7 ms·

Sounds like same/similar rate as Ivermectin - if proper protocol followed.

by loceng 5y ago

distantsounds 5y ago
No, that has nowhere near the same efficacy.
- loceng 5y ago
  C19ivermectin.com - which includes well done and poorly done studies - lists 86% reduction with prophylaxis treatment. You'll believe and weight a single study done by the company looking to make billions via a new patented drug over many third-party studies of a cheap off-patent drug though, won't you?
  - acdha 5y ago
    No, that site is anonymous for a reason: the information presented hasn’t passed scientific review and relies on various methodological and analytic errors to show positive effects. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...
    - loceng 5y ago
      Do you think mentioning the site being anonymous gives any strength to your argument? Have your links been peer reviewed by competent individuals who aren't toeing the line? I wonder if https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM has analyzed your links yet, I'll ask him. He's been debunking "long form"/poorly done "deep analysis" for awhile now - including people trying to show flaws in Ivermectin studies but where their methods are selective and showing bias; and then arrogant people like you jump in claiming they 100% know the truth.
acdha 5y ago
Stop spreading disinformation. This has gone through studies showing significant positive benefits. Ivermectin has small studies with dubious methodology showing possible effects and larger studies with better methodology showing no benefit, along with substantial side-effects. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&urlTitle=/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2&doi=10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2&type=cdsr&contentLanguage= https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&ur...
- isolli 5y ago
  I don't know if ivermectin is efficient, but I doubt it has substantial side-effects. Your first link states that ivermectin is "proved to be safe at the conventional dose, although severe adverse effects have occasionally been reported". Occasional is not "substantial". Your second link does not work for me.
  - acdha 5y ago
    The people pushing it as a COVID treatment are usually pushing prolonged usage at higher doses – they routinely dismiss studies showing no benefits as not using enough – and the documented side effects definitely happen at those levels. The lower doses used for parasite treatments also are balanced against high efficacy, whereas this just means you still have COVID along with new problems. Sorry about the link - it worked earlier when I tested it. You can try this one: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
    - isolli 5y ago
      Thanks for the updated link. What I read is: "Ivermectin has few unwanted effects." I don't think (and you also seem to imply) that any of the studies conducted for Covid were using much higher doses than the standard. On the contrary, this was precisely the point of clinical studies: to determine whether a standard dose of ivermectin (with known and limited side effects) would provide benefits, even though it is lower than the dose at which ivermectin was initially shown to have antiviral properties in vitro.

Sounds like same/similar rate as Ivermectin - if proper protocol followed.

by loceng 5y ago

Sounds like same/similar rate as Ivermectin - if proper protocol followed.

distantsounds 5y ago

No, that has nowhere near the same efficacy.

loceng 5y ago
C19ivermectin.com - which includes well done and poorly done studies - lists 86% reduction with prophylaxis treatment. You'll believe and weight a single study done by the company looking to make billions via a new patented drug over many third-party studies of a cheap off-patent drug though, won't you?
- acdha 5y ago
  No, that site is anonymous for a reason: the information presented hasn’t passed scientific review and relies on various methodological and analytic errors to show positive effects. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...
  - loceng 5y ago
    Do you think mentioning the site being anonymous gives any strength to your argument? Have your links been peer reviewed by competent individuals who aren't toeing the line? I wonder if https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM https://mobile.twitter.com/alexandrosM has analyzed your links yet, I'll ask him. He's been debunking "long form"/poorly done "deep analysis" for awhile now - including people trying to show flaws in Ivermectin studies but where their methods are selective and showing bias; and then arrogant people like you jump in claiming they 100% know the truth.

acdha 5y ago

Stop spreading disinformation. This has gone through studies showing significant positive benefits. Ivermectin has small studies with dubious methodology showing possible effects and larger studies with better methodology showing no benefit, along with substantial side-effects. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&urlTitle=/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2&doi=10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2&type=cdsr&contentLanguage= https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&ur...

isolli 5y ago
I don't know if ivermectin is efficient, but I doubt it has substantial side-effects. Your first link states that ivermectin is "proved to be safe at the conventional dose, although severe adverse effects have occasionally been reported". Occasional is not "substantial". Your second link does not work for me.
- acdha 5y ago
  The people pushing it as a COVID treatment are usually pushing prolonged usage at higher doses – they routinely dismiss studies showing no benefits as not using enough – and the documented side effects definitely happen at those levels. The lower doses used for parasite treatments also are balanced against high efficacy, whereas this just means you still have COVID along with new problems. Sorry about the link - it worked earlier when I tested it. You can try this one: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
  - isolli 5y ago
    Thanks for the updated link. What I read is: "Ivermectin has few unwanted effects." I don't think (and you also seem to imply) that any of the studies conducted for Covid were using much higher doses than the standard. On the contrary, this was precisely the point of clinical studies: to determine whether a standard dose of ivermectin (with known and limited side effects) would provide benefits, even though it is lower than the dose at which ivermectin was initially shown to have antiviral properties in vitro.