Page 3 of 7

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:11 pm
by Nobody
Anyone know how to get hold of hydroxychloroquine without prescription in the UK?

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:57 pm
by fon
Nobody wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:11 pm Anyone know how to get hold of hydroxychloroquine without prescription in the UK?
try ebay.

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:12 pm
by Jane G
Nobody wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:11 pm Anyone know how to get hold of hydroxychloroquine without prescription in the UK?
Watched Pandemic Podcast interview with Patrick Holford.
If I understood him correctly, Quercetin does a similar job to HCQ. (You might need to verify - I'm no expert....)

Meanwhile, I'm sharing this petition here just in case it hasn't been done already.

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:14 pm
by Jane G
....and I forgot to put in the link..

http://chng.it/v9DSGsJ9xc

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:01 am
by RedhotScot
Splatt wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:39 pm Not yet.
Some pretty poor trials lacking in any useful robust techniques which are then amplified by fairly poor methodology meta-studies of those same trials.

There are some weak "suggestions" of some effects but noting solid.

It needs proper, robust clinical trials (such as REACT) to pull out any possible benefit.

That's not to say it doesn't do anything - its that there's nothing robust out there to suggest it DOES.
Ivermectin proved so successful in clinical trials, as a prophylactic and a treatment (almost 90% success) clinical trials had to be stopped because it was unethical to continue to let people taking the Placebo die.

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:15 am
by RedhotScot
Splatt wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:59 pm The data has been analysed and found fallen short.

There are so many things wrong it'd be thrown out as junk by any reputable peer reviewer or journal.
No normalisation of groups, no blind or double blinding, no consistency in treatment regime. No consistency in measurement of effects.
No consistency or normalisation of control groups.

Its a hatchet job analysis built on top of very unreliable data.

This is why its not accepted anywhere at all and wont be until we get data of a robust enough quality to pass clinical trials

That IS addressing the evidence. The studies are so badly done they are not and cannot be accepted by any reputable peer review.

Which begs the question, if the data is supposed to be that good, why is it so hard for them to actually implement and pass a proper clinical trial protocol?

And no, it not "big pharma" nonsense.

Early treatment 81% [62‑91%] 18 175 1,942
Late treatment 43% [27‑56%] 20 143 6,831
Prophylaxis 88% [78‑93%] 12 77 7,011
Mortality 76% [58‑86%] 18 155 7,267
RCTs only 66% [49‑78%] 26 231 3,618
All studies 73% [64‑79%] 50 395 15,784

https://ivmmeta.com

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:00 pm
by thinksaboutit
RedhotScot wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:15 am
Splatt wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:59 pm The data has been analysed and found fallen short.

There are so many things wrong it'd be thrown out as junk by any reputable peer reviewer or journal.
No normalisation of groups, no blind or double blinding, no consistency in treatment regime. No consistency in measurement of effects.
No consistency or normalisation of control groups.

Its a hatchet job analysis built on top of very unreliable data.

This is why its not accepted anywhere at all and wont be until we get data of a robust enough quality to pass clinical trials

That IS addressing the evidence. The studies are so badly done they are not and cannot be accepted by any reputable peer review.

Which begs the question, if the data is supposed to be that good, why is it so hard for them to actually implement and pass a proper clinical trial protocol?

And no, it not "big pharma" nonsense.

Early treatment 81% [62‑91%] 18 175 1,942
Late treatment 43% [27‑56%] 20 143 6,831
Prophylaxis 88% [78‑93%] 12 77 7,011
Mortality 76% [58‑86%] 18 155 7,267
RCTs only 66% [49‑78%] 26 231 3,618
All studies 73% [64‑79%] 50 395 15,784

https://ivmmeta.com
Highly compelling numbers - should we believe them? I think not.

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:49 pm
by Splatt
I've re-read most of the supposed studies (and the ones that didnt get publicity).

Methodology is terrible. Not up to the bare minimum requirements for any sort of trial in terms of data selections, control or anything else.

They're almost as bad as an AstraZenica trial PR statement.

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:56 pm
by fon
RedhotScot wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:01 am
Splatt wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:39 pm Not yet.
Some pretty poor trials lacking in any useful robust techniques which are then amplified by fairly poor methodology meta-studies of those same trials.

There are some weak "suggestions" of some effects but noting solid.
It looks like budesomide is going to get the nod:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ly9oqnxPvI

27:13,

So, though awtumn, they will rest the treatment push on dexamethazone and budesonide, and the vaccines ... and back off on the lockdown. Maybe booster shost if a sure-fire vaccine busting variant shows up.

Re: Ivermectin

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:37 am
by fon
RedhotScot wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:15 am Which begs the question, if the data is supposed to be that good, why is it so hard for them to actually implement and pass a proper clinical trial protocol?
It is said to be because, when a large trial starts, the control group is soon switched to ivermectin, since those on it get well so soon, it would be unethical to withhold it from the control group.