• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Protecting from Coronavirus - Supplements & Therapies

coronavirus flu disease epidemics viruses immunity covid-19

  • Please log in to reply
2688 replies to this topic

#2551 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 44
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2021 - 01:45 PM

Would anyone please please please consider that negative results from RCTs may just be... negative results and that we were just wrong? (HCQ, Ivermectin..) Not everything is a big conspiracy. It's getting a little silly..

Regarding ivermectin, what negative results from RCTs?

 

With HCQ, there were a mix of positive and negative results in various trials. If you look closely at the negatives, they seem to be deliberately set  up for failure--testing only patients with advanced disease,  using a high dose that causes adverse effect etc. They were not trials of the methods that front line doctors were reporting as effective. I think the HCQ ship has sailed though, as ivermectin seems to work better at all stages.


  • Good Point x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2552 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 487 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 March 2021 - 02:10 PM

Would anyone please please please consider that negative results from RCTs may just be... negative results and that we were just wrong? (HCQ, Ivermectin..) Not everything is a big conspiracy. It's getting a little silly..

 

Just the old adage, follow the money(remdesivir).  Its fine to be wrong, I can live with that.  Lets find out, https://c19ivermectin.com says its worth a shot.   People really are dying...

 

Hot off the press - International Group of Medical Experts’ Recognition of Ivermectin as a Safe and Effective Treatment for COVID-19

Compelling evidence exists as shown by this review, and clinicians in many countries are using Ivermectin and have reported on the positive results they have observed,” said Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy. “It is troubling to think that with every day that passes, the death toll of this pandemic grows when an effective treatment was, all along, right under our noses.

Edited by Gal220, 09 March 2021 - 02:13 PM.

  • WellResearched x 3
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#2553 Zwergpirat

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 09 March 2021 - 02:47 PM

It is always the same here: therapies with poor or nonexistent evidence are hyped and as soon as contradicting hard evidence gradually arrives, the whining starts: Flaws, flaws flaws, conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies..  :wacko:


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • like x 1

#2554 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 44
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2021 - 03:30 PM

It is always the same here: therapies with poor or nonexistent evidence are hyped and as soon as contradicting hard evidence gradually arrives, the whining starts: Flaws, flaws flaws, conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies..  :wacko:

I'll take a guess that you are the one who rated the two preceding posts as "ill-informed". Please, enlighten us with your better information.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#2555 Zwergpirat

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 09 March 2021 - 03:46 PM

I'll take a guess that you are the one who rated the two preceding posts as "ill-informed". Please, enlighten us with your better information.

 

Everything relevant to this has already been posted. Only that one would rather trust the weak evidence and discredit, as usual, studies with strong evidence as flawed (fda/big pharma/follow the money etc. conspiracy). 


  • Good Point x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#2556 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 44
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2021 - 04:27 PM

Everything relevant to this has already been posted. Only that one would rather trust the weak evidence and discredit, as usual, studies with strong evidence as flawed (fda/big pharma/follow the money etc. conspiracy). 

Has anyone posted here a study with strong evidence against ivermectin? or even HCQ for that matter?


  • Good Point x 3

#2557 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 487 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 March 2021 - 05:06 PM

It is always the same here: therapies with poor or nonexistent evidence are hyped and as soon as contradicting hard evidence gradually arrives, the whining starts: Flaws, flaws flaws, conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies..  :wacko:

 

If Ivermectin wasnt already approved 20 years ago, I personally wouldnt be that gung ho about it.  We dont have to wonder about long term side effects.  Its really shocking it wasnt approved before thanksgiving, i really dont get it.


  • Good Point x 2
  • Agree x 1

#2558 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 487 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 March 2021 - 05:11 PM

Has anyone posted here a study with strong evidence against ivermectin? or even HCQ for that matter?

I believe Dorian linked to Merck about it a few pages back.

 

Another negative article here , very recent.

 

Cumulatively, the findings suggest that ivermectin does not significantly affect the course of early COVID-19, consistent with pharmacokinetic models showing that plasma total and unbound ivermectin levels do not reach the concentration resulting in 50% of viral inhibition even for a dose level 10-times higher than the approved dose," the authors concluded.

 

However if my H202 failed me, I would still look at taking a few doses if I had symptoms.



#2559 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 226
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 09 March 2021 - 05:56 PM

re: post #2558 in response to post #2556

 

The JAMA study which this article refers to is:

 

"Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19

A Randomized Clinical Trial" is fatally flawed and shouldn't be relied upon. 

 

Several comments on the article are here and explain why the study is fatally flawed.  Click on the symbol which is third to the right from the paperclip symbol. Many salient points on why the study is garbage. 

 

It's also instructive to look at the study's authors' conflict of interest disclosures.

 

Unfortunately, the media seem to run with a story without researching it thoroughly.

 

 

 


Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 09 March 2021 - 06:17 PM.

  • WellResearched x 3
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2560 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 44
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2021 - 05:58 PM

 

 

Another negative article here , very recent.

 

 

This was linked on the previous page.

 

Evidence, yes. STRONG evidence, no, by the author’s evaluation:

 

 

However, the relatively young and healthy study population rarely developed complications, rendering the study underpowered to detect such effects. Therefore, the ability of ivermectin to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 to more severe stages would need to be assessed in larger trials. ...However, the study population was relatively young, with few comorbidities and with liver enzyme levels less than 1.5 times the normal level, so the findings may be generalizable only to such populations…. In the study population, the incidence of clinical deterioration was below 3%, making the original planned analysis futile. 

 

In other words, they were trying to find an effect in a population that mostly did not get very sick with no treatment. With so little room for improvement it would take a much larger study to detect a statistically significant difference. 


  • Agree x 2

#2561 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 44
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2021 - 06:13 PM

re: post #2558 in response to post #2556

 

The JAMA article:

 

"Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19

A Randomized Clinical Trial" is fatally flawed and shouldn't be relied upon. 

 

Several comments on the article are here and explain why the study is fatally flawed.  Click on the symbol which is third to the right from the paperclip symbol. Many salient points on why the study is garbage. 

 

It's also instructive to look at the study's authors' conflict of interest disclosures.

 

Thanks for posting this. I remembered reading the comments but I could not find them again. These are especially on point:

 

 

 

With a placebo arm doing this well, would a statistically significant benefit of experimental arm even be mathematically possible?
Bioavailability of ivermectin is much greater if taken with a lipid-rich meal. Why were participants instructed to take it on an empty stomach?
I find it interesting that viral clearance, hospitalization, fever, time with fever, and clinical deterioration all favor ivermectin. To expect total resolution of all covid symptoms within 21 days has not been achieved by any treatment. So why did the authors and editors choose this lofty goal ?
 Is it evidence-based medicine or just bias? I foresee we will witness lots of articles like this in the near future.

 

  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • WellResearched x 1

#2562 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 24

Posted 09 March 2021 - 07:09 PM

There have been a few very recent papers on Ivermectin that show no benefit or slight benefit. Here are links:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33682640/

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33662102/

 

This review paper is a pretty good summary of where it all stands at the moment:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7855117/

 

"Although in vitro evidence showed that ivermectin is able to control SARS-CoV-2 virus replication (Caly et al., 2020[2]), the in vivo studies reporting its antiviral activity present contradictory findings (Lv et al., 2018[9]; Ketkar et al., 2019[7]) . Moreover, the controlled clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of ivermectin as a potential antiviral treatment of COVID-19 are still lacking. Thus, high-quality trial evidence is necessary to use ivermectin in the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as to prove its efficacy as prophylactic drug; the scientific evidence being to be the bedrock for its use and not the unbridled desire for an improbable cure coming from a “miracle drug”."

 

I will wait till the data is out but I am skeptical there will be a "miracle drug" that will prevent or cure a stealth molecular parasite like COVID. People were making the same claims about HCQ. I find the demonization and conspiracy theorizing about the evil establishment trying to suppress a miracle cure dubious.


  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#2563 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 44
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2021 - 08:10 PM

There have been a few very recent papers on Ivermectin that show no benefit or slight benefit. Here are links:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33682640/

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33662102/

 

This review paper is a pretty good summary of where it all stands at the moment:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7855117/

 

"Although in vitro evidence showed that ivermectin is able to control SARS-CoV-2 virus replication (Caly et al., 2020[2]), the in vivo studies reporting its antiviral activity present contradictory findings (Lv et al., 2018[9]; Ketkar et al., 2019[7]) . Moreover, the controlled clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of ivermectin as a potential antiviral treatment of COVID-19 are still lacking. Thus, high-quality trial evidence is necessary to use ivermectin in the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as to prove its efficacy as prophylactic drug; the scientific evidence being to be the bedrock for its use and not the unbridled desire for an improbable cure coming from a “miracle drug”."

 

I will wait till the data is out but I am skeptical there will be a "miracle drug" that will prevent or cure a stealth molecular parasite like COVID. People were making the same claims about HCQ. I find the demonization and conspiracy theorizing about the evil establishment trying to suppress a miracle cure dubious.

First, it is important to recognize differences between “miracle drug” “useful” and “do not use it, ever”. We are dealing with a brand new disease. NOTHING has been proven to be fully effective in large scale trials. In the meantime, people are suffering and dying. A safe drug that reduces infection, severity of symptoms and hospitalization, to any degree, is useful, even if it would fail to qualify as a miracle drug.

 

Now to some particular points:

 

1. your first link is the same JAMA paper that was the subject of the preceding posts by Advocatus Diaboli and myself.

2. The second link is interesting. It may speak against efficacy of ivermectin. It is interesting to note, however, that the 3 arms of the study all received treatment of some kind—there was no placebo. So maybe none worked, or maybe they all worked equally well. The patients all had severe disease at the start, so the study was not trying to find any effect on disease progression. In any case, when studies conflict, they need to be compared closely to see what could explain the differences. And this study is discordant with numerous others. 

2. The review article you linked is not a “summary of where it all stands at the moment”. It was published in Nov. 2020. A lot has happened since then. The statement, “Moreover, the controlled clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of ivermectin as a potential antiviral treatment of COVID-19 are still lacking.” is no longer true.

The statement “the in vivo studies reporting its antiviral activity present contradictory findings (Lv et al., 2018[9]; Ketkar et al., 2019[7])” clearly refers to earlier suggestions that ivermectin may have activity against other viruses. It can’t refer to SARS-CoV-2—look at the dates of the references!


  • Well Written x 2
  • like x 2

#2564 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 487 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 March 2021 - 09:00 PM

 I find the demonization and conspiracy theorizing about the evil establishment trying to suppress a miracle cure dubious.

Yet the approval of remdesivir was something short of dishonest.  Even if Ivermectin turns out to be a total dud, why wasnt it approved for compassionate use instead of just letting people die? I mean, they were going to die doing nothing,..Seems like that has been well established.

 

Instead of dubious, isnt more an established fact?  Ivermectin is just one of many treatments we should have more information on and dont.  More transparency = less conspiracy.   

 

Kory and the FLCC should have some info on their protocol as well, so isnt all the NIH. They publish other results, but nothing of their own? Give Zalenko credit for doing a clinical trial on HCQ / zinc and giving us some solid data vs placebo.


Edited by Gal220, 09 March 2021 - 09:00 PM.

  • Agree x 2

#2565 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 369 posts
  • 137
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2021 - 09:03 PM

Funny you should ask...  I just took another 12mg with a fatty meal March 1st.  I should be coming eligible for vaccine in April, & if I caught plague at this stage of the game, I would consider this most unfortunate.  

 

I did take 6 weeks off, & believe my chin wattle did resolve a bit, but once you see something like this, it's hard to un-see it.  Have felt I am looking a bit older overall the past few months.  Don't mind this, so long as I have my health.  

 

So have you decided if you are going to get the vaccine as soon as your eligble....and which one would you choose out of the ones that are available?

 

Last year me and my family all got the MMR vaccine since there was some thought that it provided protection...I just saw the other day

a new article about it potentially giving protection against Covid19, so I am glad we all got it last year.

 

A doctor friend told me that if I wanted we could get the MMR vaccine about every 18 months since the antibodies can start to weaken that soon in

some people.  He said we could get our titters checked to see if the antibodies are still strong or not and then decide if want to get another MMR

booster if we want to wait longer to see how the Covid vaccine works for people in the long run.


Edited by lancebr, 09 March 2021 - 09:08 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#2566 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 March 2021 - 09:08 PM

There have been a few very recent papers on Ivermectin that show no benefit or slight benefit. Here are links:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33682640/

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33662102/

 

This review paper is a pretty good summary of where it all stands at the moment:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7855117/

 

"Although in vitro evidence showed that ivermectin is able to control SARS-CoV-2 virus replication (Caly et al., 2020[2]), the in vivo studies reporting its antiviral activity present contradictory findings (Lv et al., 2018[9]; Ketkar et al., 2019[7]) . Moreover, the controlled clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of ivermectin as a potential antiviral treatment of COVID-19 are still lacking. Thus, high-quality trial evidence is necessary to use ivermectin in the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as to prove its efficacy as prophylactic drug; the scientific evidence being to be the bedrock for its use and not the unbridled desire for an improbable cure coming from a “miracle drug”."

 

I will wait till the data is out but I am skeptical there will be a "miracle drug" that will prevent or cure a stealth molecular parasite like COVID. People were making the same claims about HCQ. I find the demonization and conspiracy theorizing about the evil establishment trying to suppress a miracle cure dubious.

 

What do you make of these? https://c19ivermectin.com/

Attached Files



#2567 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 March 2021 - 09:19 PM

So have you decided if you are going to get the vaccine as soon as your eligble....and which one would you choose out of the ones that are available?

 

Last year me and my family all got the MMR vaccine since there was some thought that it provided protection...I just saw the other day

a new article about it potentially giving protection against Covid19, so I am glad we all got it last year.

 

A doctor friend told me that if I wanted we could get the MMR vaccine about every 18 months since the antibodies can start to weaken that soon in

some people.  He said we could get our titters checked to see if the antibodies are still strong or not and then decide if want to get another MMR

booster if we want to wait longer to see how the Covid vaccine works for people in the long run.

 

Yep, I'm going to bite the bullet & get 'er done.  I really was hoping to avoid the mRNA jab.  Attached an interesting paper on risk (RNAdangers.pdf). It's a bit of a long read, but quite compelling once you get started.  DNA contamination during the manufacturing process?  Lipid nanoparticles in the brain & liver?  

 

Would prefer the J&J, but then again, I'd like to see a few million doses given before I stick out my arm.  Don't know if I'll have time for this, as my gal is pressing me to join the vaxxed club.  Afraid I'm going down the cattle chute.  Would prefer Pfizer to Moderna, & may get a bit stubborn about this.  

Attached Files


  • Informative x 1

#2568 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 24

Posted 09 March 2021 - 09:59 PM

What do you make of these? https://c19ivermectin.com/

 

The top study on their list that is supposed to show benefits of Ivermectin is this one:

 

https://www.medrxiv....2084v1.full.pdf

 

I read it and honestly could not make sense of the thing. And it's not even clear Ivermectin was a part of the study,  they mention the benefits of antibiotics and fentanyl.  That leads me to the conclusion that the c19ivermectin page is poorly curated and not a reliable source of information.

 

And I have to wonder if reported benefits of Ivermectin for COVID seen in developing countries  are not side effects of ridding those people of parasites. That is something that needs to be examined.


Edited by geo12the, 09 March 2021 - 10:04 PM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#2569 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 March 2021 - 10:01 PM

Why I don't like Moderna: 

 

https://anthonycolpo...vaccine-part-1/

 

A 2016 STAT investigation found the company’s "caustic work environment has for years driven away top talent and that behind its obsession with secrecy, there are signs Moderna has run into roadblocks with its most ambitious projects." STAT interviews with more than twenty current and former employees and associates "suggest Bancel has hampered progress at Moderna because of his ego, his need to assert control and his impatience with the setbacks that are an inevitable part of science."

Former employees said they felt the business-minded Bancel prized the company’s ever-increasing stock market valuation over its science. As he pursued a "complex and risky" drug development strategy, Bancel built a culture of recrimination at Moderna, they said. Failed experiments were met with reprimands and even on-the-spot firings. They recalled abusive emails, dressings down at company meetings, exceedingly long hours, and unexplained terminations.

Others didn't wait around to suffer the full weight of Bancel's wrath. At least a dozen highly placed executives had quit in the previous four years, including heads of finance, technology, manufacturing, and science. In the twelve months prior to the STAT story, two respected scientists leading Moderna’s cancer and rare disease programs resigned, even though the company’s remarkable fundraising success had put ample resources at their disposal. Each had been at the company less than 18 months.

Even co-founder Rossi, whose vision was the initial seed for Moderna's formation, headed for the exit in 2014 as a result of internal squabbling.

-----------------------

 

Looks like a dreadful place to work.  Give me good old Pfizer (love their little blue pills!) & German engineering (BioNTech) any old day.  

 


  • like x 1

#2570 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 March 2021 - 10:06 PM

Doh!  Another double post!  Got an error message and re-did the whole post.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 09 March 2021 - 10:07 PM.


#2571 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 March 2021 - 10:14 PM

The top study on their list that is supposed to show benefits of Ivermectin is this one:

 

https://www.medrxiv....2084v1.full.pdf

 

I read it and honestly could not make sense of the thing. And it's not even clear Ivermectin was a part of the study,  they mention the benefits of antibiotics and fentanyl.  That leads me to the conclusion that the c19ivermectin page is poorly curated and not a reliable source of information.

 

And I have to wonder if reported benefits of Ivermectin for COVID seen in developing countries  are not side effects of ridding those people of parasites. That is something that needs to be examined.

 

The C-19 site is a compilation of all the studies done over the past year.  The good, bad & ugly.  It is fully inclusive to avoid accusations of cherry picking.  

 

You reckon the entire lot is rubbish?  Nothing to learn there at all?  No value in meta-analysis?  


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#2572 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,599 posts
  • 668

Posted 10 March 2021 - 01:05 AM

The thing about Ivermectin is that as an antiparasitic, it is inherently a poison.  It is intended as a single one time dose for parasitic worms (river blindness) not to be repeated for at least 3-12 months.  And as such, has only been utilized predominantly in 3rd world countries where little to no follow up in regards to any long term complications are performed, tracked, or recorded.  So to make claims that it is totally safe and harmless is a stretch at best.

 

And apparently in regards to covid usage, it seems people are using it prophylactically with dosing several times a week, week after week. It is known to accumulate in body tissues.  How can we consider this safe and harmless?  And what could the long term ramifications be?  Nobody knows.  People have already been hospitalized precisely for doing this.  What about the ones avoiding side effects severe enough to require hospitalization but carrying that level of drug long term?  Potential cancer or brain disorder years down the road?  Feeling lucky?

 

And apparently if waiting until sick to use it, then it is supposedly too late and ineffective.  At least that is the story and the criticism of studies.

 

As far as criticism that studies prescribed it on an empty stomach, that is precisely how it is intended to be dosed for the parasitic worms it was designed for.  To take it with a fatty meal to increase absorption and achieve higher blood levels and correspondingly higher tissue levels is definitely using completely off label in all respects.

 

Talk about uncharted waters.  What could possibly go wrong?

 

Ivermectin (Oral Route) Proper Use - Mayo Clinic

 

Ivermectin is best taken as a single dose with a full glass (8 ounces) of water on an empty stomach (1 hour before breakfast), unless otherwise directed by your doctor.

 

Dose is based on body weight and must be determined by your doctor. The usual dose is 150 micrograms (mcg) per kilogram (kg) (68 mcg per pound) of body weight as a single dose. The treatment may be repeated every three to twelve months.

 

 


  • Well Written x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#2573 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 226
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 10 March 2021 - 02:18 AM

re: post #2572

 

"As far as criticism that studies prescribed it on an empty stomach, that is precisely how it is intended to be dosed for the parasitic worms it was designed for. "

 

A parasitic-worm-protocol isn't a virus-protocol.

 

There is nothing wrong with off-label usage

 

"From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient."

 

The Mayo quote says "The treatment may be repeated every three to twelve months." (my bolding)

 

Hebbeh says: "not to be repeated for at least 3-12 months"​ 

 

Which statement is correct? Is "may" correct or is "not" correct in the above?


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#2574 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,599 posts
  • 668

Posted 10 March 2021 - 03:22 AM

A parasitic-worm-protocol isn't a virus-protocol.

 

There is nothing wrong with off-label usage

 

The Mayo quote says "The treatment may be repeated every three to twelve months." (my bolding)

 

Hebbeh says: "not to be repeated for at least 3-12 months"​ 

 

Which statement is correct? Is "may" correct or is "not" correct in the above?

 

There is no virus protocol and as such, no protocol exists.  If you expect the medical community to develop some nonexistent protocol to use dewormer for covid, they are understandably in uncharted waters and are going to use any existing protocol as a starting point.  They are going to work within established guide lines as the developer and manufacturer has specified as presumably safe.  Doctors understandably are going to be cautious in attempts to avoid malpractice lawsuits if anything quickly goes south while ignoring established prescribed dosing protocols.  And what could possibly go wrong here?

 

Once again, off label usage isn't the problem as long as you remain within established prescribed dosing.  Off label usage doesn't mean you can ignore manufacturers recommended dosing schedule.  Malpractice comes to mind again.  See above.

 

And just as Mayo stated, the single one time dose is to be repeated if necessary no sooner than 3 months.  If it was safe to dose more often, then they would of said so.  They would come out and stated 1 month or 2 months but they stated 3-12 months.  And since they stated a range of 3-12 which tells me they would prefer longer than 3 months.  If a doctor takes it upon themselves to re-dose sooner than 3 months, I smell a lawsuit again.  A doctor, by nature is going to play it safe and be conservative.  They are going to wait at least the recommended 3 months or longer.

 

Edit: the context of may here is "if necessary" as in "if necessary, you may re-dose in 3-12 months.  It doesn't mean you can re-dose sooner than the recommended time frame of 3-12 months or they would of stated that.


Edited by Hebbeh, 10 March 2021 - 03:35 AM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#2575 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 226
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 10 March 2021 - 04:09 AM

re: post #2574

 

Hebbeh wrote: "Once again, off label usage isn't the problem as long as you remain within established prescribed dosing.  Off label usage doesn't mean you can ignore manufacturers recommended dosing schedule.  Malpractice comes to mind again.  See above."  (My bolding)

 

Hebbeh, it's clear that you didn't read the link to off-label usage that I gave in post #2573 and in lieu you appear to be pulling claims out of thin air. (I won't say "out of your ass" because that would be inappropriate). God, I love apophasis! LOL

 

From the info in that link:

What are examples of unapproved uses of approved drugs?  (i.e. "off-label")

 

"Given in a different dose, such as when a drug is approved at a dose of one tablet every day, but a patient is told by their healthcare provider to take two tablets every day." 

 

I'll write more later to correct your other misapprehensions in post #2574.


Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 10 March 2021 - 04:11 AM.

  • Informative x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#2576 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 487 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 March 2021 - 04:31 AM

And just as Mayo stated, the single one time dose is to be repeated if necessary no sooner than 3 months.  If it was safe to dose more often, then they would of said so. 

From pubmed on safety of IVM

 Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 microg/kg.

 

I rather not use a pharmaceuticals long term if I dont have to, H202 with .1% seems the safest/effective protocol to me. Levy even recommends up to 3%.  Brownstein has the most experience and hes titrated down to .04%.  While I believe this is the best(again crazy we dont know), the fact remains, all the real evidence is with IVM.  If we had a real NIH that cared about people, we would know more about it as well.  Gulp, another 70k dead this month..


Edited by Gal220, 10 March 2021 - 04:33 AM.

  • Well Written x 1
  • Informative x 1

#2577 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 487 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 March 2021 - 02:29 PM

Eli Lilly COVID-19 drug combo cuts risk of hospitalizations, deaths by 87%: study

 

The findings draw from a BLAZE-1 Phase 3 cohort with 769 mild-to-moderate coronavirus patients aged 12 and up at high-risk of progressing to severe disease. There were 15 "events" like hospitalizations or deaths in the placebo group, and four "events" in a group of patients taking 700 mg of bamlanivimab and 1400 mg of etesevimab together, "representing an 87 percent risk reduction," Lilly announced.

 

These positive results reinforce our previous findings and support the authorized dose of bamlanivimab 700 mg with etesevimab 1400 mg," Dr. Daniel Skovronsky, Lilly's chief scientific officer and president of Lilly Research Laboratories, said in a news release posted Wednesday. "These compelling data – in addition to the recent EUA from FDA, the CHMP decision from EMA and the recommendation for the therapy in the National Institutes of Health's COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines – give healthcare providers additional information regarding the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together as a potentially life-saving treatment to help those most at risk for severe complications of COVID-19.

 



#2578 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 24

Posted 10 March 2021 - 07:49 PM

The C-19 site is a compilation of all the studies done over the past year.  The good, bad & ugly.  It is fully inclusive to avoid accusations of cherry picking.  

 

You reckon the entire lot is rubbish?  Nothing to learn there at all?  No value in meta-analysis?  

 

The one paper I read is rubbish. I was having some difficulty with the C-19 site freezing, not sure if it was due to a very recent computer update or if the site itself is glitchy. I am withholding judgement until more studies are out but I think the possibility exists that because all of the positive studies are from the developing world there could be an indirect benefit, ie: people with parasites + COVID will have benefit from Ivermectin because it is ridding them of the parasites rather than having an effect on COVID but that is just a hypothesis that is in my skeptical head. Time will tell.


  • Enjoying the show x 1

#2579 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 44
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 March 2021 - 11:08 PM

From the beginning of this pandemic, there have been numerous publications devoted to looking for known drugs that can be repurposed to treat COVID-19. Many promising leads have not been followed up on, but one has—Ivermectin. Physician-scientists took bold steps and brave volunteers took part in clinical trials to provide strong evidence that it can significantly reduce risk of infection, serious illness, hospitalization, and death. It is appalling that, so far, the medical establishment has refused to even consider using it. What was the point of all that research? What was gained from the sacrifice of people who suffered or died after being randomized to the placebo arm of a trial?

 

Different standards of evidence have been applied to get approval of expensive new drugs as compared to cheap old drugs or natural products. If the Ivemection results were like those for remdesivir, we would have forgotten about Ivermection a long time ago. Can anyone here honestly contend that any new drug that had nearly as much evidence in favor of its safety and efficacy as Ivermectin (even granting that there is more to learn) it would not have already been granted emergency use authorization? You can complain that calling attention to all of this is “conspiracy theory” or “demonization” all you want, but these are the historical facts of the situation.

 

Nobody that I know of is advocating that Ivermectin should be an alternative to vaccines for prophylaxis. The troublesome part is that Ivermectin could have been helping people all along and its use should have been encouraged sooner. It is important that physicians be able to prescribe Ivermectin because the word is out, and people will dangerously self-medicate with veterinary products if they can’t get it under medical supervision.  

 

It is a valid point that using an old drug in a new way may raise safety issues that would not have been seen before. However, we know even less about any new drug than we do about Ivermectin. There isn't any drug currently in use or proposed for use in treating covid that one would want to take longer than necessary. I am sure most of us here would prefer not to take a pharmaceutical at all.

Everything has to be evaluated in terms of risk versus benefit. Here, much of the discussion has been about theoretical risk versus demonstrable benefit. The people who have died for lack of effective treatment are unavailable for comment.

 

The FLCC protocol for post-exposure prophylaxis is 0.2 mg/kg on day 1, same dose 2 days later. Two doses total. For high risk individuals the protocol calls for:0.2 mg/kg on day 1, same dose 2 days later, then 1 dose every 2 weeks. So, if someone is "dosing several times a week, week after week" [post #2572], they are doing so against the advice of the most ardent advocates of Ivermectin. People who have not been knowingly exposed or are not otherwise at high risk should not be taking it at all.

 

For people with known infection, the recommendation is 0.2 mg/kg for a maximum of 5 days. For hospitalized patients the dose goes to 0.3 mg/kg for a maximum of 5 days. Is there risk in that? Of course there is! The question is how does that risk weigh against the risk of not doing anything or, at most, taking remdesivir, which is the standard of care at this point. The people who have suffered and died because the medical establishment has refused to even consider a cheap and simple treatment might have an opinion on that risk if they were available for comment.

 


  • Well Written x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2580 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 226
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 10 March 2021 - 11:29 PM

Re: post #2574

 

Hebbeh writes: "Off label usage doesn't mean you can ignore manufacturers recommended dosing schedule."

 

The temporal administration of ivermectin lies under the same aegis of “off-label” considerations for, and is homologous to, those considerations assumed of “dosage” determinations—i.e. the amount of deviation from “approved” protocols, both in dosage and in duration, is totally under the discretion and prerogative of the prescribing physician.

 

An example criterion for an “approved” drug is: “How to use the drug to treat those specific diseases and conditions.”. See the previously given “off-label” link in post #2575. Clearly, “how to use..” includes span of treatment (see your Mayo quotes, e.g., in post #2572) and that span can be modified in any manner that the prescribing physician deems appropriate.

 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus, flu, disease epidemics, viruses, immunity, covid-19

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users