U.S. to close..

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not yet. Consider it as having the same status as aquarium cleaner hydroxychloroquine, til there's more evidence.

Read the comments on the article that you posted:

Julie Owens Dec 14, 2020 10:56am
You guys are ****ed up

BOYD STOUGH Dec 14, 2020 6:57am
Really?... 'cause https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...66354220302011

Angelo Paredes Dec 14, 2020 12:01am
I made an account here just to say this article is bogus.

Don't call it a fact checking article when it isn't one.

If you want to disprove something like Ivermectin, show the data.

This article does none on that, just some Docs opinion saying that more research needs to be done.

You know what your intention is.

Either the one who wrote this should be fired or the company that sponsored this should close down.

Dianne Johnson Dec 13, 2020 10:43pm
https://youtu.be/BLWQtT7dHGE

This idea of fact checking from Associated Press ? is getting ridiculous . Not only is this information old it is probably going to be the cause of more deaths . Please see Dr John Campbell’s review of Ivermectin and remove this fact check !

Jeff Lange Dec 13, 2020 8:48am
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CItAcS5...=1cxj7r1w60v6l

Timothy Mackey Md FAAP Dec 12, 2020 10:18pm
Just to add a comment to my recent post, the NIH ruling on Ivermectin was 8/27/2020, which I have no problem with. However if you had taken time to at least look at the citations and noted date of publication, you would see there has been a lot of medical data since then. That’s the thing about medicine and science, research never stops it keeps churning out data. 5 months ago I would have said there might be something there but not recommend wholesale use, but looking at what has developed since then in data, along with now 200,000 -230,000 cases a day and 3000+ a day dying, your poorly thought out attempt to debunk Ivermectin borders on the criminal.

Timothy Mackey Md FAAP Dec 12, 2020 9:58pm
You provided no evidence to debunk anything, you just referred to “experts” many who have not treated COVID patients. Did you look at the meta analysis Dr. Kory provided. Do you even know what a meta-analysis is? The are RCTs going on yes, it the limited RCT evidence is substantial, more than was done for redemsivir. Your fact checking needs to be checked and is doing a huge disservice to everyone on the planet. I have prescribed it for years for parasites with minimal abdominal compliant when taken with large amount of water on empty stomach. The side effect profile is negligible. Your panning it as fake is monstrous gross negligence.

Did you even read or analyze any of the RCT and OCT trials. I’m not advocating whacked out trials of harmful drugs, but a medication that has seen billions of doses since the 1970s with little to no adverse affect. Main stream medicine in this country time and again bury their head in the sand until the evidence is so great even a third grader would admit it is useful. I am a pediatrician, next time you take your child in, ask your pediatrician if he has ever prescribed anything off label, I guarantee you are in for a shock.

John Smith Dec 12, 2020 5:33pm
Please have a PhD or MD before "fact checking". Please label your article "OPINION". There is no review of the actual data of the trials done. Your "Fact Checks" are false.

Dianne Johnson Dec 13, 2020 10:45pm

Damon Hoffmann Dec 12, 2020 10:37am
Fact checkers are morons... How is one doctors opinion your "fact"? So one doctor from hopkins says there isn't enough research and you label that a fact. Please learn the definition of a fact... It is not open to interpretation or opinion.

Dianne Johnson Dec 13, 2020 10:45pm

Gail Aldenbrook Dec 12, 2020 12:40am
The paper is Review of Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 authored by Kory et al

Gail Aldenbrook Dec 12, 2020 12:34am
Did you read this paper? Here is definite and solid evidence. To say there is no evidence for ivermectin in COVID prophylaxis and treatment is to be untruthful. You share a responsibility then for COVID deaths which could have been prevented if ivermectin would have been used.

John Smith Dec 11, 2020 11:26pm
You guys need to spend half a minute doing some basic research before making claims with titles like “Fact Check”. Ivermectin has shown to be effective in preventing and treating Covid. No, there hasn’t been a large scale double blind randomized study but that doesn’t mean there isn’t real data and real medical studies out there showing benefit. Please, do the world a favor and read some published medical papers before making reports that create a negative narrative about a cheap, safe, repurposed drug that could actually save lives. By failing to make an effort to do some basic research before posting articles you share some responsibility in the US not approving something that may work to save lives.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Read the comments on the article that you posted:

As we all know from CF, comments are worth exactly what you pay for them.

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Why is Mainstream media putting the smear on Ivermectin? The results are in. It works.

Someone showed that it attacks the covid virus IN VITRO (that means 'in glass'). It has not yet been vetted in human trials... which are underway, so not long to wait. be patient.

(kind of funny you championing a 3rd world parasite drug with little solid evidence yet in human trials, but distrustful of the west's best vaccine developers.)

Nonetheless, interesting to find out about it. Let's hope it pans out, unlike HCQ.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

.

Interestingly, when we were in Thailand (one of those poor countries with lots of fruits and veggies) last year, we wound up talking to some old western guys at the hotel bar one day. They had noticed over the last 15-20yrs obesity has been on the rise (they were a little less politic about it). Google it and studies support the old guys. Over the same period, processed foods have also been on the rise.

Thanks to coca cola, Starbucks, KFC, pizza hut, McDonalds etc
Sad to see

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As we all know from CF, comments are worth exactly what you pay for them.

Someone showed that it attacks the covid virus IN VITRO (that means 'in glass'). It has not yet been vetted in human trials... which are underway, so not long to wait. be patient.

(kind of funny you championing a 3rd world parasite drug with little solid evidence yet in human trials, but distrustful of the west's best vaccine developers.)

Nonetheless, interesting to find out about it. Let's hope it pans out, unlike HCQ.

There are multiple ivermectin trials in people with good results, many more in the works if you look it up.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As we all know from CF, comments are worth exactly what you pay for them.


Someone showed that it attacks the covid virus IN VITRO (that means 'in glass'). It has not yet been vetted in human trials... which are underway, so not long to wait. be patient.

(kind of funny you championing a 3rd world parasite drug with little solid evidence yet in human trials, but distrustful of the west's best vaccine developers.)

Nonetheless, interesting to find out about it. Let's hope it pans out, unlike HCQ.

The AP article that you posted is a smear. It contains factual errors. Why?

[Capn Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Read the comments on the article that you posted:

Julie Owens Dec 14, 2020 10:56am
You guys are ****ed up

BOYD STOUGH Dec 14, 2020 6:57am
Really?... 'cause https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...66354220302011

Angelo Paredes Dec 14, 2020 12:01am
I made an account here just to say this article is bogus.

Don't call it a fact checking article when it isn't one.

If you want to disprove something like Ivermectin, show the data.

This article does none on that, just some Docs opinion saying that more research needs to be done.

You know what your intention is.

Either the one who wrote this should be fired or the company that sponsored this should close down.

Dianne Johnson Dec 13, 2020 10:43pm
https://youtu.be/BLWQtT7dHGE

This idea of fact checking from Associated Press ? is getting ridiculous . Not only is this information old it is probably going to be the cause of more deaths . Please see Dr John Campbell’s review of Ivermectin and remove this fact check !

Jeff Lange Dec 13, 2020 8:48am
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CItAcS5...=1cxj7r1w60v6l

Timothy Mackey Md FAAP Dec 12, 2020 10:18pm
Just to add a comment to my recent post, the NIH ruling on Ivermectin was 8/27/2020, which I have no problem with. However if you had taken time to at least look at the citations and noted date of publication, you would see there has been a lot of medical data since then. That’s the thing about medicine and science, research never stops it keeps churning out data. 5 months ago I would have said there might be something there but not recommend wholesale use, but looking at what has developed since then in data, along with now 200,000 -230,000 cases a day and 3000+ a day dying, your poorly thought out attempt to debunk Ivermectin borders on the criminal.

Timothy Mackey Md FAAP Dec 12, 2020 9:58pm
You provided no evidence to debunk anything, you just referred to “experts” many who have not treated COVID patients. Did you look at the meta analysis Dr. Kory provided. Do you even know what a meta-analysis is? The are RCTs going on yes, it the limited RCT evidence is substantial, more than was done for redemsivir. Your fact checking needs to be checked and is doing a huge disservice to everyone on the planet. I have prescribed it for years for parasites with minimal abdominal compliant when taken with large amount of water on empty stomach. The side effect profile is negligible. Your panning it as fake is monstrous gross negligence.

Did you even read or analyze any of the RCT and OCT trials. I’m not advocating whacked out trials of harmful drugs, but a medication that has seen billions of doses since the 1970s with little to no adverse affect. Main stream medicine in this country time and again bury their head in the sand until the evidence is so great even a third grader would admit it is useful. I am a pediatrician, next time you take your child in, ask your pediatrician if he has ever prescribed anything off label, I guarantee you are in for a shock.

John Smith Dec 12, 2020 5:33pm
Please have a PhD or MD before "fact checking". Please label your article "OPINION". There is no review of the actual data of the trials done. Your "Fact Checks" are false.

Dianne Johnson Dec 13, 2020 10:45pm

Damon Hoffmann Dec 12, 2020 10:37am
Fact checkers are morons... How is one doctors opinion your "fact"? So one doctor from hopkins says there isn't enough research and you label that a fact. Please learn the definition of a fact... It is not open to interpretation or opinion.

Dianne Johnson Dec 13, 2020 10:45pm

Gail Aldenbrook Dec 12, 2020 12:40am
The paper is Review of Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 authored by Kory et al

Gail Aldenbrook Dec 12, 2020 12:34am
Did you read this paper? Here is definite and solid evidence. To say there is no evidence for ivermectin in COVID prophylaxis and treatment is to be untruthful. You share a responsibility then for COVID deaths which could have been prevented if ivermectin would have been used.

John Smith Dec 11, 2020 11:26pm
You guys need to spend half a minute doing some basic research before making claims with titles like “Fact Check”. Ivermectin has shown to be effective in preventing and treating Covid. No, there hasn’t been a large scale double blind randomized study but that doesn’t mean there isn’t real data and real medical studies out there showing benefit. Please, do the world a favor and read some published medical papers before making reports that create a negative narrative about a cheap, safe, repurposed drug that could actually save lives. By failing to make an effort to do some basic research before posting articles you share some responsibility in the US not approving something that may work to save lives.

I didn't know wackos traveled in heards... I heard this, I heard that, lol. Is it so important to be contrarian that must negatively and/or unscientifically regurgitate such drivel?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Maybe....maybe not.

There is a 3rd option. They have a non-symptomatic case of covid and die from the secondary illness. But with a big paycheck waiting if they list it as a covid death, any gray area cases will assuredly be listed as covid.

Problem is it's hard to get a good breakdown, so it's hard to assess the impacts and what are appropriate responses. And of course, those who benefit from their position in the pandemic have little incentive to share information that might undermine their goals.

You've stated this previously. Billing doesn't work this way.

Here is a link to a factcheck.org piece that speaks more to this issue, but doctors don't do billing. Basically the govt sets rules of what they will/won't pay for. These rules change very frequently. The hospital pays people to run around sniffing charts to:
-see what the hospital can more bill based on what the doc did
-gripe at the doc for doing stuff the govt won't pay for

At most there's a circumstance where the hospital billing case manager says "doc, can you write this in the chart" where the billing person has the criteria for what's what, and the doctor will write enter such diagnosis/detail to the chart. Where this is so, it's because the doc could care less about the detail (for clinical reasons), but, the hospital gets paid more, so stuff gets added (vs "made more complete" from the hospital's standpoint). But this is always the case and payors negotiate group billing (DRGs) such that this slop comes out in the wash.

Importantly, the CARES act out front provides a bonus regardless, while whatever the patient's primary dysfunction is....is what drives the bill. As the linked page states, it's not like a patient will get intubated, or sustained on dialysis merely to sap the bill....in fact such is a money-losing deal.....much of the reason that DRGs came out was to reduce this practice, such that the faster someone is "treated and streeted" the faster you get the next DRG occupying the same bed. In every event, the govt/CMS monitors this like a hawk (their computers do).

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Capn Jimbo

I didn't know wackos traveled in heards... I heard this, I heard that, lol. Is it so important to be contrarian that must negatively and/or unscientifically regurgitate such drivel?

It is not drivel. The article states:

There is no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.

This is a blatant lie! Why?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-n...virus-pandemic



Hospitals are designed to run at near full capacity.

Err , certainly they “ can “ run at capacity but simply to suggest that because they were already overcrowded before is a justification for something is rather weird

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

The AP article that you posted is a smear. It contains factual errors. Why?

First, please indicate what in the AP "factcheck" is a smear, then we can consider the why.

I promise to keep an open mind on ivermectin. I did do some looking, but I myself haven't yet seen what amounts to a green light for therapeutic use for COVID-19. Links please.


(no one would be happier than me to learn that there's a great therapy for patients with serious COVID-19)

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jdege

If only it were that simple.



It's not.



More often than not, it's not trickery or deception that sends us down the wrong path - it's hubris.



Believing that we understand more than we do.



Nowadays we look to "science", and ignore the fact that 80% of scientific papers are simply wrong.

Proper scientific research is regularly wrong , ( though often only in detail rather then overall) that’s as much useful in establishing what replaces it as simply to suggest that “ wrong “ is the same as “ ignore “

As to your figure of 80% I’m sure you’ll reference some “ esteemed “ research to justify your cuckoo claim

Of course if 80% is wrong , then the claim that 80% is wrong is likely itself to be wrong , oh dear

[Thumbs Up]

When I left Honduras last April, the government was reccomending a treatment called MAIZ. An over the counter combination. The M is a throat rinse, the A an antibiotic, the I is Ivermectin, Z is zinc. IVERMECTIN won a Nobel prize as a preventative for river blindness. It also cures lice and scabies (yes there is a pill for that now).

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

It is not drivel. The article states:

This is a blatant lie! Why?

Technically, it is true. But, the wording is... not ideal. For fun, look up "Gell-Mann Amnesia"; reporters writing a story on technical subjects often are relying on those they interview to obtain an understanding, and then need to put that into terms that their readers will understand. This means nuance can often be lost, the wrong elements could be emphasized, and for readers that think in terms of "does it work or doesn't it?" this increases the chance they will misinterpret it.

Similarly there are many words reporters like to use (miracle, breakthrough, cure, proof, etc.) that they really shouldn't. And then there's a chance for a bonus backlash later on when it turns out some of the nuance actually mattered, and people then complain about being misled.

So, to the key phrase: "There is no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19." This is a different statement than "there is no evidence that ivermectin is effective." I know that may seem like semantics and that is why I think it's poorly written.

Next, to the sequence of things. You have your observations in vitro, and you know that this medicine has shown some antiviral behavior for other things. That's a hint that it might be worth looking into, and indeed we see that doctors have tried it along with other things. Of course, just as everything causes cancer in lab rats, everything kills COVID in a petri dish. Similarly a retrospective study comparing mortality between people given A+B vs just A isn't really enough to count as proof of efficacy; what it does get you is some strong winks and nods that you might be on the right path.

Next would be to run some proper trials, and on the strength of those results (or even possibly on interim results) HA's might then announce an EUA or approval. I'd argue that only then would a phrase like "proven safe or effective" be up for consideration, and even then that would have to be qualified because it wouldn't be 100% safe or 100% effective; that's not how the world works.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Err , certainly they “ can “ run at capacity but simply to suggest that because they were already overcrowded before is a justification for something is rather weird

What are you trying to say?

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

When I left Honduras last April, the government was reccomending a treatment called MAIZ. An over the counter combination. The M is a throat rinse, the A an antibiotic, the I is Ivermectin, Z is zinc. IVERMECTIN won a Nobel prize as a preventative for river blindness. It also cures lice and scabies (yes there is a pill for that now).

Theres lots if evidence and studies stating ivermectin works, it's being ignored.

If you watch from approx 3:30 mark.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=share