What is Ivermectin and why is any discussion of it being censored?

[Old Hickory]

This is a must-see interview of Dr. Pierre Kory (MD) by Dr. Bret Winestein (PhD). It's long, over 2 hours, but it is one of the most interesting discussions that you'll never hear about or see through the MSM.

In the description, you'll see the timestamps for skipping over the content.

 

[simpsontruckdriver]

It's not being "censored", it is like other drugs, sometimes it works. My younger sister caught #Covid19 in January from her husband (who works at Stetson University in Deland FL) right around President Biden's Inauguration Day. She still has mental issues (fatigue, "mental fog", and migraines) and somewhat elevated blood pressure (not enough to be considered "high"). In her case, #Ivermectin as well as both Pfizer vaccines have not helped. It helps some but not all.

TS

 

[Sandi Bo]

Well... I saw an interview with a doctor a while back, touting how awesome ivermectin was, and that was why India was doing so much better than us. About 6 months ago. So there's that...

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Sorry, Ivermectin cannot fully discussed without delving into politics, which is forbidden here.

I won't break those rules.

 

[DrQ]

What interview?

 

[simpsontruckdriver]

That's the problem with many doctors publishing non-peer-reviewed stuff (YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, etc). It is essentially one person's viewpoint. Kinda like the doctor who in the 1990s said vaccines caused Autism. That led to a huge amount of people who became "anti-vaxxers". After a long review, it was determined that the paper was 100% false, all the kids he reviewed actually showed signs of Autism before they were vaccinated. Even though he is no longer a doctor, he stands by his flawed research. Same thing with the #Covid19 treatments. As we now know, not everyone has the same prognosis, meaning if a lot of people are given one drug and many survive, while those not given the drug ALSO survive, kinda defeats the hypothesis. Same thing with the new Alzheimer's drug, it will be thousands of dollars per month for an IV (those on Medicare will be required to pay 20% Part-B coinsurance), but peer reviews found that only a small number of patients saw slowed progression of the disease.

On the flip side, the FDA approved all the Covid19 vaccines because peer reviews found a very small number of people had detrimental side effects, and less than 0.05% contracted the virus after immunization. Of course, the vaccines are so new that there is no proof they last forever (like Polio, Chicken Pox, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, etc), or a decade (like Tetanus), or will last a year.

TS

 

[Brett]

Well... I saw an interview with a doctor a while back, touting how awesome ivermectin was, and that was why India was doing so much better than us. About 6 months ago. So there's that...

And now India covid cases are much worse than the US (but not due to ivermectin)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/12/world/asia/india-modi-covid.html

 

[Passepartout]

<Hogwash>

 

[arcsinx]

It's in the same class of drugs as Hydrochloroquine, and if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, then I don't know what will.

 

[AJCts411]

It's in the same class of drugs as Hydrochloroquine, and if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, then I don't know what will.

You do know that recently the Lancet had to retract their review as false, inaccurate when earlier they went the political route rather than using science? I only mention this because the new Lance review publishes of how your thought so deadly Hydrochloroquine is so beneficial in recovery for is those on ventilators. The media that earlier trashed these drugs for political reasons are now eating crow again when proven their biases.

 

[arcsinx]

You do know that recently the Lancet had to retract their review as false, inaccurate when earlier they went the political route rather than using science? I only mention this because the new Lance review publishes of how your thought so deadly Hydrochloroquine is so beneficial in recovery for is those on ventilators. The media that earlier trashed these drugs for political reasons are now eating crow again when proven their biases.

Where does Lancet claim that hydrochloroquine helps? From what I've read, Lancet had to retract the study because the company that provided the data wouldn't publicly release it for peer review, which is a good reason for retraction, but says nothing about the effectiveness of hydrochloroquine. I have yet to see a peer-reviewed high-statistical-power study that shows promising info of any Hydrochloroquine-esque or Ivermectin-esque drug having any efficacious aid in the onset, prognosis, or treatment of Covid-19. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I'll happily eat crow as well.

 

[Passepartout]

If people simply get vaccinated, the odds of needing hospitalization or Covid treatment approaches ZERO, so why tout 'treatments? Oh, and here's what one very vocal proponent of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine received: YouTube Suspends GOP Sen. Ron Johnson For COVID-19 'Misinformation' | HuffPost

 

[Yellowfin]

This is a political comment, you should edit it.

I hope you realize that the vast majority of the world population has not been vaccinated and that a good chunk will never be.

 

[chapjim]

<snip>

On the flip side, the FDA approved all the Covid19 vaccines because peer reviews found a very small number of people had detrimental side effects, and less than 0.05% contracted the virus after immunization. Of course, the vaccines are so new that there is no proof they last forever (like Polio, Chicken Pox, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, etc), or a decade (like Tetanus), or will last a year.

TS

You mean 5.0%, don't you?

 

[arcsinx]

You mean 5.0%, don't you?

Interesting question. If numbers reported are accurate, the probability of being diagnosed Covid +, given full vaccination is about 1 in 400. Meanwhile, the probability of being fully vaccinated, given a Covid+ diagnosis is about 1 in 10,000. So the closer estimate is likely the 0.05%, not the 5%.

 

[Passepartout]

You mean 5.0%, don't you?

The 0.05% is the correct number.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Where does Lancet claim that hydrochloroquine helps? From what I've read, Lancet had to retract the study because the company that provided the data wouldn't publicly release it for peer review, which is a good reason for retraction, but says nothing about the effectiveness of hydrochloroquine. I have yet to see a peer-reviewed high-statistical-power study that shows promising info of any Hydrochloroquine-esque or Ivermectin-esque drug having any efficacious aid in the onset, prognosis, or treatment of Covid-19. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I'll happily eat crow as well.

Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study - PubMed

Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

2021 Jan;159(1):85-92.
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.009. Epub 2020 Oct 13.

"Results: Two hundred eighty patients, 173 treated with ivermectin and 107 without ivermectin, were reviewed. Most patients in both groups also received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both. Univariate analysis showed lower mortality in the ivermectin group (15.0% vs 25.2%; OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.96; P = .03). Mortality also was lower among ivermectin-treated patients with severe pulmonary involvement (38.8% vs 80.7%; OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.47; P = .001). No significant differences were found in extubation rates (36.1% vs 15.4%; OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 0.88-11.00; P = .07) or length of stay. After multivariate adjustment for confounders and mortality risks, the mortality difference remained significant (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.80; P = .03). One hundred ninety-six patients were included in the propensity-matched cohort. Mortality was significantly lower in the ivermectin group (13.3% vs 24.5%; OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P < .05), an 11.2% (95% CI, 0.38%-22.1%) absolute risk reduction, with a number needed to treat of 8.9 (95% CI, 4.5-263)."

Note: This was pre-printed in late May 2020. Broward county is in Florida.

How do you like your crow?

 

[bluehende]

Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study - PubMed

Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

2021 Jan;159(1):85-92.
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.009. Epub 2020 Oct 13.

"Results: Two hundred eighty patients, 173 treated with ivermectin and 107 without ivermectin, were reviewed. Most patients in both groups also received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both. Univariate analysis showed lower mortality in the ivermectin group (15.0% vs 25.2%; OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.96; P = .03). Mortality also was lower among ivermectin-treated patients with severe pulmonary involvement (38.8% vs 80.7%; OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.47; P = .001). No significant differences were found in extubation rates (36.1% vs 15.4%; OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 0.88-11.00; P = .07) or length of stay. After multivariate adjustment for confounders and mortality risks, the mortality difference remained significant (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.80; P = .03). One hundred ninety-six patients were included in the propensity-matched cohort. Mortality was significantly lower in the ivermectin group (13.3% vs 24.5%; OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P < .05), an 11.2% (95% CI, 0.38%-22.1%) absolute risk reduction, with a number needed to treat of 8.9 (95% CI, 4.5-263)."

Note: This was pre-printed in late May 2020. Broward county is in Florida.

How do you like your crow?

Maybe hold off on cooking that.

From the NIH

Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-28 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26,27 shorter time to viral clearance,21,26 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,26,28


However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:

• The sample size of most of the trials was small.
• Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.
• Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.
• Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.
• The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.
• The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.

here is the link to the studies.

Table: Ivermectin Clinical Data | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

Review clinical data on the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov

And here are the limitations on the study you cherry picked.

Limitations:

• Not randomized
• Little to no information on oxygen saturation or radiographic findings
• Timing of therapeutic interventions was not standardized.
• Ventilation and hospitalization duration analyses do not appear to account for death as a competing risk.
• No virologic assessments were performed.

Interpretation:

• IVM use was associated with lower mortality than usual care. However, the limitations of this retrospective analysis make it difficult to draw conclusions about the efficacy of using IVM to treat patients with COVID-19.

 

[arcsinx]

Ah, well-met post. I had a nice reply typed up, but you sum it up well.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

" I have yet to see a peer-reviewed high-statistical-power study that shows promising info of any Hydrochloroquine-esque or Ivermectin-esque drug having any efficacious aid in the onset, prognosis, or treatment of Covid-19. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I'll happily eat crow as well."

That standard was met. Definitive? No. But you didn't ask for definitive - you asked for promising.

 

[arcsinx]

" I have yet to see a peer-reviewed high-statistical-power study that shows promising info of any Hydrochloroquine-esque or Ivermectin-esque drug having any efficacious aid in the onset, prognosis, or treatment of Covid-19. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I'll happily eat crow as well."

That standard was met. Definitive? No. But you didn't ask for definitive - you asked for promising.

Except it's not. It doesn't have high statistical power. The study was not randomized, the matched t-test only had 98 pairs with 37 events (deaths) which is hardly conclusive, confounding is likely given the cocktail of drugs administered to patients, the cocktail wasn't standardized among patients, observational studies such as this cannot attribute causation only association, the placebo effect was not controlled for (it wasn't blind or double-blind), etc. I could go on. It isn't promising at all. Plus, the study is highly limited in its sample scope: it only argues that in a group of 9 60+ year olds with severe Covid, 1 of them would be helped by the treatment. So even if all the previous factors were mitigated, the study's finding is very weak in of itself and limited in scope.

So I'd argue for you to keep looking if you want to find "promising". (For the record, "definitive" would mean strong results in a randomized-controlled double-blind clinical trial of many thousands of people. This is neither definitive or promising.)

 

[Polly Metallic]

This is a must-see interview of Dr. Pierre Kory (MD) by Dr. Bret Winestein (PhD). It's long, over 2 hours, but it is one of the most interesting discussions that you'll never hear about or see through the MSM.

In the description, you'll see the timestamps for skipping over the content.

Definitely being unfairly censored. Here is a new link to the podcast. I saw it before YouTube took it down and it is well worth watching.

How to save the world, in three easy steps. ~ Bret Weinstein's Darkhorse Podcast

### TIMESTAMPS BELOW Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology. Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines. Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist. Bret ta…

www.bitchute.com

 

[VegasBella]

Ivermectin is a dewormer. It may or may not be useful in COVID. The reason that most experts aren't going to discuss it EXCEPT to say "Don't use it" is for mainly three reasons:

1. People are using horse Ivermectin and literally poisoning themselves with it.
2. The studies done on it for COVID have not shown much promise.
3. We now have a prevention (vaccines) so we don't need treatments as much. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[Yellowfin]

If people simply get vaccinated, the odds of needing hospitalization or Covid treatment approaches ZERO, so why tout 'treatments? Oh, and here's what one very vocal proponent of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine received: YouTube Suspends GOP Sen. Ron Johnson For COVID-19 'Misinformation' | HuffPost

@TUGBrian although the moderators were notified, political comments seem to be allowed. Is there a recent change of rules?

 

[Passepartout]

@TUGBrian although the moderators were notified, political comments seem to be allowed. Is there a recent change of rules?

Perhaps mods know what's political and what's not.