Covid-19 Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 4 - Ivermectin doesn't work either.

[Chief]

Continued in Part 5:

Covid-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 5 - Get vaccinated.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/in-focus/covid-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

I guess all science is worthless because it might be altered in the future some time...
I don't doubt that it's possible some of these claims have been exaggerated for company's benefits. However, examples like the Oxford vaccine with changing claims from the manufacturers and also regulators seem more indicative of trying to understand something difficult under time constraints to me. They've publically released the research, so feel free to go through and give us your thoughts about where they've lied.

Its particularly worthless when you have immunity against prosecution however.

Asking people to believe in your worthless science when you dont isnt making any sense to me

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yes, so why the need for pipes.

View attachment 1043625

Portable oxygen doesn’t last particularly Long even at low flow rate (its liters/ minute) so you need pipes for wall oxygen supply for the nasal prongs.
I presume the issue is a lack of flow rate for so many patients

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'll wait for something more substantial than "sky news figures".

Assumption hacking

I don’t recall the actual studies providing data on efficacy of a single dose. They all seemed to be 2 dose protocol

 

[Frank Bunn]

Hmmm or trying to research something that with a lot of complexities under extreme time pressure?

The UK's Vaccine Committee wasn't researching anything. Their job was to advise on public policy based on evidence. Time pressure does not excuse them from making a flawed recommendation to vaccinate as many people as possible with a single dose - that had no evidence behind it.

 

[MrKK]

The UK's Vaccine Committee wasn't researching anything. Their job was to advise on public policy based on evidence. Time pressure does not excuse them from making a flawed recommendation to vaccinate as many people as possible with a single dose - that had no evidence behind it.

Also, any time pressure is self-inflicted because they stupidly made vaccines the core plank of their Covid strategy. They should have been considered a bonus given the historic failure of finding a coronavirus vaccine.

 

[Evolved1]

Also, any time pressure is self-inflicted because they stupidly made vaccines the core plank of their Covid strategy. They should have been considered a bonus given the historic failure of finding a coronavirus vaccine.

There's never been a comparative level of investment of money and resources towards developing a new vaccine as we have with covid.

I do agree that we placed all our eggs in the vaccine basket, and I haven't been a fan of that approach either.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Also, any time pressure is self-inflicted because they stupidly made vaccines the core plank of their Covid strategy. They should have been considered a bonus given the historic failure of finding a coronavirus vaccine.

Therre hasn't been much interest up until now in vaccinating the common cold.

 

[Chubberson]

I've posted in the Science board with links providing access to data and various articles. Ivermectin has just had its treatment status upgraded on the NIH website to reflect it's incredible results treating covid. As a taxpayer, I think an option at a fraction of the cost is a great solution.

Particularly when data so far is showing significantly better efficacy than vaccines. Dr Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, have done great work with the FLCCC (Front Line Covid Critical Care). Amazing doctors and researchers in their own right.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Never lose sight of the fact that this is a multi billion dollar contest, with media, bureaucratic & political actors that all have a stake in the game.

 

[Chubberson]

Never lose sight of the fact that this is a multi billion dollar contest, with media, bureaucratic & political actors that all have a stake in the game.

Exactly. Alphabet, the company that owns Google and Youtube has recently moved into the pharmaceutical industry. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[MrKK]

Never lose sight of the fact that this is a multi billion dollar contest, with media, bureaucratic & political actors that all have a stake in the game.

Careful with that conspiracy theory talk 'round these parts.

 

[Chubberson]

Careful with that conspiracy theory talk 'round these parts.

Very true, let us stick to facts at hand. Ivermectin then.......

 

[Snake_Baker]

Exactly. Alphabet, the company that owns Google and Youtube has recently moved into the pharmaceutical industry. Coincidence? I think not.

The only thing that can be reasonably trusted is scientific research that declares no conflict of interest.

"...rigorous application of the scientific method is the best cure for human fallibility ever devised...."

 

[Pessimistic]

Requiring people entering aus from abroad to get and receive the results of a COVID test in the 72 hour period before flying.

Sounds very good but how practical is it for the traveller to fulfil and does it actually mean everyone coming is COVID free? Evidently not because the 14 day quarantine is still required
In the UK such a test is not free and prices start at 120 pounds

Presumably the Australian open arrivals took such tests

 

[Crankyhawk]

I've posted in the Science board with links providing access to data and various articles. Ivermectin has just had its treatment status upgraded on the NIH website to reflect it's incredible results treating covid. As a taxpayer, I think an option at a fraction of the cost is a great solution.

Particularly when data so far is showing significantly better efficacy than vaccines. Dr Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, have done great work with the FLCCC (Front Line Covid Critical Care). Amazing doctors and researchers in their own right.

Maybe I'm not reading the same page as you are reading, but the advice I find from the NIH re ivermectin and COVID is that the data is still inconclusive, that there were methdological issues with studies, varying dose schedules etc. This is from 14/1/2021

Statement on Ivermectin | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines (nih.gov)

and the recommendation is

• The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The only thing that can be reasonably trusted is scientific research that declares no conflict of interest.

"...rigorous application of the scientific method is the best cure for human fallibility ever devised...."

its very difficult to get funding, which is why there are so many articles with declared conflicts.

 

[Chubberson]

Maybe I'm not reading the same page as you are reading, but the advice I find from the NIH re ivermectin and COVID is that the data is still inconclusive, that there were methdological issues with studies, varying dose schedules etc. This is from 14/1/2021

Statement on Ivermectin | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines (nih.gov)

and the recommendation is

• The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

They were against it until very recently, that dialogue you read is an update. So it's a shift in the right direction.

Especially considering vaccines with lower efficacy rates that haven't even completed phase 3 clinical trials are already being mass produced and bought by governments with our money.

Ivermectin has also been proven safe.

 

[Pessimistic]

They were against it until very recently, that dialogue you read is an update. So it's a shift in the right direction.

Especially considering vaccines with lower efficacy rates that haven't even completed phase 3 clinical trials are already being mass produced and bought by governments with our money.

Ivermectin has also been proven safe.

Considering they pumped by their own admission $200 billion into peoples offset accounts, if that money is a waste it might have been good insurance in comparison

 

[Frank Bunn]

Very true, let us stick to facts at hand. Ivermectin then.......

And Hydroxychloroquine.

The Australian National Covid-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce based it's efficacy decision of HCQ on this UK trial, which was mostly paid for by Oxford University, Wellcome, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation - all groups with a vested interest in promoting vaccines.

Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Robert Clancy, at the University of Newcastle Medical School, said the conclusions of the study were flawed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin (IVM) have both been shown to be effective in reducing admission to hospital and death when given early. The drugs have been falsely rejected by clinical trials of hospital patients without recognising the differences between the pathogenesis of the two phases. Every study of early treatment, has shown protection, confirmed in multiple meta analyses.

That same UK study found that there were no significant adverse reactions to HCQ yet contrary to the evidence, the Australian taskforce made a conclusion that the HQC should be banned.

No conspiracy, but follow the dollars of cheap drugs vs hundreds of millions being vaccinated at $30 a pop.

 

[Rob R]

Requiring people entering aus from abroad to get and receive the results of a COVID test in the 72 hour period before flying.

Sounds very good but how practical is it for the traveller to fulfil and does it actually mean everyone coming is COVID free? Evidently not because the 14 day quarantine is still required
In the UK such a test is not free and prices start at 120 pounds

Presumably the Australian open arrivals took such tests

It just reduces the risk, they could easily catch it in the 72hrs before coming home.

Who knows with the tennis, they seem to be making a lot of it up as they have gone along.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It just reduces the risk, they could easily catch it in the 72hrs before coming home.

Who knows with the tennis, they seem to be making a lot of it up as they have gone along.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah i agree its just playing the odds.
If you start by weeding out the already positive cases, then you should end up with less positive cases in quarantine.
Which means you are less likely to have a transmission to the quarantine staff etc.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

And Hydroxychloroquine.

The Australian National Covid-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce based it's efficacy decision of HCQ on this UK trial, which was mostly paid for by Oxford University, Wellcome, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation - all groups with a vested interest in promoting vaccines.

Emeritus Professor of Pathology, Robert Clancy, at the University of Newcastle Medical School, said the conclusions of the study were flawed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin (IVM) have both been shown to be effective in reducing admission to hospital and death when given early. The drugs have been falsely rejected by clinical trials of hospital patients without recognising the differences between the pathogenesis of the two phases. Every study of early treatment, has shown protection, confirmed in multiple meta analyses.

That same UK study found that there were no significant adverse reactions to HCQ yet contrary to the evidence, the Australian taskforce made a conclusion that the HQC should be banned.

No conspiracy, but follow the dollars of cheap drugs vs hundreds of millions being vaccinated at $30 a pop.

Think that’s already been called out on here through Clancy’s lack of evidence and the fact that no proper random trials have shown it’s effectiveness.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yeah i agree its just playing the odds.
If you start by weeding out the already positive cases, then you should end up with less positive cases in quarantine.
Which means you are less likely to have a transmission to the quarantine staff etc.

Already there’s reports of people faking it, which is hard to disprove. Let’s see there’s a family of 4 who got a negative test, but we’re bumped onto another flight beyond the 72 hours (which is apparently the norm not the exception). So now face with another test and another 500 pounds or just photoshop the date on the first test result?

As someone noted, the whole thing is a huge money spinner

 

[Evolved1]

Already there’s reports of people faking it, which is hard to disprove. Let’s see there’s a family of 4 who got a negative test, but we’re bumped onto another flight beyond the 72 hours (which is apparently the norm not the exception). So now face with another test and another 500 pounds or just photoshop the date on the first test result?

As someone noted, the whole thing is a huge money spinner

Surely its easier to pay 500 pounds than risk being prosecuted for fraud. If you can afford an international flight from Europe and hotel quarantine, you can afford to pay for a covid test.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Think that’s already been called out on here through Clancy’s lack of evidence and the fact that no proper random trials have shown it’s effectiveness.

For HCQ use, Clancy cites a study by Peter McCullough of Baylor University Medical Center that was associated with estimated 87.6% and 74.9% reductions in hospitalisation and death respectively.

For IVM, he cites a "comprehensive and detailed review" by T Lawrie from The Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy that showed IVM reduced death by an an average of 83%.

Back on you - what is the evidence based rationale for the Australian National Covid-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce prohibiting the use of HCQ?