Jump to content

Alex_Krycek

Senior Members
  • Posts

    489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Alex_Krycek last won the day on June 25

Alex_Krycek had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Psychology, Archaeology

Recent Profile Visitors

2949 profile views

Alex_Krycek's Achievements

Molecule

Molecule (6/13)

65

Reputation

  1. Interesting video by Dr. John Campbell on the current state of affairs with Covid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL8QnUM81Wo
  2. I think it's understandable in this context when considering this particular demographic. If parents are faced with a choice: vaccinate your child (which puts the child more at risk for myocarditis than actually becoming ill with Covid according to this study) versus leaving them unvaccinated for the time being and letting them make their own decision when they turn 18, I think it would be very reasonable if they choose the latter option (especially considering that vaccinated adults can still pass on the virus, even though they themselves are at a very low risk of hospitalization).
  3. That's called confirmation bias. It also includes not considering / dismissing new information that may diverge from or challenge one's established way of thinking.
  4. Here's the direct link to the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1
  5. Recent study on Pfizer side effects in males aged 12-15: Boys more at risk from Pfizer jab side-effect than Covid, suggests study US researchers say teenagers are more likely to get vaccine-related myocarditis than end up in hospital with Covid "Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim. Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period. Most children who experienced the rare side-effect had symptoms within days of the second shot of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, though a similar side-effect is seen with the Moderna jab. About 86% of the boys affected required some hospital care, the authors said." Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study
  6. Just pointing out that there's more noise than signal these days, and supposedly reputable outlets aren't immune from the fray. It's easy to get caught up in the tribalism and name calling. If they're presented with information that refutes the veracity of the story, they should retract the story, not leave it up as a clickbait headline. You can't have an entire article portraying the situation in a particular light, based on facts that are then completely undermined with an update appended at the end of the article. Disingenuous. I wrote to The Guardian this morning to request a retraction. As a paid subscriber I expect better of them. I'm interested in any information about the efficacy of Ivermectin, for treatment of prophylaxis. I doubt it, but not many people have access to remdesivir, or the other treatments currently available or in the pipeline. If people who need a treatment option now can use Ivermectin safely and effectively, why not? All reasonable options should be on the table.
  7. Here's an example of some recent misinformation about Ivermectin in the media. Rolling Stone, CNN, The Guardian, Fox News, and several other media outlets ran a story about an Oklahoma ER at the NHS Sequoyah hospital. The source was Dr. Jason McElyea, supposedly an ER doctor at the facility. Mr. McElyea's statements and portrayal of the situation were refuted by the hospital on their website. Here's the headlines that The Guardian and Rolling Stone went with: It turns out that Dr. Jason McElyea hasn't worked at NHS Sequoyah in months, and the hospital issued a formal correction on their website, to counter the false headlines: Sources: https://nhssequoyah.com/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/oklahoma-doctor-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/
  8. Interesting article about Covid progress in Australia. They're using a new drug called Sotrovimab, which is a type of monoclonal antibody treatment. “Sotrovimab is an antibody treatment, and one that’s been shown in good clinical trials to have a dramatic impact in reducing people’s probability of progressing to severe disease,” Griffin said. “If there’s someone who’s high risk at developing severe symptoms, it can be given to them. It does need to be given early, before people are very unwell, but in those people it stops very significant progression through to severe disease.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/covid-treatment-improving-as-doctors-learn-to-fight-the-disease-and-access-new-drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotrovimab
  9. This issue will go to the Supreme Court in the US, in my view. Too many legal principles at stake that need to be sorted out.
  10. The media in the US is corporate in nature, driven by profit and special interests. Would anyone have a problem criticizing the media's deceptiveness regarding the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? Probably not. We all recognize the influence that the military industrial complex and defense contractors have on Washington legislators and the corporate media. It would no doubt be much more acceptable to you to criticize the media if we were discussing those topics, but if one implies that there is some selective messaging going on with respect to Covid, then suddenly criticizing the media is off limits. Why can we criticize the media in some areas but not others? I find this inconsistent. The Pharma lobby is one of the most powerful in the US. Of course it is plausible that the corporate media would engage in some selective messaging to turn people away from possible cheap alternatives to Covid, as they turned people towards the idea of WMDs in Iraq, or away from the Public Option (it would run insurance companies out of business, right?), and as the media seeks to shape the narrative around a myriad of other issues (universal healthcare, UBI, certain political ideas that fall outside of the status quo, etc). It's "manufactured consent", as Noam Chomsky puts it. The narrow dialogue and fixation on classifying Ivermectin as only a horse dewormer is reflective of this. The corporate media rarely mentions that Ivermectin is a safe drug that has been used worldwide for decades, nor will they mention the study that I had to proactively search out to begin to understand the full picture. Instead, the media hypes up the cases of people who misuse the drug, which is a small minority. Omit any news about Ivermectin to the contrary, and voila - manufactured consent. It's selective and self serving messaging, with an obvious objective of tarring as fringe elements those who might want to discuss Ivermectin. This in turn gives license to those who blithely follow this narrative to ridicule those who they perceive as ignorant and uninformed. In the context of what they have been led to believe, this self righteous condescension is logical, but they're missing the bigger picture. These are the sections from the study that I found most relevant: 1. Ivermectin is a well-known medicine that is approved as an antiparasitic by the World Health Organization and the US Food and Drug Administration. It is widely used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to treat worm infections. 2,3 Also used for the treatment of scabies and lice, it is one of the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines.4 With total doses of ivermectin distributed apparently equaling one-third of the present world population,5 ivermectin at the usual doses (0.2–0.4 mg/kg) is considered extremely safe for use in humans. 6,7 In addition to its antiparasitic activity, it has been noted to have antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, leading to an increasing list of therapeutic indications.8 2. A review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin “demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy” against COVID-19. 9 Another recent review found that ivermectin reduced deaths by 75%. 10 3. Ivermectin has exhibited antiviral activity against a wide range of RNA and some DNA viruses, for example, Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and others. 13 Caly et al 14 demonstrated specific action against SARSCoV-2 in vitro with a suggested host-directed mechanism of action being the blocking of the nuclear import of viral proteins 14,15 that suppress normal immune responses. 4. Developing new medications can take years; therefore, identifying existing drugs that can be repurposed against COVID-19 that already have an established safety profile through decades of use could play a critical role in suppressing or even ending the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Using repurposed medications may be especially important because it could take months, possibly years, for much of the world’s population to get vaccinated, particularly among LMIC populations. 5. All-cause mortality: Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment [average RR (aRR) 0.38, 95% 0.19 to 0.73; I 2 5 49%]; risk of death 2.3% versus 7.8% among hospitalized patients in this analysis, respectively (SoF Table 2 and Figure 3). 6. The effect on reducing deaths was consistent across mild to moderate and severe disease subgroups. 7. The cumulative z-curve in Figure 8 crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries after reaching the required IS, implying that there is firm evidence for a beneficial effect of ivermectin use over no ivermectin use in mainly hospitalized participants with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 8. The findings indicate with moderate certainty that ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit. 9. In addition to the evidence from systematic reviews, the findings of several controlled observational studies are consistent with existing evidence and suggest improved outcomes with ivermectin treatment.55,57,59 Similarly, with respect to ivermectin prophylaxis of frontline workers and those at risk, controlled observational studies from Bangladesh and Argentina (the latter which involved 1195 health care workers) have shown apparent reductions in COVID-19 transmission with ivermectin prophylaxis, including in some reports total protection (zero infections) where infection rates in the control group exceeded 50%. 122, 10. There is also evidence emerging from countries where ivermectin has been implemented. For example, Peru had a very high death toll from COVID-19 early on in the pandemic. 128 Based on observational evidence, the Peruvian government approved ivermectin for use against COVID-19 in May 2020. 128 After implementation, death rates in 8 states were reduced between 64% and 91% over a two-month period. 128 Another analysis of Peruvian data from 24 states with early ivermectin deployment has reported a drop in excess deaths of 59% at 30+ days and of 75% at 45+ days. 129 11. Certain South American countries, Indian states, and, more recently, Slovakia and other countries in Europe have implemented its use for COVID-19. 129,131,132,133,134 12. Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone. 1 If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then a fortiori the evidence of 2 dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin. 13. Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.
  11. Somewhat of an odd analogy, but anyway. Are you calling these authors "uninformed uneducated cranks? Andrew Bryant, MSc,1,* Theresa A. Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD,2 Therese Dowswell, PhD,2 Edmund J. Fordham, PhD,2 Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS,3 Sarah R. Hill, PhD,1 and Tony C. Tham, MD, FRCP4 Should their research and subsequent conclusions not be considered? Again, this discussion is about Ivermectin and research pertaining to it - not us getting emotional and calling each other names.
  12. Some interesting research reported on the NIH website: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 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. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
  13. FYI - This isn't about you. This thread is about debating the efficacy of Ivermectin.
  14. Do you have links to those studies? Probably a small minority. But as usual, the outliers seem to get all the attention in campaign to dismiss the entire group. Post links to those studies please. Which is why more studies should be conducted. Or it can be used as an alternative treatment for breakthrough infections, until other treatments that are in the pipeline make it to market. I think its fully justifiable for a member of the public who was repeatedly told that vaccines will protect them from Covid and then becomes infected again to consider all possible options. I disagree. There's a lot we still don't know about how to treat Covid. Treatment and prevention are both crucial. Yes, take the vaccine if you have access to it: 100%. However, many do not have access and need something that works in the meantime. In the near future, there may be a vaccine that offers no immunity from a new variant. That is an entirely plausible scenario based on recent events. So the vaccine may not end up being a panacea; all options should be considered. I don't think it's that esoteric. I see it more as group think on both sides. The entire discussion is extremely emotionally charged and polarized, and there isn't much room for nuanced debate. I'm not interested in your emotional outbursts, or being told to "shut up". If you have something to contribute to the debate, do so.
  15. This type of response is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for proving my point. https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.