Studies supporting Ivermectin are flawed/fake and even retracted

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by CenterField, Oct 16, 2021.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/7-studies-ivermectin-fans-cite-144410881.html

    Interesting article about the flaws in the 7 main studies quoted by proponents of Ivermectin to treat/prevent Covid-19.

    This article talks about the flawed papers that seem to support Ivermectin (including, a paper being retracted due to fakery), and points to one well-designed randomized controlled trial with preliminary results that do not support ivermectin. Not quoted by this article, there's been other RCTs that have concluded and also do not support the idea that ivermectin can treat or prevent Covid-19.

    It's interesting how the studies that say it is helpful are incredibly flawed or just plain fake (see for example the copy-and-paste fake data in one of the tables shown by the above link; also, one of the studies claims that it was done in a hospital whose administrators said it never happened) while the serious studies with sound methodology keep showing no efficacy.

    Now that we have effective monoclonal antibody cocktails and we are about to get effective antivirals such as molnupiravir (and two other promising antivirals undergoing phase III) it makes even less sense to try a medication that has performed poorly in randomized controlled trials.
     
    bigfella and Bowerbird like this.
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    12,327
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More pharma propaganda and psychobabble. :no:
     
    gfm7175 and drluggit like this.
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    98,775
    Likes Received:
    78,540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    This was another case of “it worked in vitro but not in vivo”. Early laboratory studies did hold out some hope but the question was always “Is the therapeutic level too close to the toxic level”
     
  4. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly. The cemetery of pharmaceuticals in the history of Medicine is full of promising drugs in vitro that didn't pay off when they were tried in vivo. Like I usually say, activity in vitro and in vivo are vastly different. A live organism is way more complex than a cell culture, and concentrations of the drug in vitro often can't be achieved in vivo without unacceptable toxicity.

    In vitro studies are good for hypothesis generation, but that's about it.
     
    bigfella, Bowerbird and Melb_muser like this.
  5. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    32,420
    Likes Received:
    30,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reminds us that the Pfizer and Moderna versions of the jab seem to have the same issues. Hence all of the "breakthrough" cases filling up the data.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,921
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    13,127
    Likes Received:
    13,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,921
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    98,775
    Likes Received:
    78,540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Got evidence??
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    98,775
    Likes Received:
    78,540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Melb_muser and bigfella like this.
  11. Polydectes

    Polydectes Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    54,010
    Likes Received:
    18,402
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody cares what CNN told you to think
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL, too funny! This crazy nut is the doctor that the anti-vaxxers picked to be their champion!
    This doctor probably suffers from diagnosable psychosis.
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov and Bowerbird like this.
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    98,775
    Likes Received:
    78,540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ahhhhh! World Nut Daily!!! Since when were they a valid source for anything but wing nut conspiracy? AND it is quoting from one of the “disinformation dozen” SKA lifesitenews I could do an analysis of the so called trial but I would be wasting my time given the source
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    12,327
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the debate has been lost, slander and ad hom attacks become the tools of the loser. And of course censorship.
     
    Scott likes this.
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,903
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  17. Peter the Roman

    Peter the Roman Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2019
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
  18. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hear, hear, the amazing story of fake research regarding Ivermectin. Amazing.

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/d21d3ae2-ca67-3ba8-9696-330c0a90ffd5/‘you-will-not-believe-what.html

    Incredible.

    The article has other examples of fake research that created the Ivermectin craze.
     
  19. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  20. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    16,723
    Likes Received:
    8,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's no surprise. The push for Ivermectin was more about choosing something mainstream science and media rejected than it was based on fact and results. Granted, the early results were inconclusive in either direction, but the pro-Ivermectin folks pushed their narrative based on quite a bit of unverifiable anecdotal evidence.

    It was largely an embodiment of that age old stupid idea that if the other side is saying you should or shouldn't do something, that must mean the opposite is true. Well, maybe occasionally, but more often it's probably because that thing is the wrong thing. Hopefully there weren't too many folks loading themselves up on toxic doses of this medicine thinking that because their alternative media told them that Fauci didn't want you to do it that it was actually the right thing to do.

    Contrarianism always makes for great medical advice don't ya think.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2022
    Aleksander Ulyanov and bigfella like this.
  21. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some will believe anything.
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  22. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    15,893
    Likes Received:
    11,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I watched someone who seemed deathly ill get better over night with that stuff so I don’t really care what a study says, it definitely worked for him.
     
  23. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Prob had worms.
     
    Aleksander Ulyanov likes this.
  24. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    15,893
    Likes Received:
    11,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lol… Who knows but he had all the symptoms of COVID and it literally got better over night. I’m vaccinated so I advised him to see a doctor. But he made his mind up on this stuff and as crazy as I thought he was, it still worked
     
  25. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,004
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have double blind studies because they are usually reliable.

    One offs are not.
     

Share This Page