Ivermectin does not prevent severe COVID-19, study finds

submitted by [deleted] from (upi.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I don't know about costs.

And why do all the official studies with ivermectin focus on giving it to patients who are already fully infected?

Because they want to know if anti-vax claims can be supported or denied by the scientific study of treatments.

Why won't they do an official study on ivermectin as prophylaxis?

Studies of this began in mid-2021. Here are examples, among several, where the research begain and that research continues:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

[–]BravoVictor 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because they want to know if anti-vax claims can be supported or denied by the scientific study of treatments.

And yet this study found the "anti-vaxers" were correct. 78% of patients did the same or better after receiving Ivermectin. The article tries to use weasel words to imply it overall works worse by comparing it to a combination of other treatments. That's not how you make comparisons.

If you want to find out how healthy an apple is, you don't compare it to someone who ate a pizza, a carrot, ham, and fruit rollup.

This article is pushing propaganda that says:

  1. People think Ivermectin is a prophylatic.
  2. Ivermectin can't be used alongside other treatments, so it's either take an experimental vaccine or Ivermectin.

I wish they would stop.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look at the recent research, rather than conflate the two links. As I said to fatman,

those links show early and late approaches. The early approach - with minimal info - in June 2021, was fairly positive. As of yesterday:

"In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."

Thus - now with better data and examples, researchers can show that ivermectin is not helpful, and because of this, the patient depending on it can get much worse forms of long COVID.

[–]fatman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Cool. From the first link:

Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Yes - those links show early and late approaches. The early approach - with minimal info - in June 2021, was fairly positive. As of yesterday:

In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

Thus - now with better data and examples, researchers can show that ivermectin is not helpful, and because of this, the patient depending on it can get much worse forms of long COVID.

[–]fatman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are you a redditor?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I hope that the recent information about ivermectin is helpful.

[–]BravoVictor 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So that's a yes. Please go back to Reddit, and stop pushing your anti-science propaganda here.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is a common tactic of anti-vaxxers to refer to those providing medical science journal research as somehow against science. One of the weakest of arguments. And anyone can read my occasional posts on Reddit - it doesn't require a mental heavyweight to figure this out.

[–]BravoVictor 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the patient depending on it can get much worse forms of long COVID.

That's exactly the opposite of what the study found.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look at the recent research in the second link, and then look at the research on unvaccnated people who are likely to get long COVID. This is also one of the purposes of the recent research.