International This just in - Ivermectin doesn't work for Covid

[dirtypablo]

New study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows absolutely no benefit to Ivermectin. Not only that, but the scale of the study is larger than combined scale of all the trials included in any meta analysis showing any benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/health/covid-ivermectin-hospitalization.html

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

The evidence supporting the role of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19 is inconsistent. At least three meta-analyses of ivermectin trials have strongly indicated a treatment benefit, and others have concluded that there was no benefit.7,8,18-20 Although the number of included trials involving outpatients varies among the meta-analyses, the overall number of events that occurred in our trial is larger than the number of all the combined events in these meta-analyses. The results of this trial will, therefore, reduce the effect size of the meta-analyses that have indicated any benefits.

Any of you fellas that have been pushing it hard willing to admit you were wrong?

 

[So Fresh]

New study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows absolutely no benefit to Ivermectin. Not only that, but the scale of the study is larger than combined scale of all the trials included in any meta analysis showing any benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/health/covid-ivermectin-hospitalization.html

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869



Any of you fellas that have been pushing it hard willing to admit you were wrong?

 

[Krimzon]

I like how Dr Pierre Kory claims he treated like 30% of congress members with horse paste but gives 0 names.

 

[Horse Style]

Wait, were you rooting for it not to be effective just so you can feel good about yourself?



What an exciting life you must live, little buddy.

 

[MIKOM]

But, but, but, India, Japan, Dr Malone, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones..... dribble dribble

 

[SheetsMMAfan]

This study here at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

"Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin."

That's cool to prove that an antiviral medication that is used to stop viruses from replicating is used on a virus 7 days after the person starts showing symptoms, which means they could have had it longer than 7 days, when COVID does most of it's replication in the first 72 hours....

People that post "PWN links" should really read the stuff they post and research a little. I know research is taboo since research is now linked directly to being a conspiracy theorist, but boy, sometimes people should just try.

Can't see the nytimes link. Not using my email to read that one, sorry.

EDIT: I am editing this, so furiously quoting me and telling me I am wrong while I am doing this will result in you not quoting my own post and make this look like a ninja edit.

Here is a 10 minute video. I know some will look and say "You expect me to watch that? Its TEN WHOLE MINUTES!", so I started it where the meat is. VERY reliable source that does the work for you on screen with the actual numbers from actual non biased studies:

 

[Krimzon]

India probably have their own vaccine, just cuz they aint on the big pharma train, doesn't mean theyre administering the latest conspiratorial horse medicine

 

[dirtypablo]

Wait, were you rooting for it not to be effective just so you can feel good about yourself?



What an exciting life you must live, little buddy.

I wasn't 'rooting for it to not be effective.' Its been pretty clear for a while, that if it did work at all, any benefit was marginal and not better than other treatment options we already have. Given that so many of you on here have been convinced it's a miracle drug for covid, I thought it was worth posting a thread, and that it would be interesting to see if any of you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. I'm guessing the majority won't, and will use some cowardly deflection as you have done.

 

[HockeyBjj]

This study here at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

"Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin."

That's cool to prove that an antiviral medication that is used to stop viruses from replicating is used on a virus 7 days after the person starts showing symptoms, which means they could have had it longer than 7 days, when COVID does most of it's replication in the first 72 hours....

People that post "PWN links" should really read the stuff they post and research a little. I know research is taboo since research is now linked directly to being a conspiracy theorist, but boy, sometimes people should just try.

Can't see the nytimes link. Not using my email to read that one, sorry.

Reading comprehension. "Up to 7 days". That means less than. Anyone with symptoms older than 7 days were not allowed to be included in this study, not that they only included people in this study with symptoms for 7 days.

Majority received ivermectin likely within 2-3 days of symptoms starting, as often people wait to get any treatment on the first day or two as covid often starts very small and people think just a small cold or allergies until it escalates.

Edit: yes. Majority received ivermectin (or the placebo) within 3 days of symptoms per Table S2, on page 18.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869/suppl_file/nejmoa2115869_appendix.pdf

 

[lifelessheap]

IVR works early. It binds to ACE2. So when the spike tries to enter ACE2 it is blocked. And replication blocked.


Giving it 7 days after known symptoms was never going to work. How can it block an infection after the body is loaded with infection?

It works like a condom, or as plan B used right away.

But pwn the idiots, ignore reality and literally help kill people.

 

[dirtypablo]

This study here at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

"Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin."

That's cool to prove that an antiviral medication that is used to stop viruses from replicating is used on a virus 7 days after the person starts showing symptoms, which means they could have had it longer than 7 days, when COVID does most of it's replication in the first 72 hours....

People that post "PWN links" should really read the stuff they post and research a little. I know research is taboo since research is now linked directly to being a conspiracy theorist, but boy, sometimes people should just try.

Can't see the nytimes link. Not using my email to read that one, sorry.

Lol, the irony of you claiming that I should read the study.

"Inclusion criteria were an age of 18 years or older; presentation to an outpatient care setting with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after symptom onset"

It wasn't 7 days after they started showing symptoms, it was WITHIN 7 days of showing symptoms - that was the cutoff they used to include people in the trial, not the day they gave medication.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Gee, no one's ever found a study that support their preconceptions with questionable methodology before.
Very impressive TS.

 

[SheetsMMAfan]

Reading comprehension. "Up to 7 days". That means less than. Anyone with symptoms older than 7 days were not allowed to be included in this study, not that they only included people in this study with symptoms for 7 days.

Majority received ivermectin likely within 2-3 days of symptoms starting, as often people wait to get any treatment on the first day or two as covid often starts very small and people think just a small cold or allergies until it escalates.

Not picking a fight by any means, but you pointed out my reading comprehension and then chose to guess that "Majority received ivermectin likely within 2-3 days of symptoms starting". That's a guess.... For arguing against it, sure, you would want to guess that. For arguing for it, you would want to argue/guess that it was later. But without given the times in which it was administered with every patient and the ability for this thing to not produce symptoms right away, you could lean closer to that 7 days in which the replication has already happened.

 

[BIKES!]

I like how Dr Pierre Kory claims he treated like 30% of congress members with horse paste but gives 0 names.

Horse paste or was it bleach? Wipe the froth out of your mouth and turn Maddow back on…

 

[SheetsMMAfan]

Lol, the irony of you claiming that I should read the study.

"Inclusion criteria were an age of 18 years or older; presentation to an outpatient care setting with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after symptom onset"

It wasn't 7 days after they started showing symptoms, it was WITHIN 7 days of showing symptoms - that was the cutoff they used to include people in the trial, not the day they gave medication.

I am saying that COVID does its replication within the first 3 days, you are siting a test that uses a "within the first 7 days" as the statistic, and you INSTANTLY think that most of them OBVIOUSLY had taken it during the replication period of the virus? How can bias people form an opinion and then base their fight off an opinion? You don't want it to work, you site a study where it shows it doesnt work, you tilt the only axis used against it as ammunition that it COULD work in your favor, and instantly go "HAHAHAHA I am posting this on the internet and making fun of people".

 

[dirtypablo]

Not picking a fight by any means, but you pointed out my reading comprehension and then chose to guess that "Majority received ivermectin likely within 2-3 days of symptoms starting". That's a guess.... For arguing against it, sure, you would want to guess that. For arguing for it, you would want to argue/guess that it was later. But without given the times in which it was administered with every patient and the ability for this thing to not produce symptoms right away, you could lean closer to that 7 days in which the replication has already happened.

The times are given in the supplemental materials. More than half were given it in the first 3 days.

 

[Horse Style]

I wasn't 'rooting for it to not be effective.' Its been pretty clear for a while, that if it did work at all, any benefit was marginal and not better than other treatment options we already have. Given that so many of you on here have been convinced it's a miracle drug for covid, I thought it was worth posting a thread, and that it would be interesting to see if any of you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. I'm guessing the majority won't, and will use some cowardly deflection as you have done.

I've never posted anything about ivermectin's effectiveness because I never looked into it so this little passive-aggressive monologue of yours doesn't pertain to me.



If this study does show concrete evidence that it's a drug that doesn't work, that would be bad news for everyone. Who seriously finds out that a drug doesn't work for treating a disease and goes "yaaay, I get to make a thread and passive-aggressively chide anyone who thought it was a decent treatment!"

That's pathetic enough in itself and it'll look so much worse if it turns out you misunderstood the article (looking at @SheetsMMAfan's post) and you're still wrong.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Not picking a fight by any means, but you pointed out my reading comprehension and then chose to guess that "Majority received ivermectin likely within 2-3 days of symptoms starting". That's a guess.... For arguing against it, sure, you would want to guess that. For arguing for it, you would want to argue/guess that it was later. But without given the times in which it was administered with every patient and the ability for this thing to not produce symptoms right away, you could lean closer to that 7 days in which the replication has already happened.

Yes it was a guess by me based on truth of when the average person seeks treatment for any disease.

I agree this study would have been more of a smoking gun if it set the cutoff day to 3 days post symptoms. But it's still a robust double blind with placebo study and controls. Far better than most studies on the subject done out there.

Whereas you directly said it was used on day 7. Not that some unknown amount of that sample had IV used on them day 6 or 7.

 

[HockeyBjj]

The times are given in the supplemental materials. More than half were given it in the first 3 days.

Can you copy paste that? I hunted through trying to find that info but must have missed it

 

[SheetsMMAfan]

The times are given in the supplemental materials. More than half were given it in the first 3 days.

You get COVID, you don't even know it. Within that first 72 hours the viral load is replicating like crazy. Symptoms USUALLY appear 2-6 days after the virus infects you, leaving a 1 day window of overlap with the viral replication being at its peak and you having symtpoms. The study says "Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days". You are looking at the majority of that data being used now and saying "Hey, I bet all those people were symptomatic within 2 days and then got Ivermectin on the third day for this study to REALLY be in my favor"? Administering an anti viral drug that stops replication during the last possible hours of peak replication, and you think that's the study to cling to?

I am all for it being dis-proven or proven. But the large scale non bias studies are quite in it's favor if taken as a preventative and/or very early in the process. I just REALLY wouldn't cling to this study....