ivermectin the only drug that people are investigating is it?
You would think so given how many people have put all their eggs in that basket.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Treatment versus Vaccine
- Thread starter Goosecat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
ivermectin the only drug that people are investigating is it?
You would think so given how many people have put all their eggs in that basket.
- Thread starter
- #227
Have you not seen all the others being investigated now? It's been a slow dawning realisation but it's getting there. I've posted a number being investigated and even approved through this thread. As far as Ivermectin is concerned, what Dr Lawrie demonstrates quite clearly is that anyone in this debate who ever jumped onto the lunatic Ivermectin bandwagon is actually a simpleton, sucked into a group identity, labelling simplification.
Last edited:
I am fully cognizant of the studies into various meds for covid
BEaston
Hungry
- Oct 9, 2013
- 12,085
- 16,581
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Haha pretty ironic.
I assume you have read the pre-print?
Interesting. States "Meta-analysis of 13 trials, assessing 1892 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 68% (95% CI, 28% to 86%) compared with no ivermectin treatment (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; I 2 = 57%)...which sounds great....Until you look at the table that says "Death-All causes".
It is amusing that you - like all of your brethren who have come before, posted and run away - quote Dr Lawrie like she is the Pope of health, and then accuse others of being gullible.
I examine research data daily. its a part of my career. In order to examine a meta-analysis you have to read the studies that contributed to the actual analysis.
Much of it in Lawrie's analysis doesnt claim what she says it claims. Indeed, she has used one study where there were 3 deaths in the placebo arm, but doesnt even acknowledge that the authors of that study state " Three patients in the placebo group died; these patients had a higher mean age than those who survived (63 years vs. 39 years) and they died 8, 22, and 28 days after randomization of respiratory failure due to COVID-19-related pneumonia". That is a relevant consideration.
In another she ignores the fact that it was a study that also included the Iranian treatments also given of "oral hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 200mg/kg twice per day as standard regimen and a heparin prophylaxis in combination with supplemental oxygen"
Another study combined ivermectin with doxycyline. Any benefits seen could easily have been seen due to the doxy....I could go on....
I am all for people searching for drug treatments. We need them. But we need decent studies.
- Thread starter
- #234
Oh we certainly need more high quality studies, no doubt. It's just as easy to find fault in the studies utilised by the WHO paper as Dr Lawrie's. In reality fault can found in every study, it's impossible to include every possible. My point is really the narrative around certain existing possible treatments has been relegated to the realms of lunatic and crazy by many, including within this forum, when it so obviously isn't the case. Too many well qualified, intelligent people deem it worth consideration for it to be reduced to such juvenile status.
Oh I actually agree with that.
I happily support large RCT's for ivermectin. If it is actually shown to help, I will prescribe it.
I can happily say that about any treatment thats proven to be helpful in decent studies.
I would just say of ivermectin, that one concern to me that I keep noticing, is that there is some reported decreased IgG titre.
- Thread starter
- #239
I'd have to defer to your greater knowledge regarding IgG titre reduction over time but I'm pretty sure that is apparent in current vaccines also.
There is also some debate as to whether IgG levels are necessarily the best measurement tool of the bodies preparedness for future virus reaction itself. We still don't know enough about the bodies ability to regulate the levels and rely on other now programmed signalling mechanisms to up the levels when required.
This has been a topic of discussion in science for a little while now, since before this particular virus epidemic. There is so much we don't know.
Sure, vaccine IgG will decline, usually over many months. But one study mentioned lower IgG titres in people who had just had covid and were treated with ivermectin. This may well relate to lower viral load. This then becomes an issue simply because if a good IgG response is essential to further immunity. If people have a lower IgG titre due to ivermectin, then they risk further covid.
This small study for example states "Nevertheless, our results strongly suggest that ivermectin use can interfere in the specific immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, affecting memory cells and the production of antibodies against that virus. Further studies are needed to understand how this effect is promoted by ivermectin use, and what are the consequences for post-infection immunity". The study found that "use of multiple doses of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with lower frequency/lower levels of neutralizing antibodies and reduced production of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies".
I am aware of cytokine pathways related to T and B cell recruitment and the effect on T-cell and B cell immunity, however much more research needs to be done to figure out what effects drugs have on the whole cascade in relation too covid.
Self-prescribed Ivermectin use is associated with a lower rate of seroconversion in health care workers diagnosed with COVID, in a dose-dependent response | The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
BackgroundOver-the-counter use of ivermectin amongst other drugs as SARS-CoV-2 treatment has been
www.bjid.org.br
The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial
Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia...
www.thelancet.com
- Thread starter
- #241
Yes we have much to learn, it's a never ending path of discovery. As you mentioned yourself earlier, the trouble with the study you refer to is it suffers from the very same attributes you mention as being "criticisable".Sure, vaccine IgG will decline, usually over many months. But one study mentioned lower IgG titres in people who had just had covid and were treated with ivermectin. This may well relate to lower viral load. This then becomes an issue simply because if a good IgG response is essential to further immunity. If people have a lower IgG titre due to ivermectin, then they risk further covid.
This small study for example states "Nevertheless, our results strongly suggest that ivermectin use can interfere in the specific immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, affecting memory cells and the production of antibodies against that virus. Further studies are needed to understand how this effect is promoted by ivermectin use, and what are the consequences for post-infection immunity". The study found that "use of multiple doses of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with lower frequency/lower levels of neutralizing antibodies and reduced production of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies".
I am aware of cytokine pathways related to T and B cell recruitment and the effect on T-cell and B cell immunity, however much more research needs to be done to figure out what effects drugs have on the whole cascade in relation too covid.
Self-prescribed Ivermectin use is associated with a lower rate of seroconversion in health care workers diagnosed with COVID, in a dose-dependent response | The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
BackgroundOver-the-counter use of ivermectin amongst other drugs as SARS-CoV-2 treatment has beenThe effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial
Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia...www.thelancet.com
The interesting scientific pondering's regarding antibody levels and signalling of the immune response are really worth consideration. What if the very basis by which we measure our bodies readiness currently (antibody levels) is actually a very basic almost child-like concept? Leaving the body purposefully with abnormally high antibody concentrations in a belief we are thus prepared for action could be actually leaving the body in a permanent inflammatory state. The suspicion is growing that the body, once exposed only keeps the antibody level high long enough to fight as immediately necessary, before reducing it as required lest the body remain in permanent war footing/inflammatory status. Certainly we don't see continuing very high anti-body levels in the body after natural infections have been successfully fought, they reduce back down. How is it then that the body is ready to fight again if needed? The answer most probably lies in other now trained signalling mechanisms of identification.
Last edited:
Certainly we do.
Naturally infected measles subjects have much higher levels of AB's to measles over life than vaccinated individuals do.
About 4 times higher. "The geometric mean titer to measles was high (GMT 552.9) in naturally infected people, versus a GMT of 172.1 in vaccines of the same age cohort"
Seroprevalence to Measles Virus after Vaccination or Natural Infection in an Adult Population, in Italy
An increase in measles cases worldwide, with outbreaks, has been registered in the last few years, despite the availability of a safe and highly efficacious vaccine. In addition to an inadequate vaccination coverage, even in high-income European countries ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Thread starter
- #243
Yes natural immunity does seem to be a better preparation, though some scientists would argue with each other over that and then we get into the argument over perhaps helping the body fight naturally through treatment aids being better overall than vaccination, which opens another big can of worms. However the total count is still down on levels circulating during crisis infection time. There is a balance to be found by the body, it cant's stay at high fight response levels for eternity, anymore than it can stay at extreme elevated response level to anything for too long.Certainly we do.
Naturally infected measles subjects have much higher levels of AB's to measles over life than vaccinated individuals do.
About 4 times higher. "The geometric mean titer to measles was high (GMT 552.9) in naturally infected people, versus a GMT of 172.1 in vaccines of the same age cohort"
Mumps is another. The AB titres remain high.Seroprevalence to Measles Virus after Vaccination or Natural Infection in an Adult Population, in Italy
An increase in measles cases worldwide, with outbreaks, has been registered in the last few years, despite the availability of a safe and highly efficacious vaccine. In addition to an inadequate vaccination coverage, even in high-income European countries ...
Last edited:
Levels remain high for ever to things like measles and mumps...many times higher than after vaccination. This is why we see the occasional outbreak of mumps, such as about 6 years ago in the Kimberley. Its also why people who had previously had natural mumps were the only ones allowed to see patients who presented with mump-like symptoms.
Natural immunity remains high. Likely not quite as high as a month after infection, but high, otherwise, how could the body almost immediately counteract the threat?
You are starting to sound anti-vaccines now
- Thread starter
- #245
Well if I'm starting to sound anti-vaccine it's not meant. Vaccines have played a critical part in our history, particularly vaccines that actually stop you getting and spreading the virus, unlike those we are utilising in the current epidemic which do not.Levels remain high for ever to things like measles and mumps...many times higher than after vaccination. This is why we see the occasional outbreak of mumps, such as about 6 years ago in the Kimberley. Its also why people who had previously had natural mumps were the only ones allowed to see patients who presented with mump-like symptoms.
Natural immunity remains high. Likely not quite as high as a month after infection, but high, otherwise, how could the body almost immediately counteract the threat?
You are starting to sound anti-vaccines now
They have however never been the sole repository of necessary options when fighting viral infections. Once again it is possible to be a centrist and a realist regarding the necessity for more than that. It's just difficult during current group identity thinking and hard left versus right division for that to be seen and understood anymore.
I'm glad to see someone at least recognising the genuine intelligent interest in existing treatment possibilities.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #246
Professor Chris Butler, from the University Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Joint Chief Investigator of the PRINCIPLE trial, said, ‘Ivermectin is readily available globally, has been in wide use for many other infectious conditions so it’s a well-known medicine with a good safety profile, and because of the early promising results in some studies it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries. By including ivermectin in a large-scale trial like PRINCIPLE, we hope to generate robust evidence to determine how effective the treatment is against COVID-19, and whether there are benefits or harms associated with its use.’
Whatever the outcome is this time; It is definitely not the realm of the lunatic fringe.
Whatever the outcome is this time; It is definitely not the realm of the lunatic fringe.
The flu vaccine doesnt do a great job at preventing the flu either
But, yes as a doctor who's job it is to save lives, I am 100% all for treatment options.
There is a lot of work been done on many drugs and hopefully one fits the bill.
I await more research to come out.
- Thread starter
- #248
Are you already utilising Sotrovimab for any patients? And how the hell does a doctor during these times find so much time on their hands to be a regular poster here during the day?The flu vaccine doesnt do a great job at preventing the flu either
But, yes as a doctor who's job it is to save lives, I am 100% all for treatment options.
There is a lot of work been done on many drugs and hopefully one fits the bill.
I await more research to come out.
Last edited:
Honestly, I'm yet to hear anyone say anything to the contrary. That's both on here, in the media and in real world discussion.
It's like this entire thread is just you shadow boxing.
Who on earth doesn't agree with or doesn't support treatments for COVID? I mean, WTF.
Nope, but no cases here yet, luckily
I am unsure if my clinic will get sotrovimab. I will await advice on that.
