Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(94,520 posts)
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:00 AM Mar 2022

Ivermectin didn't protect people from COVID-19, study shows

Source: Marketwatch

Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn’t reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic.

Ivermectin has received a lot of attention as a potential treatment for Covid-19 including from celebrities such as podcast host Joe Rogan. Most evidence has shown it to be ineffective against Covid-19 or has relied on data of poor quality, infectious-disease researchers said. Public-health authorities and researchers have for months said the drug hasn’t shown any benefit in treating the disease. Taking large doses of the drug is dangerous, the Food and Drug Administration has said.

The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo.

“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.


Read more: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ivermectin-didnt-protect-people-from-covid-19-study-shows-11647602256



That, of course, is what Big Science WOULD say.....
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ivermectin didn't protect people from COVID-19, study shows (Original Post) brooklynite Mar 2022 OP
*shocked Pikachu face* nt bluevoter4life Mar 2022 #1
Yeah a big newsflash from the NoShit Dept. bullimiami Mar 2022 #3
They have. I get electronic spam and junk mail from them all the time. Runningdawg Mar 2022 #15
"'Sample size', 'double blind', 'peer review', and reporting conflicts of interest are backdoors to ck4829 Mar 2022 #2
Yeah! Do some RESEARCH. keithbvadu2 Mar 2022 #11
It's all just part of Mz Pip Mar 2022 #4
I'm shocked. Aristus Mar 2022 #5
Me too. Well, not that shocked. Ray Bruns Mar 2022 #7
Think I'll slip this one into the "Well, NO!" file. paleotn Mar 2022 #6
But, did the researchers follow the protocols published on the INTERNET? NCjack Mar 2022 #8
Those researchers are in the pocket of big vaccine and big mask IronLionZion Mar 2022 #9
re: Ivermectin didn't protect... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2022 #10
Ivermectin has laxative action all by itself jmowreader Mar 2022 #22
IMO... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2022 #23
But at least they got rid of their tapeworms and fleas. Ocelot II Mar 2022 #12
surprise surprise !!! vlyons Mar 2022 #13
Good news. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #14
Well, they are all full of shit anyway louis-t Mar 2022 #35
Well it's Rebl2 Mar 2022 #16
More dead MAGAT voters. lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #17
What a wa$te. live love laugh Mar 2022 #18
No bnefit in treatment, either Warpy Mar 2022 #19
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh krispos42 Mar 2022 #20
I found out my shrink has been doing ivermectin and had done HCQ. moriah Mar 2022 #21
I think in Rebl2 Mar 2022 #24
Nonsense; all they have to do is say prescribing it is against their sincerely held religious belief brooklynite Mar 2022 #32
Good answer Rebl2 Mar 2022 #33
Who is surprised by this? LetMyPeopleVote Mar 2022 #25
On the plus side, the ones who lived don't have worms. Vinca Mar 2022 #26
I'm shocked, SHOCKED! Well... not that shocked. Initech Mar 2022 #27
"Thanks, but I'll do my own research". /s Jetheels Mar 2022 #28
That will be good for hospitals lees1975 Mar 2022 #29
Say what you will, but this study didn't follow the protocol of the doctors who found it effective. TheRickles Mar 2022 #30
Of course it didn't! sakabatou Mar 2022 #31
I just bought the liquid version... tonekat Mar 2022 #34
Even worse, the users will gain weight as they have now lost their 'natural' worm flora JCMach1 Mar 2022 #36
I point these kind of studies out to RWers TheFarseer Mar 2022 #37

bullimiami

(13,086 posts)
3. Yeah a big newsflash from the NoShit Dept.
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:05 AM
Mar 2022

Here’s an idea.

Why don’t the flat earth crowd develop their own insurance and care network and do it their own way.

Runningdawg

(4,516 posts)
15. They have. I get electronic spam and junk mail from them all the time.
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 12:01 PM
Mar 2022

I think the big one around here is Christian Health Care Network. Their insurance system works about as well as their social media apps. No one is buying.

ck4829

(35,069 posts)
2. "'Sample size', 'double blind', 'peer review', and reporting conflicts of interest are backdoors to
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:05 AM
Mar 2022

SOCIALISM. Do some RESEARCH, here's a Youtube video posted by some rando!"
-The right-wing rebuttal.

paleotn

(17,912 posts)
6. Think I'll slip this one into the "Well, NO!" file.
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:14 AM
Mar 2022

Then again, the "No Shit" folder may be more appropriate.

NCjack

(10,279 posts)
8. But, did the researchers follow the protocols published on the INTERNET?
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:28 AM
Mar 2022

Big science is never successful when testing alternative medicines. It always performs the tests to make them fail.

I test Ivermectin at home and it works! But Big Science tests it and it fails.! That is why you should not trust them.

IronLionZion

(45,433 posts)
9. Those researchers are in the pocket of big vaccine and big mask
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:30 AM
Mar 2022

real research is on videos shared on social media. That's why they call it "viral videos".

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
10. re: Ivermectin didn't protect...
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:31 AM
Mar 2022

Don't you have to parallel that with some horse laxative and wash them down with bleach?

jmowreader

(50,557 posts)
22. Ivermectin has laxative action all by itself
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 01:00 PM
Mar 2022

And it would make sense that it does - if you are deworming your horse you want the worms on the ground as quickly as possible.

Which leads to the next question: do the antivaxers understand that viruses, worms and parasites are different things?

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
23. IMO...
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 01:10 PM
Mar 2022

...in a tactical situation believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend probably works okay as a short term strategy. However, viewing virology, diplomacy, politics and the rest of life as a tactical situation is a major mistake.

Just because someone may hate Democrats as you may, (and of course this is a hypothetical you), doesn't make their advice sound.

vlyons

(10,252 posts)
13. surprise surprise !!!
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 11:50 AM
Mar 2022

that's because it's a dewormer. I used it to deworm my alpacas and llamas. Well at least all the dead from covid had intestines free of worms when they died.

Warpy

(111,254 posts)
19. No bnefit in treatment, either
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 12:26 PM
Mar 2022
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

A smaller study offshore did show a statistically significant improvement in severe illness, but not enough to outweigh the risks of giving this drug to seriously ill people.

Still, the needle weenies howl for it. Just get the shot, fools, it's the only way to prevent severe illness from this bug.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
20. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 12:30 PM
Mar 2022

Jesus, the toxic substances people will put into their bodies to avoid getting a vaccine are simply incredible.

moriah

(8,311 posts)
21. I found out my shrink has been doing ivermectin and had done HCQ.
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 12:44 PM
Mar 2022

He said he'd also gotten the base two shots, but no boosters. I mean, I'm not surprised (he has a Jesusfish on his business card), but the man is OLD.... and contrary to the usual thing when that's on a business card, he's a decent shrink (well that and I come across as very square IRL so as long as I don't speak of religion the assumptions work in my favor).

He was the first to correlate some of my worst symptoms with different head meds to the fact they are generally tested on grown men and I wear kids shoes and consider pediatric dosing -- I just hope the fact I've been relatively stable on this regimen will pass over to whoever else manages my mental health when he retires and they see my records.

Makes me very glad I've stayed virtual with him since the pandemic started, though...

Rebl2

(13,498 posts)
24. I think in
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 01:36 PM
Mar 2022

KS they want to pass a law that requires doctors to give patients ivermectin if they request it when they have Covid. Real doctors are not happy about this of course. I would not be surprised to see some leave KS. over this idiocy.

brooklynite

(94,520 posts)
32. Nonsense; all they have to do is say prescribing it is against their sincerely held religious belief
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 07:38 PM
Mar 2022

TheRickles

(2,061 posts)
30. Say what you will, but this study didn't follow the protocol of the doctors who found it effective.
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 07:28 PM
Mar 2022

An early start to ivermectin is the key, not after 8 days of symptoms (as in this study). And use the correct dose, for Pete's sake. These may sound like ridiculously petty objections, but why didn't the study just use the same protocol that so many doctors claim has been effective, and have done with it?

If you want to debunk ivermectin, then replicate the regimen that the proponents claim to be effective, and prove your point. IMO, and speaking as an MD, there are significant shortcomings in this study, of the sort that would call into question any study of any drug for any illness. It's not a joking matter.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Statement-on-Together-Trial-WSJ-Article-Mar-18-1.pdf

tonekat

(1,814 posts)
34. I just bought the liquid version...
Fri Mar 18, 2022, 08:40 PM
Mar 2022

...because there's a fox with mange that I can't stand to see suffer that suns in my front lawn sometimes. I've gotten one dose into him as of a couple days ago by injecting the stuff in a big meatball. I put out two hardboiled eggs in shells for him today. Hope he finds them tomorrow.

When I lived in N.VA, a neighbor would do this with chicken legs for the local foxes who had mange.

TheFarseer

(9,322 posts)
37. I point these kind of studies out to RWers
Sun Mar 20, 2022, 11:04 PM
Mar 2022

Who think that whoever is supressing Ivermectin because of whatever reason and they don't care. They simply declare that they weren't using Ivermectin right or at the right time or whatever. No facts will change their mind.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Ivermectin didn't protect...