Covid-19 Ivermectin

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
20.786
3.489
113
Je zmanjkalo študij iz Indije in Egipta, sedaj je na sporedu Brazilija? Sem na hitro prebral in mi izgleda eno tipično manipuliranje s podatki. Že naslov je zavajujoč, ker namreč niso izdvedli te študije na 220000 ljudeh, kot piše v naslovu. Če je že naslov zavajujoč, publicističen, potem tudi v vsebino ne bom verjel 100%.

Študija je zdaj peer-reviewed:


Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching​


Results:

  • There was a with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate for the cohorts using ivermectin prophylactically (p < 0.0001).
  • The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (p < 0.0001).
  • There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively (p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (p < 0.0001).
Conclusion (from the study): In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.
 

mosseero

fizik´alc
3. sep 2007
16.179
4.546
113
kod Džej-Zija
Ker od takrat se je metodologija v članku totalno popravila, kajne? Pa double blind je bila tudi. Aja, sori, ni bila. Pa zdravniki so nadzirali aplikacijo ivermektina. Aja, sori, tudi niso. V bistvu je bilo pacientom prepuščeno, niti follow-upov niso delali. Da ne govorimo o tem, da so takrat še v samem članku pisali, da stvar ni dejstvo, ampak precej verjetna. Torej so se celo sami zavedali pomanjkljivosti in o njih celo nekaj malega diskutirali.

Važno, da je tvoja vera v ivermektin neomajana. Naj le tako ostane.
 

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
20.786
3.489
113
imetaall.png


 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: matofill

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
20.786
3.489
113

Gargy

Guru
17. avg 2007
5.808
1
2.593
113
okolica Maribora
A to je isti Harvey Risch?

In May, this journal published an opinion piece by one of the members of the Editorial Board, Dr. Harvey Risch, that reviewed several papers and argued that using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZ) early to treat symptomatic COVID-19 cases in high-risk patients should be broadly applied. As members of the journal's editorial board, we are strongly supportive of open debate in science, which is essential even on highly contentious issues. However, we must also be thorough in our examination of the facts and open to changing our minds when new information arises. In this commentary, we document several important errors in the manuscript by Dr. Risch, review the literature he presented and demonstrate why it is not of sufficient quality to support scale up of HCQ+AZ, and then discuss the literature that has been generated since his publication, which also does not support use of this therapy. Unfortunately, the current scientific evidence does not support HCQ+AZ as an effective treatment for COVID-19, if it ever did; and even suggests many risks. Continuing to push the view that it is an essential treatment in the face of this evidence is irresponsible and harmful to the many people already suffering from infection.

Vredi se je skrila ta resnica...
 

mosseero

fizik´alc
3. sep 2007
16.179
4.546
113
kod Džej-Zija
Lepo se vidi modus operandi tehle "alternativcev": toliko časa ponavljajo laž, da postane "resnica". Dokazovanje HCQ in iverce je bolj ali dogmatsko, ker resnih testov ne prestane. Spominja me na homeopatijo. Ali pa hondo, ki je hitrejša, tudi če jo ostali prehitijo. Bolj ko testi iverco in HCQ zavračajo, bolj po mnenju nekaterih deluje.
 

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
20.786
3.489
113

Dr. Hill and the research team produced their meta-analysis of ivermectin in January, 2021. The paper considered eighteen studies on the thirty-five-year-old drug—which has been safely used since 1987 to eradicate parasitic pandemics in low- and middle-income countries. The study concluded that the use of ivermectin resulted in reduced inflammation and a more rapid elimination of the Sars-Cov-2 virus from the body. Six of the eighteen trials showed that the risk of death from covid-19 was 75 percent lower in patients who had moderate to severe disease.

This was absolutely tremendous news. Hundreds of thousands of lives were about to be saved from the ravages of covid-19. Said Dr. Hill at the time to the Financial Times, “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [ivermectin]. We need to be ready.”

When Dr. Hill made that statement—to gear up for the worldwide distribution of ivermectin—nearly 15,000 people were dying across the world every single day. Dr. Hill continued, “Vaccination is central to the response to the epidemic. But [ivermectin] might help reduce infection rates by making people less infectious and it might reduce death rates by treating the viral infection.”

But just one month later, Dr. Hill’s original, positive study conclusions on ivermectin quite literally fell off the rails. And so did the fortunes of the thousands who had no idea then that they were stuck on the tracks with a freight train barreling towards them—unable to get out of harm’s way because help had been hijacked.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, independent WHO researcher, and Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, had heard that Dr. Hill was about to change his conclusions about ivermectin’s efficacy. So she called him on Zoom to find out why—and recorded the entire conversation.

During that Zoom call, Dr. Hill confessed to Dr. Lawrie that he was changing his study conclusions from positive to negative—because he was under pressure from his funding sponsors to do so.

-
-
-
-

There’s one more thing you should know.

One week prior to Dr. Andrew Hill’s pre-print posting of his revised paper, the University of Liverpool, where Hill works, received a $40 million grant from Unitaid to study infectious diseases—Dr. Hill’s specialty.

Forty million reasons to silence the irrefutable evidence for ivermectin. Forty million reasons to let folks take their inevitable place on the train tracks with permanent adhesive on their shoes.

Hill’s “six-weeks” has now turned into nearly one year—a year during which Hill threw out most of the studies in the original paper, and proclaimed that ivermectin offers no mortality benefit. “There is no longer evidence for clinical benefits after removal of trials at risk of bias or medical fraud,” Hill wrote recently.

Killer words.

And that, dear reader, is why in late February, 2021, when the WHO received Dr. Hill’s paper with the sponsors’ conclusions written in, they decided not to recommend ivermectin for covid until long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled studies could be conducted.
 

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
20.786
3.489
113
A to je isti Harvey Risch?

In May, this journal published an opinion piece by one of the members of the Editorial Board, Dr. Harvey Risch, that reviewed several papers and argued that using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZ) early to treat symptomatic COVID-19 cases in high-risk patients should be broadly applied. As members of the journal's editorial board, we are strongly supportive of open debate in science, which is essential even on highly contentious issues. However, we must also be thorough in our examination of the facts and open to changing our minds when new information arises. In this commentary, we document several important errors in the manuscript by Dr. Risch, review the literature he presented and demonstrate why it is not of sufficient quality to support scale up of HCQ+AZ, and then discuss the literature that has been generated since his publication, which also does not support use of this therapy. Unfortunately, the current scientific evidence does not support HCQ+AZ as an effective treatment for COVID-19, if it ever did; and even suggests many risks. Continuing to push the view that it is an essential treatment in the face of this evidence is irresponsible and harmful to the many people already suffering from infection.

Vredi se je skrila ta resnica...
Lahko se pripopas 'fact checkerski' vir za tole?
 

AndY1

Rusofil
Osebje foruma
18. sep 2007
20.786
3.489
113

A doctor who has been offering free telehealth services to COVID-19 patients during the pandemic says that early treatment for COVID-19 works, claiming that he has a 99.99 percent survival rate.

“We have a team of volunteer free doctors that donate their time to help treat these patients that come to us,” Dr. Ben Marble, the founder of myfreedoctor.com, an online medical consultation service, said at a roundtable discussion hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Jan. 24.

He added, “We deliver the early treatment protocols to them as early as we can, and we have a 99.99 percent survival rate. So, I believe myfreedoctor.com, the free volunteered doctors have settled the science on this—early treatment works, period!”
 

luka51

Guru
16. avg 2007
11.752
3.279
113
Čakaj kaj neja pišete že dve leti, da itak covid ni smrtonosn in da je prehlad, pa da umre majn kot pol procenta ljudi?
Pa vse to brez early tretmenta.

Nekaj neja tu zaj štima.
 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: Matey