Covid-19 News/Discussion

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

I mean...I guess...but who is using a battle ax more in this scenario after these movies/shows? That doesn't exactly somehow give me MORE faith in humanity.

Wait.... you had faith?

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Wait.... you had faith?

Not ever at any given time in humanity, and certainly not now.

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

So what is a lethal dose of Invermectin?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751445/

It depends. Are we talking how much could one person tolerate in a single dose? Or multiple doses?

The second question is more relevant, because you have people forcing as much as they can stomach over a few weeks. Per Table 1 of that article, the half-life of ivermectin is in the 16 hour range at higher tablet doses. People taking 15 mg tablets multiple times a day aren't going to be able to clear out all (or even half) of the previous dose.

That's the danger here. One dose of 15 mg ivermectin isn't the end of the world. But if you're taking it twice daily or more than that, all the time for a few weeks? You could have 5x drug onboard easily. 

[ET80]

13 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I think about this every time I read a warning label of any kind...because you have to think to yourself "They have to put that on there because someone/multiple people did this and then filed a lawsuit."

For example, on my wife's curling iron, it says "Not to be used for cauterizing wounds".

It's alarming when you think about it. 

Once upon a time... someone has to put directions on shampoo.

Let that sink in.

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751445/

It depends. Are we talking how much could one person tolerate in a single dose? Or multiple doses?

The second question is more relevant, because you have people forcing as much as they can stomach over a few weeks. Per Table 1 of that article, the half-life of ivermectin is in the 16 hour range at higher tablet doses. People taking 15 mg tablets multiple times a day aren't going to be able to clear out all (or even half) of the previous dose.

That's the danger here. One dose of 15 mg ivermectin isn't the end of the world. But if you're taking it twice daily or more than that, all the time for a few weeks? You could have 5x drug onboard easily. 

Thanks for the info as always.

Just so I know, is that site I referenced for that study not considered legit? It seems like it was but it's not hard to throw up a good looking website and wordsmith some stuff to make it seem like you know what you're talking about.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

Once upon a time... someone has to put directions on shampoo.

Let that sink in.

Like you’d know anything about shampoo 😂 

[ET80]

Just now, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Like you’d know anything about shampoo 😂 

I haven't had hair in 20+ years, I still know how to use shampoo...

[incognito_man]

46 minutes ago, ET80 said:

This is what drives me nuts:

- People will bypass a vaccine because of "the unknown" of what this vaccine will do to people.

- People want to take a medication that is "known" ...to be very dangerous in doses that would actually provide benefit.

Seriously, in what universe does that make sense? 

There's going to be some great psychological studies on this segment of the population authored over the ensuing decades. Hopefully my children will have an answer to "how can we prevent widespread misinformation from polluting the reality of millions of humans" by the time they're my age.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Thanks for the info as always.

Just so I know, is that site I referenced for that study not considered legit? It seems like it was but it's not hard to throw up a good looking website and wordsmith some stuff to make it seem like you know what you're talking about.

No worries. When you asked, for a lethal dose I started digging for the most similar PK I could find to what people are doing now so there's as fair a comparison as we can get. It's not 100% apples to apples because the formulations are different, but it's a starting point. 

 

What you posted is a legitimate link, I'm skeptical though. First off, the context. This is a small molecule, anti-viral with spotty efficacy data, and it has similar mild efficacy against many different types of viruses. We've talked about this, but that type of molecule doesn't have a strong track record. Usually, it's noise that fades away. 

But what that article is doing is combining several smaller studies showing efficacy in Ivermectin, to increase the N and see if we can get additional statistical power out of it. This has some problems, and I think the authors are fairly transparent about it. Check out Table 1 - it goes through the differences between all the trial sites, including location, endpoints measured, control groups used, etc. etc. The long story short is that the studies are so different adding them together is going to be of limited value, and that's what the analysis shows. They were able to measure changes like length of hospital stay, but not things like antibody production, O2 saturation, etc. that would be more reliable.

The study concludes a 'moderate certainly' of some efficacy based primarily on mortality reduction. So you have to ask if we aren't seeing a more clear picture of efficacy because of the noise in the trials, or because the drug doesn't work all that well? 

I'm betting the latter based on everything else we know.

[pwny]

1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

So what is a lethal dose of Invermectin?

In reading this I see the standard dose of 0.2–0.4 mg/kg is extremely safe but I must've missed what dose levels they were using when conducting this study.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

I'm not very sciencey as I've stated many times in here but maybe someone can tell me why what I'm reading here isn't good. Maybe the source?

So this paper here is actually a meta-analysis of other ivermectin/COVID studies. What this study did was pull a bunch of other studies, review them and then combine all the results to get a “this is what all the studies say when you put them all together”.

The biggest study that got pulled into the meta analysis studies (there’s been a few meta analyses done) of ivermectin and COVID has been Elgazzar et al. It was a massive study that dwarfs all the other studies done (600 patients), and a third of the data (200) was with hospitalized patients [the focus of this meta analysis], where they reported 90% reduction in mortality for hospitalized patients. Great, great news.

The only problem is it hadn’t been peer reviewed. It was a pre-print. And once it went through the review process, it was retracted for plagiarism, falsified data, and ethics concerns.

Once that study is pulled out of the meta-analyses, all those good signs we thought we saw in the data, they all vanish.

Edited September 2, 2021 by pwny
Cleared up some confusion in the information I provided

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 minutes ago, pwny said:

So this paper here is actually a meta-analysis of other ivermectin/COVID studies. What this study did was pull a bunch of other studies, review them and then combine all the results to get a “this is what all the studies say when you put them all together”.

The biggest study that got pulled into the meta analysis studies (there’s been a few meta analyses done) of ivermectin and COVID has been Elgazzar et al. It was a massive study that dwarfs all the other studies done, and reported 90% reduction in mortality for hospitalized patients. Great, great news.

The only problem is it hadn’t been peer reviewed. It was a pre-print. And once it went through the review process, it was retracted for plagiarism, falsified data, and ethics concerns.

Once that study is pulled out of the meta-analyses, all those good signs we thought we saw in the data, they all vanish.

Did they remove it from this version of the article? 

The largest trial I see included is 476.

[pwny]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Did they remove it from this version of the article? 

The largest trial I see included is 476.

Nope it’s still in there. 200 participants, it’s the 7th one listed in their analysis.

Lopez, Medina is the largest study of hospitalized patients being tested with ivermectin at 476 and they found no evidence of any benefit 

https://oce.ovid.com/article/00005407-202104130-00020

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 minutes ago, pwny said:

Nope it’s still in there. Also, my apologies *at the time of the research,* it dwarfed all other studies. 200 participants, it’s the 7th one listed in their analysis.

Lopez, Medina is the largest study now at 476 and they found no evidence of any benefit 

https://oce.ovid.com/article/00005407-202104130-00020

Yeah then this makes sense.

So then the conclusions from that article are "if you throw everything positive about what we know on ivermectin into a pot, if we don't verify everything it looks decent but inconsistent, and the more we verify the more the positivity goes away".

Edited September 2, 2021 by ramssuperbowl99

[Xenos]

The NFL and the NFLPA agree to new Covid protocols.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-union-agree-to-more-covid-testing-amid-delta-surge-but-nflpa-wants-more-030330303.html

[pwny]

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Yeah then this makes sense.

So then the conclusions from that article are "if you throw everything positive about what we know on ivermectin into a pot, if we don't verify everything it looks decent but inconsistent, and the more we verify the more the positivity goes away".

Pretty much.

Also of note, the whole “study” that got thrown out was 600 participants, but only 200 were included in the meta analysis because they were looking at the hospitalized group only. So it is the largest ivermectin/COVID study, just not the largest for “hospitalized care”. So other meta analyses that look at the whole of ivermectin at all stages of care will potentially be even more influenced by this study than this meta analysis was.