2 minutes ago, Procus said:

There are several physicians, including one Ivy League trained physician, who have prescribed Ivermectin down here with positive outcomes.  Is it a placebo effect?  I don't know.  But the results were successful.

If they were efficacious the results wouldn't be difficult to replicate in controlled studies. But they haven't been. 

23 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

If anything its you vaxers that are the Fing snowflakes. You all should have just stayed the F home for all of the whining and crying you do.

Says the drunk driving puss bag who is whining about the military needing to get shots.

This is you, tiny puss.

5 minutes ago, Procus said:

There are several physicians, including one Ivy League trained physician, who have prescribed Ivermectin down here with positive outcomes.  Is it a placebo effect?  I don't know.  But the results were successful.

That's great.  And so far we have looked at 5 studies in this thread that have shown Ivermectin makes no difference in patient outcomes.   In other words, the physicians you know could have prescribed that their patients drink a glass of apple juice every morning as the "treatment" and had the same "success". 

43 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

That study compared two different treatments. It does not conclude Ivermectin is ineffective, only not more effective than the other.

Besides, my point is that there are positive studies supporting the use of Ivermectin, at least for emergency use. It's clear that it would do no more harm than the current options. 

 

In any clinical trial with a control group to test the efficacy of a drug, the control group is always given either a placebo or given the standard of care.  And that's what you are comparing to.  In this study, they chose the standard of care, which in India is HCQ + AZ.    We already have mountains of evidence that show HCQ provides no benefit as compared to placebos in treating COVID.     So yes, in effect they were comparing Ivermectin to a placebo pill.  And they found that there was no statistical significant difference in outcomes.  

"Besides, my point is that there are positive studies supporting the use of Ivermectin,"

So then post them.  Just like you asked of me when I said there were multiple studies that show it provides no benefit.  

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

So in the UK our numbers are now being slightly twisted in terms of hospitalisations.

Explain

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That's great.  And so far we have looked at 5 studies in this thread that have shown Ivermectin makes no difference in patient outcomes.   In other words, the physicians you know could have prescribed that their patients drink a glass of apple juice every morning as the "treatment" and had the same "success". 

Or not.  Let me ask you this, was Ivermectin administered as PART of a protocol in those studies, just standalone, or do you know?

14 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

If they were efficacious the results wouldn't be difficult to replicate in controlled studies. But they haven't been. 

See above please and let me know if you know.

 

 

We found 14 studies with 1678 participants

Only 6 double blind and placebo controlled.

Th military really can't complain. In the beginning of boot camp, they tell you we were getting shots, and next thing I know I'm in a shot line getting 8 or so shots with the peanut butter shot at the end. 

I still have no idea what exactly I was all shot up with. I guarantee that either do the active duty members ****ing. 

55 minutes ago, Procus said:

There are several physicians, including one Ivy League trained physician, who have prescribed Ivermectin down here with positive outcomes.  Is it a placebo effect?  I don't know.  But the results were successful.

Better than 9 times out of 10 when some ef'ing moron drives home drunk they don't kill someone. 

That doesn't mean drunk driving is equivalent to sober.

46 minutes ago, Procus said:

Or not.  Let me ask you this, was Ivermectin administered as PART of a protocol in those studies, just standalone, or do you know?

Taking a look back at the links I posted, it looks like in most of them the treatment arm was given Ivermectin alone.  Though in the last one we've been discussing, patients in the treatment arm were given Ivermectin and Doxycycline.

44 minutes ago, NOTW said:

 

 

Interesting. Apparently quarantine period length isn't related to public safety at all. Rather, it's related to social inconvenience. 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

I can assure you I wouldn't get jail time for giving ivermectin to a patient. I'd lose the respect of all my colleagues, my wife and anyone I remotely respect professionally, but no jail time.

Try going against the COVID mainstream narrative, see if there are any repercussions for that!!

12 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Interesting. Apparently quarantine period length isn't related to public safety at all. Rather, it's related to social inconvenience. 

Also a financial burden as some people don’t have enough sick leave to take 10 days off.  

I'm looking forward to this virus mutating itself into a merely inconvenient and relatively unharmful form. Current variants are trending that way. Easier to get but less harmful if you get it.

17 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Interesting. Apparently quarantine period length isn't related to public safety at all. Rather, it's related to social inconvenience. 

You spread it when you’re symptomatic.  Even 5 days is probably overkill tbh.  Better safe than sorry though.

The problem is people go out and do things when they’re symptomatic and give it to other people while folks who have been asymptomatic were quarantining for 10 days.  It’s not hard to figure out why that’s dumb.

1 hour ago, Outlaw said:

No thanks. 

I’m sure there’s some videos on youtube you could watch to do your own research on vaccines.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

You spread it when you’re symptomatic.  Even 5 days is probably overkill tbh.  Better safe than sorry though.

I agree, though it appears that what is deemed "safe" is not driven by objective scientific data which forms a standard, but by something else entirely.

4 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I agree, though it appears that what is deemed "safe" is not driven by objective scientific data which forms a standard, but by something else entirely.

Because people are idiots.  The five days is to try to idiot-proof it.  They could cut it to 3 days of being asymptomatic and it would work except people are idiots.

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Because people are idiots.  The five days is to try to idiot-proof it.  They could cut it to 3 days of being asymptomatic and it would work except people are idiots.

Seems like a waste of energy since the idiots won't wait at all no matter how long the time is.

7 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Seems like a waste of energy since the idiots won't wait at all no matter how long the time is.

Well, right…

so what do you suggest?

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

In any clinical trial with a control group to test the efficacy of a drug, the control group is always given either a placebo or given the standard of care.  And that's what you are comparing to.  In this study, they chose the standard of care, which in India is HCQ + AZ.    We already have mountains of evidence that show HCQ provides no benefit as compared to placebos in treating COVID.     So yes, in effect they were comparing Ivermectin to a placebo pill.  And they found that there was no statistical significant difference in outcomes.  

"Besides, my point is that there are positive studies supporting the use of Ivermectin,"

So then post them.  Just like you asked of me when I said there were multiple studies that show it provides no benefit.  

I posted a link to 71 studies. You checked out one, dismissed it and now the entire group is invalid? 

Let's get one thing straight, I, or any other American, don't need the permission of some bureaucrat in Washington when it comes to my health choices. If I want to try horse de-wormer to treat covid, it's none of their damned business. Studies pro or con are interesting to consider but at the end of the day it's I who decides. 

31 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I'm looking forward to this virus mutating itself into a merely inconvenient and relatively unharmful form. Current variants are trending that way. Easier to get but less harmful if you get it.

This is exactly what is happening.  By spring it’ll be "over” and in the fall they’ll push to just get your annual Covid shot along with the flu shot.  Some will, some won’t, and only the really sick & at risk will suffer for more than a few days.  They just can flip the switch right now because there’s still too much politics and BS going on.  But they are slowly walking back on a lot of things if you’re paying attention.