/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.cureus.com/articles/111851-regular-use-of-ivermectin-as-prophylaxis-for-covid-19-led-up-to-a-92-reduction-in-covid-19-mortality-rate-in-a-dose-response-manner-results-of-a-prospective-observational-study-of-a-strictly-controlled-population-of-88012-subjects

>>14811374
Probably going to find that there's lots of things that disrupt the virus and that it's mainly people who have some deficiency or other metabolic dysfunction that make up that vast majority of the deaths.

>>14811374
Seems like IVM and HCQ show the best results when used as prophylactics. Probably because viral load peaks pretty early, so starting upon symptoms may not be soon enough to cause much of a reduction. The danger is usually in the second week (after viral replication has already been stopped) when the immune system overreacts to the viral debris.

>>14811374

bump

>>14811374

These results are from Brazil so they don't count. Also 92% reduction in mortality is lower than the vaccine, chuds.

>>14811721
>Also 92% reduction in mortality is lower than the vaccine

The science on that changed, Fauci denier.

>>14811721
ahem

>>14811374
Yet another conspiracy theory proven right after half a year or so.
At this rate they're going to admit to fucking magnets being in the vaccine by Halloween.

>>14811746
many such cases

>>14811374
"Regular use of........"

Yep, Big Pharma at it again. "Must use it regularly so we make more money!"

>>14811374
these fukcking unscientific chudlets need to be censored

>>14811374
>Southern Brazil
Why don't these researchers ever conduct their studies in places without widespread parasitical infections? Haven't they been paying attention at all? They're basically begging for "IT'S THE WORMS."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8186895/
>The prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections (protozoa and/or helminths) in Brazil was 46% (confidence interval: 39-54%), with 99% heterogeneity. Prevalence varied by region: 37%, 51%, 50%, 58%, and 41% in the Southeast, South, Northeast, North, and Central-West regions, respectively.

>>14811374
Let me guess, conducted in some third-world shithole where a god part of the population has worms anyway? And then, surprise surprise, you have better chances of surviving other shit when your body is not fighting worms in addition?
>>14811521
>>14811717
>>14811746
>>14811751
>>14811840
Are you third-worlders who have worms? No? Then why are you so excited?

>>14811902
ok racist

>>14811892
Had no idea about this.
What are the signs that you have worms?

>>14811911
An intense urge to drag your bare ass along the carpet

>>14811911
Varies widely depending on parasite and person. Some people will have no symptoms. Some will have gastrointestinal upsets ranging from mild to severe. Some will have more systemic problems.

I haven't been jabbed, but it gets tiresome seeing ivermectin researchers exposing their necks all the time and failing to anticipate vaxer objections.

>>14811374
>Nobel prize winning dewormer works as a dewormer
Colour me surprised.

>vaxxies are all experts on third world parasites
Wonder what other populations have reason to be well informed about such things...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7437971/

>>14811940
So those who insist on ivermectin being effective are gays and are therefore gay?

>>14811948
>gays are gay
source?

>>14811959
9/10 men I sucked off last weekend were gay

>>14811967
anecdotal "evidence" proves nothing

>>14811978
My sample size is far from anecdotal

So vaxxies say its not effective against COVID, only effective against parasites?
Yet ivermectin is resulting in better outcomes.
So either it actually is effective against COVID, or there are a lot of people with parasites that cause COVID to be worse.
Either scenario means that taking Ivermectin is helpful.

>>14812003
>or there are a lot of people with parasites that cause COVID to be worse.
This is highly likely, as studies have very different outcomes depending on where they are conducted. OP's study was again conducted in a shithole sand an effect can be seen.
>Either scenario means that taking Ivermectin is helpful.
Only if you have worms.

>vaxxie cope thread

>>14811376
>cureus.com
Are you trying to make your finding sound retarded on purpose or is that really the only source for it?

>>14811902
Are you fucking retarded? Do you not realize that Pfizer's drug, paxlovid, shares its only MOA, protease inhibition, with Ivermectin? It has nothing to do with the presence of worms.

>>14811376
>>14811374
whats the debunk for this? is it some rw journal or something?

>>14812026
>Payment/services info: Lucy Kerr is a paid consultant for Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer, and Médicos Pela Vida (MPV), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Flavio A. Cadegiani has performed paid consulting work for Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer. Pierre Kory receives fees from COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Juan J. Chamie-Quintero is a paid contributor for the COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

>>14812024
Also, its an anti-parasite medication, worms are just one type of many parasite and viruses are in the family of parasites known as obligate parasites.

>>14812024
The beautiful thing with you cattle is that every single bullshit theory has been parroted so much that there's an extensive refutal readily available.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pfizer-new-covid-19-protease-inhibitor-drug-is-not-just-repackaged-ivermectin/

>>14812033
I thought you were making this up. This is even more sad. Why, why the hell, do rightoids die on such random hills only to end up as what they criticise: mindless cattle that shill corporate interests

>>14812046
>>14812033
I have read that the debunk for this debunk is that evidence for ivermectin being effective was presented early on during the pandemic and turfed out, and therefor a consortium of people formed groups in order to fund the studies to prove it was effective.

I can't keep up with the layers of debunking. I have no horse in this race btw.

>>14812055
>to fund the studies to prove it was effective.
Which is exactly the problem. If the study is supposed to prove something, the sponsors have an interest for a particular outcome. That doesn't mean the study is fake or doesn't follow scientific standards, but it's certainly a bad look.

>>14812055
Not really an argument that makes them sound less biased (makes then sound more biased if anything), though it does make it sound like the mainstream medical community was in the wrong for making it so that only biased fringe studies could go against their preferred stance.
But them fucking up in that way again doesn't help give legitimacy to the literal Ivermectin salesmen. It more spreads the lack of legitimacy around so that no one from either side appears trustworthy or neutral.

>>14812041
Did you even read through any of this? They even admit its the same method of action, just thst paxlovid is more efficient. The argument being presented is that the dose required for ivermectin to be effective is too high to be safe therefore they had to make paxlovid.

....Yeah okay, lets not use a proven broad spectrum antiviral drug as a first line defense. Instead, lets call that drug horse paste, wait for a couple of years for pfizer to make a more efficient version that they can get another EUA on, because hey, there is clearly no other remotely viable treatment, and in the meantime, while everyone is waiting for the pfizer drug, those that get sick can wait some more, then go to the ER if it gets really bad and hop on a ventilator and die (which would have net the hospital $30+k). Modern western medicine, working as intended. The goal is to make profit, not alleviate human suffering. Human suffering is profitable.

>>14812055
>I have no horse in this race btw.
I see what you did there.

>>14812033
Below this line: Complete list of pharma studies uncorrupted because someone involved in the research was taking money from the drug manufacturer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>14812074
>a proven broad spectrum antiviral drug
But it's not. What would you gain from lying?
>lets not use [...] as a first line defense
Yes, let's not use a drug that has been found no be ineffective as a first line of defence.
>wait for a couple of years for pfizer to make a more efficient version
If that version has an effect, then let's use it.

Look, I also don't have a horse in this race, and I completely understand why they tested any potential existing drug, as this would accelerate the availability vastly. But if it turns out that it's ineffective, you should let it go, man. Remdesivir had a small effect, hydroxychloroquine did not, and ivermectin did not. Why is this so hard for some people to accept? Would you defend remdesivir if ivermectin had been found to be effective?

>>14812041
>parroted so much
Then you post a rebuttal you didnt even bother to read. Ironic. Why do you call others cattle when you are not able to think objectively and critically?

>>14812081
No, I don't think every study ever conducted was done by people employes as sales reps for the things they were finding favorable results for.

>>14812082
>But it's not. What would you gain from lying?
Paxlovid is a reformulated version of drugs already on the market. If they wanted to bring it out earlier and save lives they could have.

>>14812075
kek i didnt even mean that anon good pick up however.

>>14812085
>this naive

>>14812082
>But it's not.
You realize if this were true, paxlovid wouldnt be effective either right? >>14812082
>But it's not. What would you gain from lying?
This is taken right from the study in tge OP:

>Regular use of ivermectin led to a 100% reduction in hospitalization rate, a 92% reduction in mortality rate, and an 86% reduction in the risk of dying from COVID-19 when compared to non-users.

>The data conclusively show that the risk of dying from COVID-19 was lower for all regular and irregular users of ivermectin, compared to non-users, considering the whole population.

And your explanation for this is "oh they had worms"... srsly? Why are you lying? The Indian government used Ivermectin. Do you think they are stupid?

The evidence is overwhelming that ivermectin, if given early enough, completely prevents covid. The studies showing it doesn't work were designed to administer it not as a prophylaxis to ensure a necessary negative outcome for vaccine EUA approval. We went through a completely avoidable pandemic due to political ineptude funded by pharmaceutical corporate lobbying. I dont know how you can post on sci and not see this, its ibvious to everyone who doesnt have a room temp iq

>>14812110
>You realize if this were true, paxlovid wouldnt be effective either right?
What logical fallacy is this? If ivermectin was not an effective antiviral drug, another drug can't be effective?
Ivermectin is not a broad spectrum antiviral drug. That's just a simple fact. It's an effective drug against parasites though. And in very high concentrations it's effective against sars-2, but that has no clinical relevance, as studies have shown.

>>14812110
>The Indian government used Ivermectin.

>>14812273
Viruses are obligate parasites, if it is effective against a broad spectrum of parasites, viruses are included because viruses are parasites.

>>14812275
Its always weird when vax shills use racism while at the same time they will post how "we are all one human race" in the next thread. Just like how they say people weren't forced to take COVID injections. Really shows they have no morals at all. Not even worth talking to really.

>>14812278
>viruses are parasites
Is this a false-flag comment or are you seriously this retarded?

>>14812282
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligate_parasite
You are the one ignorant of basic biology who goes around ignoring whatever doesn't fit your bias.
Viruses are obligate parasites, obligate parasites are parasites, viruses are parasites.

>>14812280
>facts are racism
There's nothing racist about highlighting the poor hygienic standards of India. In fact, if you want to discuss racism rather than the percentage of Indians who have worms (and therefore benefit from ivermectin), then we can clearly talk about why a formerly prosperous empire has designated shitting streets after the British pillaged the country. But that's more /his/ than /sci/. The /sci/entific fact is that India is not a good candidate for countries with good sanitation and proper hygiene. I'll believe in an instant that ivermectin improves the severity of Covid infections in India, but not for the reasons you might think.

>>14811374
lol literally already been debunked

>>14812286
You really are this dumb, holy fuck. Ivermectin doesn't work on everything that "lives parasitically". Parasitism is not a property you can develop drugs against.
>Ivermectin and its related drugs act by interfering with the nerve and muscle functions of helminths and insects.[82] The drug binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells.[83] The binding pushes the channels open, which increases the flow of chloride ions and hyper-polarizes the cell membranes,[82] paralyzing and killing the invertebrate.[83]
How the fuck is this supposed to help with viruses? And why should it only work on sars-2 and no other viruses?

>>14812289
I believe I mentioned the reason before. If you have COVID with serious symptoms, its usually because you have another underlying condition. One such condition would be normally benign parasites. So if you take ivermectin, its ends up treating the underlying condition and COVID was never really the issue, thus patients have a better outcome.
One of the interesting things about COVID is that by itself it seems mostly harmless (basically no effect on kids and young adults), but if you have any existing conditions (fat, parasites, stds, heart problems) it suddenly becomes a serious illness.

>>14812293
>Ivermectin doesn't work on everything that "lives parasitically"
Nice goal post movement, but nobody every said anything about everything, they were talking about broad spectrum, nitwit.
>Parasitism is not a property you can develop drugs against.
Ivermectin is literally an anti-parasitic drug, dingus, you previously acknowledge that as the reason it doesn't work against viruses, but viruses are types of parasite called obligate parasites.

>>14812298
>they were talking about broad spectrum
They were talking about broad spectrum antiviral effects.
Me: it's only used against parasites (meaning worms, insects, mites)
You: Ackchyally, viruses are also parasites
So... what's your point here? That ivermectin works against viruses because they are parasites?

>>14812300
>They were talking about broad spectrum antiviral effects.
Yes and a virus is a type of parasite, so something with broad spectrum parasite protection also has the potential to protect against obligate parasites.

>So... what's your point here? That ivermectin works against viruses because they are parasites?
That it is an antiparasitic drug, so your claim that it is not antiviral is false since a virus is a type of parasite and your claim that there is no such thing as drugs that inhibit parasitism is also clearly wrong because ivermectin is specifically an antiparasitic drug that works on a broad spectrum of parasites such as obligate parasites.

>>14812303
>so something with broad spectrum parasite protection also has the potential to protect against obligate parasites.
Wrong.
>because ivermectin is specifically an antiparasitic drug that works on a broad spectrum of parasites such as obligate parasites.
Wrong.

>>14812305
How convincing, you must be right since you didn't bother to explain yourself or present a single fact other than antiparasitic drugs aren't antiparasitic drugs.

>>14812309
I did, I even quoted the mechanism ivermectin fights parasites with, but I guess there were too many big words for you to read it.

>>14812322
Wrong

>>14812335
Allow me to try again
>Ivermectin works by interfering with the nerve and muscle functions of worms and insects. The drug binds to parts of the invertebrate (animals without spines) nerve and muscle cells. The binding paralyzes and kills these animals. Viruses have neither muscles, nor nerves. The drug attacks the parasite directly rather than assisting your body. So if the parasite is not an invertebrate, then the drug does not attack it, even if it is a parasite.

>>14812394
Wrong again

>>14812403
No u

>>14811374
Ah, it says peer-reviewed at the top. Well that settles it.

>Cureus, also known as the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, is an open access general medical journal and is among the growing number of journals using prepublication and post publication peer review.
So literally like the clotshot development.

>>14812417
>No
Wrong
>u
Wrong

>>14811374
>just take a drug forever that has a side effect list so long that I can’t fit it into one screenshot bro
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ivermectin-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064397
I don’t know if it’s like this internationally, but in my country common means >1 in 10 and less common >1 in 100

>>14812442
>safe and effective

>>14811374
>prospective observational study

>>14812059
By that logic, forming a hypothesis is taints the scientific method.

>>14812093
>Being this simple-minded
Do paid shills and corruption exist?
Obviously yes.
Is every study ever conducted one where the researchers were employed as sales reps for products their studies find favorable results for?
Absolutely not, and you're completely retarded for suggesting that.

>>14812675
There is a subtle difference between conducting research to study whether x is effective, and to prove that x is effective.

>>14811911
A desire for gay sex and ass to mouth play. Not even joking some of the parasites do that.

>>14812736
But that is what you do after you form a hypothesis, you see if you can prove it right.

>>14812749
No, you test it. If you start a study with the goal to prove it, you're already biasing yourself

>>14811721
>Also 92% reduction in mortality is lower than the vaccine, chuds
https://www.pfizer.com/refunds

>>14811374

The non-covid excess deaths are already increasing. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and for them to admit that taking a vaccine with no long term data if you aren't in a high risk group is an insane health risk.

The best part is that even some /sci/entists can't tell the difference between science as a philosophy and practice, and the science industry.

>>14811760
The problem is Big Pharma doesn't make shit from IVM, otherwise it probably would be pushed as a treatment.

>>14811892
>>14811902
The people pushing the idea that "worms" were responsible for the efficacy were against IVM from the beginning. Other analyses have found it's false. Regardless, a large portion of the world's population has parasitic infection, so this is an odd stance to take. You might as well say the vaccines are only a benefit to nations with high obesity rates, therefore they don't work.

>>14812041
The funny thing is Paxlovid doesn't work at all unless you're elderly, but that didn't stop governments and doctors from pushing it.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2204919
>Among patients 65 years of age or older, the rates of hospitalization and death due to Covid-19 were significantly lower among those who received nirmatrelvir than among those who did not. No evidence of benefit was found in younger adults.

>>14812082
>Yes, let's not use a drug that has been found no be ineffective as a first line of defence.
See >>14813157. You don't support use of Paxlovid, right?

>Remdesivir had a small effect
No, the study that granted it approval showed no benefit, and other trials shortly after its approval showed negative efficacy. Many countries did not authorize its use, but the USA ignored the risks and lack of efficacy.

>Look, I also don't have a horse in this race
The funny thing is you're either lying or ignorant, and managed to support a very expensive drug that proved to be dangerous in trials. I'm thinking you're not being neutral at all.

>>14811374

One of the reasons why science is the best career field to get into, is that you can work on the bleeding edge of technology and there is never repercussions when you fuck up. It's not like engineering or law where you can be -personally- sued or jailed if you fuck up or hurt or kill people - no, you were just doing science. Even when people get caught fudging data - they rarely lose their positions if they have enough tact and smarts to chalk it up to a simple mistake "Aw, shucks". Even people who poorly design experiments with unreplicable results rarely see any loss of status or career potential from it. Let the legal department, and PR handle your fuck ups if they ever manage to leak out of the lab or company.

>>14811374
The ivermectin shit was bizarre. I've never seen the media clamp down so hard on inconclusive results - "low quality study" this and "horse paste" that, all unquantifiable weasel words to try to "debunk" something that didn't have enough evidence either way. More than anything during the pandemic, the ivermectin response made me question the political motivations of the whole thing.

>>14813860
And the problem is this study won't do shit. Deboonkers are just going to say "that's how science works sweaty" and "Fauci said insufficient evidence" while acting like all the censorship, the "horse paste" taunting, never happened. It's the same bullshit like "BLM isn't an organization so the looting was done by individuals". There is no solution for brainlets except to do everything you can to never have to be in an explicitly or implicitly subordinate position to them.

>>14813860
My biggest issue is the new thing with diy abortion pills being horse pills. A worthless cure is one thing since some people can't get the normal shot but this is completely optional and solves a problem that's much easier to avoid.

>>14812293
>How the fuck is this supposed to help with viruses? And why should it only work on sars-2 and no other viruses?
The virus hoax is disproven by decades. Seem that the flu cause is a parasite.

>>14813975
>The virus hoax is disproven by decades
What?

>>14812403
How is it wrong?

>>14811374
>Falling for pajeets scams selling you literal poison
I Sincerely Hope You Anons Do Not Fall For This Trickery

>>14813134
>The problem is Big Pharma doesn't make shit from IVM, otherwise it probably would be pushed as a treatment.
True, but if they push the narrative that people should use it like toothpaste everyday, then they make tons of money.

The bottom line is nobody can trust Doctors/Pharm/Government anymore.

>>14813860
>I've never seen the media clamp down so hard on

The "news" is the main enemy of freedom and humanity now.

All the major mainstream news networks are controlled by less than 10 people who all have the same globalist enslavement agenda.

ivermectin was out of patent

>>14812855
Except that in many cases such as as testing effect or optimal value, having a hypothesis is, in fact, bias.

>>14811374
>>14811521
Are people in the "science field" this fucking stupid or just disingenuous? The proposed mechanism of action of these two molecules only works by inhabiting viral replication so it NEEDS to be used before infection or early-stage infection, otherwise you need to amp up drastically the dosage (resulting in a fuck-ton of severe side-effects - as evidenced in the studies with mice) for it to be even effective. ALL studies that disproved its theoretical efficancy were done AFTER patients were hospitalized, thus viral load was already magnitudes higher than whatever the drugs could possibly stall so you would not see a positive effect as replication was already in numbers enough to be highly pathogenic.

>>14813140
>The people pushing the idea that "worms" were responsible for the efficacy were against IVM from the beginning.
Ad hominem with no basis.

>Other analyses have found it's false.
Well that settles it. No need for a link or anything.

>Regardless, a large portion of the world's population has parasitic infection, so this is an odd stance to take.
How exactly is it odd to point out that IVM is useless against COVID? In populations that don't have worms, it's useless. In populations that do have worms, they still need a solution against COVID.

>>14811902
I heard Americans were getting more worms now because in "shit hole" countries doctors prescribe regular dewormer whereas US doctors don't.

>>14811902
People in developing countries take these drugs regularly, especially HCQ, to prevent parasitic infection. They are the ones not getting worms.

The same people who say marijuana has been stifled as a product by Big Pharma because it's cheap and easily treats myriad issues will turn around and shriek at people for exploring the use of this to treat COVID

People can have different beliefs but at least be consistent. Does this horse pill help with COVID? Maybe, maybe not. Is Big Pharma involved in this debate and vehemently opposed to any and all cheap treatments that might circumvent their patent protections? Yes, absolutely. Be aware of the groups involved in these kinds of debates.

Also a reminder that a lot of treatments were originally intended for something else. Viagra was for blood pressure and Finasteride was for enlarged prostrate, people figured out the other uses on accident.

>>14815518
>People in developing countries take these drugs regularly
They are used in developing countries, that doesn't mean they are used regularly or by everyone who has parasitic infections.

>>14815611
They are used regularly by people who have access to them and know to use them. I never said they are used by people who have infections, but those who don't suffer infections despite being exposed, often owe their health to the fact that they were already taking HCQ when they were exposed. I'm not sure horse paste works the same way but I do know India's death spike happened when they stopped giving it to patients who were sent home with covid.

>>14812728
>Is every study ever conducted one where the researchers were employed as sales reps for products their studies find favorable results for?
The fauccine was.

>>14815647
>India's death spike happened when they stopped giving it to patients who were sent home with covid
Whether they had covid is incidental. When you stop treating parasitic infections, people die. Shocking.

>>14815850
To the people saying ivermectin is for parasites, read up on how it actually interferes with covid, you idiots.

>>14814065
I hate to break it to you: no one has ever read those wall of text PNGs where half of it is underlined.

>>14815872
Are you saying that it doesn't interact with parasites?

>>14815988
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
Don't listen to me, trust the science!

>>14815872
>how it actually interferes with covid
It doesn't, the effective dose is way higher than what anyone is given. Idiot.

>>14816014
>in silico
So you have no clue.

>>14816020
It inhibits the protease enzyme that covid needs to replicate.

>>14816024
Are you saying that it doesn't interact with parasites?

>>14816024
Theoretically. In practice, it doesn't do anything.

>>14816052
Op claims otherwise. Go shill somewhere else if you don't want to discuss actual scientific evidence.

>>14811374
Not fact checked by Reuters, snopes and other reliable sources, therefore not science, bigot.

>>14811721
>These results are from Brazil so they don't count
But the vaccine and lockdown "results" do of course?

>Also 92% reduction in mortality is lower than the vaccine
More people died on the vaccine group in the Pfizer study.

>>14811892
>Southern Brazil
>Why don't these researchers ever conduct their studies in places without widespread parasitical infections?
Nigger, southern Brazil is cold as fuck, you don't even know that?

If killing worms improve covid outcomes it's retarded to dismiss them on thisbbasis

>>14811911
Worms can be very different

Some only make your ass itch so you scratch it with your fingers

Others take over your body

That's how you know the guy you replied to is a shill

>>14816133
>N-word, southern Brazil is cold as fuck, you don't even know that?
Did you forget your meds?

>>14812033
>and Médicos Pela Vida (MPV), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19
They actually just promote medical freedom of practice and bodily autonomy.

Foreign concepts to americans I know.

>>14816129
Most people weren't infected in that study.

>>14812046
>mindless cattle that shill corporate interests
Are you sure you're not projecting?
https://divergemedia.ca/2021/06/28/thomas-reuters-foundation-chairman-is-also-board-member-at-pfizer/

>>14816148
>says N-word instead of nigger
Does the WEF give you cockroach lunch boxes at your shill HQ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFszbyNpZEU

>>14816151
You should say that to the FDA and Pfizer since they approved the clotshots anyway while marketing a 95-100% efficacy rate to the masses (who did not read the study)

>>14816080
>Op claims otherwise.
Non sequitur.

>Go shill somewhere else if you don't want to discuss actual scientific evidence.
I'm waiting for that evidence, so far you've given me nothing that doesn't agree with the fact that the effective dose is too high to be useful and that the only studies claiming otherwise must happen to be in the populations with parasitic infections.

>>14811374
If Ivermectin kills parasites, is that why Democrats won't take it? KEK!

>>14815155
Ivermectin potentially showed some efficacy early in the pandemic, even if used late in the course of illness, because it has an anti-inflammatory effect in the lungs. However, the benefit is going to appear diminished now that steroids are a standard of care. But overall I agree, they (and any other anti virals) need to be used as soon as symptoms appear, if not immediately after a known exposure or as a prophylactic.

>>14815340
>How exactly is it odd to point out that IVM is useless against COVID? In populations that don't have worms, it's useless.
Okay, and in populations that aren't obese or elderly, the vaccines and Paxlovid are useless.

>In populations that do have worms, they still need a solution against COVID.
Except IVM is clearly beneficial to those populations. Whether you want to argue it's because they're eliminating a parasitic infection is irrelevant, ultimately they have better outcomes when treated with IVM during covid infections.

>>14816721
Ivermectin legit did wonders in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia because the people there live in malarial regions near warm open water and rivers.
Might actually have helped along the Gulf of Mexico, too.
The mistake made was the usual mistake of thinking that something that fixed one weakness in the immune system would fix ALL weaknesses, let alone fix the virus itself.

>>14816726
>Okay, and in populations that aren't obese or elderly, the vaccines and Paxlovid are useless.
Wrong. You're just making shit up, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.

>Except IVM is clearly beneficial to those populations.
That doesn't even contradict what I said.

>Whether you want to argue it's because they're eliminating a parasitic infection is irrelevant
It's highly relevant if you're going to claim it does anything against COVID.

>ultimately they have better outcomes when treated with IVM during covid infections.
And they have better outcomes when treated with IVM when there isn't a COVID infection. You're just spouting irrelevancies.

>>14816614
Yes. Because parasites cause homosexuality and other deviance that they rely on for bioleninism.

>>14812273
>Ivermectin is not a broad spectrum antiviral drug

Are you 14812041? Read your own fucking source. They describe ivermectin as a broad spectrum antiviral drug with the only limitation conveniently being unsafe dosage which is the alleged reason for marketing paxlovid.

>And in very high concentrations it's effective against sars-2.
No shit sherlock, if this wasnt the case, paxlovid would not work either. Paxlovid's only MOA is ONE of ivermectins MOAs

>but that has no clinical relevance, as studies have shown.
Except you know, the study in the OP where it was correctly used as prophylaxis with an n=+200k but you keep referring to outdated studies that were incorrectly done in order to ensure the vaccine EUA was approved.

but that has no clinical relevance, as studies have shown.

>>14816726
>Okay, and in populations that aren't obese or elderly, the vaccines and Paxlovid are useless
For paxlovid that's true, but the vaccines reduce the risk also for young, normal-weighted folks. Also, what's your point? That we shouldn't give medicine that's been proven to not work? Good, then we're on the same page.

>>14813860
The news media and Big pharma are owned by the same people. EUA for vax would not have gobe through if there was a viable treatment for covid.

>>14815155
See>>14812110

>>14815340
>In populations that don't have worms, it's useless.
So we give them worms and then, according to your fantasy logic, ivermectin will magically start working agaisnt Covid just like it does in countries where the studies on ivermectin and covid arent sponsored by Pfizer and Co.

>>14817063
Is this an example of someone stupid and disingenuous? I don't think that person is in the science field though. 90% of the posters here are /pol/ chuds who are either unemployed or have some blue-collar jobs. Look at what they care about
>muh farmers in Belgium
>something something army

While I think that there are also academics among the /pol/ crowd, that's not the kind of people who spam /sci/

>>14817072
I'm pretty sure that not giving them worms is better for the outcome than worms + dewormer.

>>14817077
Not acvording to this genius >>14815340. He contends that ivermectin only showed a benefit with regards to covid in the OP study because all 200k+ had worms.

>>14817075
No. You asked why scientists are disingenuous.
>. The studies showing it doesn't work were designed to administer it not as a prophylaxis to ensure a necessary negative outcome for vaccine EUA approval.

>>14817075
>academics dont spam sci
This board is not full of smart people. Its full of people who wish they were smart, although, one could argue that is the majority of academics...

>>14817086
>He contends that ivermectin only showed a benefit with regards to covid in the OP study because all 200k+ had worms.
I'm sure that HIV meds have a measurable reduction of Covid mortality in countries where every other person has untreated AIDS. No one would propose to infect people and then give them aids meds.

>>14817087
>You asked
Meds. Even though we all are called "Anonymous" this just means that we're not telling you our names. Not that you're talking to a single person.

Also, why do you quote a dishonest, disingenuous person as an explanation why others allegedly are dishonest and disingenuous?

>>14817110
>Also, why do you
Meds. Even though we all are called "Anonymous" this just means that we're not telling you our names. Not that you're talking to a single person.

Dumbass .

>>14817109
>I'm sure that HIV meds have a measurable reduction of Covid mortality in countries where every other person has untreated AIDS.
Where are the studies showing this?

>>14817129
Good morning Ivan, "I'm sure that" expresses a conviction that is not necessarily based on hard evidence. Can you sort these expressions by the level of proof? I'm sure you will pass your B1 exam eventually.
"I know", "I think", "it could be", "I bet"

>>14817109
Do you contend thst those HIV drugs inly work agaisnt Covid in those that have HIV and are useless in those that dont have HIV? If so then infecting the ones that dont have HIV with HIV and treating them with HIV drugs would be effective in treating covid according to your logic.

>>14817131
So you have no idea what youre talking about. Could you kindly shut up and stop polluting this thread with you midwit responses you stupid fat american? Thank you.

>>14817136
Dear Ivan, in mainland USA it is between 1:50 and 4:50AM, I think that most capitalist pigs are still sleeping. Fraternal greetings.

>>14817133
Non sequitur.

>>14817139
Replace HIV drugs with Ivermectin and HIV with worms and its the exact same argument sherlock holmes used a few posts up to dismiss the OP study. Saying
Non sequitur just means you agree the study results in the OP are not because the 200k+ sample size all had worms.

>>14817141
Also there it's a non sequitur. Let's assume the risk of dying in Europe is e. The risk of dying in a shithole is s. By giving ivermectin, the risks become e' and s'. Now if e=e', and s>s' you'd say that it works in the worm-infested shithole but not in Europe. However, this makes no claim whether e>s or e>s'.
Let's fill in numbers, not real-world numbers, but just a possibility that is not excluded by the findings:
In Europe 1% die, with or without ivermectin. In shitholistan, 3% die, but when you give them ivermectin, 1.5% die. "Wow, it cuts the number of deaths in half", you might say. But suggesting to give it to Europeans, with or without worms, would be something that's not based on these numbers. Again, the numbers are just an example and do not reflect actual numbers, which are far more complicated when you consider age-adjustments etc.

>>14817146
Get back to us when you have representative numbers instead of a pile of straw you're desperately trying to form into a man.

>>14817146
>Now if e=e', and s>s'
Now just go along with these assumptions that i assigned arbitrary values that support my poorly constructed argument

Anon this is just pathetic

>>14817150
We know that e=e' and s>s'. Everything else is unknown. I'm sketching a possibility that contradicts your deduction, not claiming that it's true. I'm showing how your "this implies that" actually does not follow from the findings.

>>14817148
No need for representative numbers to point out a non sequitur.

>>14817146
You are assuming there have been large scale studies done in Europe where ivermectin was given as a prophylaxis like in the SA study the OP. There havent been any. Claiming e=e is a baseless assumption. The simplest explanation is that western countries have less parasitic infections and therefore do not use ivermectin as much where as the "shithole" countries have chronic parasite infections and are on Ivermectin chronically allowing it to have a prophylactic effect in the prevention if covud. Ivermectin is effective at preventing covid, less so at treating it and the latter is how it was tested un the West. The parasites have no direct affect, only indirect in that they apply pressure to large segments to use ivermectin when they dont have covid which in turn prevents said people from acquiring covid due to ivermectins proteasing inhibiting properties, not becsuse of reduced parasitic load(you also have no way of connecting worms to a worse covid outcome).

>>14817158
>We know that e=e'
No. You are assuming this with no evidence to support this assumption.

>>14817158
>I'm showing how your "this implies that" actually does not follow from the findings
Maybe you think thats what your doing

>>14811374
shit just keeps settling and settling bros

>>14817183
thats [?] what my doing what?

>>14811376
>>14811376
>Schizo news feed linking to nonoeer reviewed trash
Wow antivaxx bros, we proved our talking-point-of-the-month again!!

>>14817072
>So we give them worms and then, according to your fantasy logic, ivermectin will magically start working agaisnt Covid
No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I know it's very hard for retards like you to understand what a confounding factor is so I'll explain it at a level even you should be able to understand: if everybody has a booboo and a cough, then putting a bandaid on the booboo makes people feel better than no bandaid. But that doesn't mean the bandaid made the cough better.

>>14817086
>He contends that ivermectin only showed a benefit with regards to covid
No, I didn't say that. It showed a benefit but not in regards to COVID. If you don't control for confounding factors then your study cannot determine benefit according to a specific factor.

>>14817502
>say that. It showed a benefit but not in regards to COVID
You are literally pulling this out of your ass. The study in the OP was specific to Covid.
> Regular use of ivermectin led to a 100% reduction in hospitalization rate, a 92% reduction in mortality rate, and an 86% reduction in the risk of dying from COVID-19 when compared to non-users.

>>14817485
>But that doesn't mean the bandaid made the cough better.
Yeah i can see you are disingeneous actor arguing in bad faith. You are just doubling down on your faulty logic when a simpler and more likely explanation has been provided.

>>14817502
>). The remaining 71,548 participants were not included in the analysis. COVID-19 infection rate was 49% lower for regular users (3.40%) than non-users (6.64%) (risk rate (RR): 0.51; 95% CI: 0.45-0.58; p < 0.0001), and 25% lower than irregular users (4.54%) (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; p < 0.0001). The infection rate was 32% lower for irregular users than non-users (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.64-0.73; p < 0.0001

They measured infection rates of Covid between ivermectin users and nonusers, not general well being.

>>14816842
>Wrong. You're just making shit up, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.
You're not keeping up with current news, are you?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2204919

>It's highly relevant if you're going to claim it does anything against COVID.
It does, but I haven't made any claims, you're arguing with multiple people.

>And they have better outcomes when treated with IVM when there isn't a COVID infection. You're just spouting irrelevancies.
Proof? And do they, or do they not have a better outcome during a COVID infection if treated with IVM? What does the mechanism matter compared to the end result?

>>14817059
>Also, what's your point? That we shouldn't give medicine that's been proven to not work?
Are you against the FDA and CDC pushing Paxlovid given the results of the study I provided above? Are you against IVM's use for any covid infection, or simply for infections in first world countries where parasitic co-infection are unlikely?

>>14817109
>I'm sure that HIV meds have a measurable reduction of Covid mortality in countries where every other person has untreated AIDS.
Are you aware that Paxlovid is a combination of two re-purposed HIV medications? Why are we using it in non-HIV positive populations?

>>14817174
>You are assuming there have been large scale studies done in Europe where ivermectin was given as a prophylaxis like in the SA study the OP.
This is a very valid point. Countries in Europe along with the USA haven't investigated IVM as a prophylactic, only as an early (but often late) stage anti-viral. HCQ was treated in the same way after showing early efficacy. It was intentionally given far too late, and in known dangerous doses, to sabotage the studies it was used. Patients were knowingly given medication in an inappropriate way, which is arguably murder since those patients had a higher fatality rate.

>>14812289
>British pillaged the country
right, the british ruined india despite its industrial output across key industries increasing during british rule

>>14811374
Go back to your containment board, schizo.

>>14812289
>There's nothing racist about highlighting the poor hygienic standards of India.
Shitty hygiene aside, India had less of a rise in all-cause mortality than the USA and UK during the pandemic.

>>14811374
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!
>checks article
NOOOOO NOT LIKE THAT!

>>14817845
>You are literally pulling this out of your ass. The study in the OP was specific to Covid.
It failed to control for confounding factors, so it can't determine anything according to a specific factor.

>>14817870
>Yeah i can see you are disingeneous actor arguing in bad faith.
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting ivermectin does nothing against COVID.

>>14817894
>They measured infection rates of Covid between ivermectin users and nonusers, not general well being.
Where did I say they didn't measure infection rates? Do you understand what a confounding factor is? Their analysis would only lead to the conclusion they stated if ivermectin was the only factor affecting infection rate. Can you think of any others?

>>14818671
>You're not keeping up with current news, are you?
>https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2204919
Where does this show vaccines are useless for young healthy people?

>It does, but I haven't made any claims
That's what this thread is about.

>Proof?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

>And do they, or do they not have a better outcome during a COVID infection if treated with IVM?
Who is they? Someone who has no parasitic infections will not have a better outcome than an equivalent control. Every study that has adequately controlled for confounding factors has found no effect. Read the metastudies.

>What does the mechanism matter compared to the end result?
I'm not talking about mechanism, I'm talking about correlation. There is no correlation when you do a proper study.

>>14811374
>"New"
This was known years ago.
Hell, the usefulness of ivermectine in general was known DECADES ago.
Only the lowest guillable corpomedia-gobbling NPC consoomers used to laugh about "muh horse dewormer haha"

>>14820503
It's horse dewormer unless you're in the third world, and it's useless against COVID.

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/e68779a0-71cd-43da-95c1-6132d8e7c957/PubMedCentral/e68779a0-71cd-43da-95c1-6132d8e7c957.pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378737/

>>14820529
It's dewormer in general, but in the first world, horses are much more likely to have worms than humans. Ironically the people who take it call others cattle.

>>14811374
>It's another probability IS frequency paper
>The same flawed inferential reasoning that has led to the replication crisis and so many findings countering each other.

Repeat after me, "probability is not frequency." The logic of "large numbers of samples will have a mean that converges on the population mean," does not flip to "the population mean converges on any sample with a large number of observations," the logic there is flawed.

Low P values don't mean shit. If you had a very accurate test, 0% false negatives, 0
0.1% false positives, you could have a p value for your test of p = 0.001. However, if the condition you test for is low frequency, say 1:10,000,000, and you tested 10,000,000 people, you would likely have 10,000 positives. You would tell people there was only a 1:1,000 chance the test was wrong, but you would have 9,999 false positives and 1 true positive.

The even larger issue is assuming that if an event is unlikely to reach the sample frequency "by chance," then whatever you have proposed as a hypothesis, regardless of how likely you think that hypothesis is going into the test, must be true. It's this sort of shit that has led repeatedly to tests "proving," ESP being published.

COVID cases aren't normally distributed and confirmed tests even less so.

You can add in all sorts of ancillary methods to deal with these, or you could just realize that logically probability is not frequency and use Bayseian inferences.

Then you take all the tests on a medications' effectiveness and do updating on your MULTIPLE hypotheses.

tl;dr, nothing specific about the horse paste, but the replication crisis is due to a fundemental philosophical misunderstanding about how inference works logically, and grad students around the world are taught shit methods.

Notably, in physics and engineering, where people aren't scared about their stats being "subjective," Bayseian methods are used all the time.

>>14820466
Your theory is that worns increase the infection rate of Covid. Again, pulling this right out of your ass(probably worm infested, try ivermectin). You have 0 evidence to support this. This is such an implausible reach. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? You are doing literally the opposite. You are coming up with an unlikely scenario that must be true in order for the negation of the OP's study's conclusion to be true. Pseudointellectual midwits like you are insufferable.

>>14820487
>Where does this show vaccines are useless for young healthy people?
Considering the likelyhood of being hospitalized with the BA.5 strain for young HEALTHY people (you can even assume the values straight from the Oxford Risk Calculator that was designed for the original strain - thus a more extreme comparison if you want) against frequency of serious side-effects from either Pfizer or Moderna, it is objectively worse.

At best, you'd have an argument against long-COVID but I have not seen any studies pertraining to its frequency in unvaccinated populations with the current strain nor have a I seen a study showing that the vaccine can negate the presence of long-COVID (in fact, I recall seeing the exact opposite but this could just be my memory playing tricks on me).

>>14820487
>Where does this show vaccines are useless for young healthy people?
Oh, so we're going to ignore the part of the quote about Paxlovid that you said was wrong? There's evidence from other countries suggesting vaccines do nothing for younger age groups as well, but the vaccines have become far more politicized than Paxlovid, so it's difficult to find a neutral source.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
Oh boy, you're really stretching it now. I thought you were going to show me people confirmed with worms and treated with IVM pre-COVID did better with their COVID infections.

>Who is they? Someone who has no parasitic infections will not have a better outcome than an equivalent control.
Someone who isn't old and/or fat will not have a better outcome treated with Paxlovid compared to an equivalent control. Do you support widespread use of Paxlovid as suggested by the FDA and CDC?

>I'm not talking about mechanism, I'm talking about correlation. There is no correlation when you do a proper study.
There is a correlation, study after study shows it's so. Even if your worms hypothesis is correct, it doesn't matter, because IVM clearly helps in those populations. In addition, you can't point me to a prophylaxis study of IVM in a country like the USA because it doesn't exist. That would be the make it or break study, and it would be easy to do.

>>14820881
>Your theory is that worns increase the infection rate of Covid.
No. Try again.

>>14821019
>Considering the likelyhood of being hospitalized with the BA.5 strain for young HEALTHY people (you can even assume the values straight from the Oxford Risk Calculator that was designed for the original strain - thus a more extreme comparison if you want) against frequency of serious side-effects from either Pfizer or Moderna, it is objectively worse.
Why are you comparing hospitalization to serious side effects? Why not compare aside effects to side effects? I guess you have no proof the vaccine is useless for young healthy people.

>>14821157
>Oh, so we're going to ignore the part of the quote about Paxlovid that you said was wrong?
Where?

>There's evidence from other countries suggesting vaccines do nothing for younger age groups as well
Then post it.

>I thought you were going to show me people confirmed with worms and treated with IVM pre-COVID did better with their COVID infections.
You asked for proof that IVM results in better outcomes with no COVID infection. Try to keep up.

>Someone who isn't old and/or fat will not have a better outcome treated with Paxlovid
This doesn't even respond to what you're replying to. Who is "they?"

>There is a correlation, study after study shows it's so.
There is no correlation. Every properly controlled study shows none. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378737/

>Even if your worms hypothesis is correct, it doesn't matter, because IVM clearly helps in those populations.
It definitely matters if you're trying to treat COVID and not worms. For example, everyone with COVID in the first world, and everyone with COVID but no worms in the third world.

>you can't point me to a prophylaxis study of IVM in a country like the USA
Why would I need to? You're the one who needs prove your quack beliefs.

>>14821628
Apparently you don't seem to understand what is classified as a serious side-effect to even make that question. But if you have any other objective metric that measures the risk-benefit, go ahead, I'm willing to hear it.

>>14820529
>.nih.gov/
kek as if that is a legit source!

>>14817028
>Yes. Because parasites cause homosexuality and other deviance that they rely on for bioleninism.
Not sure if you are both being cheeky, but that is actually a thing as science is proving the causes of the mental illness that causes homosexuality and gender dysphoria.

>>14821759
No I'm not being cheeky. Legitimately some parasites cause an increase in risky sex behavior, including anal sex and bisexuality, in order to spread. Also toxoplasmosis causes severe personality changes in women. This is 100% experimentally proven.

>>14821802
I know. Glad to see other people are catching on. Now to get the fake news MSM to spread the facts. kek

>>14821651
>Where?
Are you high?

>>14816726
>Okay, and in populations that aren't obese or elderly, the vaccines and Paxlovid are useless.
>>14816842
>Wrong. You're just making shit up, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.

You just make a blanket statement that I'm wrong, I provide evidence to support the point about Paxlovid here >>14818671, and you immediately ignore it and bring up the vaccines.

>>14821651
>Then post it.
Not worth my time.

>You asked for proof that IVM results in better outcomes with no COVID infection. Try to keep up.
Within the context of COVID, ie someone treated with IVM will do better later on if they get COVID. Why would we not relate it back to COVID when that's been the entire point of our discussion?

>This doesn't even respond to what you're replying to. Who is "they?"
They are the people that IVM has helped, whether you want to add your stipulation of worms or not. So now you can answer my question? Should the CDC and FDA continue pushing Paxlovid for patients who aren't elderly or immunocompromised?

>It definitely matters if you're trying to treat COVID and not worms. For example, everyone with COVID in the first world, and everyone with COVID but no worms in the third world.
The rate of parasitic infection is on the rise in the first world, so your picture is getting murkier. But I still don't get why you're hung up on that. If someone with HIV develops bacterial pneumonia, are you going to say they shouldn't get antibiotics because it isn't treating the HIV?

>Why would I need to? You're the one who needs prove your quack beliefs.
Interesting choice of words. You believe the CDC and FDA is filled with quacks? Not very kind.

>>14821651
>Why would I need to?
Because your entire premise that ivermectin is only effective for treating covid in populations that also have worms rests on the assumption that an ivermectin prophylaxis study was done in a western country on a population with no/low parasite in infection and was found to have no effect on Covid infection rates/outcomes. No such study exists. I know its hard to keep everything straight when you are a disingenious liar but try to keep up. This is the logical hole you have dug yourself into. Now lets wait for you to screech and crap out some incoherent cope to try to dismiss this.

>>14821622
>No. Try again
Not an argument.

>>14821918
>I know its hard to keep everything straight when you are a disingenious liar but try to keep up.
It's also hard to keep everything straight when the government, public health authorities, the media, and the tech companies all collaborate in making sure everything is as opaque as possible.

>>14821938
Are you >>14821651?

If so, then is this you agreeing that the OP study has merit and it has nothing to do with worms?

Man the schizo meth addicts are battling in this thread! kek

>>14817075
>/pol/ chuds
>chuds
literally nobody uses this word genuinely on 4chan. you are either a shitposter, a falseflag from /pol/, or a politically-driven poster from a different website. all 3 of those options make you a niggerfaggot who needs to fuck off and kill yourself in minecraft.

>>14821651
Do you think people from countries with high rates of parasitic infections are more likely to be infected by SARS-CoV-2? Keep in mind around 75% of the USA's population has been infected.

>>14822004
>Keep in mind around 75% of the USA's population has been infected.
More like 95%+ or more.

>>14822151
Likely, I was going with the CDC's low balled estimate.

Eat goyslop = dead
Take anything that halts viral replication = alive

>>14825990
/thread

>>14816133
>If killing worms improve covid outcomes it's retarded to dismiss them on thisbbasis
Then your conclusion would be "ivermectin is useful against COVID if you have worms," and I doubt anyone would have a problem with that conclusion, my nigger.

>>14811892
>Why don't these researchers ever conduct their studies in places without widespread parasitical infections?
It's approved in Japan.

>>14816150
>Foreign concepts to americans I know.
Foreign concepts just about everywhere since 1920 or so.

>>14821976
No, I only posted the latter of those posts. That said, I do agree that the study might have merit and that in general there has been a campaign in the scientific community to only see results that view Ivermectin in a negative light. Studies like OP's are either ignored or quickly and vigorously attacked.