporting diarrhea demonstrated decreased reactivity to N (aOR=0.17; CI 0.05, 0.62), whereas stuffy nose displayed increased reactivity to N (aOR=5.07; CI 0.93, 27.71).
While vaccination produces a more consistent immune response (due to the consistent immune challenge), varying infection severity and symptoms have inconsistent immune challenges resulting in inconsistent immune responses.
|
|
|
nickthehunter
Midwest
Senior Member
Joined: 07/18/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
Yes of course, you are right and NIH is wrong.
Conclusion: Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 µg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. Chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic.
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
Sigh, the NIH did not conduct this study. It is providing a link to this study and many many others that may be of interest. The service provided by NIH is called PubMed.gov.
Quote:PubMed® comprises more than 33 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
The PubMed search is listed at the top of the page you linked.
You obviously have only read the abstract and not the full article and you’re really not interested in being educated on the factual errors in the website originally linked.
The NIH has a very clear statement of their position on the use of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.
Quote:There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Source: NIH
Also from the NIH webpage
Quote:However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:
The sample size of most of the trials was small.
Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.
* This post was
last
edited 02/11/22 04:16am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
PDQXYZ
NY
New Member
Joined: 01/18/2022
View Profile
|
BCSnob wrote:
Let me restate something that should be obvious; a drug that is truly beneficial should demonstrate that benefit in most blinded clinical trials of its benefit. If there are 30 blinded clinic trials on the benefit of a drug; 2 show a slight benefit and 28 show no benefit. Is the drug beneficial?
Let me put it another way, if ivermectin had a proven benefit for treating or preventing Covid-19, the manufacturers of the drug would be promoting its use to increase their profits (and PR) for a drug that has little additional development costs. The only people promoting its use are the retailers (resellers) of the drug and those looking for any other way to deal with this disease than vaccination and masking.
I'm not so sure the 2 vs 28 ratio is fair. 2 of the studies you linked seemed to have a positive effect. But it is safe to say there are mixed reviews by studies. It is also safe to say there are thousands of doctors who will attest to efficacy. Anecdotal I realize. But I say what is the harm? There doesn't seem to be a competing protocol that would be harmed, and the drug itself has quite a proven track record. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/ Around 250 million people world wide used it in 2019, any side effects are well understood and well tolerated. Some countries use it, some do not. It's not like anyone is demanding that a person accept that treatment.
And then there is the drug Remdesivir. It is still the only FDA approved drug for treatment of covid 19. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/emergency-prep........edness-drugs/coronavirus-covid-19-drugs I found 2 random controlled double blinmd trials. One done in China that found it "was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32423584/ and another published study that was instrumental in it's approval. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 Then there is this little problem. https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2145 So a mixed record of effectiveness and a shaky record of side effects. Remdesivir was made for Ebola, but was removed from an earlier Ebola study because it didn't work. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-rese........tters/two-drugs-reduce-risk-death-ebola Some countries use it for covid, some don't. Our friends at the WHO don't recommend it.
Regarding your last question, does it make any difference that Ivermectin is generic and Remdesivir is under patent?
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
I stopped providing links of the clinical trials finding little to no benefit by treating with ivermectin after 8. Clearly I was correct to not waste my time pulling every study since the breadth of data will have no impact on your beliefs.
Where is the data that proves it is effective (blinded clinical trial with 100s of patients of placebo and 100s of patients with ivermectin)? Or better still, the ~20,000 patients used in the clinical trials to prove the safety (noted side effects with the vaccines occur at higher rates with the disease) & effectiveness of the vaccines.
Doing no harm is nothing more than false hope. People are putting their hope in ivermectin (which does no harm and has no data proving benefit) as opposed to seeking other treatments. Worse still, false hope in an unproven treatment where there are 2 FDA approved preventatives that are highly effective at preventing hospitalization or death, good at preventing disease, and proven to reduce severity of disease if it occurs.
Btw, there are at least 3 treatments with EAU. Along with convalescent serum (which has mixed results since serum is not identical for every unit).
* This post was
last
edited 02/14/22 01:23pm by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
There is a huge flaw in the extrapolation of the seminal study showing ivermectin inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in lung tissue in the lab. The amount of ivermectin that worked in cell culture is significantly higher than the amount that can be delivered to lung tissue in a live human at oral doses that are not toxic.
The Approved Dose of Ivermectin Alone is not the Ideal Dose for the Treatment of COVID-19
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Volume108, Issue4, October 2020, Pages 762-765
|
|
|
|
