info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ivermectin is worthless.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
a322x1n
Jan 15, 2022, 4:57:13 AM1/15/22
to
<https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-c
ovid>
<https://tinyurl.com/4dxf5e6e>
Column: Major study of ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd’s latest COVID
drug, finds ‘no effect whatsoever’.
BY MICHAEL HILTZIKBUSINESS COLUMNIST. AUG. 11, 2021 3:27 PM PT.
Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by
anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease,
according to a large patient study.
That’s the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several
purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed
clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in
Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil.
One of the trial’s principal investigators, Edward Mills of McMaster,
presented the results from the ivermectin arms of the study at an Aug. 6
symposium sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
I’ve had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing
Ivermectin. Others working in this area have been threatened, their
families have been threatened, they’ve been defamed.
EDWARD MILLS, COVID RESEARCHER.
Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, ivermectin showed “no
effect whatsoever” on the trial’s outcome goals — whether patients
required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.
“In our specific trial,” he said, “we do not see the treatment benefit
that a lot of the advocates believe should have been” seen.
The study’s results on ivermectin haven’t been formally published or
peer-reviewed. Earlier peer-reviewed results from the Together Trial
related to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which had been
touted as a miracle treatment for COVID by then-President Trump, were
published in April; they showed no significant therapeutic effect on the
virus.
The findings on ivermectin are yet another blow for advocates promoting
the drug as a magic bullet against COVID-19. Ivermectin was developed as
a treatment for parasitical diseases, mostly for veterinarians, though
it’s also used against some human parasites.
Its repurposing as a COVID treatment began with a 2020 paper by
Australian researchers who determined that at extremely high
concentrations it showed some efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
which causes COVID, in the lab. But their research involved
concentrations of the drug far beyond what could be achieved, much less
tolerated, in the human body.
The ivermectin camp, as I reported earlier, is heavily peopled by
anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy mongers. They maintain that
the truth about the drug has been suppressed by agents of the
pharmaceutical industry, which ostensibly prefers to collect the more
generous profits that will flow from COVID vaccines.
The problem, however, is that the scientific trials cited by ivermectin
advocates have been too small or poorly documented to prove their case.
One large trial from Egypt that showed the most significant therapeutic
effect was withdrawn from its publishers due to accusations of
plagiarism and bogus data.
Nevertheless, the advocates have continued to press their case — without
necessarily observing accepted standards of scientific discourse. During
the symposium, Mills complained that serious researchers looking into
claims for COVID treatments have faced unprecedented abuse from
advocates.
“I’ve had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing
ivermectin,” he said. “Others working in this area have been threatened,
their families have been threatened, they’ve been defamed,” he said.
“I can think of no circumstances in the past where this kind of abuse
has occurred to clinical trialists,” he added. “We need to figure out a
system where we have each others’ backs on these issues, because the
abuse that certain individuals have received is shocking.” He referred
to “accusations” and “swearing,” though he gave no specific examples.
Mills said that his team’s ivermectin trial was altered after advocacy
groups complained that it was too modest to achieve the results they
expected. The trial originally tested the results from a single
ivermectin dose in January this year, but was later changed to involve
one daily dose for three days of 400 micrograms of the drug for every
kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of the patients’ weight, up to 90 kilograms.
Half the subjects received a placebo tablet. No clinical results were
detected at either dosage, Mills said.
Asked whether he expected further criticism from ivermectin advocates,
he said it was all but inevitable. “The advocacy groups have set
themselves up to be able to critique any clinical trial. They’ve already
determined that any valid, well-designed critical trial was set up to
fail.”
Column: A new study calculates the incredible cost of ivermectin
stupidity.
Column: Single-payer healthcare is the right system. Can California
build it on its own?
ovid>
<https://tinyurl.com/4dxf5e6e>
Column: Major study of ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd’s latest COVID
drug, finds ‘no effect whatsoever’.
BY MICHAEL HILTZIKBUSINESS COLUMNIST. AUG. 11, 2021 3:27 PM PT.
Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by
anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease,
according to a large patient study.
That’s the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several
purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed
clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in
Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil.
One of the trial’s principal investigators, Edward Mills of McMaster,
presented the results from the ivermectin arms of the study at an Aug. 6
symposium sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
I’ve had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing
Ivermectin. Others working in this area have been threatened, their
families have been threatened, they’ve been defamed.
EDWARD MILLS, COVID RESEARCHER.
Among the 1,500 patients in the study, he said, ivermectin showed “no
effect whatsoever” on the trial’s outcome goals — whether patients
required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.
“In our specific trial,” he said, “we do not see the treatment benefit
that a lot of the advocates believe should have been” seen.
The study’s results on ivermectin haven’t been formally published or
peer-reviewed. Earlier peer-reviewed results from the Together Trial
related to the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which had been
touted as a miracle treatment for COVID by then-President Trump, were
published in April; they showed no significant therapeutic effect on the
virus.
The findings on ivermectin are yet another blow for advocates promoting
the drug as a magic bullet against COVID-19. Ivermectin was developed as
a treatment for parasitical diseases, mostly for veterinarians, though
it’s also used against some human parasites.
Its repurposing as a COVID treatment began with a 2020 paper by
Australian researchers who determined that at extremely high
concentrations it showed some efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
which causes COVID, in the lab. But their research involved
concentrations of the drug far beyond what could be achieved, much less
tolerated, in the human body.
The ivermectin camp, as I reported earlier, is heavily peopled by
anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy mongers. They maintain that
the truth about the drug has been suppressed by agents of the
pharmaceutical industry, which ostensibly prefers to collect the more
generous profits that will flow from COVID vaccines.
The problem, however, is that the scientific trials cited by ivermectin
advocates have been too small or poorly documented to prove their case.
One large trial from Egypt that showed the most significant therapeutic
effect was withdrawn from its publishers due to accusations of
plagiarism and bogus data.
Nevertheless, the advocates have continued to press their case — without
necessarily observing accepted standards of scientific discourse. During
the symposium, Mills complained that serious researchers looking into
claims for COVID treatments have faced unprecedented abuse from
advocates.
“I’ve had enough abuse and so have the other clinical trialists doing
ivermectin,” he said. “Others working in this area have been threatened,
their families have been threatened, they’ve been defamed,” he said.
“I can think of no circumstances in the past where this kind of abuse
has occurred to clinical trialists,” he added. “We need to figure out a
system where we have each others’ backs on these issues, because the
abuse that certain individuals have received is shocking.” He referred
to “accusations” and “swearing,” though he gave no specific examples.
Mills said that his team’s ivermectin trial was altered after advocacy
groups complained that it was too modest to achieve the results they
expected. The trial originally tested the results from a single
ivermectin dose in January this year, but was later changed to involve
one daily dose for three days of 400 micrograms of the drug for every
kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of the patients’ weight, up to 90 kilograms.
Half the subjects received a placebo tablet. No clinical results were
detected at either dosage, Mills said.
Asked whether he expected further criticism from ivermectin advocates,
he said it was all but inevitable. “The advocacy groups have set
themselves up to be able to critique any clinical trial. They’ve already
determined that any valid, well-designed critical trial was set up to
fail.”
Column: A new study calculates the incredible cost of ivermectin
stupidity.
Column: Single-payer healthcare is the right system. Can California
build it on its own?
BeamMeUpScotty
Jan 15, 2022, 9:32:47 AM1/15/22
to
On 1/15/22 4:57 AM, a322x1n wrote:
> <https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-c
> ovid>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/4dxf5e6e>
>
> Column: Major study of ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd’s latest COVID
> drug, finds ‘no effect whatsoever’.
> BY MICHAEL HILTZIKBUSINESS COLUMNIST. AUG. 11, 2021 3:27 PM PT.
>
> Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by
> anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease,
> according to a large patient study.
Which means a lot of people will be parasite free... why does that
> <https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-c
> ovid>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/4dxf5e6e>
>
> Column: Major study of ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd’s latest COVID
> drug, finds ‘no effect whatsoever’.
> BY MICHAEL HILTZIKBUSINESS COLUMNIST. AUG. 11, 2021 3:27 PM PT.
>
> Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by
> anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease,
> according to a large patient study.
bother you?
--
That's karma,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
*deriving their just powers from the consent* of the governed, — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government,"
It would seem that *MANDATES* are NOT derived from the consent of the
governed. The Constitution doesn't delegate unlimited power to mandate
the governed, become part of a medical experiment.
"This is the classic definition of a “cult,” when facts and real science
are tossed aside for beliefs that contradict the actual facts."
0 new messages