GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
I was responding to your "I can only assume it was a cold" comment.
The assumption that it was a cold came after the PCR test.
Were the stuffy head and sore throat the extent of your symptoms?
Yep. That was it. No fever, no aches & pains. Still hit the treadmill every day. I don't do "man colds".
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Ninja
Interesting development of interest, figure they will not have trouble getting more volunteers.
Cannabis Compounds Prevented Covid Infection in Laboratory Study

Looks like I'm gonna have to smoking weed again. (After a 40-year hiatus) :)
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Spartan
Why not? It wasn't long ago that ERs were fielding patients who ingested Lysol and similar products.
That's different, they were listening to someone. This guy is the someone people are listening to. One of them anyway.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Yep. That was it. No fever, no aches & pains. Still hit the treadmill every day. I don't do "man colds".
'Man cold' = "I WANT SOUP!"?

Today was the first time in almost three weeks that I actually felt like doing anything- most days, I would start out slow and peter out altogether by about 5, when my main concerns were "What do I want to eat?" and "When do I go to bed"?". I would get up at the normal time, but fade by late morning. I actually went to work on a house and don't feel like I was rode hard & put away wet. I still get winded very easily, but my resting pulse is back to around 70 again- it was a lot faster when I was sicker.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Spartan
Looks like I'm gonna have to smoking weed again. (After a 40-year hiatus) :)
I started again after about a decade and I'm glad I did. Helped me quit drinking...as much.

It really is great for stress and general anxiety.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Warlord
I started again after about a decade and I'm glad I did. Helped me quit drinking...as much.

It really is great for stress and general anxiety.
God bless weed. It grows from the ground for crying out loud!!!!!!! Good for so many things.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
'Man cold' = "I WANT SOUP!"?

Today was the first time in almost three weeks that I actually felt like doing anything- most days, I would start out slow and peter out altogether by about 5, when my main concerns were "What do I want to eat?" and "When do I go to bed"?". I would get up at the normal time, but fade by late morning. I actually went to work on a house and don't feel like I was rode hard & put away wet. I still get winded very easily, but my resting pulse is back to around 70 again- it was a lot faster when I was sicker.
Sounds like it gave you a beating. I hope you don't have any long term issues.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
I realize this will not convince the ivermectin believers, but there's still no reliable evidence that ivermectin is effective:

>>>Meta-Analyses Do Not Establish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19

Ivermectin has been identified as an inexpensive, readily available drug with the potential to be repurposed as a treatment for COVID-19, especially in countries with limited access to vaccines. Although multiple studies have been published in an attempt to evaluate its usefulness in COVID-19, many are small and not constructed appropriately to detect differences in important clinical outcomes (ie, death). For this reason, researchers have turned to meta-analyses to combine study results and draw summary conclusions regarding ivermectin's effectiveness. Two such meta-analyses recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded that ivermectin decreased mortality and improved other surrogate end points in COVID-19. A recently withdrawn article caused both authors to rework their meta-analyses without altering their main conclusions. We feel that shortcomings within both sets of meta-analyses and limitations in the component studies are significant enough to invalidate their main finding that ivermectin reduces mortality. A review of other meta-analyses on the same subject, containing many of the same individual studies, were similarly limited by poor design.<<<

 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
I realize this will not convince the ivermectin believers, but there's still no reliable evidence that ivermectin is effective:

>>>Meta-Analyses Do Not Establish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19

Ivermectin has been identified as an inexpensive, readily available drug with the potential to be repurposed as a treatment for COVID-19, especially in countries with limited access to vaccines. Although multiple studies have been published in an attempt to evaluate its usefulness in COVID-19, many are small and not constructed appropriately to detect differences in important clinical outcomes (ie, death). For this reason, researchers have turned to meta-analyses to combine study results and draw summary conclusions regarding ivermectin's effectiveness. Two such meta-analyses recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded that ivermectin decreased mortality and improved other surrogate end points in COVID-19. A recently withdrawn article caused both authors to rework their meta-analyses without altering their main conclusions. We feel that shortcomings within both sets of meta-analyses and limitations in the component studies are significant enough to invalidate their main finding that ivermectin reduces mortality. A review of other meta-analyses on the same subject, containing many of the same individual studies, were similarly limited by poor design.<<<

Much appreciated. I should've known better. They discontinued the double blind testing. truck me.:confused:
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
I did read through Mr. Clarks post on the other thread with great interest. As with most long articles there is always one or three sentences that tell the tale. In the above article they are towards the end.

"Unfortunately, inadequate and improperly conducted studies of this drug have added to confusion both inside and outside of the medical community. "

"These reports indicate that despite its absence from NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines and lack of United States Food and Drug Administration approval, off-label use of ivermectin by lay people and physicians has continued throughout the pandemic.58 It is possible that inconclusive ivermectin studies and meta-analyses contributed to this activity."

"Ultimately, imperfect studies need to be replaced by larger, adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, with meta-analyses, ideally using IPD, based on these studies."


I highlight the words, inconclusive/imperfect and "studies need to be replaced". In other words, we don't know for sure about ivermectin. So why haven't we conducted these studies and reach some kind of conclusion over the last two years? At least it might stop some people from using it incorrectly and harming themselves.

It is being used it in India and Japan (where it was invented) in fact, chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, recommended the emergency use of ivermectin. Its creator, Professor Omura was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for his role. Japan is a first world country last time I looked.

Where is our FDA? Well it's run by trained psychiatrist and former Pfizer employee. (Dear Pres. Biden, We couldn't get someone who specialized in Drug Development especially during a pandemic?)
Why did Pfizer apply to conceal its vaccine files for 75 years! from public scrutiny? Maybe they'll store it with the JFK files.
Could it be that ivermectin is a generic drug so we can't make billions off it?

These are simple questions and observations that can help come to a conclusion about ivermectin.
Why are US journalists not asking these questions?
Maybe they are with Landu....
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
"These reports indicate that despite its absence from NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines and lack of United States Food and Drug Administration approval, off-label use of ivermectin by lay people and physicians has continued throughout the pandemic.58 It is possible that inconclusive ivermectin studies and meta-analyses contributed to this activity."
Is "off-label" to mean generic?

I'm also curious the animal to human version. Is that the same ingredients but with larger doses to animals? I saw a video saying people had side effects. Wanted to make sure they were taking the human version in small doses.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
The generic is the human version approve by the FDA for treating parasitic infections. Off label refers to doctors perscribing an FDA-approved drug for an unapproved use to treat disease a medical condition. Some nuts out there are taking the animal version. I can't judge them. If you are dying of Covid and your hospital refuses to give it to you, one might be compelled to do something desperate.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
The generic is the human version approve by the FDA for treating parasitic infections. Off label refers to doctors perscribing an FDA-approved drug for an unapproved use to treat disease a medical condition. Some nuts out there are taking the animal version. I can't judge them. If you are dying of Covid and your hospital refuses to give it to you, one might be compelled to do something desperate.
So basically you can't even get it here. Unless you lie. Or steal it when nobody is looking LOL.

Anyone know if there are ways to determine level of transmissibility besides body fluids?
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
I highlight the words, inconclusive/imperfect and "studies need to be replaced". In other words, we don't know for sure about ivermectin. So why haven't we conducted these studies and reach some kind of conclusion over the last two years?
There are some large studies underway that are being funded by the NIH (first link below). It appears to me that no results for the NIH ivermectin trial have been posted yet (second link below).

Oxford had a large ivermectin trial underway but it was halted due to supply issues (third link below). As you can see, Merck has stated "the probability of ivermectin providing a potentially safe and efficacious treatment option for SARS-CoV-2 infection is low."

Despite the lack of solid evidence ivermectin is effective, many doctors are prescribing ivermectin, and insurance companies are picking a big chunk of the cost (fourth link below). Just because ivermectin is not FDA approved for treating COVID doesn't mean doctors can't prescribe it.

It's somewhat puzzling why so many people are apparently upset that the FDA has not approved ivermectin for treating COVID. I can't prove it, but my impression is that a lot of the people clamoring for FDA approval of ivermectin are the same people who are skeptical of the FDA approval of the COVID vaccines and Paxlovid.

>>>Large Clinical Trial to Study Repurposed Drugs to Treat COVID-19 Symptoms

April 19, 2021

Using an ACTIV master protocol, the trial will focus on potential interventions for mild-to-moderate illness

The National Institutes of Health will fund a large, randomized, placebo controlled Phase 3 clinical trial to test several existing prescription and over-the-counter medications for people to self-administer to treat symptoms of COVID-19. Part of the Accelerating COVID 19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public–private partnership, the ACTIV-6 trial aims to provide evidence-based treatment options for the majority of adult patients with COVID-19 who have mild-to-moderate symptoms and are not sick enough to be hospitalized. NIH will provide an initial investment of $155 million in funding for the trial. . . . Enrollment is open to test the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin, fluvoxamine and fluticasone in treating mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms at home. Agent prioritization is ongoing, and additional study arms may open. For the latest information on the drugs being studied, visit the ACTIV website.<<<



>>>The ivermectin arm of the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE trial is "currently paused due to temporary supply issues," according to the trial's website.

The website does not offer any details on what caused the ivermectin supply difficulties in PRINCIPLE, which is investigating possible treatments for COVID-19 and being led by the University of Oxford in England. . . .Ivermectin manufacturer Merck did not directly comment on the supply issues affecting PRINCIPLE. However, as part of a longer statement on the drug provided to MedPage Today via email, the company said that it has "concluded that the probability of ivermectin providing a potentially safe and efficacious treatment option for SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and have prioritized internal efforts towards the development of alternate candidates that provide a higher probability of success for the treatment of COVID-19."

"If clinical data emerge providing definitive evidence for a positive benefit-risk assessment of the use of ivermectin in COVID-19, we stand ready to provide our expertise and resources as needed," Merck added.<<<


>>>“Insurers usually don’t cover ineffective treatments, or at least make patients pay for most of the cost,” said Kao-Ping Chua, M.D., Ph.D., the health care researcher from U-M who led the study. “Our study suggests that they are treating ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19 differently. In doing so, they are reducing barriers to an ineffective drug that some are using as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination or evidence-based treatments.” . . . “To be clear, clinicians may still prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 and patients can choose to pay for these prescriptions themselves. Our point is simply that insurers shouldn’t cover these prescriptions unless ivermectin proves to be an effective COVID-19 treatment,” said Chua, a pediatrician at Michigan Medicine’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center. . . . The authors then estimated that all but 3,600 of the 88,000 ivermectin prescriptions filled in the week of August 13, 2021 were for COVID-19. Assuming that the study’s results generalized to these prescriptions, the authors estimated that private and Medicare plans paid $2.4 million for the prescriptions in this week alone.<<<

 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Quite. Unless you convince your doctor you have worms...
I must admit your last sentence could be interpreted in many ways.
To paraphrase Austin Powers, "Doesn't that make you horny?"
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Despite the lack of solid evidence ivermectin is effective, many doctors are prescribing ivermectin, and insurance companies are picking a big chunk of the cost (fourth link below). Just because ivermectin is not FDA approved for treating COVID doesn't mean doctors can't prescribe it.
This is quackery (if prescribed for COVID) and I would not like to be treated by such a medical doctor, and is just as bad as homeopathy.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top