All Things Iv*rmectin, HCQ, Vit D, Vit C, Zinc and any other promising treatment options other than Vaccine

Search

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Comments from JAMA
H. Robert Silverstein, MD | Preventive Medicine Center, Hartford


The article states: "On October 20, 2020, the lead pharmacist observed that a labeling error had occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in all patients receiving ivermectin and none receiving placebo during this time frame. The study blind was not unmasked due to this error. The data and safety monitoring board recommended excluding these patients from the primary analysis but retaining them for sensitivity analysis. The protocol was amended to replace these patients to retain the originally calculated study power. The primary analysis population included patients who were analyzed according to their randomization group, but excluded patients recruited between September 29 and October 15, 2020, as well as patients who were randomized but later found to be in violation of selection criteria. Patients were analyzed according to the treatment they received in the as-treated population (sensitivity analysis)."

To me this is an error that should have stopped the study. It is my belief, and I suspect that of many others, that the editors erred allowing publication of this article.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Comments from JAMA
Binh Ngo, M.D. | Keck USC School of Medicine


The authors did not acknowledge the most significant limitation of their study: the original power calculation was based on a 20% worsening of 2 points in their ordinal scale.

"According to the literature, 20% of patients will develop the primary outcome (worsening of 2 or more points in the 7-point ordinal scale). Thus, we will need to include 400 patients (72 total events plus 10% lost events) in order to detect a hazard ratio of 0.5 of ivermectin vs. placebo in time to deterioration, with a power of 80% and alpha of 0.05 "

In this very young population, only 12 patients reached that outcome. So they decided to change the primary outcome parameter to "resolution of symptoms". Yet they retained the original power calculation. So they decided to simply terminate the study if "there was no indication of benefit".

Their approach is fundamentally flawed. It is clear that all parameters were trending to favor ivermectin at the time they truncated their study. It is of concern that this issue was not highlighted by the reviewers.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Comments from JAMA
Study Power for Negative Outcome

Adriaan de Haan, B.Eng | Independent
Can the authors provide

- The study power calculations for the updated primary outcome of complete symptom resolution.

- The Type II error P value; for a negative outcome this value is as important as the Type I error P value normally published for positive outcomes.

- Information on how it was determined that the placebo arm did not take ivermectin outside of the study confines, either in the weeks leading up to the study or even during the study. It has been widely reported that South America has seen widespread adoption of ivermectin through self-medication and that this fact complicated running good studies for Ivermectin, yet I do not see any mechanisms put in place to ensure that placebo arm did not have ivermectin in their system. In fact, it was found that a large percentage was accidentally given ivermectin, casting doubt on whether the same mistake might have been made in other participants.

Also, in secondary outcomes, the Escalation of Care since Randomization for Ivermectin arm = 4.

In the Post-Hoc Outcomes, the Escalation of Care occurring >= 12 hours since Randomization for the Ivermectin arm also = 4.

This would imply that all 4 patients that had Escalation of Care since Randomization in the ivermectin arm occurred >= 12 h after Randomization, hence the same 4 patients would be in both of these analysis.

However, for some reason the "Duration, median (IQR) d" for these same patients are different in the Secondary Outcomes and Post-Hoc Outcomes.

For Secondary Outcomes: 13 (3.5-21)
For Post Hoc Outcomes: 6.5 (4.5-21)

Can the authors explain how it is possible for the duration of Escalation of Care to be different for these same 4 patients in these two cases?
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Comments from JAMA
Findings Seem to Favor Ivermectin


Kevin Tomera, MD | Beloit Health System


i find it interesting that viral clearance, hospitalization, fever, time with fever, and clinical deterioration all favor ivermectin.

To expect total resolution of all covid symptoms within 21 days has not been achieved by any treatment. So why did the authors and editors choose this lofty goal ?
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Bias
Hector Carvallo, Professor of Medicine | Universidad Abierta Interamericana Argentina
It is no secret that young COVID patients will, fortunately, develop few symptoms (if any) and will recover far sooner than aged ones, not only because of age difference but also because of the lack of co-morbidities. What this trial missed is the chance to investigate viral load in those subjects; if so, they would have found out something important: those young patients surely ceased to provoke contagions. Is it evidence-based medicine or just bias? I foresee we will witness lots of articles like this in the near future.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Good article written by Dr. Kory on Censorship by assholes that Bozzie and Donger support. Evil fucks. These people are tying to save lives and you assholes don't want any therapies, just the vaccine.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._shunning_of_a_covid_therapeutic_145376.html#

[h=1]Censorship Kills: The Shunning of a COVID Therapeutic[/h]
Doctors fighting COVID-19 should be supported by their profession and their government, not suppressed. Yet today physicians are smothered under a wave of censorship. With coronavirus variants and vaccine hesitancy threatening a prolonged pandemic, the National Institutes of Health and the broader U.S. medical establishment should free doctors to treat this terrible disease with effective medicines.
For centuries, doctors have addressed emerging health threats by prescribing existing drugs for new uses, observing the results, and communicating to their peers and the public what seems to work. In a pandemic, precious time and lives can be lost by an insistence on excessive data and review. But in the current crisis, many in positions of authority have done just that, stubbornly refusing to allow any repurposed treatments. This departure from traditional medical practice risks catastrophe. When doctors on the front lines try to bring awareness of and use such medicines, they get silenced.


I’ve experienced such censorship firsthand. Early in the pandemic, my research led me to testify in the Senate that corticosteroids were life-saving against COVID-19, when all national and international health care agencies recommended against them. My recommendations were criticized, ignored and resisted such that I felt forced to resign my faculty position. Only later did a large study from Oxford University find they were indeed life-saving. Overnight, they became the standard of care worldwide. More recently, we identified through dozens of trials that the drug ivermectin leads to large reductions in transmission, mortality, and time to clinical recovery. After testifying to this fact in a second Senate appearance — the video of which was removed by YouTube after garnering over 8 million views — I was forced to leave another position.

I was delighted when our paper on ivermectin passed a rigorous peer review and was accepted by Frontiers in Pharmacology. The abstract was viewed over 102,000 times by people hungry for answers. Six weeks later, the journal suddenly rejected the paper, based on an unnamed “external expert” who stated that “our conclusions were unsupported,” contradicting the four senior, expert peer reviewers who had earlier accepted them. I can’t help but interpret this in context as censorship.


The science shows that ivermectin works. Over 40 randomized trials and observational studies from around the world attest to its efficacy against the novel coronavirus. Meta-analyses by four separate research groups, including ours, found an average reduction in mortality of between 68%-75%. And 10 of 13 randomized controlled trials found statistically significant reductions in time to viral clearance, an effect not associated with any other COVID-19 therapeutic. Furthermore, ivermectin has an unparalleled safety record and low cost, which should negate any fears or resistance to immediate adoption.

Our manuscript conclusions were further supported by the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel. Following the World Health Organization Handbook of Guideline Development, it voted to strongly recommend the use of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, and opined that further placebo controlled trials are unlikely to be ethical.


Even prior to the BIRD Panel recommendations, many countries have approved the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 or formally incorporated it into national treatment guidelines. Several have gone further and initiated large-scale importation and distribution efforts. In the last month alone, such European Union members as Bulgaria and Slovakia have approved its use nationwide. India, Egypt, Peru, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia are distributing it in many regions and observing rapid decreases in excess deaths. Increasing numbers of regional health authorities have advocated for or adopted it across Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa. And it is now the standard of care in Mexico City, one of the world’s largest cities.

It’s time to stop the foot-dragging. People are dying. The responsible physicians of this country, and their patients, need to be able to rely on their government institutions to quickly identify effective treatments, rather than waiting for pristine, massive Phase III trials before acting. At minimum, the NIH should immediately recommend ivermectin for treating and preventing COVID-19, and then work with professional associations, institutions, and the media to publicize its use. If it doesn’t, the organization will lose credibility as a public institution charged with acting in the national interest — and doctors will ignore its guidance in the future.


My story is not unique. Physicians across the country are fighting a pernicious campaign to denigrate all potential treatments not first championed by the authorities, and others have faced retaliation for speaking up. Sadly, too many of our institutions are using the pandemic as a pretext to centralize control over the practice of medicine, persecuting and canceling doctors who follow their clinical judgment and expertise.


Actually “following the science” means listening to practitioners and considering the entirety and diversity of clinical studies. That’s exactly what my colleagues and I have done. We won’t be cowed. We will speak up for our patients and do what’s right.


Pierre Kory, MD, is president and chief medical officer of the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
What's your endgame HHM? you remind me of the big-pharma commercials I have to sit through when I watch TV. Why the fuck do we need to advertise drugs or market it in any way??

I'll let me doctor decide. If he says my best route is HCQ, he's the professional with the most knowledge. I'm not going to fight him on that. I might get a second opinion, but that's my call. I shouldn't have to argue shit with my doc.

If I get the 'rona, I'll recover and move on. If it hits me bad, I'll get the antibody treatment.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Merck,the makers of Molnupiravir, which they are hoping will receive an EUA, recently put out a statement against the use of ivermectin for covid19. Now Dr. Omura, with no $ stake, the actual inventor of the drug, is advocating its utilization to treat covid19 based on the data. -






Dr. Eric Osgood MD

@EdoajoEric


 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
What's your endgame HHM? you remind me of the big-pharma commercials I have to sit through when I watch TV. Why the fuck do we need to advertise drugs or market it in any way??

I'll let me doctor decide. If he says my best route is HCQ, he's the professional with the most knowledge. I'm not going to fight him on that. I might get a second opinion, but that's my call. I shouldn't have to argue shit with my doc.

If I get the 'rona, I'll recover and move on. If it hits me bad, I'll get the antibody treatment.

You shouldn't have to argue with your doctor. If you want IVM or HCQ, they should RX it for you. Hopefully your doctor is one of the thousands RX'ing Ivermectin for Covid. There is no endgame. I'm trying to share information and maybe help some people. No idea why so many assholes are arguing with me. Get the vaccine and never take Ivm, I don't care. Just trying to get the info out there that Fauci is suppressing.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
To all the doubters (leftists hacks who lick Fauci taint), there are numerous doctors attesting ivm works. Why would they make this shit up? If anything, they may get in trouble going against the FDA - although the NIH has a somewhat neutral position on it.

 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
**BIG BREAKING NEWS** Our scientific manuscript on emerging evidence for #ivermectin has been accepted for publication in the American Journal of Therapeutics! It's in production & will be online in a few weeks. Congrats to @PierreKory
, @PaulMarik
& docs! https://bit.ly/3llUU0c


https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf


[h=2]American Journal of Therapeutics[/h]Peer-reviewed journal

The American Journal of Therapeutics is a bimonthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering pharmacology and therapeutics. It was established in 1994 by John Somberg MD
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
Don't let the FDA or anyone else tell you ivm is not safe. Of course you shouldn't take the horse version or take it in high doses. If taken at the correct dose and the human form, it is one of the safest broad spectrum drugs in existence.

Ews4eHUWQAUrBKc
 

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
6,136
Tokens
^ The FDA, NIH, Fauci, CDC all know Remdisivir does not work and is very dangerous. It can absolutely destroy your organs - but they are still recommending it as a treatment to certain Covid patients. It is absolutely criminal. Even the WHO delisted that garbage and advises against its use.
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,010
Tokens
Canadian Doctors Speak Out: The facts about Covid.


ONLY 3% of patients w a positive PCR test actually have Covid.

Fewer patients in the ICU in 2020 than 2017 in all of Canada....

Which i said in here months ago. The ICUs just are not full.

Lies from the beginning....they operate at an 80%+ capacity every year already.

Wtf
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,532
Messages
13,556,359
Members
100,631
Latest member
puss-feller
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com