Covid-19 related debates (argue in this thread only)

[Rodzilla]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435929355386068994

its also policy informing science that ivermectin is not to be used

 

[Rodzilla]

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19."

btw is this peer reviewed?

i was wondering how they came to that conclusion that ivermectin did not reduce all cause mortality when the data shows that it reduced it by 63%, so i found that they miscounted the niaee data, they counted it opposite, Dr niaee had to comment and they corrected the mistake, the risk of death went from 1.11 to 0.37 but they didn't change the conclusion

this is another piece of shit that you have produced and you should apologise within 48 hours, on that cnn discussion on rogan the asian lady used this conclusion when she said that they know ivermectin doesn't work, ive seen other media use it

there are other mistakes brought up as well, this is total misrepresentation

 

[Rodzilla]

yes so maybe it is good to not just take their conclusion like you suggest, maybe the conclusion is fake

 

[steeliz]

anybody who wants to make ivermectin can make it, big pharma can't make any money off it

Big Pharma invented it and still gets royalties.

 

[JayBee]

Big Pharma invented it and still gets royalties.

Incorrect.

The patent expired approximately in 1996, meaning that there would be generics on the market available.

I use the word approximately as it differs from country to country, and also may of had new indications accepted by some corporate agencies in different countries, thereby extending the patent by some number of years.

As a quick FYI - all drugs have indications - an indication is what it is supposed to target (Viagra = erectile dysfunction, Lipitor = cholesterol). If towards the end of the patency, a drug manages to show another indication that was not otherwise known (this is how Viagra was actually found in trials - originally a heart medication) - then they can apply to extend the patent, pending the new indication is viable. So for example, you take something like anti-rejection tablets for a kidney replacement - and out of nowhere, your hair grows back after being bald for 20 years. If the company can prove that the drug caused the hair to grow back, then it could get a new indication and extend the patency.

But safe to say - Ivermectin it is no longer on patent, thereby open to being genericized.

Now - I will point out that MSD, the company that manufactured the branded drug, did release a statement earlier this year indicating that there is no efficacy of the product within patients regarding COVID-19. Summary below:

KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

Now I read this, and knowing what I mentioned above about indications, there are 2 possible results:

1. Either MSD, knowing that the patency ended ~20 years ago cannot apply for a patent exemption (as curing COVID-19 would definitely fall under a new indication) thoroughly tested and found the above. They would take positive publicity to gain if it was indeed a slam-dunk, as it is THEIR drug.
2. Same as above, but spinning the information because it does not suit the narrative, particularly if they new drugs coming out that could cure COVID 19.

I am more so with point number 1 - whilst I have worked in the industry for almost 10 years, I cannot recall a time when a product was off-patent, newly indicated, and then re-patented... as generics would be on the market by then. Even though they cannot re-patent the product (as far as I know), they would still have the positives to gain from it, in the event it showed signs in scientific studies.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

btw is this peer reviewed?

i was wondering how they came to that conclusion that ivermectin did not reduce all cause mortality when the data shows that it reduced it by 63%, so i found that they miscounted the niaee data, they counted it opposite, Dr niaee had to comment and they corrected the mistake, the risk of death went from 1.11 to 0.37 but they didn't change the conclusion

this is another piece of shit that you have produced and you should apologise within 48 hours, on that cnn discussion on rogan the asian lady used this conclusion when she said that they know ivermectin doesn't work, ive seen other media use it

there are other mistakes brought up as well, this is total misrepresentation

Yes. This has been fully peer reviewed. All articles published in Oxford University Press Journals are fully peer reviewed so once again, you're wrong.

 

[maroondog72]

fukn lol

 

[Rodzilla]

Yes. This has been fully peer reviewed. All articles published in Oxford University Press Journals are fully peer reviewed so once again, you're wrong.

so the peer reviews missed how they fucked up the counting, switched some results, made a conclusion then corrected the mistake and kept the original conclusion

this thing has still not been retracted and is being shared around, for example you shared it

 

[maroondog72]

I wasn't comparing the level of occupational risk you drooling simpleton boomer, I was stating that everyone employed in those fields does so cognisant of the relevant risks in their particular field.

Can you read? Please point to the sentence where I said anything that could even be interpreted as saying "driving a bus is as risky as logging."

I'll wait. Go fill your alzheimers medication script, clean your glasses and have another look old son.

SoulCrusher eh?? I am tipping that was a nickname your father gave you...............................

 

[DinkumDog]

SoulCrusher eh?? I am tipping that was a nickname your father gave you...............................

He won’t be bored after one of my massages .

 

[KambahOne]

did you actually ask the experts or are you faking that you asked the experts?

which part am i wrong? you have had an opportunity to produce anything substantial to say that ivermectin doesn't work, you have not delivered anything so far

this is like if pizza hut doesnt deliver the pizza, you call them up and they tell you they have delivered the pizza, very frustrating

Dude you are murdering irony. You have produced nothing credible relating to the use of ivermectin for COVID, I repeat nothing credible. You are using so called studies from some of the most uneducated countries on the planet from so called experts who have produced no credible evidence about what you are sprouting. The makers of ivermectin, the very people that produce the drug, have come out and said it is not to be used to treat COVID, but no, you believe some quack from Iran.

I'm just wondering if you're one of these people that sprout this crazy shit from on high, but if/when you get COVID you run straight to the farking hospital screaming for them to save your dumb arse with proven treatments?

 

[Rodzilla]

ok let me get into more detail about how they fucked up and found that ivermectin doesn't work in the roman analysis that the @Hacky McAxe produced, you can make your own mind up if it is deliberately criminally misleading or just the normal version of misleading

the first version of the study is here 78879276 (medrxiv.org) they concluded that they found that ivermectin doesn't work, they took the extra step and didn't just say they couldn't find it does work

so if you scroll down to figure 2 and take a look at the data, the niaee study in particular

the niaee study is one of the 9 that i have already produced in this thread, the one where they put 4 groups of 30 people (120) on different doses of ivermectin against a control group of 60, the result was 4 deaths out of 120 on ivermectin and 11 out of 60 in control, but you see on the table that they counted it wrong, they counted it 11 out of 49 on ivermectin and 4 out of 116 on control (total fuck up, they even got the total mixed up with recovered people)

this takes the total to 16/352 deaths on ivermectin compared to 15/420 on control, this is where they made the conclusion that ivermectin doesn't work

then in figure 6 you see the karamat study counted as 20/41 viral clearance on ivermectin, 18/45 on control

but the karamat study has split its results into 3 groups, people who recovered after 3, 7 and 14 days, so on ivermectin 17 people recovered in 3 days, 20 in 7 days and 4 after 14 days, control group it was 2 in 3 days, 18 in 7 days and 25 in 14 days

so they made another mistake and didn't count the people who recovered inside of 3 days, if they wanted to count all the people who recovered after 7 days then it should be 37/41 on ivermectin and 20/45 control

so the comments sections found the mistakes, including dr niaee himself, they corrected it, the table switched from 16/15 deaths to the correct 9/22 deaths but the conclusion remained the same, the risk went down from 1.11 to 0.37 and they kept the conclusion saying there was no reduction

they also kept the karamat error in place and published it, the peer reviewers missed both errors, the karamat study is now referred to as the bukhari study and is still there ciab591.pdf (silverchair.com)

also the ahmed study was used for showing the length of hospitalisation, but then the viral clearance data from the same ahmed study is kept out, possibly they just liked how the ahmed data was good in one area and not so good in another

so in conclusion the peer reviews should be extremely embarrassed with this situation and this proves that the peer review is shit and biased but the Rodzilla review should be trusted

 

[Greenmachine121]

God damn there is a few complete fucking pot plants in this thread ….

 

[Rodzilla]

oh and yes the media has latched onto the report and claimed they proved ivermectin doesn't work, here is cnn asian lady expert totally confident in the situation

 

[steeliz]

Incorrect.

The patent expired approximately in 1996, meaning that there would be generics on the market available.

I use the word approximately as it differs from country to country, and also may of had new indications accepted by some corporate agencies in different countries, thereby extending the patent by some number of years.

As a quick FYI - all drugs have indications - an indication is what it is supposed to target (Viagra = erectile dysfunction, Lipitor = cholesterol). If towards the end of the patency, a drug manages to show another indication that was not otherwise known (this is how Viagra was actually found in trials - originally a heart medication) - then they can apply to extend the patent, pending the new indication is viable. So for example, you take something like anti-rejection tablets for a kidney replacement - and out of nowhere, your hair grows back after being bald for 20 years. If the company can prove that the drug caused the hair to grow back, then it could get a new indication and extend the patency.

But safe to say - Ivermectin it is no longer on patent, thereby open to being genericized.

Now - I will point out that MSD, the company that manufactured the branded drug, did release a statement earlier this year indicating that there is no efficacy of the product within patients regarding COVID-19. Summary below:

KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

Now I read this, and knowing what I mentioned above about indications, there are 2 possible results:

1. Either MSD, knowing that the patency ended ~20 years ago cannot apply for a patent exemption (as curing COVID-19 would definitely fall under a new indication) thoroughly tested and found the above. They would take positive publicity to gain if it was indeed a slam-dunk, as it is THEIR drug.
2. Same as above, but spinning the information because it does not suit the narrative, particularly if they new drugs coming out that could cure COVID 19.

I am more so with point number 1 - whilst I have worked in the industry for almost 10 years, I cannot recall a time when a product was off-patent, newly indicated, and then re-patented... as generics would be on the market by then. Even though they cannot re-patent the product (as far as I know), they would still have the positives to gain from it, in the event it showed signs in scientific studies.

Incorrect that it was invented by big Pharma?

I think you just proved yourself wrong.

 

[Rodzilla]

God damn there is a few complete fucking pot plants in this thread ….

my recommendation is to read the post and see for yourself, i have just proven that they lied that ivermectin doesn't work

edit: someone else proved it, i copied it and proved it on the kennel

 

[Rodzilla]

Incorrect that it was invented by big Pharma?

I think you just proved yourself wrong.

he literally highlighted for you which part you got wrong and you still got confused, go to a doctor and ask for a brain scan

 

[JayBee]

Incorrect that it was invented by big Pharma?

I think you just proved yourself wrong.

Incorrect that they still get royalties, hence the bolded section bud

 

[Hacky McAxe]

ok let me get into more detail about how they fucked up and found that ivermectin doesn't work in the roman analysis that the @Hacky McAxe produced, you can make your own mind up if it is deliberately criminally misleading or just the normal version of misleading

the first version of the study is here 78879276 (medrxiv.org) they concluded that they found that ivermectin doesn't work, they took the extra step and didn't just say they couldn't find it does work

so if you scroll down to figure 2 and take a look at the data, the niaee study in particular

the niaee study is one of the 9 that i have already produced in this thread, the one where they put 4 groups of 30 people (120) on different doses of ivermectin against a control group of 60, the result was 4 deaths out of 120 on ivermectin and 11 out of 60 in control, but you see on the table that they counted it wrong, they counted it 11 out of 49 on ivermectin and 4 out of 116 on control (total fuck up, they even got the total mixed up with recovered people)

this takes the total to 16/352 deaths on ivermectin compared to 15/420 on control, this is where they made the conclusion that ivermectin doesn't work

The original review didn't change its results. They had an error. Figure 2 they accidentally switched the titles on the control group and ivermectin groups. Hence why they reprinted it. Because peer review noted the error. Peer review is good.

This is from Niaee study and only accounts for clinical consequences (death and other causes) of patients who tested positive (confirmed PCR) and reached the stage where the drug could have an affect if any, not every person in the study.

Note the totals from the table:

Control group - 11/49 as per the review
Ivermectin group - 4/116 as per the review

Tables below if you'd like to compare yourself

Roman Review:

Niaee Study:

 

[Psycho Doggie]

@Psycho Doggie ?

You need new arguments and new material Rod. The stuff you are using has been thoroughly debunked by multiple people on here. In the real world debates have a finite timespan, that's because rational people understand that you produce your arguments, then you sit down and listen, then you stand up and produce your counter arguments, then you sit down again, and the people at the debate decide who had the best arguments and counter arguments.

If you keep standing up and producing the same arguments that have already been answered, people start to think there is something wrong with you.

If someone else keeps getting up and answering the person that keeps getting up and putting up the same failed arguments, people start to wonder if there is something wrong with them.