Covid the *** and the final stage.

[Northern_Brewer]

I am just keeping an open mind on everything. I find it difficult to understand why they aren’t going for vit D and Ivermectin as well as vaccines which are both harmless and cheap

Barleylass, you're wrong.

Ivermectin is not harmless. Per the British National Formulary, its side-effects include "abnormal sensation in eye; anaemia; appetite decreased; asthenia; asthma exacerbated; chest discomfort; coma; confusion; conjunctival haemorrhage; constipation; diarrhoea; difficulty standing; difficulty walking; dizziness; drowsiness; dyspnoea; encephalopathy; eosinophilia; eye inflammation; faecal incontinence; fever; gastrointestinal discomfort; headache; hepatitis; hypotension; joint disorders; leucopenia; lymphatic abnormalities; Mazzotti reaction aggravated; myalgia; nausea; oedema; pain; psychiatric disorder; seizure; severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs); stupor; tachycardia; tremor; urinary incontinence; vertigo; vomiting"

and could have possibly saved many lives. It is like they are suppressing the use of them in favour of the vaccines.

Rubbish. They're not being used because there's no good evidence that they work. Just a few weeks ago, the European Medicines Agency reviewed the evidence for ivermectin and Covid-19 and concluded "the available data do not support its use for COVID-19 outside well-designed clinical trials". Last week the WHO concluded "The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials. "

This is a good overview of the ivermectin story from the BMJ : Covid-19: Ivermectin’s politicisation is a warning sign for doctors turning to orphan treatments

Yes there is some evidence for it blocking SARS2 replication, but only at high levels, higher than are authorised for medical use. The clnical trials so far have been pretty inconclusive one way or another, and have been either small or with other things going on. I suspect it's probably one of those things where you need so much of it to have an effect, that the side-effects outweigh the benefits, but let's see what a proper clinical trial says. We've been here before with hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma, both of which were touted as miracle cures but which had no effect in proper clinical trials.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions back in #571....

 

[Clint]

As for "side effects..." for years I was on and off prescription drugs as from most of my life (I'm 53) I've had issues with my left hip. I had a hip replacement at 46 and it changed my life...I don't take prescription drugs!!
Anyway..back to the side effects...one I was taking said in rare cases you might get a sensation of....can't remember the exact wording....but likened it to things crawling on your skin....I got that..like flies or whatever on my face...a rare side effect...Mrs said I was like a twit trying to bat them off while bombed...

 

[simon12]

Ivermectin is the latest example of the global failure to work out which drugs could have saved possibly millions of lives for very little cost (and a massive saving over locking people down and paying furlough and grants). The WHO's recent study shows

so a massive reduction in deaths, ventilators and hospital admissions but all at very low certainty. There has been claims it works since at least July last year likely much sooner yet no one has bothered organising a proper trial. Yes it has known side effects as do all drugs, but it known to be safe and has been used for decades for all types of things. Anyway my thoughts on it have no relevance so here's Dr Campbell again

 

[Hop_it]

Neither infections nor vaccinations guarantee that you will develop antibodies though - which is why the vaccines are not 100% effective (out immune systems are not 100% effective).

Also, my feeling based on current knowledge, but it is still a useful reminder to those who might believe that they will be invincible once vaccinated.

 

[Barleylass]

Can you explain what you mean by "cycles" in this context?



What do you mean by "inaccurate"? No test is 100% accurate, it's always a bit of a tradeoff between speed, convenience and accuracy. What level of accuracy do you get above and below "25 cycles", and what level of accuracy would you consider to be acceptable?



Can you show me where the WHO said this?



How many? And what level of asymptomatic carrier would cause a problem?



Can you point me to more data on this. I like to question things and not just follow what I am told, and the only way is to see original sources rather than second-hand information. If the evidence is so clear-cut, you should easily be able to find reputable sources to point me at.

 

[Barleylass]

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

 

[ChrisR73]

Ivermectin is the latest example of the global failure to work out which drugs could have saved possibly millions of lives for very little cost (and a massive saving over locking people down and paying furlough and grants). The WHO's recent study shows

so a massive reduction in deaths, ventilators and hospital admissions but all at very low certainty. There has been claims it works since at least July last year likely much sooner yet no one has bothered organising a proper trial. Yes it has known side effects as do all drugs, but it known to be safe and has been used for decades for all types of things. Anyway my thoughts on it have no relevance so here's Dr Campbell again

You need to be very careful with small studies, especially in which they carefully control which patients are enrolled into the groups. Publication bias is also an issue during such hectic times as negative outcomes may not be published in the rush to start a different trial.
If the drug manufacturer is not willing to finance a large, high quality study then you know that something is wrong.
The NHS - which pioneered several high-quality trials and verified the effectiveness of cheap, readily available off-patent steroids have not trialled ivermectin because:
”They felt that evidence of a clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effect was weak and that the current clinical evidence and meta-analyses were no sufficiently robust to recommend ivermectin [for further study]”
Covid-19 Theraputics panel, BMJ 01/04/21

 

[simon12]

You need to be very careful with small studies, especially in which they carefully control which patients are enrolled into the groups. Publication bias is also an issue during such hectic times as negative outcomes may not be published in the rush to start a different trial.
If the drug manufacturer is not willing to finance a large, high quality study then you know that something is wrong.
The NHS - which pioneered several high-quality trials and verified the effectiveness of cheap, readily available off-patent steroids have not trialled ivermectin because:
”They felt that evidence of a clinically relevant anti-inflammatory effect was weak and that the current clinical evidence and meta-analyses were no sufficiently robust to recommend ivermectin [for further study]”
Covid-19 Theraputics panel, BMJ 01/04/21

I agree but its a generic drug so no one has fantail incentive to prove if it works which is my point its a global failure it would cost some one somewhere (governments or WHO) maybe £500,000 to find out if we could save 100's of 1000's of lives but we still don't know.

 

[ChrisR73]

I agree but its a generic drug so no one has fantail incentive to prove if it works which is my point its a global failure it would cost some one somewhere (governments or WHO) maybe £500,000 to find out if we could save 100's of 1000's of lives but we still don't know.

Or maybe - and much more likely - it doesn’t actually work.

 

[simon12]

Or maybe - and much more likely - it doesn’t actually work.

I am not trying to say if it works or not just that its a huge failure we don't know.

 

[ChrisR73]

I am not trying to say if it works or not just that its a huge failure we don't know.

I think you missed my point - despite several studies there is no convincing evidence that it does work.
So I think that we do actually know.

 

[simon12]

I think you missed my point - despite several studies there is no convincing evidence that it does work.
So I think that we do actually know.

OK we do disagree then as the evidence shows an 80% reduction in deaths and the WHO's take on them was its effect are uncertain. Where do you get the idea we do know?

 

[Polcho]

I wonder if the safety concerns of the Astrazenca *** is a moot point at the end of the day.

All medicines have some risk, and nobody is forced to take it.

 

[ChrisR73]

OK we do disagree then as the evidence shows an 80% reduction in deaths and the WHO's take on them was its effect are uncertain. Where do you get the idea we do know?

If the evidence actually showed such a dramatic effect then it would be used.
The fact that results are mixed, trials are small and controls generally poor puts this exactly in the same boat as hydroxychloroquine - so we do know that it doesn’t work as well as you claim it does.
Clinical decisions are based on all the evidence, not just a handful not positive outcomes and ignoring the test.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I wonder if the safety concerns of the Astrazenca *** is a moot point at the end of the day.

All medicines have some risk, and nobody is forced to take it.

As i have said elsewhere if they had told me the morning of my *** there was a very small chance i might get a blood clot i would still have had it.

 

[simon12]

If the evidence actually showed such a dramatic effect then it would be used.
The fact that results are mixed, trials are small and controls generally poor puts this exactly in the same boat as hydroxychloroquine - so we do know that it doesn’t work as well as you claim it does.
Clinical decisions are based on all the evidence, not just a handful not positive outcomes and ignoring the test.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/e...t-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

The table I posted is the average of the studies and does show 80% less deaths but with very low certainty, the evidence of it not working at all just isn't there. Anyway there isn't much point in this back and forth so please feel free to have the last word on it or just leave it for now.

 

[LesTom]

As i have said elsewhere if they had told me the morning of my *** there was a very small chance i might get a blood clot i would still have had it.

Likewise @Chippy_Tea I would still take the *** even if I was even slightly concerned about any issues as I dearly want us to get out of this present predicament that were in.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I am sat at the vaccination centre as I type this waiting for SWMBO to come out having had her second ***, she is a care worker, the rest of her shift are having theirs later, I look forward to having mine in a few weeks.

 

[The Baron]

I too have no issues having my second *** in about 6 weeks. I am not saying that there is not any risk with any vaccine but if proven 100% and at this moment it has not is still being looked into and the advice is to be cautious until it is proven I would still have it as the risk is miniscule even at the possible projected figures that have been put forward.
I also believe that some of this bad press from certain countries is politically motivated as they are using it as a smoke screen for their inadequacies of vaccinating their own, besides that the AZ is much cheaper than the other vaccines so from a commercial business sense it makes some of the other vaccines well down the ladder in possible orders from other nations so it makes ours a first stop for most countries to order this one or am I just reading into something?

 

[Polcho]

I think you hit the nail on the head to be honest.