Kolek planning to go pro
But Joe Rogan ...
From the study:"In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone."Duh..., you need to use it for more than 5 days
Also from the study Results Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).So 60% less mechanical ventilation in ivermectin group, 70% reduction in death, and 33% reduction in ICU admission. Or am I interpreting that wrong?
But rocket...
Sincere questions cause if someone told me there was a study published in JAMA with secondary findings that a medication could lessen your chances of being out on a vent by 70% i sure as hell would find that significant.
52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease
Well, by your logic, it appears by taking ivermectin makes you 20% more likely to progress to severe disease! If you like that sales pitch, take all your want!
Sure, but the data below is also right there to read for yourself. What is the definition of significant? Was the data size too small or does it have to be a certain % or CI to be considered significant?Sincere questions cause if someone told me there was a study published in JAMA with secondary findings that a medication could lessen your chances of being out on a vent by 70% i sure as hell would find that significant.
All very serious answers. You guys are doing great!
Troll big angry people no take troll seriously.
Remember when you said I was wrong in saying the FDA delayed their decision regarding the Pfizer vaccine for young kids because it wasnt working? Shocking, you were spreading misinformation…..again. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/lower-omicron-efficacy-delayed-fda-review-on-pfizer-shot-in-kids-under-5-11645192800
Easy answer is that it's not 10 vs. 4, it's 14 in 490. There isn't enough clinical difference in the groups to say it's better or worse.
You were wrong and remain wrong.Maybe for once in your life you should read beyond the headline.
This is not a double blind study.This is only 490 people.This is only people over 50.This is a useless study. Completely and totally.
WTF is with the seals? It's fuggin weird, even for you.
Those pictures are quite the opposite of attempting to be funny you dope buffon.
Largest trial to date of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID finds ... it's pretty much useless.But a trial involving 1,400 infected people at risk of severe disease found it did not do better than a placebo, The Wall Street Journal reports. It did not shorten hospitals stays, get the virus out of the body faster, or keep more people alive. “There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Professor Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivermectin-didnt-reduce-covid-19-hospitalizations-in-largest-trial-to-date-11647601200?mod=hp_lead_pos6
Bummer!! Do you have a link to the study, couldn’t find it anywhere. Strange how some studies have showed good outcomes and some haven’t, is it a dosing thing you think they need to figure out? Good news is it’s not doing any additional harm it appears in all the studies.
"Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal."Could you link some of the peer-reviewed trials showing the good outcomes from ivectermin?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887
That's not a trial.Didn't see anything about peer-reviewed.
When it all comes together....https://twitter.com/MollyBeck/status/1509514508531871745Molly Beck@MollyBeckA Chippewa Falls attorney who is a key player in a movement to take the impossible step of decertifying the 2020 election is running for AG to use the office to launch homicide investigations of doctors who did not give ivermectin to dying covid patients.
Rocket is gonna be devastated by the horse dewormer update
Also need to know whether she will investigate all the schools putting litter boxes in bathrooms for students who identify as cats.
Some good news for the off-label covid cure crowd (not a cure, more study needed). But still bad news for the horse dewormer crowd.https://scitechdaily.com/common-medication-found-effective-at-reducing-odds-of-serious-outcomes-for-covid-19-patients/
Ability to learn and adapt based on new information...Facts. Focusing on Fauci from 2.5 years ago is the equivalent of focusing on team free throw percentage and ignoring the efg%.Ivermectin is the Washington Generals Of COVID treatment. You may as well be arguing for the efficiency of the 20 foot jumper. Wait. That isn't fair to the 20 foot jumper. They occasionally go in.
Doctors once said washing your hands is silly. That's why I don't wash my hands. That's also why I don't listen to those flip-floppin doctors.
Why are children under 6 excluded. It could be a treatment for RSV too!
Come to think of it, I could see Aaron Rodgers being pretty into some stramonium herbal cigs these days
His stache has me sold