Covid-19 News

  • I think that he would acknowledge the issue with the Collombian study as a proof that it ivermectin is not working. this failed issue seam to be copy pasted all over the internet and the study is miss used - a thing he targets.

    Even if he acknowledges a problem with the Columbian study (does he?), it would potentially still leave him in the mainstream, which is negativity or ambivalence towards ivermectin. I actually don't know what he says about ivermectin, but I would *guess* it is not positive.


    I base my guess on other things he has said. For instance, at about the 38 minute mark of the Feb. 2021 video interview below he blames the Covid deaths on the 'stupid misrepresentation of science' and that we "need to start trusting the experts again" because "they *did* have it right from the start" and politicians (like Trump) got it wrong.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    At another place, when describing what people say of the resistance of the Chinese government to a real investigation into Covid origins, he uses the term "alleged" in front of "stonewalling". So he treads oh so softly when it comes to the Chinese government, even while lambasting populist politicians in the West who espouse human freedom. I think Jed and THHuxley would love the guy.

    • Official Post

    I base my guess on other things he has said. For instance, at about the 38 minute mark of the Feb. 2021 video interview below he blames the Covid deaths on the 'stupid misrepresentation of science' and that we "need to start trusting the experts again" because "they *did* have it right from the start" and politicians (like Trump) got it wrong.

    Thanks for finding this. Looks like he miixes his politics in with his health sciences. I put him on my "to watch" list yesterday, now he is back off. Goodbye Potholer.

  • thanks for helping us avoid even 1 min of this drivel, his banal "the experts had it right" is just a pure lie and requesting trust is not what a scientist needs. HCQ being the obvious one. Lie-in-tific method! Posers all around, not to mention the numbskull Town Criers on this board who entered some club and now play body guard for the deepstate.

    • Official Post

    https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcen…0.1186/s12879-021-06348-5

    Background

    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) has changed our lives. The scientific community has been investigating re-purposed treatments to prevent disease progression in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients.

    Objective

    To determine whether ivermectin treatment can prevent hospitalization in individuals with early COVID-19.

    Design, setting and participants: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 in Corrientes, Argentina. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 positive nasal swabs were contacted within 48 h by telephone to invite them to participate. The trial randomized 501 patients between August 19th 2020 and February 22nd 2021.

    Intervention

    Patients were randomized to ivermectin (N = 250) or placebo (N = 251) arms in a staggered dose, according to the patient’s weight, for 2 days.

    Main outcomes and measures

    The efficacy of ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations was evaluated as primary outcome. We evaluated secondary outcomes in relationship to safety and other efficacy end points.

    Results

    The mean age was 42 years (SD ± 15.5) and the median time since symptom onset to the inclusion was 4 days [interquartile range 3–6]. The primary outcome of hospitalization was met in 14/250 (5.6%) individuals in ivermectin group and 21/251 (8.4%) in placebo group (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32–1.31; p = 0.227). Time to hospitalization was not statistically different between groups. The mean time from study enrollment to invasive mechanical ventilatory support (MVS) was 5.25 days (SD ± 1.71) in ivermectin group and 10 days (SD ± 2) in placebo group, (p = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes including polymerase chain reaction test negativity and safety outcomes.

    Limitations

    Low percentage of hospitalization events, dose of ivermectin and not including only high-risk population.

    Conclusion

    Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

  • I would want to learn more about the age distribution Assume that essentially all that get ill is in the 10% normal percentile (1.3SD) lead to an age of 42+25*1.3 and above e.g. 65years old and above. This is a little arbritrary but important observation as covid is exponetially worse as age increases. This gives 50 individuals in this study from which the ivermectin group could have around 14/25 that meets the primary criteria and 21/25 in the control group. now things is not exact here but we would like to make a point. The question is now, is there a significant difference? we could plug it in on the online calculators for fishers exact test and you get something spot on 5% p-value e.g. significant. Now the sample size of 25 in each group is not large so if there is an effect which in this case would be likely it is most probably medically significant. This is not a proof as I have no data and if I had data I would look at it which is a no no. My main point is that to motivate other studies not to include everybody in the same age group and do analysis but in stead stratify and do separate studies in medically meaningful age groups in stead. So not much can be said for now from this paper, we are still discussing small sample sizes even if 500 loks like abunch and quite a good motvation to do things properly and meanwhile medicate with ivermectin.

  • Where do these trials come from and who designs them? Seriously! I am not a doctor, but even I know that this test to supposedly "TEST IVERMECTIN FOR COVID" did not follow any proposed guidelines "FOR COVID"


    So how was ivermectin administered here? :


    "The dose of ivermectin used was the approved dose in Argentina for the treatment of other diseases, such as parasitic diseases, and it was staggered according to weight. Those weighing up to 80 Kg received 2 tablets of 6 mg (mg) each at inclusion and another 2 tablets of 6 mg each 24 h after the first dose (total 24 mg). "


    They gave the amount for parasites, not COVID! They gave only TWO doses! Not amount that has been tested to work!


    Ivermecting IMASK protocol:


    0.2–0.4 mg/kg per dose (take with or after meals) — one
    dose daily, take for 5 days or until recovered*
    (amount would have been 24mg not 12 and 5 days not 2 emphasis mine)


    Use upper dose range if: 1) in regions with more aggressive variants;
    2) treatment started on or after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary
    phase; or 3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors.


    https://covid19criticalcare.co…plus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf

    In my opinion, this test was trash. It was not designed to test if ivermectin could fight Covid. It was designed to see if a "parasite treatment" could fight covid. That is NOT the same thing!!! If they really wanted the truth, they would have followed such as the IMASK protocol. But they did not! Why? This is so crazy.... NO ONE states that the ivermectin parasite protocol is what works with COVID!


    Seriously! If someone was truly serious about finding truth, they would have designed this test with valid parameters. If they were simply looking at an agenda.... setting it up as they did and the proclaim "Ivermectin does not work" is simply BS.


    This is like saying aspirin does not work for headaches!!!!! If a test using the "aspirin protocol for heart attack prevetion" of 80 mg was used to test relief of a headache, it certainly would not work, as the dosage for headaches can be 500mg! Would anyone say that aspirin is not effective ???


    This is report appears to be :

    1) Intentionally misleading and total rubbish.

    or

    2) The test architect was totally ignorant and had zero knowledge of ivermectin COVID treatment.


    If #2 above, why would he not do a little research on the subject? I would think this totally unlikely for an educated and half smart person designing a test would not research what should be tested.


    So that leaves option #1.... what else would it be? This is crazy!


  • I said that he looks mainly at miss representation of peer reviewed data. He encourage peer discussions from everybody and has a great sense of humor. He is a gold nugget in my mind. I use his YouTube site for getting an understanding of the argument of the main view and get an overview for how the experts that publish their science think about matters, discussed from the other of most people here do. I enjoy both sides and agree with many points on both sides. I do not like to discuss politics, but just to state my preferences. Me and my family's life would have been awful if I lived in USA, and I recognize this is mainly due to the republican stronghold in that country, at least today. Unfortunately our country have more and more turned in a direction to support more and more parties that admire the republicans and far right ideas.


    This whole issue with covid is a scientific one, mostly because people do not want to discuss like peers, and vet facts, and we get a lot of wrong info spread in the wrong way and a lot of info that does not get the limelight it needs. To me potholer and you all are sometimes right and sometimes wrong simply that.




  • Good point, but I would skip the malice stuff. Also I think that with 1000 persons in the study and have the main outcome this study's main outcome in an older age group would have proved that ivermectin works quite ok in line with non RCT that probably had the same doses as this study and showed an significant effect. To say that they where glaringly incompetence in the protocol you need to verify that other studies that showed an effect did not use the same doses.

  • The point is that medicine is an inexact science. Single RCTs, like this one, can be misleading. When testing drugs it is always possible that some other dose regime would work better, or some combination therapy work, etc, etc.


    So no-one can say ivermectin is proven to have no use against COVID.


    The mainstream - the scientists - are not arguing that. They would just say, well, there is no evidence. In the case of HCQ there was actually negative evidence, because of the way that it interacted with COVID deregulation of the immune system.


    Arguing on the basis of popular acclaim that drugs are "obviously" helpful and are being suppressed by the medical establishment is a profoundly political viewpoint (yes that is you Mark U).


    There is a non-political argument about to what extent doctors should be freed from the shackles of scientific proof to use whatever quack remedies they like. I think the medical establishment is overly sensitive about this (and hence tends to crack down on popular "no evidence but small likelihood of harm" drugs like HCQ (low doses) because medical history is full of doctors and patients being convinced that non-working and even harmful treatments are in fact good.


    There is also a proper ethical argument. if you, as a doctor, think (but cannot know) that an experimental treatment which may harm your patient will on balance do good, how much do you back your own possibly flawed judgement? Shoudl doctores err on the side of doing no harm because it is too easy to think you know best and with good intentions advocate bad treatment?


    On top of that scientific case I agree that popular translation oversimplified. Thus "HCQ is harmful" should be qualified. "HCQ at high doses in COVID treatment is harmful, also it seem likely (not proven) that HCQ interacts badly with the COVID deregulation of the immune system, given it stays in the body for a long time that would be problematic for use as a COVID treatment. However HCQ taken at low doses, without COVID, has very occasional nasty side effects which can be controlled easily in hospitals and is otherwise safe. There is also no evidence that low doses of HCQ alter COVID deregulation of the immune system (and no evidence they don't)". The real situation is nuanced and uncertain, but broadly negative for HCQ as a COVID treatment. Against that doctors are right to resist popular calls for yet more testing (it has been more tested than any other drug).


    THH

  • That Ivermectin study:


    Limitations

    Low percentage of hospitalization events, dose of ivermectin and not including only high-risk population.


    Trust people who acknowledge limitations - as the ones here claiming wonder-drugs on basis of poor non-RCT evidence do not, but that study does.


    You can always argue that doubling the dosage (or more) of a drug will make it more effective. Dose regimes are a balance between effectiveness and possible side effects. That is why medicine is uncertain, and finding helpful drugs is difficult.

  • Yes they clearly states here the weaknesses which is good as last time similar results was published it became somewhat viral as a strong evidence against this treatment. Looks like people learn.

  • Conclusion

    Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

    As we know form all studies with the same fake setup. Th out come is significant 14 vs 21. Chemo is used for a ratio of 3:2 already and called big improvement....

    "The dose of ivermectin used was the approved dose in Argentina for the treatment of other diseases, such as parasitic diseases, and it was staggered according to weight. Those weighing up to 80 Kg received 2 tablets of 6 mg (mg) each at inclusion and another 2 tablets of 6 mg each 24 h after the first dose (total 24 mg). "


    As this was a fake study. No proper dosing done. Dose must vary with PCR level. Patients need a 2 day at least follow consultation if PCR level was low.

    But worst: Median age 44 indicates that 1-3 patient at all will develop a serious illness. You cannot do any statistics with set smaller than 20. This rules must be followed for the weakest variable (sick) too.

    An other big problem is. How man people were age > 65. You can see this in teh median. One group may have 1 the other 10 but the risk among these is 100X greater.


    So such studies are designed to show what the mafia wants to show.

    Arguing on the basis of popular acclaim that drugs are "obviously" helpful and are being suppressed by the medical establishment is a profoundly political viewpoint (yes that is you Mark U).

    This is not a popular claim. Its a fact based on written statements: Read Fauci e-mails.

    How many press statements did you read about India's success with ivermectin?? Uttar Pradesh did mass distribute 200 mio dose an now is more or less CoV-19 free far below Israel. Of course travelers still bring in some infection.

    The entire press suppresses Ivermectin thanks to your round table friends.

    Trust people who acknowledge limitations - as the ones here claiming wonder-drugs on basis of poor non-RCT evidence do not, but that study does.

    Ivermectin is a wonder drug: It was the only help for Zikka much more cruel pest than CoV-19. Did the press report about this???????????????????????????

  • The point is that medicine is an inexact science. Single RCTs, like this one, can be misleading. When testing drugs it is always possible that some other dose regime would work better, or some combination therapy work, etc, etc.


    The problem is that many, (perhaps you) continue to look at ivermectin as if only ONE positive rct was ever done and is not to be believed, but then believe one other rct that shows a negative result, even though it is flawed. This is blind.


    I do not know if you will truly look at this link, hopefully you will examine it as thoroughly. Will you?


    https://www.evms.edu/media/evm…are_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf


    This is from a school of medicine. Not some quack internet site.

    This is a full published protocol that ALSO LISTS it supporting evidence. See appendixes towards the end.

    It has a lot of support, however will you acknowledge any of it? Or is it all to be ignored? Truly... do you say it should be ignored?


    This protocol has multitudes that have reported extremely high success rates when followed. Certainly not reported in the main stream media however. This actually gets censored, even though it is from an accredited medical school. I suppose some here will try to castigate the school's credentials simply because they are not "Vaccine warriors"... ie. there can be no remedy other than the current vaccines! Don't like the message.... shoot the messenger.


    So again, I would ask.... what do you find in error with this school of medicine's protocol.....or are they simply to be dismissed because MERCK or Fauci does not sing their praises. This published medical facility should be ignored because it is, as you have said, "an outlier" and not to be trusted..... Yet, if this school would have published an anti-ivermectin report, I am sure it would have been hailed as "solid evidence" that should be held in esteem. Has the message became more important than the truth?


    Does not ivermectin warrant a well designed rct using this protocol? Or do we ignore it because someone ran an rct that was designed to a known failure rate?


    "Trust people who acknowledge limitations -"

    I do not see you post against Remedisvir....or even question it's use. Even though some here have posted about it. It being used across the US as an approved treatment but disapproved by WHO....and many reports stating not only does it not work.... and it has serious side effects..... Why? You seem one sided in your scientific skepticism?


    :/ The "Experts" say Remedisvir is "good" and ivermectin is "bad". Do you trust these people?


    I do not.

  • Mefloquine: A Promising Drug "Soldier" in the Battle Against COVID-19 In a breakthrough study, a team of scientists have identified an anti-malarial drug, mefloquine (Lariam - a derivative of hydrochloroquine), that is effective against SARS-CoV-2. It could reduce the overall viral load in affected patients to under 7% and shorten the 'time-till-virus-elimination' by 6.1 days.


    I guess that old good hydroxychloroquine is equally efficient in combination with zinc. But being a generic drug not covered with patents anymore, it has a great disadvantage for Big Pharma lobby as they cannot make money with it. It's worth to say, that original article is in vitro study only and it didn't test actual therapeutic effect of mefloquine in clinical praxis. Mefloquine is significantly more neurotoxic than hydrochloroquine and it may contribute to flashback syndrome of war veterans fighting in tropical areas. Its narrow therapeutic index is visible on cell viability curves as it kills bioassay cells nearly as easily as coronavirus itself.

  • Yes they clearly states here the weaknesses which is good as last time similar results was published it became somewhat viral as a strong evidence against this treatment. Looks like people learn.

    Stating the limitations is standard procedure now.


    The moral failing is that they deliberately limited the study to create FUD.

    Firstly, the study was deliberately underpowered, leading to inconclusive results.


    Secondly, the study deliberately used a low dose of ivermectin.

    For instance, a small clinical study, also out of Argentina, as early as September 2020,

    (see https://www.argentina.gob.ar/n…en-pacientes-con-covid-19)

    managed to treat with 3 times the daily ivermectin dose of the current FUD study.

    So instead of about .2 mg /kg of ivermectin per day for just two days, they did .6 mg /kg of ivermectin per day for five days.


    Thirdly, the current FUD study deliberately did not test the blood for Ivermectin levels.

    In contrast, the Argentina study back in September 2020 tested the blood for ivermectin levels.

    Why should ivermectin blood concentration be measured? In part, because over half the population in Argentina uses Ivermectin already, and that may influence the study results. In the current FUD study, over half of the 22 thousand participants had to be excluded because they admitted they had used Ivermectin in the last week! Who knows what effect this had on the FUD study? It's possible that previous doses of ivermectin had lasting effects in the study participants, diminishing the difference between the ivermectin group and the control group. It's also possible that some people continued to self medicate with ivermectin during the study, and fibbed about their personal ivermectin use out of a sense of self preservation after testing positive. The FUD study will not be able to detect this.


    Finally, follow the money. The study declared it had no funding. In reality it did (of course), and in all likelihood that funding ultimately came from China and had strings attached to promote use of the Sinovac vaccine. Perhaps later I'll post the trail that leads to this probable conclusion.

  • Vallejos et al aimed a bit low..

    as they admitted..

    the design plan may have been not so well thought out..its not cardiology..

    https://icc.org.ar/equipo/dr-vallejos-julio-andres/

    "

    Firstly, the percentage of events in relation to the primary outcome was below the estimate, so this trial was under powered.

    Secondly, the mean dose of ivermectin was 192.37 μg/kg/day (SD ± 24.56),

    which is below the doses proposed as probably effective [20, 33]


    But this September,2020 Vallejos study will receive a lot more coverage than any other

    Vallejos appears to be well--intentioned and committed to cardiology

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Finally, follow the money. The study declared it had no funding. In reality it did (of course), and in all likelihood that funding ultimately came from China and had strings attached to promote use of the Sinovac vaccine. Perhaps later I'll post the trail that leads to this probable conclusion.

    In November of 2020, the plan of the current FUD study was revealed:

    https://trialsjournal.biomedce…0.1186/s13063-020-04813-1


    It actually mentions it's source of funding :


    This study is funded by the Ministry of Health of the Province of Corrientes, Argentina, which will have no interference in the selection of participants, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the results, or the final publication of the study.


    (Notice it didn't say 'the Ministry of Health' wouldn't have influence over the study protocol!)


    But what about the Ministry of Health for Corrientes, and where might it be getting the money for this study?


    From https://www.bcie.org/en/news-a…rtura-y-acceso-a-la-salud


    my bold :


    Tegucigalpa, September 24, 2020. - The Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) and the Government of the Republic of Argentina, signed a loan agreement for an amount of US$32.0 million to finance the implementation of the Program to Support the Strategy for Expansion of Health Coverage and Access.


    The contract was signed by CABEI's Executive President, Dr. Dante Mossi and the Secretary of International Financial Relations for Development of the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs of the Presidency of the Nation, Mr. Christian Asinelli.


    The loan will help the Ministry of Health and the Provincial Ministries of Health strengthen their institutional capacity to provide public health services by financing improvements to the information systems for the vaccinated population and optimizing the conditions for vaccine supply and use in order to support universal health service coverage in Argentina. The total amount of the program is US$40.0 million.


    As a result of the interventions that will be carried out with the program, a total of 7,724,553 people are expected to be vaccinated per year, 58.0% of whom are women. The Program's area of influence will include the provinces of Buenos Aires, La Rioja, Chubut, Corrientes, Jujuy, Neuquén and San Juan for the construction or improvement of the vaccine warehouses, foreseeing a nationwide reach with the implementation of the appropriate technological platform.


    It is estimated that the implementation of this program will generate savings in the Argentine State, derived mainly from the decrease in costs for consultations, medicines, studies, and hospitalization of people affected by immunopreventable diseases.


    The granting of this loan ratifies the commitment that CABEI has with one of its partner countries, and the interest that Argentina has in promoting health, social and prevention programs to improve the welfare of its population.

    ********


    Notice the 'commitment' that CABEI has with one of its partner countries. Who might that mysterious partner country be?


    From http://www.cabeifund.com,


    FUND SPONSOR. . .

    The Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) is a multilateral development bank owned by ten governments: its Founding Members include Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua; and its Extra-Regional Members include Argentina, Republic of China, Colombia, Mexico and Spain.


    Notice that the "Republic of China" listed is the one and only non Latin country there, the probable reason why it is not named outright as the 'partner country'. Not exactly a matter of Latin pride.


    But China has money and influence and it has a vaccine for Argentina, although that vaccine has some issues.

    http://www.asianews.it/news-en…COVID-vaccines-52870.html


    04/14/2021

    Doubts in Argentina about the effectiveness of Chinese anti-COVID vaccines

    by Silvina Premat

    Argentina relies on Sinopharm, whose level of effectiveness has yet to be verified. Sinovac used in Chile and Brazil has a success rate just above 50 per cent. For immunologist Guillermo Docena, any vaccine is better than nothing during a pandemic.


    In summary, based on the FUD study's avoidable shortcomings, it isn't much of a stretch to hypothesize that the architects of the current FUD study had a 'commitment' to promote Chinese vaccines at the expense of potentially competitive Covid treatments like Ivermectin.